# obedience giving me hard time about FF



## HoloBaby

So Bray's obedience trainer asked me how his hunt training is going and I told him that he will will be sent off for training in a month. He asked me what he will be learning and I told him the FF would be apart of it. Seemed like he didn't like that at all! He said it was pretty primitive stuff and that a dog like Bray didn't need it. Also, that it is used to seeing eye dogs and all I need to do is structure his retrieval games a bit more. This made me feel bad about doing this to Brady, but I also know it is part of the game and needed for his success. I tried explaining it to him, but he has a vary strong belief in positive reinforcement. huff.......


----------



## AmbikaGR

I have NOTHING against anyone who wants to train their dog 100% "positive" reinforcement but I will train my dog by my beliefs and standards. And I truly believe FF is not "primitive" and I believe it is being fair to the dog. But that is me.


----------



## Angelina

What is FF or can I look it up somewhere? Just curious....


----------



## KatieBlue'sMidnightSky

I think it stands for Force Fetch. Making the dog fetch even if it doesn't want to I guess. 



Angelina said:


> What is FF or can I look it up somewhere? Just curious....


----------



## Radarsdad

Are there no negative consequences in life? Is biting OK? Do you not expect your children or even you as individual to make wrong decisions and be rewarded by not suffering the consequences of your actions?? If you decide not to do your job what happens?? Just saying??
There are several options on force fetch I prefer the Lardy method because once it is complete you don't have to repeat it again and the dog understands and there are no more issues with what you expect. Also the dog understands minimal corrections and you have a much better relationship with your dog. And much greater success.


----------



## DNL2448

I agree with Hank. It is not primitive or barbaric, if done correctly. It IS effective and an integral step for a field dog (MHO).


----------



## Angelina

I cannot imagine how you would force a dog to fetch....I guess I should try and research it somewhere. I would love to do field and hunt with Cannella but would not know where to begin in my area. thanks for the info, K


----------



## KatieBlue'sMidnightSky

Radarsdad (and another forum member) suggested I get Mike Lardy's Retriever Training, so I ordered it online and patiently waiting for it to arrive! I also ordered the 10-minute Retriever. Maybe check that out for yourself too!



Angelina said:


> I cannot imagine how you would force a dog to fetch....I guess I should try and research it somewhere. I would love to do field and hunt with Cannella but would not know where to begin in my area. thanks for the info, K


----------



## Angelina

Thanks! I come from a hunting family (born in Pottstown PA and family still in Carlisle and the Alleganies) so I am not anti hunting. Cannella just throws herself into the water, thru the reeds, after balls I fling for her. I can send her down to the other end with a 'go' and she wait for the splash before jumping into the water....I really admire her athletism. I love seeing an animal do what they were originally bred for...


----------



## CarolinaCasey

Thre was a very thoughtful article in the current issue of the GR news about Force Fetch. It sounds worse than it is, IMO.


----------



## Radarsdad

KatieBlue'sMidnightSky said:


> Radarsdad (and another forum member) suggested I get Mike Lardy's Retriever Training, so I ordered it online and patiently waiting for it to arrive! I also ordered the 10-minute Retriever. Maybe check that out for yourself too!


I understand the method and it can be achieved by many authors. My job is to achieve the dogs success and enjoying what he does by the fewest corrections, (some need to count more than others) and even taught without corrections with timing and what situations I put him/her into. Don't need to order 10 minute retrieve I already have had a few. Mine will retrieve for hours. I want my pup to work with me rather than fear of correction but when he gets one he knows what it means and that means how to comply with what I want him to learn or do. Force Fetch which is not the punishment but to understand correction and how to succeed and what it means. The biggie is you know and understand what is expected and you refused and or willfully decided not to. Hence the consequences.


----------



## sterregold

To those who have never done it FF can seem like something scary. Most of the positive-pushers who try to nay-say those of us who do FF and use the collar have never used these training tools or seen them applied properly so they really have no real frame of reference other than what they have conjured up in their heads.

My dogs are all FF and CC. It is about more than making a dog fetch when they do not want to. That is the least of what it is!!! Many of the more complex skills a finished gundog needs require the ability to reliably work under difficult conditions, and to work through difficult going. FF does instil in the dog that retrieving is a requirement rather than an option, sets the standards for mouth habits (setting down a lively cripple is a recipe for a runner!) and teaches the dog how to turn off pressure by responding to known commands--which is needed in teaching handling on blind retrieves. Evan Graham has a really good list of all of the things FF really is used to teach the dog if he pops in here.


----------



## cofam

Gundog magazine had a pretty good article on FF last issue.


----------



## Maxs Mom

I think it needs a new name. Take out the word "force" and it does not sound so bad. How about "unconditional retrieving". 

I also do not have a problem with people using positive only methods, but more often than not, it will allow holes in a dogs training in field, how do you convince a dog at 100 yards that he/she MUST do the job no matter what. No it is not a barbaric training method HOWEVER there are trainers who are. Proper force fetch is methodical, and the dogs learns quickly and confidently how to remove the pressure and clearly understands the job. 

I think do what you think is right. You own your dog, you know your goals outside of the obedience ring. Heck it might make the obedience better too.


----------



## K9-Design

Time for a new obedience instructor.


----------



## HoloBaby

Thanks guys, he just made me feel like I didn't have my dog's interest at heart. I feel vary confident with the trainer I picked out to formalize Brady's hunt training. He has already spent time working with him by inviting us out to his training group on Wednesdays and it has been a lot of fun. He will be taking him after he comes back from the Grand in Canada (I think)which will be the 21st of Sept.


----------



## gdgli

*Force Fetching*



HoloBaby said:


> So Bray's obedience trainer asked me how his hunt training is going and I told him that he will will be sent off for training in a month. He asked me what he will be learning and I told him the FF would be apart of it. Seemed like he didn't like that at all! He said it was pretty primitive stuff and that a dog like Bray didn't need it. Also, that it is used to seeing eye dogs and all I need to do is structure his retrieval games a bit more. This made me feel bad about doing this to Brady, but I also know it is part of the game and needed for his success. I tried explaining it to him, but he has a vary strong belief in positive reinforcement. huff.......


You didn't have to tell your obedience trainer. I do know that the totally positive trainers in my area are totally against it. You might have caught your obedience trainer off guard if you had asked, "How would you make sure your dog would fetch up a shot up duck with wet feathers?"


----------



## BayBeams

Just curious as to why you are sending your dog away for training. I guess I would have more of a concern about how someone else might treat my dog when I am not around. I am kind of fussy about the manner of in-put my dog receives, but that is just me. Is there not a local trainer that can assist you in your training?


----------



## gdgli

BayBeams said:


> Just curious as to why you are sending your dog away for training. I guess I would have more of a concern about how someone else might treat my dog when I am not around. I am kind of fussy about the manner of in-put my dog receives, but that is just me. Is there not a local trainer that can assist you in your training?


I feel as you do but this is not uncommon for those who have a big interest in the field. I would guess that the OP carefully selected the trainer. Also, many work together with their trainer. If there's a good trainer, there is no problem.


----------



## EvanG

Maxs Mom said:


> I think it needs a new name. Take out the word "force" and it does not sound so bad. How about "unconditional retrieving".


How about an even more accurate description; "The fully trained retrieve". First, please understand that the words "force" & "pressure" do not imply an amount. Nothing in our world moves without some measure of pressure. It's not an element to be feared, but rather to be understood and used with a fair and judicious hand. That's why there are solid methods offered for it. For a better understanding, please read below.

_“But we are training dogs that have natural drive to retrieve!”_​ 
_ “Why would I want to force my dog to do something he does naturally?” _goes the frequently asked question. After all, retrievers are bred to retrieve by instinct, aren’t they? We would all like to think so, but many are bred just to sell, i.e. puppy mills. Many others are bred with objectives other than retrieving, such as those engineered for their appearance alone, i.e. the show ring. But our focus is on working dogs – dogs bred to do the work for which the breed was established, hunting; bringing game to hand. Why would you need to force a dog like that to do the very work he’s been bred for?

You see, it’s the absence of information along with a love for the dog that drives such inquiries. It’s reasonable, and it’s a question that begs to be answered. So, perhaps this insight will help clear up some of the misunderstandings about this very important subject. Certainly, there is nothing new about people seeking an alternative to doing it – frequently because they have just enough information about it to think it’s something that it isn’t. I think it’s that word, _force._ A new trainer often hears that word and gets an instant mental image that sends them running the other way!

It won’t go away, and for good reason. Let’s start by clearing up what force fetch actually is (or isn’t).

The Myths

More appropriately, there are more misperceptions than myths surrounding the process of force fetching retrievers. I think it starts with the term _force._ To the novice trainer/dog lover that word summons visions of a dog being thrashed or brutalized in some way or another. There are stories, some true, some contrived, about harsh measures being used to force fetch, like using bottle openers, pliers, etc. Nothing like that will appear as a suggestion in this text because it has nothing to do with how I approach it. Let’s start there and clear the air about that subject.

Ø Force: In retriever training this is a term that describes the use of pressure to achieve a sure and reliable response.* Influence that moves something, *says the dictionary*. *The amount of pressure is specified more by the dog than by the trainer. Often very little actual pressure is needed.
Ø  Pressure: something that affects thoughts and behavior in a powerful way, usually in the form of several outside influences working together persuasively.

Nowhere in any definition of these terms is abuse or brutality, nor should it be. Like many things, force and pressure are either good or bad depending on how they are applied. 

Another misperception is often the assumption that retrievers do all of their retrieving functions by nature, and shouldn’t need to be forced. Frankly, about all that dogs do by nature is to chase after motion, and follow their curiosity about what they smell. We cultivate the rest, both passively and through the use of pressure. Even the most basic puppy-fetch conditioning we all do to get them started is an act we contrive. These dogs retrieve out of self-centered impulses. Bringing birds to us is not a nature-driven act. Thankfully, it can be easily engineered!

Take a well-bred pup and turn him loose in a fenced yard for three years, or so. Leave him strictly to the influences of nature. Then go out one day and see how well he does on the type of retrieving work that would make him useful in game conservation. Compare his work to even an average gun dog with amateur training. How do you think it would come out? No brainer! Whatever natural gifts a dog may have, without some kind of guidance they will tend to be of little value.

It’s not a negative statement that retrievers need training to do the work we need them to do in the field and marsh. That type of work requires a dog to have good natural abilities, but also to be taught how to put those abilities to work because the skills and functions we require are _our_ idea. We invented them. It’s okay. That’s why dogs and trainers are so often referred to as a team. Both contribute to the effort.

*The Reality*


First of all, force fetch is more than just one thing. It is a definable process with clear goals. But, within the process are several steps or phases. Those steps will be laid out later, but first let’s examine the goals.


To establish a standard for acceptable mouth habits.
To provide the trainer with a tool to maintain those habits.
To provide the trainer with a tool to assure compliance with the command to retrieve.
To form the foundation for impetus (momentum).
Pressure conditioning.
Mouth habits include such important items as fetching on command, even when your dog may be distracted, or moody, or any number of things that might interfere with compliance. Sure, you may get away for years without having such problems, but being smart and being lucky are not the same thing. Force fetch gives you a tool to handle this when it comes up, plus some insurance that it is less likely to come up due to this training. 

Along with compulsion issues we need to mention a proper hold, and delivery on command. If my pheasant is punctured I want it to be from pellets, not teeth. That actually covers some ground in all of the first three categories.

Let’s spend a little time on number four. Lots of people use the terms _momentum_ and _style_ interchangeably. I think it’s important to distinguish between the two because of how they relate to this subject. Force fetch is the foundation of trained momentum, and provides a springboard into subsequent steps of basic development. Style has little to do with this. Here’s why.

Ø Style: A combination of speed, enthusiasm, and just plain hustle that you see in a dog going toward a fall. Style is the product of natural desire and athleticism. 
Ø Momentum: In a retriever, the compulsion from the dog’s point of origin; defined in the dictionary as “the force possessed by a body in motion, *Measure of movement: *a quantity that expresses the motion of a body and its resistance to slowing down. It is equal to the product of the body’s mass and velocity”.

Clearly, this quality is a tremendously valuable asset in the running of blinds and overcoming diversion pressure. It even applies to running long marks, and/or marks through tough cover or terrain. When you need a dog to drive hundreds of yards against the draining influences of terrain, cover, re-entries, and all of the real and perceived factors that are so commonly momentum-robbing, having a dog with a reservoir of momentum is immensely valuable. Force fetch is where that reservoir is established, and can be built upon.

From the foundation of a _forced_ fetch most modern methods progress through stages that continue to build on this principle. Stick fetch, Collar Condition to fetch, Walking fetch, Force to pile, and Water force are all extensions of the work we do in ear pinch or toe hitch, which are popular means to get it all going. When a dog has finished such a course the result is an animal far more driven, with much more resolve to overcome obstacles and distance and distractions.

*Lest we forget ~*

I am not suggesting that we harm or abuse dogs in any of this force work I’ve spoken of. The late Jim Kappes said, _“A properly forced dog shouldn’t look forced”._ I completely agree. Momentum and style are distinct terms, each with their own meanings, as pertains to retrievers. I firmly believe that both are traits that should co-exist in a well-trained retriever. (from SmartFetch)

EvanG


----------



## Megora

> More appropriately, there are more misperceptions than myths surrounding the process of force fetching retrievers. I think it starts with the term _force._ To the novice trainer/dog lover that word summons visions of a dog being thrashed or brutalized in some way or another.


Can I ask how you train a "force fetch"? Are you talking about using the zap collar? Or are you talking about using a different method?

From obedience classes the one thing that was shown to me that people with "non-retrievers" do is the ear pinch. This is grabbing the ear and pinching until the dog yelps or reacts. 

She didn't do it to my dog, but there was somebody who used this method with his lab who would drop the dumbbell. The dog's yelp scared the heck out of my young dog at the time. There was no way in heck that I'd ever do anything like that to my dog or allow anyone else to. 

That's something that I always think about when people say "force fetch". Is that incorrect - or is the above an example of somebody using more pressure than you would with a dog you are training?


----------



## hotel4dogs

I have seen dogs yelp if you get NEAR their ear (to clean or put drops in, for example) and other dogs take huge amounts of pain without a peep. The fact that the dog yelped isn't really any indicator of the amount of force that was being used.


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> I have seen dogs yelp if you get NEAR their ear (to clean or put drops in, for example) and other dogs take huge amounts of pain without a peep. The fact that the dog yelped isn't really any indicator of the amount of force that was being used.


That's something like what my instructor said when she was explaining the method. I immediately blurted out my concern about my dog becoming handshy from getting his ears grabbed and pinched. And I've seen that with other dogs.... But she immediately said that the pinch was "nothing".


----------



## hotel4dogs

I do use a "zap" collar on Tito for field. I prefer to think of it as a lifesaver collar.
We turn it up until he blinks (literally) when I nick him with it. Just a slight blink of his eyes. I have a hard time thinking of that as excessive force, or cruel. Seems a whole lot more humane than constantly tugging on a leash, or the dog choking himself with the leash.
I can't imagine how you would use a "zap collar" to force fetch a dog, but maybe someone else can help out here? Typically it's done with your fingers. The electronic collar (more proper term) doesn't teach the dog anything really, it just acts as a long distance leash. When my dog is 150 yards out running full tilt after a bird that's flying away I really do need a way to get his attention, and saying "here Fido, here's a cookie" isn't going to cut it with him. That's why I call it a lifesaver collar.
I did not force fetch (or ear pinch, or collar condition) Tito for the obedience ring, it wasn't necessary. He's in a small ring in an enclosed building. The worst than can happen is he will NQ. That's no big deal. But when you get out in open areas where the dog is relying on his own instincts and judgement, you need a whole different set of tools from what you use in the safety of the obedience or agility venues. He loves this game more than any other, it's what he was bred to do, but I need to give him the proper tools and foundation for staying safe while doing it.


----------



## tippykayak

While I certainly like to talk about the problems I see with the use of the e-collar and FF programs, the obedience trainer really isn't a position to generalize like that. FF is not, by nature, abusive. It certainly has the potential for abuse, since it does rely on negative stimuli (like collar shocks, ear pinches, jaw slaps, etc.), but while it's a noble goal to rely on aversives as little as possible, it's a bit of an overreach to say that nobody else should ever use them at all or that the program is by definition "primitive." 

Whether he likes it or not, FF is pretty standard in field training, and it's hardly abusive. If Bray doesn't need much correction, then he won't get much if the program is being applied well. If your trainer wants to get out there and develop an effective field training program that doesn't rely on slaps, the collar, and the ear pinch, then that's awesome, and I wish more skilled, positive-leaning trainers would apply their creativity to field so that area of training can continue to evolve and improve at an ever faster rate.

I also think that generalizing about positive training (which is a misnomer anyway) is just as inaccurate as generalizing about FF. To say that a dog won't obey reliably at a hundred yards unless you've used an e-collar on him is simply inaccurate. Whether or not FF/CC is the _best_ method for training reliability at a distance can make a lively discussion. But to say it's the _only_ one simply isn't accurate.


----------



## Megora

hotel4dogs said:


> I can't imagine how you would use a "zap collar" to force fetch a dog, but maybe someone else can help out here? Typically it's done with your fingers. The electronic collar (more proper term) doesn't teach the dog anything really, it just acts as a long distance leash. When my dog is 150 yards out running full tilt after a bird that's flying away I really do need a way to get his attention, and saying "here Fido, here's a cookie" isn't going to cut it with him. That's why I call it a lifesaver collar.


I just wanted to say I have no problem with people using zap collars. In the right hands it is a great tool. And now I have a clearer idea of how much distance goes between the owner and the dog (I dunno what I was thinking before), I can't imagine how else you would correct your dog or keep that dog from developing bad habits (going after rabbits, for example).

My question about force fetch wasn't even a "gotcha" question. It just seems that people say they use force fetch but never explain exactly what that means to them?


----------



## AmbikaGR

hotel4dogs said:


> When my dog is 150 yards out running full tilt after a bird that's flying away I really do need a way to get his attention, and saying "here *Fido*, here's a cookie" isn't going to cut it with him.


Well of course NOT. His name is TITO not Fido!!! :doh: Silly handler!!! :bowl:


----------



## tippykayak

hotel4dogs said:


> When my dog is 150 yards out running full tilt after a bird that's flying away I really do need a way to get his attention, and saying "here Fido, here's a cookie" isn't going to cut it with him. That's why I call it a lifesaver collar.


This is a really common misconception about positive reinforcement in training. Food is pretty mediocre as a lure, and you're never going to be able to outbid any truly important distraction with food except with a very small subset of food-obsessive dogs. Food also diminishes in its power with distance, so it's particularly useless in the context you describe.

However, no (effective) positive trainer would ever suggest that you train distance behavior by trying to bribe a distracted dog, so the scenario you suggest isn't really a fair criticism of positive reinforcement in training.

When my dogs are running full tilt after a bird, even at a distance, I whistle, and they turn. They've never worn e-collars, and I'm not holding a cookie, yet the break in their attention was accomplished with a positive reinforcement program.

Over and over and over throughout their lives, I've reinforced that a particular whistle (or their name) means to look at me. I've also reinforced that a second whistle pattern (or "come") means to run straight to me. I pit that habit, not a cookie, against the distraction. It works. Since I've never used an e-collar nor taught recall with a long line, I've never been able to correct them at a distance. Because of that, their reliability can be said to have been achieved without correction playing a major role.

I'm not completely against correction, but I do challenge the idea that it's necessarily to achieve reliability. I believe dogs become reliable primarily because of the repetition and reinforcement of behavior, not because of a fear of punishment. Correction can help you interrupt undesired behavior, and when it's done for safety, I think it's a good idea. But I don't believe it's the primary source of reliability in behavior, and behavioral science backs up that claim.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> This is a really common misconception about positive reinforcement in training. Food is pretty mediocre as a lure, and you're never going to be able to outbid any truly important distraction with food except with a very small subset of food-obsessive dogs. Food also diminishes in its power with distance, so it's particularly useless in the context you describe.
> 
> However, no (effective) positive trainer would ever suggest that you train distance behavior by trying to bribe a distracted dog, so the scenario you suggest isn't really a fair criticism of positive reinforcement in training.
> 
> When my dogs are running full tilt after a bird, even at a distance, I whistle, and they turn. They've never worn e-collars, and I'm not holding a cookie, yet the break in their attention was accomplished with a positive reinforcement program.
> 
> Over and over and over throughout their lives, I've reinforced that a particular whistle (or their name) means to look at me. I've also reinforced that a second whistle pattern (or "come") means to run straight to me. I pit that habit, not a cookie, against the distraction. It works. Since I've never used an e-collar nor taught recall with a long line, I've never been able to correct them at a distance. Because of that, their reliability can be said to have been achieved without correction playing a major role.
> 
> I'm not completely against correction, but I do challenge the idea that it's necessarily to achieve reliability. I believe dogs become reliable primarily because of the repetition and reinforcement of behavior, not because of a fear of punishment. Correction can help you interrupt undesired behavior, and when it's done for safety, I think it's a good idea. But I don't believe it's the primary source of reliability in behavior, and behavioral science backs up that claim.


Really good post, Tippy.
The scenario you describe with your whistle training, I have seen it work with my own dog. My first dog Tucker I did a little bit of field work with, he was obsessed with bumpers and loved to play fetch. I didn't know any better so I would always blow the whistle (one long tone) when he was returning with a bumper. He eventually became so conditioned that whistles = bumpers that he would come running from anywhere if you blew the whistle. The neighbors at the time had a large intact black lab that Tucker got in a fight with once, they were enemies. One time I came home, let Tucker out of the car and that stupid black lab was in our yard, Tucker took off after him at full tilt, I had the whistle with me, blew it and Tucker spun and ran back to me. No ecollar or negative reinforcement whatsoever with that but it worked terribly well.
You are 100% correct that negative reinforcement (i.e. FF and ecollars) are not the ONLY way to achieve reliable results. But you are also 100% correct that not using these tools and using basically a positive conditioning program takes a lot more time. It's labor intensive, and you put in much more work to get equal results. To me that is inefficient training for the goals I have. More specifically, to neither force fetch nor collar condition a dog destined for hunt tests is hobbling yourself from the start, and you are asking for a lot more wear and tear on the dog over a longer period of time. 

I had the thought the other day that there are some anti-ecollar people that defend their position, saying that the advent of the ecollar has produced a whole generation of dogs so hard-headed that they COULDN'T be trained WITHOUT an ecollar. That we are doing these breeds a disservice. I think quite the contrary. To get a dog to the master or FT level of competition WITHOUT using modern retriever training methods involving the ecollar, a dog with *low* drive and *low* birdiness is actually what you need. Most of what we use the ecollar for in advanced training is corrections the dog gets when not complying with the handler and TRYING to go where they think the birds are (high drive dogs with lots of birdiness). Anyways.....


----------



## Sally's Mom

I have gotten a CDX on 3 goldens and never did forced fetch. I am not against it, it just wasn't for me. I was told by OTCH people that my dogs would never reliably retrieve without it. I am here to say that isn't true. None of my girls ever refused to retrieve their dumbbell.


----------



## tippykayak

Thanks Anney.

I do wonder how much time it actually saves you to rely on corrections more. My central goal in training (after safety and reliability) is to take corrections out of whatever parts of the process I can. So even if there is extra time involved, it's worth it to me, but I do wonder how much extra time it really takes (since my dogs seem to come along pretty quick).

I love high drive dogs, so I got me some, and I don't find it's a problem in training without correction. It gives you a go-to reinforcer that's not food, so that's actually an asset. It does mean a really proactive training plan for off leash time and training for prey/bird distractions, but it doesn't ultimately get in the way of reliability if you understand what drives the dog. I imagine it's much the same in using FF on the same kind of dog.

As far as tacking an MH on any kind of dog, I respectfully cede the argument to you, 'cause you've done it and haven't.

As always, I appreciate being able to come from such distant intellectual positions and have a good discussion, so thanks!


----------



## K9-Design

Also keep in mind there is a HUGE difference between "teaching Fido to come when called even if chasing robins" and advanced field training.
The huge conflict in field training is that we begin by breeding for and instilling an intense drive to find and possess birds in a hunting retriever. Then in advanced work, we start to tell the dog, NO you have to go where I say, not where you think you want to go, to find the birds. Talk about an oxymoron! Not only is it against the dog's instincts but it's against the training you have given him every moment up until the time you blow the sit whistle. You essentially are asking for something that goes against the conditioning you have set up. Ouch. You need more firepower than a positive reinforcement schedule and you need to be really smart about it, otherwise you either take forever to get anywhere or you really screw up your dog.


----------



## Megora

Sally's Mom said:


> I have gotten a CDX on 3 goldens and never did forced fetch. I am not against it, it just wasn't for me. I was told by OTCH people that my dogs would never reliably retrieve without it. I am here to say that isn't true. None of my girls ever refused to retrieve their dumbbell.


I would guess that other goldens out there have the same problem mine does in that not only are they EAGER to retrieve that dumbbell, but they will go out and leap fences to retrieve other dogs dumbells as well. 

I think it might help if you have a dog who has a problem with the metal articles in utility though? I can't say I would pinch ears if in that position, but I can see an untrained retrieve (not teaching and proofing 'take' and 'hold') falling apart at that point. 

@K9-Design - Somebody posted a video of their dog working retrieves. I don't remember which member, but it hit home how far and out of sight the dog goes.


----------



## K9-Design

Sally's Mom said:


> I have gotten a CDX on 3 goldens and never did forced fetch. I am not against it, it just wasn't for me. I was told by OTCH people that my dogs would never reliably retrieve without it. I am here to say that isn't true. None of my girls ever refused to retrieve their dumbbell.


Ring obedience ain't field work.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Well Anney, Thanks for correcting me. My impression from the start was that it wasn't JUST about field training... because I absolutely know nothing about that... but now I have truly been put back into my place, and thanks for that.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Also keep in mind there is a HUGE difference between "teaching Fido to come when called even if chasing robins" and advanced field training.


Y'know, right as I was trying to thank you for being nice...it's no fun to discuss things if you're going to talk down like that. Thanks for the nicer part of the argument. I'm out of this one.


----------



## K9-Design

Sally's Mom said:


> Well Anney, Thanks for correcting me. My impression from the start was that it wasn't JUST about field training... because I absolutely know nothing about that... but now I have truly been put back into my place, and thanks for that.


Well we aren't in the obedience forum we're in the hunt & field forum. What applies to obedience doesn't always transfer so well into field work.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> Y'know, right as I was trying to thank you for being nice...it's no fun to discuss things if you're going to talk down like that. Thanks for the nicer part of the argument. I'm out of this one.


Good lord, you guys are really reading my posts in the wrong tone. I am dead serious when I say there is a big difference between teaching your dog to come when called, an obedience ring dumbbell retrieve, and advanced field work. It is the same skills but put under a pressure cooker. What I'm NOT saying is that your training efforts with your dog are small potatoes, what I am saying is in field work you have to go beyond a recall under extreme circumstances. I'm not talking down to you and I'm not making an effort to be nice (and thus don't need positive reinforcement for it), I'm just having a conversation. Why do you think I'm talking down to you? You just said you can call your dogs off of chasing birds in the woods, which is exactly what I referenced.
Tippy you and I and others have had enough of these discussions that I understand where you're coming from and I think the feeling's mutual. You seem to have a decent grasp on modern field training techniques although you personally have no need or desire to use them. That is totally fine and really you're a good one to have on board with it. You don't have to look for things to get offended by, with what I say, because I'm not trying to belittle your opinions or actions.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Good lord, you guys are really reading my posts in the wrong tone.


I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, but when two of us are reading you as having a belittling tone, chances are that it's not just that we're reading wrong. You may be writing in a way you don't mean to as well.



K9-Design said:


> I am dead serious when I say there is a big difference between teaching your dog to come when called, an obedience ring dumbbell retrieve, and advanced field work. It is the same skills but put under a pressure cooker. What I'm NOT saying is that your training efforts with your dog are small potatoes, what I am saying is in field work you have to go beyond a recall under extreme circumstances. I'm not talking down to you and I'm not making an effort to be nice (and thus don't need positive reinforcement for it), I'm just having a conversation. Why do you think I'm talking down to you? You just said you can call your dogs off of chasing birds in the woods, which is exactly what I referenced.


When you say "teaching Fido to come when called even if chasing robins" it really sounds like you're belittling it as "just" pet obedience, in contrast to "advanced" field work. Whether you mean to or not, the way you made the comparison really seemed to be an act of talking down to me about it. I'm glad to know that isn't your intent, but it still does feel like you're coming to the table with an attitude that you're the real trainer, and the non-field folks who disagree with you are doing easier stuff and that if they only tried the harder stuff, they'd realize you were right.



K9-Design said:


> Tippy you and I and others have had enough of these discussions that I understand where you're coming from and I think the feeling's mutual. You seem to have a decent grasp on modern field training techniques although you personally have no need or desire to use them. That is totally fine and really you're a good one to have on board with it. You don't have to look for things to get offended by, with what I say, because I'm not trying to belittle your opinions or actions.


Like I said, I do get a bit of an attitude that you're the real trainer and I'm "just a pet" guy. You may not intend it it, but it really comes off that way sometimes. I'll try to step back and see if there's an attitude I'm bringing to the table that makes me read it that way (and I'm sure there is). I know I'm jealous of your accomplishments with Fisher and wish I had the time to invest in doing something similar with my dogs.

I guess my problem is that I never said that recall at a distance was equivalent to field work, so when you decided to compare the two the way you did, it seemed like you were talking down to me. I simply said (in response to Barb's comment about a dog chasing birds) that you could accomplish reliable distance control without corrections. I don't recall ever saying you could do "advanced field work" that way. In fact, I said "As far as tacking an MH on any kind of dog, I respectfully cede the argument to you, 'cause you've done it and haven't."


----------



## Sally's Mom

Regardless about where this was posted, the OP wrote as the title,"Obedience giving me a hard time about FF". And since I have experience in showing dogs in obedience, I felt that I could put in my 2 cents.... because in obedience, I have NEVER had to FF my dogs.


----------



## gdgli

Sally's Mom said:


> Regardless about where this was posted, the OP wrote as the title,"Obedience giving me a hard time about FF". And since I have experience in showing dogs in obedience, I felt that I could put in my 2 cents.... because in obedience, I have NEVER had to FF my dogs.


I know that there are several approaches to teaching the fetch (or "take it") command. What method did you use? My personal belief----if you are successful with your method, then there is no problem. I've tried a few different ways myself.


----------



## marsh mop

> I have gotten a CDX on 3 goldens and never did forced fetch. I am not against it, it just wasn't for me. I was told by OTCH people that my dogs would never reliably retrieve without it. I am here to say that isn't true. None of my girls ever refused to retrieve their dumbbell.


 Why would you disagree with with trainers who have reached the highest level of obedience. Go prove them wrong and get that OTCH.
If you read the post by Evan G it explains that FF is not just about fetching. It is also about teaching a dog that quiting is not an option.
Jim


----------



## marsh mop

Tippykayak, you need to get tougher skin when you come here [hunt and field]. You always bring great , well thought out post but you also seem to be looking for a reason to think you have been bullied. 
Yes we FF. Yes we CC. We are asking our dogs to work at a level that is hard to understand by people who have never seen or done it. I think all who are in this section of the forum, to learn, want to do right by their dog. No abuse, just fair training that will produce happy, confident, working retrievers.
Jim


----------



## Sally's Mom

I don't want an OTCH, never have... I have trained one dog to a UD. This is my hobby....All I said is that not a one of my dogs trained to pick up a dumbbell in the show ring has EVER refused to retrieve. Wow. Can't people just relate their own experience and not get replies like I got? Oh and at the beginning, I was taught how to choke a dog to pick up a dumbbell as well as the ear pinch. I decided it wasn't for me. I find in training any animal, whether it was my dogs or my horse, I would listen to the trainers and use the parts that went along with my philosophy. BTW, the woman I train with has 2 OCTH's and gave up the ear pinch about 14 years ago....


----------



## gdgli

Sally's Mom said:


> I don't want an OTCH, never have... I have trained one dog to a UD. This is my hobby....All I said is that not a one of my dogs trained to pick up a dumbbell in the show ring has EVER refused to retrieve. Wow. Can't people just relate their own experience and not get replies like I got? Oh and at the beginning, I was taught how to choke a dog to pick up a dumbbell as well as the ear pinch. I decided it wasn't for me. I find in training any animal, whether it was my dogs or my horse, I would listen to the trainers and use the parts that went along with my philosophy. BTW, the woman I train with has 2 OCTH's and gave up the ear pinch about 14 years ago....


Sally's Mom I understand. There are a lot of people that don't like ear pinch or the choke. What method do you now use to teach the fetch command? Perhaps a little description? I am not looking to pick it apart. For the record, I FF'd my golden but did not FF my springer and they are both hunted.


----------



## hotel4dogs

OH lordy, THAT's what I've been doing wrong 



AmbikaGR said:


> Well of course NOT. His name is TITO not Fido!!! :doh: Silly handler!!! :bowl:


----------



## hotel4dogs

Sally's Mom, I took Tito to a UDX at 3 years old, my first dog past Novice A, without force fetch either. It simply wasn't necessary. His retrieve with a dumbell, utility article, glove, whatever is totally reliable.
But FF is much more than teaching a dog to pick something up. I'm new to this and not good at explaining it. Part of it is you pick up exactly what you were sent for, regardless of what else is out there. In obedience, nothing else is out there. And they're in an enclosed area.
If I shoot a bird, and send my dog for it, I want him to GET IT, not take off after the bird that he happens to accidentally flush on the way out to the one he was heading for...
(probably a silly example)




Sally's Mom said:


> I have gotten a CDX on 3 goldens and never did forced fetch. I am not against it, it just wasn't for me. I was told by OTCH people that my dogs would never reliably retrieve without it. I am here to say that isn't true. None of my girls ever refused to retrieve their dumbbell.


----------



## gdgli

hotel4dogs said:


> Sally's Mom, I took Tito to a UDX at 3 years old, my first dog past Novice A, without force fetch either. It simply wasn't necessary. His retrieve with a dumbell, utility article, glove, whatever is totally reliable.
> But FF is much more than teaching a dog to pick something up. I'm new to this and not good at explaining it. Part of it is you pick up exactly what you were sent for, regardless of what else is out there. In obedience, nothing else is out there. And they're in an enclosed area.
> If I shoot a bird, and send my dog for it, I want him to GET IT, not take off after the bird that he happens to accidentally flush on the way out to the one he was heading for...
> (probably a silly example)


Not a silly example. I will offer my own silly example. I had shot a merganser (a fish eating duck) and brought it home for training purposes. My last dog, Dasher, fetched it when I threw it for him and carried it maybe 10 yards, then put it down and urinated on it and refused to pick it up. That incident convinced me to FF him and I started the program the next day.

How did you train your dog to fetch for obedience?


----------



## K9-Design

Tippy sorry if I come off as overbearing or whatever, it is not my intent but if you see the gulf between me as the field trainer and you as the pet trainer then that is not a figment of your imagination. It is true! I train my dogs for competition both field and obedience, I do not train pet owners. Field training is *not* more important than pet training, it is just *different*. Actually pet training is more important, there are a whole lot more pets than there are field dogs. And very few of them will ever meet an ecollar or need force fetch. _But we are in the Hunt & Field section!_ Not the Golden Retriever Training section. 
The experiences that you and Sally's Mom have are absolutely valid in both of their respective settings. Both can be valid in field work although neither are the standard methods of successful, competitive retriever trainers. Which the OP is obviously looking to achieve with her pup. 
So back to the OP. My training partner Bob, took his golden to an all-positive obedience trainer for two years. When I say all positive I mean it, she wouldn't even let him say the word "no" to his dog! LOL Anyways Bob's dog is a little star in obedience. The problem came when Bob wanted to start field work. When his obedience trainer caught wind that the person teaching him field work was going to implement FF and collar conditioning, she flipped. She told him, Just bring me the rules & regulations of the hunt test you want to run and I will teach you how to do it without aversives. (even though she herself had never run HTs)
Bob continued to take obedience lessons but just didn't tell the instructor about his field training progress. In my opinion it's not the obedience instructor's business to tell someone what they want to do with their dog in another arena.


----------



## hotel4dogs

that's an interesting question that has no real answer. Since Tito came home at 8 weeks old he lived to go get stuff and bring it to me. I just attached words to what he liked to do (get it, bring it, hold it, drop it). By the time he was 6 months old he had a totally reliable retrieve with any object, any time, as long as he knew what I wanted him to get. He seemed like he was just sort of born that way.
I got into an argument with someone about that at obedience training. She insisted I needed to ear pinch him to get anywhere in obedience. I insisted I did not, and told her he would pick up anything I asked him to. She didn't believe me. She tossed a slicker brush on the floor. I told him to get it, and he did. He will not refuse to pick up anything.
At our WC, he was the only dog who would pick up the day old, moldy, maggoty pheasant left lying on the ground in 95 degree heat.
Force fetch for him was NEVER about retrieving something he doesn't want to pick up. 



gdgli said:


> Not a silly example. I will offer my own silly example. I had shot a merganser (a fish eating duck) and brought it home for training purposes. My last dog, Dasher, fetched it when I threw it for him and carried it maybe 10 yards, then put it down and urinated on it and refused to pick it up. That incident convinced me to FF him and I started the program the next day.
> 
> How did you train your dog to fetch for obedience?


----------



## gdgli

K9-Design said:


> Tippy sorry if I come off as overbearing or whatever, it is not my intent but if you see the gulf between me as the field trainer and you as the pet trainer then that is not a figment of your imagination. It is true! I train my dogs for competition both field and obedience, I do not train pet owners. Field training is *not* more important than pet training, it is just *different*. Actually pet training is more important, there are a whole lot more pets than there are field dogs. And very few of them will ever meet an ecollar or need force fetch. _But we are in the Hunt & Field section!_ Not the Golden Retriever Training section.
> The experiences that you and Sally's Mom have are absolutely valid in both of their respective settings. Both can be valid in field work although neither are the standard methods of successful, competitive retriever trainers. Which the OP is obviously looking to achieve with her pup.
> So back to the OP. My training partner Bob, took his golden to an all-positive obedience trainer for two years. When I say all positive I mean it, she wouldn't even let him say the word "no" to his dog! LOL Anyways Bob's dog is a little star in obedience. The problem came when Bob wanted to start field work. When his obedience trainer caught wind that the person teaching him field work was going to implement FF and collar conditioning, she flipped. She told him, Just bring me the rules & regulations of the hunt test you want to run and I will teach you how to do it without aversives. (even though she herself had never run HTs)
> Bob continued to take obedience lessons but just didn't tell the instructor about his field training progress. In my opinion it's not the obedience instructor's business to tell someone what they want to do with their dog in another arena.


I think that the comment that field training is not more important, it is just different is an important one. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I have seen field dogs with what I would say is shoddy obedience outside of the field.


----------



## GoldenSail

Respectfully tell your obedience instructor that you are relying upon the expertise of someone who trains for these events and you have selected a trainer you can trust.


----------



## gdgli

I have read Evan's article on FF several times and I think it's great. I think that all of us in the field should take a good look at it. 

Also, Evan has a nice article in GR News worth a look.


----------



## marsh mop

It is a hobby for most here or it could be a game, well not a game but an great reason to work your dog. Never mind, it is an a addiction. We very much enjoy.
Jim


----------



## AKGOLD

Angelina said:


> I cannot imagine how you would force a dog to fetch....I guess I should try and research it somewhere. I would love to do field and hunt with Cannella but would not know where to begin in my area. thanks for the info, K


Kimberly you need to go north a couple of hours to get fully involved in the hunt and field game. Although, you can take a look at this page for some possible starter contacts.

Inland Valley Retriever Club - Retriever Training and Hunt Tests in Southern California


----------



## EvanG

Angelina said:


> I cannot imagine how you would force a dog to fetch....I guess I should try and research it somewhere. I would love to do field and hunt with Cannella but would not know where to begin in my area. thanks for the info, K


Over in Escalon is one of the best trainers you could hope to spend time with. His name is Bill Sargenti, and he worked for the master trainer, and Hall of Famer, Rex Carr for over 20 years. Rex's kennel name was Carr-Lab kennels. I don't know if Bill has retained that name, but I sure hope so! However, the grounds (which are in Oakdale) - formerly known as CL2 are now called "Billy's Place".

You can look him up through the PRTA website (Pro Retriever Trainer's Association). Billy is as good as they come. You won't find anyone who knows more about force fetch than he does, and he's practically in your backyard, if you're in SF!

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

marsh mop said:


> Tippykayak, you need to get tougher skin when you come here [hunt and field]. You always bring great , well thought out post but you also seem to be looking for a reason to think you have been bullied.


Mind finding some posts where I seem to looking for such reasons? I get talked down to in this forum by a handful of people, and I don't think that's a good way to persuade people nor particularly polite. I don't think my participation can be characterized as looking for a reason to think I've been bullied.



marsh mop said:


> Yes we FF. Yes we CC. We are asking our dogs to work at a level that is hard to understand by people who have never seen or done it. I think all who are in this section of the forum, to learn, want to do right by their dog. No abuse, just fair training that will produce happy, confident, working retrievers.
> Jim


Please remember that I came to this discussion to agree with you all that the obedience instructor was out of line and that FF/CC was not abusive. And yet, because I deviated from the party line one iota by saying that you could have distance reliability without correction, you're arguing with me that I don't really know what I'm talking about because I don't compete in field. Why? I have distance reliability from my dogs. I never said I could win a field trial or title a dog without corrections; simply that I could call them off a bird at a hundred yards without corrections. So why have people found a reason to disagree with me and point out that I don't really know what I'm talking about because I'm not a real field trainer. And, the implication in several posts is that I probably shouldn't even be talking about it because this is the "hunt and field" forum.

What I get jumped on around here for is the suggestion that it can be improved on, that dog training has continued to evolve and should continue to evolve. Just because something works does not mean that we should accept it as gospel and as the best way to do something. There may be better ways that have yet to be developed, and I'd like to see people keep working on developing them and not get bogged down by the innovation killing argument that "most successful people do it this way; therefore we should do it this way and this way only."


----------



## Florabora22

This thread has cleared up some massive confusion I've had for months. I remember occasionally going to a park that has a retriever training pond, and getting so concerned over this one guy and his black lab. They were too far away for me to really see what was going on other than the lab was retrieving on his command, but every time the dog would get his bumper he'd yelp and I was so worried that the guy was somehow abusing his dog. But the dog seemed so goshdarned happy and excited to be doing what he was doing that I figured I was wrong and the dog was just high strung.

Now I realize he was probably practicing FF. Or.. he was an idiot and doing it wrong, I don't know. Regardless, this thread is interesting to read.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Tippy sorry if I come off as overbearing or whatever, it is not my intent but if you see the gulf between me as the field trainer and you as the pet trainer then that is not a figment of your imagination.


I don't see a gulf, and I don't think you're on a different plane of training than I am, so when you talk like there is, that's the very definition of talking down to me. I think you train difficult skills in your dogs, and I admire what you can do with them, but I don't look at you as some idol performing magic. I may not compete in field, but I know exactly what a field trial looks like and exactly what is being asked of the dogs. 



K9-Design said:


> It is true! I train my dogs for competition both field and obedience, I do not train pet owners. Field training is *not* more important than pet training, it is just *different*. Actually pet training is more important, there are a whole lot more pets than there are field dogs. And very few of them will ever meet an ecollar or need force fetch. _But we are in the Hunt & Field section!_ Not the Golden Retriever Training section.


And I didn't lecture or generalize on field training in this thread. I made the point that something H4D said she used a collar for (and that's one way to ethically train reliability in an important situation) was something that didn't have to be trained with a collar. That's hardly a shocking—hardy har har—point, but I'm not surprised that the statement "you can get distance reliability without a collar" is something that brings a bunch of you down on my head. Every time I make that kind of point in H&F or any e-collar discussion, I'm responded to as if I claim e-collars are totally unnecessary or that I claim that I could title my dogs in field without one. I've never made either claim.

I didn't say you could get an MH without a collar/distance correction (though I know that some people have) or that you could do better without a collar than with one, or anything more contentious that was outside my realm of experience. I simply said that, at a hundred yards or so, if my dogs are chasing a bird, I can call them off, and I achieved that modest goal without distance corrections. So why did you feel the need to contrast my "Fidos" from your advanced field training? I certainly never said they were the same. Perhaps you can understand my complaint, then.



K9-Design said:


> The experiences that you and Sally's Mom have are absolutely valid in both of their respective settings. Both can be valid in field work although neither are the standard methods of successful, competitive retriever trainers. Which the OP is obviously looking to achieve with her pup.


Fair enough. But again, I never said you could compete in field work without corrections or that what I was doing was the same thing. But I don't think that "standard methods" means "nobody could possibly find a better way." 



K9-Design said:


> So back to the OP. My training partner Bob, took his golden to an all-positive obedience trainer for two years. When I say all positive I mean it, she wouldn't even let him say the word "no" to his dog! LOL Anyways Bob's dog is a little star in obedience. The problem came when Bob wanted to start field work. When his obedience trainer caught wind that the person teaching him field work was going to implement FF and collar conditioning, she flipped. She told him, Just bring me the rules & regulations of the hunt test you want to run and I will teach you how to do it without aversives. (even though she herself had never run HTs)
> Bob continued to take obedience lessons but just didn't tell the instructor about his field training progress. In my opinion it's not the obedience instructor's business to tell someone what they want to do with their dog in another arena.


So why are you saying that like you disagree with me? That's the same thing I said! I'd like to see the obed trainer take her own dogs and try to see what improvements she could make to business as usual in field training, not put down successful methods.

I respect what you do, and I don't think the more positive-oriented trainers have really made their mark in field the way they have in obed and agility. I'd like to see more brilliant, creative people applying some of the principles of behavioral science to field as well, because I don't accept that argument that "successful people follow this plan and win; therefore, this is the best possible plan and we don't need to innovate." Perhaps you're not making that argument, but some in the hunt & field forum do, and I don't find that it holds water. 

Positive trainers should avoid overstating what they see as problems with field training, particularly when they don't engage in it themselves. But some of the field trainers on this forum (not necessarily you) seem to think that their success entitles them to reject all possible criticisms of the _status quo_ in their area, to the point that some of you argue with criticisms I haven't even made.


----------



## Megora

> So why are you saying that like you disagree with me? That's the same thing I said! I'd like to see the obed trainer take her own dogs and try to see what improvements she could make to business as usual in field training, not put down successful methods.


I think reading K9Design's comment as quoted, it would really bother me having to take lessons from somebody who did not have personal working experience in hunt with her own dogs. I think I would have done exactly like Bob and if asked, I'd probably tell her to make the same offer after she titled her own dog using her own methods! 

Like in obedience, the reason why I personally take classes at X club instead of Y club is because the instructors have multiple titles with their own dogs and go out showing every weekend. They aren't just teaching the exercises, but they are sharing ring experience with their students. 

I imagine it would be the same in hunt/field. I mean, I was looking at another thread and turned green when the member mentioned a bird with its back shot off and entrails dangling out. 

And in the past couple months members mentioned birds that were apparently going bad... 

If you had never encountered anything like that with your own dogs, how are you going to help somebody else?


----------



## DNL2448

Megora said:


> I imagine it would be the same in hunt/field. I mean, I was looking at another thread and turned green when the member mentioned a bird with its back shot off and entrails dangling out.


Sorry, my bad, that was me. Didn't mean to turn you green.:uhoh:


----------



## Megora

DNL2448 said:


> Sorry, my bad, that was me. Didn't mean to turn you green.:uhoh:


*laughs* I think it probably didn't help that the description immediately reminded me back when Jacks was still a puppy and some hawk dropped a rabbit in our yard. I had the same situation and had to figure out how to remove something from his mouth without touching entrails...:yuck::yuck::yuck:


----------



## HiTideGoldens

tippykayak said:


> I simply said that, at a hundred yards or so, if my dogs are chasing a bird, I can call them off, and I achieved that modest goal without distance corrections. So why did you feel the need to contrast my "Fidos" from your advanced field training? I certainly never said they were the same. Perhaps you can understand my complaint, then.


Perception is so interesting. When I read your comment about being able to call your dogs off from chasing a bird with a simple whistle, I took it as a bit of a dig at people who can't train their dogs to do the same thing. I wasn't personally offended since my dogs can't be called off a bird/rabbit EVER at this point. But I can see how people who are doing advanced field work with their dogs took that as a bit of a dig/criticism at their methods and felt compelled to point out why those alternate methods (i.e. methods utilized in competitive obedience or for companion dog training) are difficult to use in field training. I don't think either side intended to be insulting though. JMO after starting my reading at the end of the thread and moving backwards.


----------



## Sally's Mom

When I originally replied to this post, I didn't see that it came from the field thread... I saw the word "obedience" and ran with it.

To answer a previous question of getting reliable OBEDIENCE retrieves on how it was done, it was done with food. My first golden (Windjammer's Ima Country Girl CDX CGC) easily got her CD from Novice A in 3 straight shows. In those days, the area clubs would not allow training at a higher level until you got your title at the lower level. So after her CD, I was instructed on how to twist her choke collar to make her open her mouth and pick up the dumbbell. She was the softest golden ever... and it was a tough thing for me to do to her. Anyway, one day we were at an outdoor picnic. She was in a sit stay which she never ever broke at home or in competition. a little girl came up to her and hugged her from behind. She whipped her head around, didn't bite or growl, but I saw a look in her eyes that scared me. So off we went to the local behaviorist(I was pregnant at the time). He said her temperament was fine and instead we worked on picking up the dumbbell. He had a container of freeze dried liver and within minutes, she was picking up the dumbbell. Within 20 minutes, she would retrieve it over the high jump for him! It took me a little longer, but she then retrieved perfectly for me. BTW, she was always perfect with my kids. Then golden #2 (Mandell Marlenes Celebration UD RA CGC) came along. She was trained to heel with a microprong and collar pops. When it came to traini g her to pick up the dumbbell, my trainer who had 2 OTCH dogs, showed me the ear pinch. this girl was tough as nails and ended up with an excoriated ear flap. As I have said previously, this is a HOBBY for me. I want to enjoy my dogs and I want to enjoy them. And if I was going to do that to her ear, I wasn't going to enjoy it. So again, out came the food... The 3rd golden(Starseeker's Kissmas Cookie CDX RE CGC) was just a natural. She would retrieve anything for me form 10 weeks of age on. Plus I swear their can be observational learning and she watched golden #2(Laney) train a lot. She was the easiest to train the braod jump to and I swear it was from watching Laney. When any of those guys messed up in the ring, it was never the dumbbell exercise. And they also had the most beautiful drop on reaclls with just a hand signal.. not screaming "Down" in a mean voice.

About 7 years ago, I went to a lab kennel/training facility where dogs are trained for hunt tests as well as personal hunting. The MH dogs were impressive, the dogs trained to hunt were impressive. I was instructed how to FF using paint rollers(she put the dogs on a platform and tied them up short)... I asked her how she got her dogs to come back so reliably and fast. She said "collar conditioning." For a long time, I had a duck in my freezer.... However, I clearly never tried anything field after that... I remain in the place I started out in, dabbling in obedience as a hobby...


----------



## tippykayak

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Perception is so interesting. When I read your comment about being able to call your dogs off from chasing a bird with a simple whistle, I took it as a bit of a dig at people who can't train their dogs to do the same thing. I wasn't personally offended since my dogs can't be called off a bird/rabbit EVER at this point. But I can see how people who are doing advanced field work with their dogs took that as a bit of a dig/criticism at their methods and felt compelled to point out why those alternate methods (i.e. methods utilized in competitive obedience or for companion dog training) are difficult to use in field training. I don't think either side intended to be insulting though. JMO after starting my reading at the end of the thread and moving backwards.


Thanks. Your post helps me see it from the other side a bit. Obviously, I never intended to dig at people who do use corrections, especially in distance work. It can really difficult to get a dog to respond to you at a distance, and I think the easiest possible thing to do at a distance is recall, particularly if you're using rewards, since returning to you is something a dog needs to do to get the reward (generally). Training "sit" at a distance is much harder without corrections (though not impossible). And field training requires much more complicated obedience than "sit" or "come" at a distance.

My only real point here is what it has always been: to chime in that you can achieve reliability and precision in many situations without correction. A dog doesn't need to know what's "wrong" in order to reliably execute what's desired. It has never been to say that you can compete in field and title your dog without corrections, and I won't say that unless I see it happen.


----------



## marsh mop

> Mind finding some posts where I seem to looking for such reasons? I get talked down to in this forum by a handful of people, and I don't think that's a good way to persuade people nor particularly polite. I don't think my participation can be characterized as looking for a reason to think I've been bullied.


Post 36 of this thread.


----------



## marsh mop

> Please remember that I came to this discussion to agree with you all that the obedience instructor was out of line and that FF/CC was not abusive. And yet, because I deviated from the party line one iota by saying that you could have distance reliability without correction, you're arguing with me that I don't really know what I'm talking about because I don't compete in field. Why? I have distance reliability from my dogs. I never said I could win a field trial or title a dog without corrections; simply that I could call them off a bird at a hundred yards without corrections. So why have people found a reason to disagree with me and point out that I don't really know what I'm talking about because I'm not a real field trainer. And, the implication in several posts is that I probably shouldn't even be talking about it because this is the "hunt and field" forum.
> 
> What I get jumped on around here for is the suggestion that it can be improved on, that dog training has continued to evolve and should continue to evolve. Just because something works does not mean that we should accept it as gospel and as the best way to do something. There may be better ways that have yet to be developed, and I'd like to see people keep working on developing them and not get bogged down by the innovation killing argument that "most successful people do it this way; therefore we should do it this way and this way only."


I have never questioned your ability to recall your dogs.
There are MH dogs that have never had FF or worn an ecollar. Not sure of any current FC or AFC. Attrition, attrition and more attrition.
I am a member of several retriever clubs and most have monthly training days. There are many members that do not belive in pressure training. They have all formulated their own special way to go about training for field work with very little success. If someone finds a better way of no pressure training that works as well as the proven methods they could do very well at the bank.
Jim


----------



## tippykayak

marsh mop said:


> Post 36 of this thread.


That's this thread. You said I made a habit of coming to the H&F forum and doing it. And that's _after_ Anney talked down to me. And another person in the thread felt the same way. So, ummm, no.


----------



## marsh mop

> And that's _after_ Anney talked down to me.


The "Fido" thing? You can't be serious or maybe you are.
The only thing that brings you to the H & F section of this forum are the words ecollar or force fetch.


----------



## marsh mop

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/...ml#post1440819 (e-collar, now what??)

Classic stuff here.


----------



## tippykayak

marsh mop said:


> http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/...ml#post1440819 (e-collar, now what??)
> 
> Classic stuff here.


You have been keeping an eye on LC's behavior on GRF, right? He's not talking about FF or CC or hunt or field. He's talking about turning the collar on a low setting, and holding the button down until the dog figures out what you want. For pet obedience. And for the record, I don't see anywhere in what you linked that I say I've been bullied or anything remotely similar. And when I call out LC on his attitude toward GRF members, I don't think I'm the lone wingnut who seems the problem with it.

So, umm...relevance?

Honestly, though, I've said my piece, you've said yours, and I really don't want to continue derail this thread with posts defending myself. I care about dogs, and I know a few things about training them, and I'm trying to make a positive contribution to the forum. If you don't agree with a point I've made, disagree, but don't talk down to me or tell me I'm not entitled to share my opinions in a hunt and field forum because I haven't titled dogs in field. And certainly don't go after my character and generalize about what you think my motives might be, because you aren't correct.


----------



## DNL2448

HoloBaby said:


> So Bray's obedience trainer asked me how his hunt training is going and I told him that he will will be sent off for training in a month. He asked me what he will be learning and I told him the FF would be apart of it. Seemed like he didn't like that at all! He said it was pretty primitive stuff and that a dog like Bray didn't need it. Also, that it is used to seeing eye dogs and all I need to do is structure his retrieval games a bit more. This made me feel bad about doing this to Brady, but I also know it is part of the game and needed for his success. I tried explaining it to him, but he has a vary strong belief in positive reinforcement. huff.......


Just to remind everyone what the original thread was about....


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Back on topic, something interesting that I just remembered is that Jack's field trainer generally FFs his dogs and client dogs. But his "once in a lifetime" dog, Ryder (a yellow lab who has 4 MH passes and is headed for field trials) was never FFed because he didn't need to. I just wonder how many dogs truly are able to perform at that that high of a level without FF. To me, those dogs would be the exception, not the rule.


----------



## K9-Design

kdmarsh said:


> This thread has cleared up some massive confusion I've had for months. I remember occasionally going to a park that has a retriever training pond, and getting so concerned over this one guy and his black lab. They were too far away for me to really see what was going on other than the lab was retrieving on his command, but every time the dog would get his bumper he'd yelp and I was so worried that the guy was somehow abusing his dog. But the dog seemed so goshdarned happy and excited to be doing what he was doing that I figured I was wrong and the dog was just high strung.
> 
> Now I realize he was probably practicing FF. Or.. he was an idiot and doing it wrong, I don't know. Regardless, this thread is interesting to read.


Hi -- LOTS of dogs vocalize out of pure excitement when field training and my guess is this is what was happening. Many dogs bark as they are released for the bird or will whine/yelp when reaching the bumper. My training partner's dog does this, he sounds like a squeaky wheel when he gets near the bumper! No corrections or force involved at all.


----------



## MarieP

Sally's Mom said:


> So after her CD, I was instructed on how to twist her choke collar to make her open her mouth and pick up the dumbbell. She was the softest golden ever... and it was a tough thing for me to do to her....
> 
> ...When any of those guys messed up in the ring, it was never the dumbbell exercise. And they also had the most beautiful drop on reaclls with just a hand signal.. not screaming "Down" in a mean voice.


I'm sorry you had that experience with FF. My instructor and I FFed my first dog in 3 days. Did she yelp? A bit, when she didn't know what I wanted. Was it more pain than when she was being chewed on by other dogs during play? No. In fact, probably a lot less. Would she have retrieved the dumbell without FF? Probably. Would she have picked up the metal articles without it? No, definitely not. 

My year old golden will be FFed as well. And he is already CCed, and the best possible decision I could have made, regardless of whether I wanted to do field work or not. My boy now was a brain. I could hold food allllllll day, but he would still do what he wanted to do. And you know what, I don't want to have to always have food in my pocket. My pup now listens, he checks in, he pays so much more attention in general. I feel like I can take him anywhere and he will come when I call him. He will recall even when he is surrounded by children eating ice cream. And he will sit even when there are dead birds and bumpers. This is what I want, and CC helped me get there in about a week. And my dog still loves me, just ask him how much fun we had today with his scary collar on  

Oh, and I disliked the little jab you made about the drop on recall. I have seen TONS of "all positive" trainers yell their down. And just because I FF does not mean that I beat my dog and correct him all day. My pup down's with a hand signal too... 



tippykayak said:


> It can really difficult to get a dog to respond to you at a distance, and I think the easiest possible thing to do at a distance is recall, particularly if you're using rewards, since returning to you is something a dog needs to do to get the reward (generally). Training "sit" at a distance is much harder without corrections (though not impossible). And field training requires much more complicated obedience than "sit" or "come" at a distance.
> 
> My only real point here is what it has always been: to chime in that you can achieve reliability and precision in many situations without correction. A dog doesn't need to know what's "wrong" in order to reliably execute what's desired. It has never been to say that you can compete in field and title your dog without corrections, and I won't say that unless I see it happen.


I might disagree on the idea that it's easiest to teach a recall with rewards. When my dog is eating deer scat and I call him, he doesn't care if I have filet in my hand. He's already being rewarded, so why would he want to stop a GREAT reward to get an OK reward? Just like retrieving a duck. If my pup is LOVING (and they really really love it) running about randomly looking for a bird, he isn't going to sit just because I will eventually come running up to him with a treat. Not going to happen. And a dog that doesn't want to go to an unseen bird that is super far away and there is a big swim, how are you going to make him go? If the water is super cold but you are out hunting and want to get the bird back, how are you going to get "fido" going? This is why we force fetch. 

A dog DOES need to know what is wrong to be able to do right. Example: I say sit, and dog goes down cuz dog likes laying down better. Do you say no, sit? Isn't that teaching the dog that there is a right and wrong? Same idea in the field. No pup, you aren't allowed to just guess at what I want or do what you want. I will tell you what's wrong so that you will be able to do what I want, correctly. And if you do it correctly, I'll reward you (or the task will be the reward in itself). That, IMHO, is dog training. 

So to the OP... Don't do anything you don't want to do or are uncomfortable with. But also know your goals and what it will take for you to get there. I wouldn't even try to explain it to your OB trainer. Just do what you need to. As others have said, tell your trainer you understand his perspective but you have other goals that you want to achieve and you are doing the best you know in that venue. Don't let him make you feel guilty. Good luck!


----------



## Radarsdad

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Back on topic, something interesting that I just remembered is that Jack's field trainer generally FFs his dogs and client dogs. But his "once in a lifetime" dog, Ryder (a yellow lab who has 4 MH passes and is headed for field trials) was never FFed because he didn't need to. I just wonder how many dogs truly are able to perform at that that high of a level without FF. To me, those dogs would be the exception, not the rule.




:appl::appl::appl::appl::appl:

It is the exception because the trainer understood the dogs personality. Goldens are not Labs and tend to be free thinkers and independant from their owners and given the choice they will make decisions on their own. Hence the need for FF and CC and work as a team with their owners. Once that is established they can succeed very well and thrive on the relationship with their owners.


----------



## tippykayak

mlopez said:


> I might disagree on the idea that it's easiest to teach a recall with rewards. When my dog is eating deer scat and I call him, he doesn't care if I have filet in my hand. He's already being rewarded, so why would he want to stop a GREAT reward to get an OK reward? Just like retrieving a duck. If my pup is LOVING (and they really really love it) running about randomly looking for a bird, he isn't going to sit just because I will eventually come running up to him with a treat. Not going to happen. And a dog that doesn't want to go to an unseen bird that is super far away and there is a big swim, how are you going to make him go? If the water is super cold but you are out hunting and want to get the bird back, how are you going to get "fido" going? This is why we force fetch.


I'm not going to address the field part, because as it has been made quite clear, I don't have the experience.

One clarification: I meant that recall was the easiest distance behavior to teach without corrections (as opposed to "leave it," "sit," or "down" at a distance, for example), not that it's particularly easy to teach a reliable recall, with corrections or without them.

I do want to address the earlier part of what you said in response to my comments. It's a common misconception about reward-based training that a dog will blow you off if what he's doing is more fun than the reward you're offering. However, if you're ever trying to outbid a distraction with a cookie, you're doing it wrong. What you describe is bribing, not reinforcing, and it doesn't work. 

Reward-based training is all about building and reinforcing habits, and _then_ pitting the habits—not the rewards—against the distraction. My dogs would never choose a cookie in my hand over a dead bird when they're a hundred yards away. But their constantly reinforced habit is that when I say their names, they look at me. They did it many times in low-distraction situations and were reinforced, and we built to higher distraction situations, so it became a forceful habit that now overrides their attention, even when they're really focused on something much more fun than any food reward. So now I can use it without direct reinforcement (though I do try to reinforce compliance however I can in order to build and maintain the habit).

Let's apply your assumption about cookies to an e-collar used the same way. If my dog is chasing a duck, it would take a holy hell of a shock to get him to stop if he doesn't have any knowledge or habits related to the shock. Jax has slipped and bashed his face on a rock while chasing birds and not even stopped to shake the blood out of his eye. I'm not sure how much juice it would take to interrupt his attention, but it would probably be a significant shock, much more than I'd ever let anybody do to me. And even if I did shock him hard enough to interrupt him, he'd have no idea what to do. My older dog Gus (now deceased), once ripped a four-inch gash in his leg while retrieving in the rain and didn't even limp on it until after the game was over and he left working mode. If ripping his leg on a stick didn't stop him, how much juice would it take?

That's why you collar condition, right? So you're not just burning the dog really hard when he doesn't know what you actually want or what the sensation means. You're teaching him that it means he needs to change what he's doing. You're not just using a huge negative stimulus to outbid a huge drive. I don't CC, so I may be wrong about that, but I can't imagine it would work if you just burned the dog to get his attention, any more than it would work to wave a milkbone at a dog who's shoulder deep in a deer carcass.

I don't carry treats 98% of the time when I'm out hiking or running with grown dogs, but I have very solid obedience that's quite easy to reinforce without food. How is that possible if your statements about the necessity of corrections are accurate?

Positive reinforcement is about building deeply ingrained behavioral patterns, and it turns out that you can ingrain those patterns very deeply without making punishment a central part of your regimen. Maybe you need it to win at a field trial, and I think the e-collar has a big advantage of being able to give direct feedback at a distance, and it's very difficult to reward so directly at distance. But for basic stuff like "come" and "sit," reliability does not require correction, and just because you can't reward easily at a distance doesn't mean you can't reward at all or that you must correct.



mlopez said:


> A dog DOES need to know what is wrong to be able to do right. Example: I say sit, and dog goes down cuz dog likes laying down better. Do you say no, sit? Isn't that teaching the dog that there is a right and wrong? Same idea in the field. No pup, you aren't allowed to just guess at what I want or do what you want. I will tell you what's wrong so that you will be able to do what I want, correctly. And if you do it correctly, I'll reward you (or the task will be the reward in itself). That, IMHO, is dog training.


Which is where we disagree. I don't think punishing dogs for not doing what they're told is the heart of dog training at all, and I don't think dogs understand right and wrong. Good communication is the heart of dog training. Whether you use an e-collar to thoughtfully communicate with your dog or a reward schedule (or both), it's communication, not punishment that's the key factor in good training.

If I say "sit" and my dog lies down, then he either doesn't understand what "sit" means or doesn't have a strongly ingrained habit connecting "sit" with the desired behavior. You _can_ punish a dog for failure to do what you said, and you can use that as part of your training program (though I'd say only if the dog knew the behavior and chose not to do it, not as part of teaching a behavior). But you don't _have_ to punish in order to get a reliable sit, even at a distance, and even around distractions (again, to be clear, I'm not talking about field trials, just reliable real-world obedience), and you can reward a dog at a distance (just not typically with food).

My dogs don't sit because they fear punishment or understand that blowing me off is "wrong," and they don't sit because they think I have a cookie. I strongly doubt that your dogs' main motivation is avoidance of punishment either. They sit because you've connected the command to the behavior very strongly. You used corrections to shape that connection, and that's fine, but how do you explain the reliable dogs discussed in this thread who haven't learned what's "wrong?" As has been acknowledged repeatedly, basic obedience, obedience at a distance, and even some levels of competition obedience are totally possible without much (or any) correction. How, if your theory is correct, is that possible?



mlopez said:


> So to the OP... Don't do anything you don't want to do or are uncomfortable with. But also know your goals and what it will take for you to get there. I wouldn't even try to explain it to your OB trainer. Just do what you need to. As others have said, tell your trainer you understand his perspective but you have other goals that you want to achieve and you are doing the best you know in that venue. Don't let him make you feel guilty. Good luck!


I totally agree with this. While I believe very strongly that reliability in most practical situations does not require the dog to have been corrected or to know what the wrong behavior is, I do believe that that the obed trainer has every right to create whatever rules he likes in his own classes, but that doesn't mean the handler has to stick to those rules and theories if he chooses another venue.


----------



## AmbikaGR

K9-Design said:


> Hi -- LOTS of dogs vocalize out of pure excitement when field training and my guess is this is what was happening. Many dogs bark as they are released for the bird or will whine/yelp when reaching the bumper. My training partner's dog does this, he sounds like a squeaky wheel when he gets near the bumper! No corrections or force involved at all.


I actually KNOW a dog, or more precisely bitch, who is VERY vocal in the field. She loves to creep on her marks and after they are down and I tell her to "HEEL" she lets out a yelp like she was hit with a two by four. And to clarify she is not being zapped with the collar, it is sheer EXCITEMENT and not being sent! She has also been known at a test to squeal as we go to the line and she knows there are BIRDS out there. Not the best line behavior but we are working on it. But I love my little Sweet Pea!


----------



## marsh mop

> You have been keeping an eye on LC's behavior on GRF, right? He's not talking about FF or CC or hunt or field. He's talking about turning the collar on a low setting, and holding the button down until the dog figures out what you want. For pet obedience. And for the record, I don't see anywhere in what you linked that I say I've been bullied or anything remotely similar. And when I call out LC on his attitude toward GRF members, I don't think I'm the lone wingnut who seems the problem with it.
> 
> So, umm...relevance?
> 
> Honestly, though, I've said my piece, you've said yours, and I really don't want to continue derail this thread with posts defending myself. I care about dogs, and I know a few things about training them, and I'm trying to make a positive contribution to the forum. If you don't agree with a point I've made, disagree, but don't talk down to me or tell me I'm not entitled to share my opinions in a hunt and field forum because I haven't titled dogs in field. And certainly don't go after my character and generalize about what you think my motives might be, because you aren't correct.


It was in the H&F section of this forum. Well the "Fido" freak out was also in the H& F section.
As a hunt test judge I have to explain the scenario of each test to the participants of and believe it or not I use the name Fido or Spot to explain how I want to see the test run.
Jim


----------



## marsh mop

> I'm not going to address the field part, because as it has been made quite clear, I don't have the experience.


By who? We have all been very respectful as I see it.


----------



## tippykayak

marsh mop said:


> Well the "Fido" freak out was also in the H& F section.


"Freak out?" And you want to lecture me on forum etiquette?


----------



## tippykayak

marsh mop said:


> By who? We have all been very respectful as I see it.


I said it, several times.


----------



## marsh mop

> Time for a new obedience instructor.


 All that needs to be said.


----------



## marsh mop

> I'm not going to address the field part, because as it has been made quite clear, I don't have the experience.


 By who??????????


----------



## Sally's Mom

mlopez, if you think I am talking about you,so be it. My drop on recall comment which I did not go into detail about is about positive reinforcement and back chaining. Again wow to the hostility on this part. My first golden was trained to the word "down" on that exercise but I never shouted at her. If I had, she simply wouldn't have come...


----------



## Sally's Mom

And for the record, I never made any jabs. I totally believe that dogs can be trained in many ways with many methods. I do what works for me with my temperament and my dogs... Mlopez, get over yourself....


----------



## marsh mop

> And for the record, I never made any jabs. I totally believe that dogs can be trained in many ways with many methods. I do what works for me with my temperament and my dogs...


 I agree and when some one does build a better mouse trap{ I may wait in vain } I will be the first to enroll.
Jim


----------



## EvanG

I don't know if this will clear the air, or cause more confusion. But if you're thinking you can get the same benefits of FF without the force, you're missing the salient point. Fetch & hold are co-benefits of a more important aspect; pressure conditioning. I just don't believe you can effectively condition a dog to pressure without pressure.

EvanG


----------



## MarieP

Thanks so much for the well thought out and well written response. I would actually be interested in your response to the field part, but thats OK. There are a few things that I would like to comment on. 

I consider myself a "positive, reward-based trainer." I'm not an ALL positive trainer, but I use treats/toy and I praise my dog constantly. However, if I have taught and taught and taught a command, and then I give the command and my dog goes "eh, I would rather not" then I am going to correct. I don't consider it punishing. I never said that the heart of dog training was punishing. I agree, its all about communication. I just can't see how I can communicate with my dog without being able to say "no." I correct for inattention and lack of effort. I don't correct just cuz he got it "wrong." Yes, I can build up some really good habits, but sometimes, when push comes to shove, the dog might just say "nope, I don't want to." What would you do if you were hiking, you called your dog, and he didn't come? Your reply may be "well, my dog would always come." But what if he didn't??? I guess I just don't understand how you get a dog to listen if what their doing is a huge reward in itself, and there are no consequences for not listening. What do you (personally) do when your mature, trained dog blows you off? 

You say that your dog has bashed it's head while chasing a bird. Could you call him off the bird? Could you say come or sit before the rock to stop him and prevent him from being injured? I could with my pup. I like having that feeling of safety. 

Maybe you are just a better trainer that I am. Or maybe my dogs are more stubborn than yours. I don't know. I don't know what kind of titles you have on your dogs. And honestly, I don't consider titles the end all, be all, so it doesn't matter to me much anyway. But my dog knows what sit means. He isn't confused. I haven't neglected to train him around distractions. I've given him thousands of chances to learn it. So now, if I ask him to sit and he doesn't, I will correct him. It might just be a "HEY, Riot, pay attention" with a tap on the head. Or it might a tap with the e-collar. 

To close, I'm glad that we at least agreed on something  And it was even something helpful for the OP.

PS: this is directed toward tippykayak. And I just reread it and I'm afraid that you might take it in the wrong way. But honestly, I really just want to have this discussion. Because I think it is important and I think discussions like these are what make dog training evolve and get better. Back in the day (not long ago), no one used treats. Now some do. Some don't. I hope I didn't offend.


----------



## Sally's Mom

I have always believed that we all need to train our dog with the method that works best for the individual. i never sit in judgment about that like many others on the forum do. I am a soft person and choose to train my dogs accordingly....


----------



## MarieP

Sally's Mom said:


> And for the record, I never made any jabs. I totally believe that dogs can be trained in many ways with many methods. I do what works for me with my temperament and my dogs... Mlopez, get over yourself....


Wow. Just wow. I don't think you really read my post, but thats ok. I think you need to get some thicker skin, and get over YOURSELF a bit. I was just trying to actually explain my position and pose some questions. Gosh. Guess thats not ok. I am in no way a pro. I have trained one dog and working on another. I have read a lot and worked with some really good people. I still have a lot to learn. But there was NOTHING in this thread that talked about shouting at the dog, and I'm pretty sure that there was NOTHING about a drop on recall. You just wanted us to know that your dog has a fabulous drop without the hooooorrible methods we may or may not use. 

Ugh, I was trying to be nice and thoughtful but you just annoyed the CRAP out of me.


----------



## marsh mop

> I have always believed that we all need to train our dog with the method that works best for the individual. i never sit in judgment about that like many others on the forum do. I am a soft person and choose to train my dogs accordingly....


 For the individual and more important , the dog we have and love.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Here is is.... I have 14 obedience and rally titles on my dogs, not counting the CGC's and conformation titles. I do not need to defend myself at all about this because as I have stated and I am truly OPEN minded about this, EVERYONE does what they are comfortable with.... I will not use compulsion... am I against it? No!! but it is just not for me... Can people on this forum accept that we are all different and train differently?


----------



## gdgli

K9-Design said:


> Hi -- LOTS of dogs vocalize out of pure excitement when field training and my guess is this is what was happening. Many dogs bark as they are released for the bird or will whine/yelp when reaching the bumper. My training partner's dog does this, he sounds like a squeaky wheel when he gets near the bumper! No corrections or force involved at all.


I call that bark the bark of joy.


----------



## tippykayak

mlopez said:


> Thanks so much for the well thought out and well written response. I would actually be interested in your response to the field part, but thats OK.


I don't have a clear answer for how I would train a dog to go through water he didn't want to go through to a bird he didn't see, with or without an e-collar. I could speculate, but what would be the point? So I stuck with things I know about how to get a dog to do something he doesn't want to or stop doing something he does want to.



mlopez said:


> I consider myself a "positive, reward-based trainer." I'm not an ALL positive trainer, but I use treats/toy and I praise my dog constantly. However, if I have taught and taught and taught a command, and then I give the command and my dog goes "eh, I would rather not" then I am going to correct. I don't consider it punishing.


In strict behavioral language, it's positive punishment, but you can call it what you like. If we're both talking about the application of a negative stimulus (a negative voice, a stim from a collar, etc.), then the disagreement is just semantic and not worth hashing out.

I would distinguish between a correction (something unpleasant designed to reduce the unwanted behavior) and an interruption (something intended to get the dog's attention that isn't unpleasant in itself, like a touch or a noise).



mlopez said:


> I never said that the heart of dog training was punishing.


You seemed to indicate that being able to tell a dog he was wrong was the heart of training, but again, if we agree, then we agree and no reason to go back to it.



mlopez said:


> But I'm sorry, I just can't see how I can communicate with my dog without being able to say "no." I correct for inattention and lack of effort. I don't correct just cuz he got it "wrong." Yes, I can build up some really good habits, but sometimes, when push comes to shove, the dog might just say "nope, I don't want to."


This is an interesting question. I agree that sometimes corrections are necessary, particularly in situations where safety is at issue, but when a dog fails to obey, I look at it as a lack of clarity on my part, or a failure to motivate the dog. And I choose to use a negative stimulus as infrequently as possible to motivate my dog, and I try to make it a rule never to use one in the teaching phase of a behavior. If my dog won't sit, even though he knows sit, I think I need to teach him that sitting on command is awesome and do it a ton of times with him. I think that works better than punishing him for blowing me off.



mlopez said:


> What would you do if you were hiking, you called your dog, and he didn't come? Your reply may be "well, my dog would always come." But what if he didn't??? I guess I just don't understand how you get a dog to listen if what their doing is a huge reward in itself, and there are no consequences for not listening. What do you (personally) do when your mature, trained dog blows you off?


I'm lucky enough not to really have that happen too often, but I can tell you that an angry voice is utterly useless when it comes to correcting a dog at a distance. Unless I'm going to keep an e-collar on my dog at all times and the remote in my hand, just in case I get blown off, I can't deliver an effective correction, even if I want to.

If my dog blows me off, I'd have to do whatever you'd have to do if your dog blew you off and wasn't wearing an e-collar. I'd have to get closer and say his name loudly and hope his training kicked back in as he heard me more clearly. And then I'd have to go back and retrain, since obviously there's a big, dangerous hole in his reliability.

Before my current dogs, I used to think that the dogs had to have the fear of god to have reliability. I'd train recall with pups, and before they got fast enough to get away from me, I'd set them up to blow me off, and I'd come flying out of the sky and tackle them with a great big loud "no" to scare the bejeezus out of them. I really thought that moment of punishment was the key to the strong recall I was getting.

I no longer believe that, and I no longer do it. My current dogs have the same level of recall reliability without that kind of correction. 



mlopez said:


> You say that your dog has bashed it's head while chasing a bird. Could you call him off the bird? Could you say come or sit before the rock to stop him and prevent him from being injured? I could with my pup. Without him even having his collar on.


Yes. And that's what I did. He bashed his head, ran on, and I called him. The bruise and scrape didn't stop him, but the whistle did. Just for the record, it wasn't a situation where I knew to call him off before he hit his head. He misjudged a jump while chasing birds, slipped a front paw on a wet rock, and crashed.



mlopez said:


> Maybe you are just a better trainer that I am. Or maybe my dogs are more stubborn than yours. I don't know. I have no idea what kind of titles you have on your dogs. And honestly, I don't consider titles the end all, be all, so it doesn't matter to me much anyway. But my dog knows what sit means. He isn't confused. I haven't neglected to train him around distractions. I've given him thousands of chances to learn it. So now, if I ask him to sit and he doesn't, I will correct him. It might just be a "HEY, Riot, pay attention" with a tap on the head. Or it might a tap with the e-collar.


I don't think it's about who's the best trainer, and I have no idea who is. I have no titles on my dogs, just CGCs, so I don't have the external proof of my theories that I might be able to get if I spent my weekends competing. I just challenge the notion that corrections are as necessary as people sometimes say. I think repetition and reinforcement are much more important to reliability than correction. Corrections aren't unethical when the minimum effective level of correction is used, and I don't avoid them completely. I just try to minimize my reliance on them, and I count it a victory when I'm able to remove or reduce corrections in a training regimen.

For the record, I do say "no" and I do correct my dogs. I just don't think it's a key part of their reliability, and for some skills, I don't correct at all.



mlopez said:


> To close, I'm glad that we at least agreed on something  And it was even something helpful for the OP.


I too am glad of that.


----------



## MarieP

gdgli said:


> I call that bark the bark of joy.


Yup  Except that Riot is too busy turning in circles to bark much :doh:


----------



## Sally's Mom

Mlopez, I have "tons of positive trainer friends" that do NOT yell down on the recall. Why are you so defensive? I was merely stating one of the positive moments that I achieved with my dogs...


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> I just challenge the notion that corrections are as necessary as people sometimes say. I think repetition and reinforcement are much more important to reliability than correction.


Tippy, I can't speak for anyone else here but I echo this statement with my own training. Once again, we are agreeing. My training is NOT reliant on corrections. It IS reliant on a lot of repetition and reinforcement. That reinforcement is positive and negative. 



> Corrections aren't unethical when the minimum effective level of correction is used, and I don't avoid them completely. I just try to minimize my reliance on them, and I count it a victory when I'm able to remove or reduce corrections in a training regimen.


A trainer who relies on corrections is a poor trainer. The goal of any good trainer is to teach and reinforce so well as to eliminate the need for corrections caused by confusion or lack of effort to comply.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Tippy, I can't speak for anyone else here but I echo this statement with my own training. Once again, we are agreeing. My training is NOT reliant on corrections. It IS reliant on a lot of repetition and reinforcement. That reinforcement is positive and negative.
> 
> A trainer who relies on corrections is a poor trainer. The goal of any good trainer is to teach and reinforce so well as to eliminate the need for corrections caused by confusion or lack of effort to comply.


And on these two core philosophies, we are in total agreement except that I like to reiterate (and behavioral science backs me up here) that positive reinforcement is more effective in making behaviors durable than negative reinforcement. I also feel that the potential for undesired side effects is lower. So I eschew negative reinforcement and positive punishment wherever it's practical in favor of positive reinforcement and negative punishment. 

If I can find a creative way to use positive reinforcement/negative punishment instead of a correction, I prefer that way. For me, that's the best measure of my growth as a trainer.

I don't really think that behavioral quadrants don't describe everything we do with dogs, but generally speaking, I favor the PR/NP over the NR/PP, and I think the science backs me up pretty well.


----------



## MarieP

K9-Design said:


> Tippy, I can't speak for anyone else here but I echo this statement with my own training. Once again, we are agreeing. My training is NOT reliant on corrections. It IS reliant on a lot of repetition and reinforcement. That reinforcement is positive and negative.
> 
> A trainer who relies on corrections is a poor trainer. The goal of any good trainer is to teach and reinforce so well as to eliminate the need for corrections caused by confusion or lack of effort to comply.


I just wanted to say YES! This is exactly how I was going to reply. I think we all might be closer together than we come across as being. 

To Tippykayak: I appreciate the science might back you up. But how exactly is science testing these theories? Are they looking at dogs in general or highly bred field dogs? Are they saying it is applicable everywhere? I read lots on behavior and science and I find it fascinating! I'm reading "Inside a Dog" right now, and I love it! Also, highly recommend "The Intelligence of Dogs." 

The other thing that I have to think about in my training is time. I don't have unlimited time or money. If an ecollar can get me what I'm looking for in a week (without affecting my dogs working attitude) versus a few months, I may have to compromise towards an ecollar. 

(as a total aside, I was listening to NPR the other day in the car. A dog behaviorist was on talking about a dog who would not walk up stairs. The owners were working on this by using a clicker. They had still not been able to get the pup up the stairs after three weeks. The behaviorist put a leash on the pup, grabbed some kibble, and helped the pup right up the stairs. Two more times and the pup was flying up and down. Not saying that clickers aren't great for some things, like teaching a dog to turn on a light. Would the clicker have worked for this? Maybe, but who has the time when just a little incentive and some gentle guidance gets the same result in 5 minutes? But again, I would NEVER compromise my dog's happiness and attitude for ANYTHING).

And to Sally'smom: You don't get it. That's OK.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> And on these two core philosophies, we are in total agreement except that I like to reiterate (and behavioral science backs me up here) that positive reinforcement is more effective in making behaviors durable than negative reinforcement.


I don't doubt this at all. 
In this specific setting (field training), however, in my opinion, it would be enormously time consuming to get a dog to perform at the highest levels of competition *without* negative reinforcement. I know there are good trainers out there who can do it, the question is how many actually want to. I don't. Training "the modern way" with FF and CC is not only terribly effective, elegant and productive, but it is efficient. It produces wonderful working dogs capable of amazing skills with great attitudes, in a relatively short amount of time (if applied well). It's popular because of this and there aren't people scratching their heads trying to reinvent the wheel because it works so well. (Again -- I am talking specifically about training retrievers for advanced retriever work.) 

If your come-back is that you aren't advocating we use NO negative reinforcement, I will counter with, the days of pre-ecollar retriever training were a lot rougher on dogs than now. *It was the INNOVATIVE trainers who invented ecollars, and the amazingly creative and kind trainers who developed modern retriever training methods.*



> I also feel that the potential for undesired side effects is lower.


Also agree. The screw-ups with ecollars generally do a lot more emotional damage than the screw-ups with buckle collars. Then again I've seen plenty of dogs who are severely hobbled and psychologically warped because their owners refused to get with the program and train them using the modern Rex Carr/Mike Lardy way. The owners think they are doing their dogs a favor by cooking up their own training regimen, with disastrous results. That is sad.


----------



## tippykayak

mlopez said:


> To Tippykayak: I appreciate the science might back you up. But how exactly is science testing these theories? Are they looking at dogs in general or highly bred field dogs? Are they saying it is applicable everywhere? I read lots on behavior and science and I find it fascinating! I'm reading "Inside a Dog" right now, and I love it! Also, highly recommend "The Intelligence of Dogs."


It's a principle of behavioral science that holds true pretty firmly across chordates. It's true of pigeons, rats, and people. There are some complexities to the human/dog relationship that haven't been fully explored in a scientific process, so I don't take it as absolute gospel, but it has definitely influenced my approach to training.

And I do find that it holds true that it's much easier to positively reinforce a durable behavior in a dog than to negatively reinforce one. The question that's less obvious (and one way of phrasing one of the main questions we're discussing) is whether or not a combination of negative reinforcement and positive can produce a behavior that's more durable, more precise, or more quickly trained than positive alone and if so, what ratio is a good starting point and how much does it have to change for each individual dog.



mlopez said:


> The other thing that I have to think about in my training is time. I don't have unlimited time or money. If an ecollar can get me what I'm looking for in a week (without affecting my dogs working attitude) versus a few months, I may have to compromise towards an ecollar.


And my priority is much more toward positive reinforcement than time efficiency, though I'm not that convinced that the e-collar is really a tool that speeds things up for ordinary obedience.



mlopez said:


> (as a total aside, I was listening to NPR the other day in the car. A dog behaviorist was on talking about a dog who would not walk up stairs. The owners were working on this by using a clicker. They had still not been able to get the pup up the stairs after three weeks. The behaviorist put a leash on the pup, grabbed some kibble, and helped the pup right up the stairs. Two more times and the pup was flying up and down. Not saying that clickers aren't great for some things, like teaching a dog to turn on a light. Would the clicker have worked for this? Maybe, but who has the time when just a little incentive and some gentle guidance gets the same result in 5 minutes? But again, I would NEVER compromise my dog's happiness and attitude for ANYTHING).


A behaviorist will typically beat first time pet owners at training, no matter what the method. "That doesn't work" stories are very hard to assess, since you can't tell if it's incompetence on the handler's part or a failure of the methodology. There are as many "dog ruined by FF" stories as there are "positive handlers with uncontrolled dogs" stories.

Clicker training is very powerful. I use it myself to shape some behaviors, though I only know how to use a clicker with food rewards, and I think there's an element of bonding with the dog that I achieve by mixing up reinforcers. Comet, for example, finds games (chase, playbowing, etc.) more reinforcing than treats, though he'll happily take those too. I'm sure I could clicker him for everything, but I prefer to mix up all kinds of things.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> I don't doubt this at all.
> In this specific setting (field training), however, in my opinion, it would be enormously time consuming to get a dog to perform at the highest levels of competition *without* negative reinforcement. I know there are good trainers out there who can do it, the question is how many actually want to. I don't. Training "the modern way" with FF and CC is not only terribly effective, elegant and productive, but it is efficient. It produces wonderful working dogs capable of amazing skills with great attitudes, in a relatively short amount of time (if applied well). It's popular because of this and there aren't people scratching their heads trying to reinvent the wheel because it works so well. (Again -- I am talking specifically about training retrievers for advanced retriever work.)


I think I'm pretty much in agreement here. I just choose different priorities. Is it fair to say, though, that the elegant method you're talking about is the product of a great deal of evolution in dog training? There's probably some more evolving to be done that doesn't involve throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I'm not advocating a "PP" approach to field or anything so radical, but I do hear people say that reliability and distance work are impossible without the collar, and I think we can all agree that those claims aren't really true. Less efficient, potentially, but impossible, no.



K9-Design said:


> If your come-back is that you aren't advocating we use NO negative reinforcement, I will counter with, the days of pre-ecollar retriever training were a lot rougher on dogs than now. *It was the INNOVATIVE trainers who invented ecollars, and the amazingly creative and kind trainers who developed modern retriever training methods.*


Exactly! And I think there's so much further we can go. No more beating retrievers with leashes (my favorite thing to cite from an old water retrievers book I read). No more shooting dogs with birdshot to correct them (which I've heard used to be common, but I can't substantiate that). No more cutting a switch as the first step in puppy training (which I read in a 19-teens retriever book).

Maybe the future doesn't mean an end to the e-collar, and maybe it does, but things have changed fast and generally for the better, so I'm excited.



K9-Design said:


> Also agree. The screw-ups with ecollars generally do a lot more emotional damage than the screw-ups with buckle collars. Then again I've seen plenty of dogs who are severely hobbled and psychologically warped because their owners refused to get with the program and train them using the modern Rex Carr/Mike Lardy way. The owners think they are doing their dogs a favor by cooking up their own training regimen, with disastrous results. That is sad.


And I'll freely admit that some of my reservations about using the e-collar come from watching its obvious misuse. And a certain visceral dislike of watching a dog flinch, even when the remote is in the hands of an experienced trainer.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> There are as many "dog ruined by FF" stories as there are "positive handlers with uncontrolled dogs" stories.


I've yet to hear a "dog ruined by FF" story. Seriously.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Mlopez, thanks for that. I don't care about a lot of things and if that makes you feel better, I could honestly care less...


----------



## Sally's Mom

Post # 93, Hello!! Really. As i said much earlier on,I came into this thread thinking obedience and realizing what it was later on. So recently I am defending my beliefs, but it has digressed...


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> I've yet to hear a "dog ruined by FF" story. Seriously.


Really? I've heard hunt and field people talk about dogs who "washed out" of FF programs a number of times, usually in reference to the face that it doesn't happen anymore if you do it right. Remember, I was talking about misapplication of FF and/or positive training.

And you mentioned misuse of the e-collar and what it can do to a dog. Maybe "ruined" was the wrong word.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Really? I've heard hunt and field people talk about dogs who "washed out" of FF programs a number of times, usually in reference to the face that it doesn't happen anymore if you do it right. Remember, I was talking about misapplication of FF and/or positive training.
> 
> And you mentioned misuse of the e-collar and what it can do to a dog. Maybe "ruined" was the wrong word.


You're correct; wrong wording. Wash-outs occur for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's a dog deficit for the sport intended by the trainer. A given dog just doesn't have the talent or desire level needed for it.

Sometimes an over bearing trainer washes out dog because the dog can't take the overt pressure they use in place of actual training. That takes in the erroneous stories about dog ruined by e-collars, heeling sticks and the like. What they were ruined by were poor trainers in most cases.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> You're correct; wrong wording. Wash-outs occur for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's a dog deficit for the sport intended by the trainer. A given dog just doesn't have the talent or desire level needed for it.
> 
> Sometimes an over bearing trainer washes out dog because the dog can't take the overt pressure they use in place of actual training. That takes in the erroneous stories about dog ruined by e-collars, heeling sticks and the like. What they were ruined by were poor trainers in most cases.
> 
> EvanG


Exactly. A dog "ruined" by an e-collar was ruined by his handler, not by the equipment. On that we probably agree 100%. Same thing with a dog who's been "positively trained" and isn't really trained at all. In both cases, I'd say we're looking at the bad application of training principles that can be very effective when used properly.

And fair enough on the use of "ruined." It's probably an ineffective word to apply to dog training failures anyway, since most dogs can be brought back to solid obedience (at a minimum) even if their handlers were training very poorly at some point. I can think of a young, bright obedience and field dog (whose name I'll keep out of the discussion, since her handler's not part of this conversation) who was returned to a breeder for being untrainable and is now doing quite nicely with an experienced handler.


----------



## AmberSunrise

*Meet Rowdy*

the face of a young golden, who in the hands of a 'bad trainer' and an owner who entrusted her dog to this trainer was in fact ruined for obedience through force fetch. It does not really matter that her previous dog had been through force fetch without problems, what matters is I, the owner, allowed a 'pro' to apply so much pressure and believed for so long when the 'pro' told me to give it more time. He was too soft and trusting of a dog. When the 'pro' finally said he just could not withstand the pressure, my Rowdy came home afraid of many things - especially his dumbbell.

After several years or purely positive training I tried repeatedly for his CDX but he always froze on the ROH; under stress he panicked about the Dumbbell. He was able to do rally and agility but was never able to go further in obedience. Not field you say? Well, that is where Force Fetch comes from.

Please do not say it cannot happen, since here is the face of one dog who it happened to. It is my fault, I will fully confess. But I had worked with that trainer for 5 or 6 years prior to this and trusted him....

Edit to add: I should also mention for those who may not know, I do indeed train for field as well.


----------



## gdgli

Sunrise said:


> the face of a young golden, who in the hands of a 'bad trainer' and an owner who entrusted her dog to this trainer was in fact ruined for obedience through force fetch. It does not really matter that her previous dog had been through force fetch without problems, what matters is I, the owner, allowed a 'pro' to apply so much pressure and believed for so long when the 'pro' told me to give it more time. He was too soft and trusting of a dog. When the 'pro' finally said he just could not withstand the pressure, my Rowdy came home afraid of many things - especially his dumbbell.
> 
> After several years or purely positive training I tried repeatedly for his CDX but he always froze on the ROH; under stress he panicked about the Dumbbell. He was able to do rally and agility but was never able to go further in obedience. Not field you say? Well, that is where Force Fetch comes from.
> 
> Please do not say it cannot happen, since here is the face of one dog who it happened to. It is my fault, I will fully confess. But I had worked with that trainer for 5 or 6 years prior to this and trusted him....


Sunrise, it is not your fault. I have heard of this sort of thing happen enough times to think it is not uncommon. The problem is the pro that you chose.


----------



## Megora

gdgli said:


> The problem is the pro that you chose.


How do people know what the right "pro" for their dog is? 

Particularly if they know their dog has been soft and not used to being handled roughly by people? I can see soft dogs balking at having anything in their mouths after being handled too roughly. <=- Good example was the OTCH person who smacked the sides of a dumbbell to make my dog stop chewing on it. He stopped chewing on it. In fact, he refused to "take it" and I had to go back to step one in teaching take/hold. 

My feeling after watching this argument is that as a softer owner (while I use corrections in training, I refused to use the ear pinches, collar shakes, hitting the dog on back and rear, grabbing the dog's skin and back and twisting, butt kicking, and yelling that I've seen over the years in obedience training),* I would probably learn what experienced hunt people do with their dogs to teach methods and I would opt to use what I was comfortable using with my dog. *

I think the reason why the obedience people are bringing up obedience methods is because there are some really "hard" type people in obedience that we have seen who DO get titles on their dogs, but these methods generally work best on breeds or types who are "harder" or less likely to crumble. I would assume people are asking if there are alternatives to using harsh methods in field. That's partly why I asked what FF meant to people. I know people who get field titles with their dogs who are very gentle and soft handling with their dogs in obedience, so I really doubt they are all choking their dogs or yanking them around by their ears. 

By that same token, there is a dog (not a golden) who has a MH who is now in obedience with her trainer. I remember cringing while in class with him because she is a very soft dog and he pushes her very hard. She is good and well ahead of my dog, but... the type of breed she is should be confident and brilliant in obedience. And this dog is practically crawling on the floor. <- That's definitely the trainer and the "degree" of correction he uses in his training... and I would gather that positive people look at dogs like that and lump all trainers who use aversives in with her trainer.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Exactly. A dog "ruined" by an e-collar was ruined by his handler, not by the equipment. On that we probably agree 100%. Same thing with a dog who's been "positively trained" and isn't really trained at all. In both cases, I'd say we're looking at the bad application of training principles that can be very effective when used properly.
> 
> And fair enough on the use of "ruined." It's probably an ineffective word to apply to dog training failures anyway, since most dogs can be brought back to solid obedience (at a minimum) even if their handlers were training very poorly at some point. I can think of a young, bright obedience and field dog (whose name I'll keep out of the discussion, since her handler's not part of this conversation) who was returned to a breeder for being untrainable and is now doing quite nicely with an experienced handler.


I'm with you completely on all points. Truly "ruined" dogs are almost always ruined by people rather than equipment or techniques.

I worked for a pro name John Hahn (now retired), who made a field trial career by making FC's (field champions) out of other trainer's wash outs. I learned from him one of Rex Carr's most important principles; "Leave something in it for the dog." I _live_ by that. I'm sure _you_ do too.

EvanG


----------



## gdgli

Megora said:


> How do people know what the right "pro" for their dog is?
> 
> Particularly if they know their dog has been soft and not used to being handled roughly by people? I can see soft dogs balking at having anything in their mouths after being handled too roughly. <=- Good example was the OTCH person who smacked the sides of a dumbbell to make my dog stop chewing on it. He stopped chewing on it. In fact, he refused to "take it" and I had to go back to step one in teaching take/hold.
> 
> My feeling after watching this argument is that as a softer owner (while I use corrections in training, I refused to use the ear pinches, collar shakes, hitting the dog on back and rear, grabbing the dog's skin and back and twisting, butt kicking, and yelling that I've seen over the years in obedience training),* I would probably learn what experienced hunt people do with their dogs to teach methods and I would opt to use what I was comfortable using with my dog. *
> 
> I think the reason why the obedience people are bringing up obedience methods is because there are some really "hard" type people in obedience that we have seen who DO get titles on their dogs, but these methods generally work best on breeds or types who are "harder" or less likely to crumble. I would assume people are asking if there are alternatives to using harsh methods in field. That's partly why I asked what FF meant to people. I know people who get field titles with their dogs who are very gentle and soft handling with their dogs in obedience, so I really doubt they are all choking their dogs or yanking them around by their ears.
> 
> By that same token, there is a dog (not a golden) who has a MH who is now in obedience with her trainer. I remember cringing while in class with him because she is a very soft dog and he pushes her very hard. She is good and well ahead of my dog, but... the type of breed she is should be confident and brilliant in obedience. And this dog is practically crawling on the floor. <- That's definitely the trainer and the "degree" of correction he uses in his training... and I would gather that positive people look at dogs like that and lump all trainers who use aversives in with her trainer.


How would you choose a private school for your child? Talk to people, go take a look at the trainer, see if he's training goldens, try to find out the negatives of his program, and then make a decision. I was with a friend of mine when we went to a trainer, he looked at what he was doing, trainer said you're next, and my friend replied "You're not going to do that to my dog." End of story.


----------



## gdgli

EvanG said:


> I'm with you completely on all points. Truly "ruined" dogs are almost always ruined by people rather than equipment or techniques.
> 
> I worked for a pro name John Hahn (now retired), who made a field trial career by making FC's (field champions) out of other trainer's wash outs. I learned from him one of Rex Carr's most important principles; "Leave something in it for the dog." I _live_ by that. I'm sure _you_ do too.
> 
> EvanG


Great post!


----------



## MarieP

tippykayak said:


> And I do find that it holds true that it's much easier to positively reinforce a durable behavior in a dog than to negatively reinforce one. The question that's less obvious (and one way of phrasing one of the main questions we're discussing) is whether or not a combination of negative reinforcement and positive can produce a behavior that's more durable, more precise, or more quickly trained than positive alone and if so, what ratio is a good starting point and how much does it have to change for each individual dog.


Yes, I think this is the basic question that we are looking at. And as you said, I think it really depends on the dog. I have a dog that can take a collar correction and bounce back in a second. I think that MOST dogs can take a level of pressure, when applied fairly and makes sense to the dog. Mother dogs are not "all positive." They certainly correct their puppies. But they also know how to apply the least amount of pressure to get the desired result. That is my goal with my dog. 



tippykayak said:


> though I'm not that convinced that the e-collar is really a tool that speeds things up for ordinary obedience.


But we aren't talking about regular obedience. We are talking about getting our field dogs to respond in the field. But I also think it can speed up "ordinary obedience" when used correctly. It can certainly speed up reliability off leash, at least in my (limited) experience. 

BTW, I also think that clicker training is very powerful. However, I believe that it is good for some things and not for others, just like all training tools. I could use a clicker for everything, but I don't have that kind of time. And I don't think I would have that much patience either.


----------



## EvanG

mlopez said:


> I could use a clicker for everything, but I don't have that kind of time. And I don't think I would have that much patience either.


Nor would you ever achieve the same level of reliability as you would with the support of an effective aversive to reinforce your training.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

mlopez said:


> Yes, I think this is the basic question that we are looking at. And as you said, I think it really depends on the dog. I have a dog that can take a collar correction and bounce back in a second. I think that MOST dogs can take a level of pressure, when applied fairly and makes sense to the dog. Mother dogs are not "all positive." They certainly correct their puppies. But they also know how to apply the least amount of pressure to get the desired result. That is my goal with my dog.


Mother dogs don't train puppies to do behaviors that aren't hard coded in their DNA, so the analogy doesn't hold water. And when puppies train each other in bite inhibition, they tend to yelp, which I'm not sure you can classify as a correction. Even when an older dog growls at a younger one, we don't really know the communication subtext well enough to say for sure that it's a correction in the same sense that a collar pop or shock is.



mlopez said:


> But we aren't talking about regular obedience. We are talking about getting our field dogs to respond in the field. But I also think it can speed up "ordinary obedience" when used correctly. It can certainly speed up reliability off leash, at least in my (limited) experience.


The door has been opened in the thread, by multiple people, to discuss what levels of obedience and fieldwork require obedience. The basic elements that you need to do fieldwork are part of ordinary obedience (stay, sit, come, etc.), so it certainly applies.



mlopez said:


> BTW, I also think that clicker training is very powerful. However, I believe that it is good for some things and not for others, just like all training tools. I could use a clicker for everything, but I don't have that kind of time. And I don't think I would have that much patience either.


I agree, and I only use the clicker in a very limited application myself. I would not describe myself as a "positive trainer" (which is sort of a misnomer anyway) or a "clicker trainer" by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> Nor would you ever achieve the same level of reliability as you would with the support of an effective aversive to reinforce your training.


If you're talking about all kinds of training, and you're defining "aversive" as a negative stimulus like a collar shock, a collar pop, an intimidating voice, etc., I disagree thoroughly. I used to think that the application of an aversive was a necessary piece of reliability, and I have since learned that it is not. Again, maybe you need it in advanced field work as a tool for working on precision and motivation at a distance, but you certainly don't need an aversive for extraordinarily reliable recall or basic obedience, and the existence of OTCH dogs who were trained without aversives sort of proves that you don't need the aversives as part of very precise work around distractions. 

The inability to point to lots of successful field dogs trained without aversives may be a result of the fact that you need aversives, or it may be a result of the fact that fewer field people try it.

It makes intuitive sense that you'd need one, but in reality, repetition and positive reinforcement (as behavioral science confirms) create more durable behaviors than negative reinforcement and punishment. I'm not really saying that aversives don't have an important role, but I do question that absolute rule that they must be part of the reliability recipe or that you can't have maximum reliability without them.

For those of you who always train with a mix of aversives and positive reinforcers, you are simply guessing that you can't get reliability without the aversives, because you haven't tried it. Other people have made it work, though (better trainers than I).


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> For those of you who always train with a mix of aversives and positive reinforcers, you are simply guessing that you can't get reliability without the aversives, because you haven't tried it. Other people have made it work, though (better trainers than I).


I prefer not to guess when training. I prefer to follow a program that has been proven to work, makes sense to me, is reasonable to follow, produces the kind of dog with the kind of response I want, is within my means of executing, and that which the other people I choose to train with are following as well. Given all of these qualifications the pressure to find something radically different is small.


----------



## Florabora22

K9-Design said:


> Hi -- LOTS of dogs vocalize out of pure excitement when field training and my guess is this is what was happening. Many dogs bark as they are released for the bird or will whine/yelp when reaching the bumper. My training partner's dog does this, he sounds like a squeaky wheel when he gets near the bumper! No corrections or force involved at all.


Hah, this dog was just yelping like mad. I was so worried but (from a distance) I could see that the owner wasn't doing anything harmful to the dog. The lab must've just been excited, like you said! Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Megora

> For those of you who always train with a mix of aversives and positive reinforcers, you are simply guessing that you can't get reliability without the aversives, because you haven't tried it. Other people have made it work, though (better trainers than I).


I don't think it is "guessing" if you have seen the issues that pop up when those of us who aren't better trainers than you train in this way. Because the dog never actually learns anything besides the desired behavior is WRONG, it means that reliability isn't there. It means there might be holes in the training that pop up at the worst times. 

One person that I know of has been having issues with her dogs who learned to break their stays. Because there is no correction involved with the break and they are rewarded for the breaks because their owner comes back to them and lures them back to their original stay spot with treats, it is a problem that will take months and months of repetition to repair. 

I noticed this because her dogs are breaking just because. They are not soft dogs like my idiot is. With a normal anxiety-free dog, that stay breaking issue should be a very quick fix. You make breaking that stay unpleasant and holding the stay pleasant, they learn very quickly.


----------



## GoldenSail

tippykayak said:


> For those of you who always train with a mix of aversives and positive reinforcers, you are simply guessing that you can't get reliability without the aversives, because you haven't tried it. Other people have made it work, though (better trainers than I).


We are NOT guessing--we are relying on tried and true methods. As Anney's past posts have said part of training with aversives is about being efficient in your training. Can you list trainers that have gotten better reliability with their methods? Or are they just the same but take longer?

I would contend too that behavioral science is not an exact science and remind those that science does not prove anything--merely supports. I think it very difficult to compare the strengths of the four quadrants when you know how variable individuals are. A piece of cheese may not illicit the same strong response in my dog as yours as mine is not highly food motivated, the same goes for collar pops. So how can you measure in a test setting which is better when you are measuring individuals and do not know their perception of the rewards and punishments? Further how do you decide what reward is equivalent to what punishment? (I would suggest those that are equivalent would produce equal but opposite responses)

I have read at least some of the studies that supported that positive was stronger, but the punishment was relatively weak (i.e. leaving a chick alone for a few minutes) in comparison to the reward. I am also reminded of a coworker who as a little girl drank too much grape flavored medication and ended up in the hospital and got her stomach pumped. To this day that single experience has caused her to become sick to her stomach every time she smells grape and she cannot drink grape flavored drinks. Actually, it is the reason I think you are right when you say their can be a large fall out with using positive punishment--because if a strong punisher is used and applied incorrectly it can have a long lasting impact on the dog (like poor Rowdy). 

Anyway, just my thoughts. I really enjoyed how you presented yourself initially in this thread but feel like things are getting out of hand....


----------



## tippykayak

Megora said:


> I don't think it is "guessing" if you have seen the issues that pop up when those of us who aren't better trainers than you train in this way. Because the dog never actually learns anything besides the desired behavior is WRONG, it means that reliability isn't there. It means there might be holes in the training that pop up at the worst times.
> 
> One person that I know of has been having issues with her dogs who learned to break their stays. Because there is no correction involved with the break and they are rewarded for the breaks because their owners come back to them and lure them back to their original stay spot with treats, it is a problem that will take months and months of repetition to repair.


I strongly doubt that I'm a better trainer than you or most people in the thread. I have two strengths as a trainer: one is that I am willing to be creative in discovering what motivates my individual dogs, and the other is that when my dog screws up, I assume it's my fault. I have no real gift for timing, planning, retaining what I learn in the practical setting, scheduling training times or classes, or being coordinated enough to work and reward a dog at the same time. I am also one of the least titled participants in the thread (with zero, aside from CGC, which is a cert, not a title).

I would counter that many obedience stars have strong stays and aren't corrected for breaking. If the method is flawed, how is that possible? 

A failure of aversive-free training does not mean aversive-free training doesn't work. The fact that the owners are luring the dogs back to their spots with treats while working on proofing stays makes it pretty obvious to me that it's the misapplication of the method that's at work here, not a flaw in the method. Training a reliable stay with treats and without corrections involves building the behavior. If the dogs are breaking, you need to teach the skill, not try out the skill over and over and watch the dog break. If the handler corrects the dog in this situation, the handler is essentially punishing the dog for the handler's mistake. She either hasn't clearly articulated the desired skill to the dog, or she has failed to motivate the dog properly. Neither situation requires correction, though perhaps the right kind of correction (combined with a big change in the use of treats) could help her.

The fact that somebody can fail to understand a method or apply it poorly is no criticism of the method. The principles of training with few or no aversives are no more difficult to implement than methods that rely on aversives. Misapplying an aversive is a recipe for disaster. Misappying a treat is also a recipe for disaster (though perhaps a less serious one).

When you see a hole in in training, is it because the trainer left a hole or because the method can't fill that hole? It's hard to prove that it's the second one. When an advanced field dog screws up, do you assume it's the method that's flawed or a mistake on the human's part, either in training or communicating? When a beginning field dog develops all kinds of bad habits or becomes shy, do you assume it's the method or the trainer? By the same token, when a "positive" trainer or a treat junkie develops messy obedience in his dog, that's a failure of the trainer. I've had the privilege to watch some great trainers who work without corrections, and their dogs are amazingly motivated and precise. I've also watched great trainers work very precisely with amazingly motivated dogs with an e-collar. I've watched bad trainers with unruly dogs bribe them with treats and idiots with bargain-basement e-collars shock their dogs to the point of yelping without ever giving the dog clear direction. I don't think trainers' failures are typically indicative of the strength or weakness of a method.

I don't believe that dogs obey primarily because they know something is "wrong" in any moral sense. And if by "wrong" you mean instead that they've associated the undesired behavior with an unpleasant sensation or that they fear punishment, I don't think that's as strong a motivator as a positively-reinforced habit, not by a long shot.

Five years ago, I would have agreed with you that reliability meant the dog had to fear punishment for disobedience or at least associate the undesired behavior with an unpleasant consequence. I no longer believe that is the case. My experience and my understanding of animal behavior lead me to believe that dogs obey primarily out of a desire to please and out of habit, not because of the negative associations of a failure to obey.

When I see a great dog being handled competently in a field trial, and that dog's not wearing an e-collar, I see a dog who's working because he's enjoying what he's doing, and because obeying commands has a strong force of habit. I don't see a dog who's afraid of getting shocked, even though shocks were (I assume) used in the training process.


----------



## Loisiana

I know this isn't an obedience thread but I thought I'd jump in anyway because I figure what the heck, my kids are taking a quiz so it's either post or grade papers...

I've put a CDX on 4 dogs and every one of them has been through force fetch. That includes soft-as-melted-butter Conner with no natural desire to retrieve anything that isn't a real bird and will fall apart if his feelings get hurt, the Lhasa Apso who believed everything he did should be because he felt like doing it, Annabel who is the stressiest dog I have ever in my life seen, and Flip, the tough-as-nails dog who believes the only real way to live is with something in his mouth at all times and also believes if the way I am asking him to do something isn't fun enough for him, he should change it up to make it more fun.

I am sure I could have put CDX's on all of them without the force fetch if I had any interest in doing so, but personally I love the results of my force fetch and I don't see the process I go through as cruel or harsh, so I have no desire to change the method I use. If I get a dog that it isn't working for, I can always try a different method, but I don't think the way I've done it so far is broken, so I'm not looking for an alternative to fix it. I'm sure those who don't use FF feel the same way...if you like the results of the method you are using, why go looking for a different way?

By the way, my own personal findings have been that the more natural retrieve drive my dog has, the more time I have to spend on force fetch to get the kind of retrieve I want. Conner, the dog who never did a play retrieve in his life, was definately the quickest study. Since I had pretty much nothing to start with, it was easy to explain to him exactly what it was that I expected him to do and he was happy enough to comply. And Flip, the one with field lines behind him and lots of natural drive, had to go through the process a lot longer and more thoroughly than the others did because although he always wanted to retrieve, he thought it should be done in his own way.

I also find that putting my dogs through the steps of force fetch does lead to a more confident working dog. But that is just my own findings with my own dogs.


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> We are NOT guessing--we are relying on tried and true methods. As Anney's past posts have said part of training with aversives is about being efficient in your training. Can you list trainers that have gotten better reliability with their methods? Or are they just the same but take longer?


You're guessing when you say that methods you don't use can't work. How do you know? You assume that the methods you use are faster and more reliable, but you haven't trained twenty dogs, ten of them with the methods you support, and ten with the methods you say are less reliable.

So what we have to go on is the science that has done precisely that with multiple species of mammals and birds, and that science demonstrates very clearly that positive reinforcement alone is significantly more durable than negative reinforcement alone. As I've said, I don't think things are nearly as clear on mixed vs. positive alone, so I don't think we can settle the debate either way.



GoldenSail said:


> I would contend too that behavioral science is not an exact science and remind those that science does not prove anything--merely supports.


Science is frequently able to prove things beyond the shadow of a doubt, and the durability of pure positive reinforcement vs. pure negative is one of those things. Again, mixed reinforcement isn't as clear.



GoldenSail said:


> I think it very difficult to compare the strengths of the four quadrants when you know how variable individuals are. A piece of cheese may not illicit the same strong response in my dog as yours as mine is not highly food motivated, the same goes for collar pops. So how can you measure in a test setting which is better when you are measuring individuals and do not know their perception of the rewards and punishments? Further how do you decide what reward is equivalent to what punishment? (I would suggest those that are equivalent would produce equal but opposite responses)


You'd be wrong if you suggested that, since as I said, even a Psych 101 or behavioral science textbook accepts the difference between PR and NR as fact. You account for different individuals by testing large groups of individuals. You do cheese with a thousand rats and shock with a thousand rats, and you compare. A thousand rats get cheese when they stop on a plate. A thousand get a low-level shock until they stop on a plate. When you take away the shock and the cheese, the cheese rats continue to stop on the plate for far longer than the shock rats. Then you vary the rewards, the punishments, and the ways the rats activate and deactivate them. Then you do it with other species. After a while, you build a very large body of evidence that proves something beyond a shadow of the doubt.



GoldenSail said:


> I have read at least some of the studies that supported that positive was stronger, but the punishment was relatively weak (i.e. leaving a chick alone for a few minutes) in comparison to the reward.


That's why a single study is a poor indicator of a principle. It's the body of work over time that starts to shift something from a hypothesis to a rock-solid theory that explains what we observe.



GoldenSail said:


> I am also reminded of a coworker who as a little girl drank too much grape flavored medication and ended up in the hospital and got her stomach pumped. To this day that single experience has caused her to become sick to her stomach every time she smells grape and she cannot drink grape flavored drinks. Actually, it is the reason I think you are right when you say their can be a large fall out with using positive punishment--because if a strong punisher is used and applied incorrectly it can have a long lasting impact on the dog (like poor Rowdy).


Single traumas can have lifelong psychological impacts, but the mechanics of those incidents are pretty different than the mechanics of classical conditioning, particularly with people, who can visualize and imagine in stronger, more sophisticated ways than other mammals. You're not (intentionally) going to use aversives strong enough to cause lifelong trauma in your dogs.



GoldenSail said:


> Anyway, just my thoughts. I really enjoyed how you presented yourself initially in this thread but feel like things are getting out of hand....


Really? I thought we were having a pretty meaningful discussion on the application of aversives vs. positive reinforcers that had gotten away from the personal stuff and back into the guts of dog training.


----------



## Megora

> I would counter that many obedience stars have strong stays and aren't corrected for breaking. If the method is flawed, how is that possible?


Did they have strong stays when they were 4 month old puppies and being taught back then? 

Maybe this is a BAD thing to your mind, but fast forward to proofing, most people hope that their dogs break at class or at home when it is still possible to give a correction. 

And those corrections are not killing the dog dead or "breaking him". It is what is appropriate for that dog to get the message across.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> My experience and my understanding of animal behavior lead me to believe that dogs obey primarily out of a *desire to please* and out of habit, not because of the negative associations of a failure to obey.


"Desire to please" is such an antiquated and Disneyland notion. I don't think dogs have any concept of "desire to please" and they certainly don't act on it. It may appear so to you, the human, but if they perform a command you request it's because it's in their best interest to do so, not because of some innate altruistic urge. I would think someone with a strong understanding of the operant conditioning quadrants and all that would have left that idiom in the dust a long time ago.


----------



## Pointgold

kdmarsh said:


> Hah, this dog was just yelping like mad. I was so worried but (from a distance) I could see that the owner wasn't doing anything harmful to the dog. The lab must've just been excited, like you said! Thanks for clearing that up.


 
When I raced sled dogs, when we would take a team to the line, they'd be literally _screaming _and leaping in their harnesses, waiting for the starting signal. They were ecstatic to run.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> You're guessing when you say that methods you don't use can't work.


Nobody is saying that a non-aversive field training method CAN'T work. We're saying we don't want to bother with it.



> How do you know? You assume that the methods you use are faster and more reliable, but you haven't trained twenty dogs, ten of them with the methods you support, and ten with the methods you say are less reliable.


Likewise.


----------



## Loisiana

ha ha, my newest thing with Flip is to make him heel to his food bowl, making him stop to sit many times along the way. Sounds simple enough but if you heard him you'd think he was being tortured!


----------



## K9-Design

Oh a little observation that sort of pertains to this thread. 
A few months ago I had the pleasure to train with a pro retriever trainer up in Ohio. One of the other folks there for the day's session was a long-standing client of his with flat-coats. The client had at least TWO MH flat-coats in the past, and a new young flat-coat there that day. The breeder he bought his new FCR from had made him sign a contract stating he would not use an ecollar on the dog. (Nevermind the fact that that is a ridiculous stipulation and why he agreed to it, I have no idea...) However he took this as a training challenge and was determined to be creative and treat it as a learning opportunity for him as a trainer. Mind you his other two MH FCRs were trained in the traditional Carr/Lardy way. 
God bless him, but watching him work with his young dog was PAINFUL. The dog was doing T in the water and it was a disaster. The dog was all over the place and getting NOTHING out of the session. He was trying to fit a square peg (non ecollar dog) into a square hold (put through modern ecollar method) and it was failing miserably. He was extremely patient and heaped on the praise when the dog did anything remotely right. I give him credit for that but I personally think he was crazy to take on this task and I can't imagine having trained the "right way" and been successful before, and voluntarily deciding to do otherwise.

***Let me clarify that the dog was being trained/handled by the client, not the pro trainer.


----------



## GoldenSail

Nope. Science does not prove anything. Can it support things so far that we take them as fact? Sure. But science doesn't prove anything. 


> Hypotheses and theories can never be proven true using the scientific method. Therefore, science advances only through disproof. This is a critical and often misunderstood point. To be scientific, theories can never be proven true, but all theories must be refutable. Therefore, all theories, and by extension all of science, are tentative.


Also, where did I say the methods I don't use don't work?

Anyway, it is pointless to argue in circles--we are never going to agree which is fine. I maintain though, that a rat is not a dog is not a person. That behavioral science is inexact. That science doesn't prove anything (particularly something which IMO is so variable).

I am just happy to train my dog based on what works for both of us and our goals


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> If you're talking about all kinds of training, and you're defining "aversive" as a negative stimulus like a collar shock, a collar pop, an intimidating voice, etc., I disagree thoroughly. I used to think that the application of an aversive was a necessary piece of reliability, and I have since learned that it is not.


Where did you learn this, and what were the circumstances that provided this conclusive proof? We may really make some progress yet!


tippykayak said:


> Again, maybe you need it in advanced field work as a tool for working on precision and motivation at a distance


In "fieldwork" circles there is a common term for an aspect of dog work that we spend a great deal of time and energy on. That aspect is typically called "factors"; short for diversion factors. These are influences that cause dogs to divert their true course to a fall, and there are many of them. I mention this because what they strain by their influence is the dog's focus in maintaining a true course, which often greatly affects the overall quality of a given retrieve.

One such factor is distance. While all common factors fall under one, or a combination of three broad headings (flare, suction, and drift), there are many typical factors, like drag scent, crossing wind, water current, the 'suction' - type distraction of other marks in close proximity to a route, and on and on.

If you don't work in a venue where such diversion factors are both great and common, it's hard to know how important it is for a dog not to just know thier job really well, but to be so reliable in their performance that even strong distractions do not destabilize them in the performance of their jobs.

I'm not arguing that dogs can't be beautifully taught the many manmade obedience tasks of all the performance venues using positive/passive techniques. I know they can. All competent fieldwork trainers begin the training cycle with passive, positive teaching - long before aversives become a part of the process.


tippykayak said:


> ...but you certainly don't need an aversive for extraordinarily reliable recall or basic obedience, and the existence of OTCH dogs who were trained without aversives sort of proves that you don't need the aversives as part of very precise work around distractions.


I agree. You surely don't. And that isn't because that venue is easy to win at. It is not, however, a venue where distractions exist in the same number and proportion as in the higher levels of fieldwork. One day at a field trial will quickly reveal this in spades! The need for greater reliability is increased exponentially in that and other field venues.


tippykayak said:


> The inability to point to lots of successful field dogs trained without aversives may be a result of the fact that you need aversives, or it may be a result of the fact that fewer field people try it.


That's a good theory, and it's a reasonable one. It doesn't hold water though because there have been many successful field trainers over a course of decades who also have succeeded in obedience and agility venues. They've been there, and understand the virtues of all aspects of operant conditioning, up to and including aversive tools. Jackie Mertens, Janice Gunn, and a host of others are excellent examples, having made FC-AFC-NFC-NAFC + many OTCH's.


tippykayak said:


> For those of you who always train with a mix of aversives and positive reinforcers, you are simply guessing that you can't get reliability without the aversives, because you haven't tried it. Other people have made it work, though (better trainers than I).


You don't get to this level by guessing. Get one there, and I'll humbly follow.

EvanG


----------



## Loisiana

tippykayak said:


> and the existence of OTCH dogs who were trained without aversives sort of proves that you don't need the aversives as part of very precise work around distractions.


Last I heard only one person has claimed to have obtained an OTCH on a dog without the use of any aversives. Assuming that person is being completely honest with herself, I would say the only thing that proves is that one particular dog could be trained that way. I'm not saying it isn't possible, just saying that having one person with one dog say they did it doesn't really "prove" much in my book.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Nobody is saying that a non-aversive field training method CAN'T work. We're saying we don't want to bother with it.


People have said, several times, that without aversives you can't have maximum reliability. That's what I'm responding to.




K9-Design said:


> Likewise.


I'm not claiming that your methods can't work, so I don't have to prove they can't. But folks in this thread are claiming that positive reinforcement can't achieve the level of reliability attained through positive and negative, so the onus is on them to prove it. I didn't say that positive could achieve greater reliability than positive and negative, just equivalent.


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> Nope. Science does not prove anything. Can it support things so far that we take them as fact? Sure. But science doesn't prove anything.


It depends on your definition of "proof." The common use of the word "proof" is what I'm talking about (i.e., confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt). Science's job is to doubt everything, but there does come a time where we take things as proven in the layman's sense.



GoldenSail said:


> Also, where did I say the methods I don't use don't work?


I don't think you did. I must not have been clear somewhere in what I wrote.



GoldenSail said:


> Anyway, it is pointless to argue in circles--we are never going to agree which is fine. I maintain though, that a rat is not a dog is not a person. That behavioral science is inexact. That science doesn't prove anything (particularly something which IMO is so variable).
> 
> I am just happy to train my dog based on what works for both of us and our goals


Fair enough.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> "Desire to please" is such an antiquated and Disneyland notion. I don't think dogs have any concept of "desire to please" and they certainly don't act on it. It may appear so to you, the human, but if they perform a command you request it's because it's in their best interest to do so, not because of some innate altruistic urge. I would think someone with a strong understanding of the operant conditioning quadrants and all that would have left that idiom in the dust a long time ago.


Whelp, I guess you're wrong, because I have a strong understanding of operant conditioning and just used the term with no trace of irony.

"Desire to please" is how I would term the combination of factors that are unique to dogs in the animal kingdom that make them particularly suitable for complex work. Dogs like to work, and they like to work for people. They find that inherently rewarding. Goldens are well known for having more of this quality (whatever you term it) than many other breeds.

Dogs do not just work because they perform a risk/reward calculation in their head. They enjoy it, and all of us who have worked with dogs can see that. 

That's why I'm fond of saying that while an understanding of animal behavior and the principles of conditioning can help inform dog training, there are aspects to it that go beyond what's easily described or even seen in other animals.

Dogs, for example, are far less intelligent than other species in their problem solving abilities, but they're the most advanced species (other than humans) at reading human body language. That's part of "desire to please" or whatever you term it, and it's the reason that dog training is so markedly different from any other kind of animal training.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> People have said, several times, that without aversives you can't have maximum reliability. That's what I'm responding to.


Where? People here are saying they haven't and don't want to find out. My comment of "likewise" was responding to this:

"you haven't trained twenty dogs, ten of them with the methods you support, and ten with the methods you say are less reliable. "

As in, you haven't trained that many dogs using CC/FF to know the difference, if any.



> I'm not claiming that your methods can't work, so I don't have to prove they can't. But folks in this thread are claiming that positive reinforcement can't achieve the level of reliability attained through positive and negative, *so the onus is on them to prove it.* I didn't say that positive could achieve greater reliability than positive and negative, just equivalent.


No, it's not. 
The onus is on you to develop an advanced retriever training program using solely positive reinforcement, that is as efficient and effective as what we're using now. We'd be all ears.
Neither are very likely to happen!!!


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> Where did you learn this, and what were the circumstances that provided this conclusive proof? We may really make some progress yet!


I've written about it at some length in this thread.



EvanG said:


> If you don't work in a venue where such diversion factors are both great and common, it's hard to know how important it is for a dog not to just know thier job really well, but to be so reliable in their performance that even strong distractions do not destabilize them in the performance of their jobs.


I do understand the factors you describe, and I've really tried to withhold from generalizing about high level field work. I just focused on reliability. 



EvanG said:


> I'm not arguing that dogs can't be beautifully taught the many manmade obedience tasks of all the performance venues using positive/passive techniques. I know they can. All competent fieldwork trainers begin the training cycle with passive, positive teaching - long before aversives become a part of the process.I agree. You surely don't. And that isn't because that venue is easy to win at. It is not, however, a venue where distractions exist in the same number and proportion as in the higher levels of fieldwork. One day at a field trial will quickly reveal this in spades! The need for greater reliability is increased exponentially in that and other field venues.
> 
> 
> 
> EvanG said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good theory, and it's a reasonable one. It doesn't hold water though because there have been many successful field trainers over a course of decades who also have succeeded in obedience and agility venues. They've been there, and understand the virtues of all aspects of operant conditioning, up to and including aversive tools. Jackie Mertens, Janice Gunn, and a host of others are excellent examples, having made FC-AFC-NFC-NAFC + many OTCH's.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I was clear. I'm not saying that field trainers can't title in other venues as successfully as "assive" trainers. I'm saying that it's hard to tell whether or not the lack of successful "passive" field trainers is because great "passive" trainers aren't trying or because their methods don't work.
> 
> 
> 
> EvanG said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to this level by guessing. Get one there, and I'll humbly follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know you can get a dog there using the methods you describe. You're guessing when you say that it can't be done another way because you haven't tried it the other way. I'm guessing that it can, but I don't know, and I've tried to be clear that I'm speculating.
Click to expand...


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Where?


Read the thread; it's not my responsibility to read it for you. Evan said it, for one.



K9-Design said:


> People here are saying they haven't and don't want to find out. My comment of "likewise" was responding to this:
> 
> "you haven't trained twenty dogs, ten of them with the methods you support, and ten with the methods you say are less reliable. "
> 
> As in, you haven't trained that many dogs using CC/FF to know the difference, if any.


And my point is that I'm not making the same argument as you. I'm not saying that your methods are less reliable. So the onus isn't on me to show that they're inferior, since I don't think they are. I say that extreme reliability can be achieved without correction. I don't have to train a dog with corrections in order to prove that. I can point to the OTCH dogs and my own dogs, as well as the basics of behavioral science.

If you want to claim that correctionless training _can't_ make an MH dog or a reliable recall, then your claims are a bit empty if you never try that method. If your only proof is that there are no correctionless MH dogs, that's not really proof. The absence of something doesn't prove that it cannot happen. If the current evidence makes you believe that it's not worth trying, then that makes sense, but to say it can't happen is something different entirely.

I'm not saying what your methods can't do, so I don't need to prove what they can't do. I don't have to prove claims I'm not making.



K9-Design said:


> No, it's not.
> The onus is on you to develop an advanced retriever training program using solely positive reinforcement, that is as efficient and effective as what we're using now. We'd be all ears.
> Neither are very likely to happen!!!


Why? I never made that claim, so why would I have to prove it? Don't assume I'm making a bigger claim than I actually am.


----------



## K9-Design

Blah blah blah. Okay I've forgotten the point of this whole thing by now. 

I think this is the boiled down version of the point you insist on making:

"I say that extreme reliability can be achieved without correction."

To that I think we all say "OKAY!!!!!! GREAT!!!"


----------



## tippykayak

Megora said:


> Did they have strong stays when they were 4 month old puppies and being taught back then?


I have no idea. My dogs certainly were.



Megora said:


> Maybe this is a BAD thing to your mind, but fast forward to proofing, most people hope that their dogs break at class or at home when it is still possible to give a correction.


I think everybody hopes their dog shows the holes in their training in a situation where it doesn't count and the problem can be addressed.



Megora said:


> And those corrections are not killing the dog dead or "breaking him". It is what is appropriate for that dog to get the message across.


I never said they were hurting the dog. I was questioning whether they were necessary for reliability.


----------



## MarieP

tippykayak said:


> And my point is that I'm not making the same argument as you. I'm not saying that your methods are less reliable. So the onus isn't on me to show that they're inferior. I say that extreme reliability can be achieved without correction. I don't have to train a dog with corrections in order to prove that. I can point to the OTCH dogs and my own dogs, as well as the basics of behavioral science.
> 
> If you want to claim that correctionless training _can't_ make an MH dog or a reliable recall, then your claims are a bit empty if you never try that method.


No, you can't just point to OTCH dogs and your dogs. As Evan said, having an OTCh and having a field title are totally different things. Now if those OTCH dogs also have a FC/AFC, then we could talk. Don't you think that people HAVE tried field training without corrections? And yet who are the dogs/trainers winning and titling? Just because I personally have not tried does not mean it hasn't been tried. I personally don't want to try a method that others have tried and failed to get to the level that I aspire to. As was pointed out, trainers know what is out there and they understand behavior, or they wouldn't be as successful as they are.

Also, back a bit you responded to my analogy of the mother dog saying that we are asking things not in the DNA. I don't think so. I'm helping my pup learn the rules of life, just like the mother. When he was a baby and bit at my hands, I corrected him. There is a way to behave and there is a way not to behave. Mama Dog and I are doing the same thing. Sure, maybe not on all things, but "ordinary obedience" yes. 

My dog is happy. He loves working. He's laying here thinking "when are we going to go out and PLAYYYY?" I'm going to listen to him and go throw some water marks.


----------



## tippykayak

Megora said:


> I noticed this because her dogs are breaking just because. They are not soft dogs like my idiot is. With a normal anxiety-free dog, that stay breaking issue should be a very quick fix. You make breaking that stay unpleasant and holding the stay pleasant, they learn very quickly.


That's a corrective mindset. I'm not saying that mindset is a bad or ineffective thing, but you're thinking of solving a dog's breaking by showing him that breaking is unpleasant, instead of trying to figure out why he he lacks motivation to hold the stay in the first place. There are non-corrective fixes to what you describe that are no less efficient, but they don't involve putting the dog in a situation where he'll break the stay before you react.


----------



## tippykayak

mlopez said:


> No, you can't just point to OTCH dogs and your dogs. As Evan said, having an OTCh and having a field title are totally different things. Now if those OTCH dogs also have a FC/AFC, then we could talk. Don't you think that people HAVE tried field training without corrections? And yet who are the dogs/trainers winning and titling?


If my point were that a correction-free training program could make a dog an FC, then you'd be right. But that has never been my point.



mlopez said:


> Just because I personally have not tried does not mean it hasn't been tried. I personally don't want to try a method that others have tried and failed to get to the level that I aspire to. As was pointed out, trainers know what is out there and they understand behavior, or they wouldn't be as successful as they are.


I'm not convinced that anybody has really developed a meaningful field program that doesn't rely on corrections. That doesn't mean it can't be done or that it isn't worth doing, simply that it hasn't yet been done. We'll see what the future holds. I'm not saying I know for sure it could be done, just saying that it's really impossible to prove that it can't work.



mlopez said:


> Also, back a bit you responded to my analogy of the mother dog saying that we are asking things not in the DNA. I don't think so. I'm helping my pup learn the rules of life, just like the mother. When he was a baby and bit at my hands, I corrected him. There is a way to behave and there is a way not to behave. Mama Dog and I are doing the same thing. Sure, maybe not on all things, but "ordinary obedience" yes.


Learning how to mouth appropriately is a social skill ingrained in dogs. We use that instinct when we teach them not to bite. When my dog bit my hands, I ignored him. When he picked up a toy, I rewarded him. He doesn't bite my hands anymore. He never learned it was "wrong," and it took only a few days. The technique is a little more complicated than I'm getting into, but those are the basics.

Jax came to me at 15 weeks and mouthy. He was never shocked, struck, or yelled at for hard mouthing of hands. He doesn't mouth at all anymore, and his mouth is so gentle that his new vet commented on how delicately he took a cookie from her.

So how did they do that if they needed to learn biting is "wrong?" Because they don't need to learn that. They need to learn that it doesn't work and that other things get them what they're trying to get with their biting.

This skill doesn't really analogize to complex competition work, but it does illustrate the core point that some of the things that are commonly thought as requiring correction really don't. 

And you're not doing the same thing as a mother dog, because no human speaks dog well enough. Human vocal and physical corrections are incredibly blunt compared to vocalization and mouthing done by dogs to each other.


----------



## Megora

tippykayak said:


> I have no idea. My dogs certainly were.


You said top obedience competing dogs never break a stay, implying that it was done without any corrections. Which is why I asked if you knew for sure that those corrections didn't happen when the exercise was being taught. 



> I think everybody hopes their dog shows the holes in their training in a situation where it doesn't count and the problem can be addressed.


Very true. 



> I never said they were hurting the dog. I was questioning whether they were necessary for reliability


Yes. Correction whatever it may be is absolutely necessary to ensure that you can walk into the ring and have the worst things happen and have your dog do exactly what you trained him to do without embarrassing you. Or if your dog DOES embarrass you, you need to use some kind of corrective method to make sure he never does that again.



tippykayak said:


> That's a corrective mindset. I'm not saying that mindset is a bad or ineffective thing, but you're thinking of solving a dog's breaking by showing him that breaking is unpleasant, instead of trying to figure out why he he lacks motivation to hold the stay in the first place. There are non-corrective fixes to what you describe that are no less efficient, but they don't involve putting the dog in a situation where he'll break the stay before you react.


In the case of those two dogs, they would break because it brought their owner back to them to give them treats. That was the reward for breaking, and every time it happened the behavior was reinforced. 

And they would do this even if somebody else took them back to their spots. Because somebody else was paying attention to them. Again a reward reinforcing the behavior. 

The instructor knowing this person's unwillingness to use correction to discourage the break suggested tying the dogs to the wall to at least force the dog to stay in the same spot until the owner chose to return. <- Which, by the way is a great thing to do if your dog has seperation anxiety and I used that method to teach my guy he could be a distance away from me without the sky falling, but it doesn't teach the dog to hold a sit or down stay.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> This skill doesn't really analogize to complex competition work, but it does illustrate the core point that some of the things that are commonly thought as requiring correction really don't.


That and mouthing is something that puppies grow out of regardless of how you "train" them not to....


----------



## GoldenSail

tippykayak said:


> And my point is that I'm not making the same argument as you. I'm not saying that your methods are less reliable. So the onus isn't on me to show that they're inferior, since I don't think they are. I say that extreme reliability can be achieved without correction. I don't have to train a dog with corrections in order to prove that. I can point to the OTCH dogs and my own dogs, as well as the basics of behavioral science.


Please then, point to the specific dogs that have received OTCHs without correction? Jodie who is very involved in obedience mentioned that there has been only one person to have claimed this. 

As far as your personal experience--that's great! But you haven't extended that to the field or competitive obedience for that matter. If someone else has, please give me specific examples.

Edit: I am not saying it can't be done, but I am saying I am not convinced (yet) that it has been done. And even at that point if it would even be better.


----------



## hotel4dogs

totally OT but since I know you're reading this thread on and off...Anney, check your PMs!


----------



## hotel4dogs

I know we've been over and over and over this, but here it is again.
I got Tito just for a pet for my daughter. No plans to *do* anything with him. But by the time he was 16 weeks old he had already shown a huge talent for obedience, so I decided to train him for competition obedience. He is my first dog past a novice A dog. That's important, because it means I had very little training experience or background.
I trained him largely positive. The only corrections (other than a couple of bad examples where I just plain got angry, I admit) he ever got were a gentle "no" and then shown the correct way to do it.
He wasn't force fetched. He wasn't ear pinched. He never wore a prong collar. I was totally opposed to any of those methods; they were too harsh.
He got his UDX at 3 years old. For those who don't do competition obedience, that's a pretty big achievement. It says a lot for the level of training and control.
He loves dock diving. But even so, I can put him on a sit stay at the end of the dock, and he will hold the stay until I get to the far end and release him. I can call him down off the dock if it's not his turn, and he'll come.
He loves agility, but even so, he will stay wherever he's told to until he's released. When I call him back, he will come back, even if he's mid-course and flying thru the course having a blast.
Tito is a good, obedient dog.
But get him in the field around birds, and you will see a different dog. I don't even recognize the dog. Even with his obedience background, his reliable recalls, etc., when he's in prey drive mode it's very very hard to turn him back, and there is NO positive reinforcer that will turn him back. 
I can turn him back from rabbits or squirrels in my yard with voice commands. But I have a hard time turning him back from a bird he has flushed that has taken to wing even with an e-collar on a fairly high setting.
If you haven't seen it, you truly can't believe it. And I refuse to believe that Tito is unique; I think a lot of these goldens have really high drive and high prey drive, and if they got into some of the situations I've put him into, there is no positive method in the world that would turn them back.
JMO of course, JMO.


----------



## EvanG

The really interesting thing about the course this thread has taken is that we're debating a non-entity; positive-only training, which does not really exist. It's an idea; a theory. But it's not a reality. Somewhere there is pressure, and there is correction.

I believe in being as passive and positive as possible, especially with pups. But I also believe in giving my dogs the best chance to succeed by providing a balanced training regimen, which includes both correction and compulsion, *AFTER* sound and thorough teaching.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> That and mouthing is something that puppies grow out of regardless of how you "train" them not to....


Some puppies do, but I can't believe you've never met a grown Golden who still has a bad mouthing habit.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> Some puppies do, but I can't believe you've never met a grown Golden who still has a bad mouthing habit.


Huh?
There are like four double negatives here...


----------



## EvanG

I don't know why I haven't mentioned it before, but that's an awesome banner with Fisher & Slater, Anney! Did you create it?

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Huh?
> There are like four double negatives here...


There are zero double negatives in the sentence in question.

You have never met an adult Golden who still mouths inappropriately? You seemed to say that Goldens (or dogs in general) grew out of puppy biting no matter how you train them. My experience contradicts that claim.


----------



## tippykayak

hotel4dogs said:


> But get him in the field around birds, and you will see a different dog. I don't even recognize the dog. Even with his obedience background, his reliable recalls, etc., when he's in prey drive mode it's very very hard to turn him back, and there is NO positive reinforcer that will turn him back.
> I can turn him back from rabbits or squirrels in my yard with voice commands. But I have a hard time turning him back from a bird he has flushed that has taken to wing even with an e-collar on a fairly high setting.
> If you haven't seen it, you truly can't believe it. And I refuse to believe that Tito is unique; I think a lot of these goldens have really high drive and high prey drive, and if they got into some of the situations I've put him into, there is no positive method in the world that would turn them back.
> JMO of course, JMO.


I'm not sure what side you're arguing on. You say you use an e-collar on a fairly high setting, yet even though you apply both positive reinforcers during your training and then a strong negative stimulus when he blows a recall, Tito still does not have reliable recall. You have to break through his drive with a strong negative stimulus when he's in that mode.

So your point seems to be that neither positive reinforcement nor punishment have been able to develop a habit in which this dog obeys that command in that setting. So why do you take that as proof that positive reinforcement doesn't work instead of proof that neither positive reinforcement nor punishment work?

You need to do what keeps your dog safe, so I would never tell you to take the collar off him, but what you describe is not an example that proves the efficacy of aversives in developing reliability.

I do think there's always, at least theoretically, something that will make a dog blow you off, no matter how carefully you train, and I take the dogs out in the world with that in mind. No matter how confident I am, I'm not going to test their recall against a busy road.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> You have never met an adult Golden who still mouths inappropriately? You seemed to say that Goldens (or dogs in general) grew out of puppy biting no matter how you train them. My experience contradicts that claim.


No, honestly I don't know any adult goldens who inappropriately mouth their owners, like almost every puppy does. This to me says it's an age-appropriate and limited behavior that they grow out of, rather than a vast majority of puppies being gifted with remarkable trainers who can get them to stop mouthing permanently...which we know isn't true. 

ANYWAYS ------- totally beyond the scope of this forum!

And any way you slice it, is a really weak example of positive reinforcement training, especially in a *hunt & field* forum.


----------



## K9-Design

EvanG said:


> I don't know why I haven't mentioned it before, but that's an awesome banner with Fisher & Slater, Anney! Did you create it?
> 
> EvanG


Hi Evan, thanks, yes I did design our little banner. Glad you like it


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> No, honestly I don't know any adult goldens who inappropriately mouth their owners, like almost every puppy does. This to me says it's an age-appropriate and limited behavior that they grow out of, rather than a vast majority of puppies being gifted with remarkable trainers who can get them to stop mouthing permanently...which we know isn't true.
> 
> ANYWAYS ------- totally beyond the scope of this forum!
> 
> And any way you slice it, is a really weak example of positive reinforcement training, especially in a *hunt & field* forum.


Please read the whole thread before you attribute things to me. It's a bit frustrating when you lecture me on what's appropriate to the hunt and field forum when you don't even read the whole thread in question.

I didn't bring it up. It was brought up by another poster (who you apparently don't feel the need to correct) as an example of the way that aversives are natural and what "mama dog" does. I was simply responding.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Hi Evan, thanks, yes I did design our little banner. Glad you like it


I'm sorry, but this is the hunt and field forum, not the banner design forum.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I'm not on either side, I wasn't drawing sides. I was commenting that when a very strong instinct kicks in there is NO positive reinforcement that works, and it takes a very strong negative reinforcement to work. Also making the comment that training for situations that don't involve strong instinct isn't anything similar to training for when that hard wired instinct in the brain kicks in.
If I give him a strong enough negative reinforcement, he will ultimately turn back because he has been properly collar conditioned to know that the only way he can turn the pressure off is to return to me. The fact that I still have him proves that the negative reinforcement works. Without that tool, I cannot trust him enough to take him in the field where there are live birds to flush. Someday, maybe. But not yet. 
I will only say his recall is 100% reliable if I have the tool to MAKE him come back. Otherwise, he'd end up in the next state.




tippykayak said:


> I'm not sure what side you're arguing on. You say you use an e-collar on a fairly high setting, yet even though you apply both positive reinforcers during your training and then a strong negative stimulus when he blows a recall, Tito still does not have reliable recall. You have to break through his drive with a strong negative stimulus when he's in that mode.
> 
> So your point seems to be that neither positive reinforcement nor punishment have been able to develop a habit in which this dog obeys that command in that setting. So why do you take that as proof that positive reinforcement doesn't work instead of proof that neither positive reinforcement nor punishment work?
> 
> You need to do what keeps your dog safe, so I would never tell you to take the collar off him, but what you describe is not an example that proves the efficacy of aversives in developing reliability.
> 
> I do think there's always, at least theoretically, something that will make a dog blow you off, no matter how carefully you train, and I take the dogs out in the world with that in mind. No matter how confident I am, I'm not going to test their recall against a busy road.


----------



## tippykayak

hotel4dogs said:


> I'm not on either side, I wasn't drawing sides. I was commenting that when a very strong instinct kicks in there is NO positive reinforcement that works, and it takes a very strong negative reinforcement to work. Also making the comment that training for situations that don't involve strong instinct isn't anything similar to training for when that hard wired instinct in the brain kicks in.


I agree with that second part.

I was simply drawing the distinction that if you have to continue to apply the stimulus, positive or negative, to get the result you want, I don't consider the dog successfully trained for that situation. That would be like me waving the cookie to get my dog back.



hotel4dogs said:


> If I give him a strong enough negative reinforcement, he will ultimately turn back because he has been properly collar conditioned to know that the only way he can turn the pressure off is to return to me. The fact that I still have him proves that the negative reinforcement works. Without that tool, I cannot trust him enough to take him in the field where there are live birds to flush. Someday, maybe. But not yet.
> I will only say his recall is 100% reliable if I have the tool to MAKE him come back. Otherwise, he'd end up in the next state.


Technically, I'd say it's not proof that negative reinforcement works. It's proof that nothing has worked yet to actually train him for that situation, and it's proof that the punishment level is high enough to break through his distraction. But you aren't successfully _reinforcing_ the behavior if he keeps doing it.


----------



## Sally's Mom

I find that what hotel4dogs has to say is interesting and informative. I also think she adjusts her training methods to the situation. Clearly she has been successful with her dogs. I have trained horses just about all my life, and dogs for show ring obedience for 20 plus years. I believe that you cannot train all animals (dog, horse) the same way in every case. I have always found trainers and instructors who adjust how they teach me to the animal I have. And I also take what I am taught and decide if I will use that method or not.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> Please read the whole thread before you attribute things to me. It's a bit frustrating when you lecture me on what's appropriate to the hunt and field forum when you don't even read the whole thread in question.
> 
> I didn't bring it up. It was brought up by another poster (who you apparently don't feel the need to correct) as an example of the way that aversives are natural and what "mama dog" does. I was simply responding.


Trust me I've read every post in this nauseating thread and am convinced the only reason you post here is for attention. You don't hunt with your dogs and you don't train them for field competition and you really don't like the way the rest of us go about it with our own dogs, and you aren't satisfied unless you can convince us that what we're doing is not the best way to do it, despite the fact that you've never tried it, one way or the other. I guess I'm feeding into it by continuing to post, now aren't I?


----------



## Sally's Mom

There seems to be a lot of nit picking going on here...


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Trust me I've read every post in this nauseating thread and am convinced the only reason you post here is for attention. You don't hunt with your dogs and you don't train them for field competition and you really don't like the way the rest of us go about it with our own dogs, and you aren't satisfied unless you can convince us that what we're doing is not the best way to do it, despite the fact that you've never tried it, one way or the other. I guess I'm feeding into it by continuing to post, now aren't I?


Nice to know that all your respectful posts were a put-on.

Why do you ignore the fifty times I've spoken about admiring different dogs and trainers in this thread and what they do so you can lambast me for holding a position I don't hold? I've never said that I don't like the way you or anybody else in this thread trains a dog. I'm here to learn and to question some conventional wisdom. Why else come to a forum except to do those things?

I'm very interested in field, and I'm here to learn about it and challenge positions I think don't make sense. I'm sorry you find that irritating or threatening or whatever feelings lead you to be so rude. If the attitudes among field trainers are this dismissive and rigid, they're worse than the obed trainer whose comments started this thread, and it makes me just as skeptical as I started out about getting into field training.

So don't give hypocritical lectures about how I don't belong in the forum while you give yourself and others permission to go OT. You've gone personal several times about me, and I have yet to do it to you, so quit it. It's bad manners and bad arguing. Reply to the substance of my posts or ignore me, but don't go after my character, and stop insinuating that people who don't compete in field aren't allowed in your part of the playground.

I'm going to quit the thread now, since I think there's little else to say. Happy training, everybody!


----------



## marsh mop

Anney, you rock.
Love ya 
Jim


----------



## Radarsdad

Tippykayak = Troll I would hope the moderators would stop this in field forum.
Where is the ignore button??
Posters come on here for useful information on how to train their dogs and to compare training plans with others to help their dog achieve.
Useless arguments don't help.


----------



## EvanG

Radarsdad said:


> Posters come on here for useful information on how to train their dogs and to compare training plans with others to help their dog achieve.
> Useless arguments don't help.


Sadly, you're correct. There was a flow of useful information in this thread until it all became all about one individual with an odd axe to grind. What a shame.

EvanG


----------



## Radarsdad

EvanG said:


> Sadly, you're correct. There was a flow of useful information in this thread until it all became all about one individual with an odd axe to grind. What a shame.
> 
> EvanG


Not sure it was an odd axe but intentional to confuse and disrupt.


----------



## aerolor

K9-Design said:


> Oh a little observation that sort of pertains to this thread.
> A few months ago I had the pleasure to train with a pro retriever trainer up in Ohio. One of the other folks there for the day's session was a long-standing client of his with flat-coats. The client had at least TWO MH flat-coats in the past, and a new young flat-coat there that day. The breeder he bought his new FCR from had made him sign a contract stating he would not use an ecollar on the dog. (Nevermind the fact that that is a ridiculous stipulation and why he agreed to it, I have no idea...) However he took this as a training challenge and was determined to be creative and treat it as a learning opportunity for him as a trainer. Mind you his other two MH FCRs were trained in the traditional Carr/Lardy way.
> God bless him, but watching him work with his young dog was PAINFUL. The dog was doing T in the water and it was a disaster. The dog was all over the place and getting NOTHING out of the session. He was trying to fit a square peg (non ecollar dog) into a square hold (put through modern ecollar method) and it was failing miserably. He was extremely patient and heaped on the praise when the dog did anything remotely right. I give him credit for that but I personally think he was crazy to take on this task and I can't imagine having trained the "right way" and been successful before, and voluntarily deciding to do otherwise.
> 
> ***Let me clarify that the dog was being trained/handled by the client, not the pro trainer.


Good on the man who was prepared to train his flatcoat without the use of an e-collar. Good also on the breeder who made the stipulation in the sale contract. I have kept flatcoats for many years and the thought of using an e-collar on them fills me with revulsion. 

_To quote from a previous post of yours _
_"Nobody is saying that a non-aversive field training method CAN'T work. We're saying we don't want to bother with it".
_
May I ask why you don't want to be bothered with non-aversive training methods ? I have my own idea as to why, but I would like to try to understand your rationale for not wanting to be bothered.


----------



## DNL2448

Annnnddddd here we go again.


----------



## K9-Design

DNL2448 said:


> Annnnddddd here we go again.


Exxxxxxactly. OMG.
Aerolor, please read through this entire thread and you will answer your own questions. This age-old debate on ecollars in general is not one that needs to be revisited.


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Maybe it makes sense for this thread to be closed?


----------



## Radarsdad

*God bless him, but watching him work with his young dog was PAINFUL. The dog was doing T in the water and it was a disaster. The dog was all over the place and getting NOTHING out of the session. He was trying to fit a square peg (non ecollar dog) into a square hold (put through modern ecollar method) and it was failing miserably. He was extremely patient and heaped on the praise when the dog did anything remotely right. I give him credit for that but I personally think he was crazy to take on this task and I can't imagine having trained the "right way" and been successful before, and voluntarily deciding to do otherwise.*


*areolor*

What part of that don't you understand? Teaching a dog to be successful and rewarded with the least confusion is the goal. With the most effecient method so the next time time your dog is faced with a similar situation he succeeds.
Would you want to be out there in that water not knowing what to do?
How to take direction?


----------



## aerolor

K9-Design said:


> Exxxxxxactly. OMG.
> Aerolor, please read through this entire thread and you will answer your own questions. This age-old debate on ecollars in general is not one that needs to be revisited.


Fair enough if you don't want to be bothered.


----------



## DNL2448

aerolor said:


> I have kept flatcoats for many years and the thought of using an e-collar on them fills me with revulsion.


I respect your feelings and how you are revulsed at the thought of using e-collars. However, that said, you are in the Hunt and Field section, and the majority of us use e-collars. If we revulse you, than please, either start another thread, or stay clear of this part of the GRF as you will need to prepare to be revulsed a LOT. You're welcome to come here and learn and if you have input that's fine, just don't come here shaking your finger at us. 

Off my soap box now.


----------



## AmbikaGR

aerolor said:


> Fair enough if you don't want to be bothered.



???? Sorry but there is over 17 pages of posts explaining it. Now if you do not want to "be bothered" with reading them, fair enough?


----------



## K9-Design

aerolor said:


> Fair enough if you don't want to be bothered.


Clearly you can't be bothered to read this 17-page thread where my reasons are explained ad nauseum.


----------



## aerolor

Radarsdad said:


> *God bless him, but watching him work with his young dog was PAINFUL. The dog was doing T in the water and it was a disaster. The dog was all over the place and getting NOTHING out of the session. He was trying to fit a square peg (non ecollar dog) into a square hold (put through modern ecollar method) and it was failing miserably. He was extremely patient and heaped on the praise when the dog did anything remotely right. I give him credit for that but I personally think he was crazy to take on this task and I can't imagine having trained the "right way" and been successful before, and voluntarily deciding to do otherwise.*
> 
> 
> *areolor*
> 
> What part of that don't you understand? Teaching a dog to be successful and rewarded with the least confusion is the goal. With the most effecient method so the next time time your dog is faced with a similar situation he succeeds.
> Would you want to be out there in that water not knowing what to do?
> How to take direction?


The bits I have underlined is what I am not really understanding. Surely an e-collar is not the *only* "right" (or rather successful) way. Possibly this man and his dog was with the wrong trainer for what he was trying to achieve with his dog without an e-collar ? 
I think probably it is better to agree to disagree on the use of e-collars for training - as has been said this has been aired so many times - it does become tedious. I won't ever use one, even if it would be effective. So each to his own.


----------



## Radarsdad

Not going to get into an argument about this and it takes a blend of both. Field Training is more art than science and to be successful at it you have to use both positive and negative to help your dog succeed. Results proven time and again speaks for itself. Part of what's called Balance In Training.


----------



## K9-Design

aerolor said:


> The bits I have underlined is what I am not really understanding. Surely an e-collar is not the *only* "right" (or rather successful) way. Possibly this man and his dog was with the wrong trainer for what he was trying to achieve with his dog without an e-collar ?
> *I think probably it is better to agree to disagree on the use of e-collars for training - as has been said this has been aired so many times - it does become tedious.... So each to his own.*


I also don't understand why this guy volunteered to train his dog in a way that was unfamiliar to him and clearly not as successful as what he had used in the past. By "successful" I don't only mean ribbons I mean enjoyment for the dog and trainer. What he was demonstrating was not enjoyable for anyone. It may have been without an ecollar but it was not fun or productive by any stretch of the imagination.

As to your second statement which I have bolded, we are ALL in agreement with this!!!


----------



## EvanG

I hate to say it, but I've a feeling this discussion is going south, no matter what else gets posted. But I have to try.

My first two retrievers (both Labs) were trained entirely by me (early 1970's). Neither was force fetched. Neither was e-collar conditioned...ever. Never used one on either of them. Both were career duck dogs. Both ran field trials, and became Qualified All-Age. I want to establish that merely to demonstrate that I've known for 3 decades how to fully train a retriever without an e-collar. I learned from D.L. Walters, and he spent zero time using the collar when he was working with me.

In 1982 I went to work for a pro named John Hahn, who taught me the Rex Carr method of Basics, ala e-collar. In 1984 I spent a summer with Rex in Escalon, CA. What I learned was so much more efficient, so much more logical, and most of all so much fairer to the dogs that I refuse to go back. And "back" it would be in nearly every respect.

Make of those facts what you will. But you won't find an "A" list pro or Amateur in the nation who does not use an e-collar for fieldwork.

Carry on,
EvanG


----------



## Ljilly28

AmbikaGR said:


> I have NOTHING against anyone who wants to train their dog 100% "positive" reinforcement but I will train my dog by my beliefs and standards. And I truly believe FF is not "primitive" and I believe it is being fair to the dog. But that is me.


I feel like Hank, but on the flip side. I have nothing against people who FF their dogs and CC them as long as they are fair, but I love my training group that includes a MH and a SH golden trained without FF. The thread makes it seem like only dummies who shove cookies at their dogs even bother with this, but my group is full of old timers who have "crossed over. I think the OP should also get exposed to the notion that credible dogs are trained without the aversive FF/CC programs, and can still run MH and succeed.


----------



## MarieP

Ljilly28 said:


> I feel like Hank, but on the flip side. I have nothing against people who FF their dogs and CC them as long as they are fair, but I love my little training group that includes a MH and a SH golden trained positively.


Can I get a big long ::::::sigh::::::: ?? I really thought this thread was dead. But alas no. 

I train my dog positively. I also train with an ecollar. My dog is the happiest thing in the world, especially when he is in the field. So what is wrong with the ecollar? Nothing. It's the application that can ruin the dog. 

If you (the collective you) don't want to use one, fine. And if you want to know why we DO use them and why we FF, read this whole thread. And then you can still disagree with us, because I know you still will.


----------



## DNL2448

Sad to say, Marie, you have a total of 24 posts and you already "get it". It will drag on for another couple pages and either be closed by an admin, or it will just die, only to rear it's ugly head when some anti collar person digs it back up in order to stir the pot. 

I hope the OP got something out of it when it was still an informative thread.


----------



## Ljilly28

Every thread on the forum is a venue for open discussion. No one group owns the thread or the section. You may disagree however strongly you choose with the contents of an argument and make hard-hitting, salient points, but you may not tell another member that she "annoys the crap out of you" or is a "troll" or a "b*tch- things we have seen recently on the forum at large.  Name calling or excessive rudeness is not allowed.


----------



## MarieP

DNL2448 said:


> Sad to say, Marie, you have a total of 24 posts and you already "get it". It will drag on for another couple pages and either be closed by an admin, or it will just die, only to rear it's ugly head when some anti collar person digs it back up in order to stir the pot.
> 
> I hope the OP got something out of it when it was still an informative thread.


 Thanks Laura. I try to be a quick study. 

I don't understand why people keep picking at the scab. I understand the other side, and I respect it's position. However, that's not my way of training. Just don't tell me that I am inhumane or threatening or angry or yell at my dog. Don't attack me as a trainer if you have never seen me train. And don't attack my method just because you don't use it. As someone said, when three dog trainers get together, the only thing two of them can agree on is that the third is wrong.


----------



## Sally's Mom

Am I missing something? But how can you be a positive trainer and use an e collar? I have found mlopez difficult on other posts, .... i actually am open minded about different training methods.... but do not tell me you are positive with an electronic collar....


----------



## K9-Design

Sally's Mom said:


> Am I missing something? But how can you be a positive trainer and use an e collar? I have found mlopez difficult on other posts, .... i actually am open minded about different training methods.... but do not tell me you are positive with an electronic collar....


Have you witnessed first hand a modern, successful field trainer who uses an ecollar, and watched them train on a regular basis?

If not then yes you are missing something, especially pertaining to this discussion.

Woohoo, 20 pages!!


----------



## DNL2448

It's like lollipops and butterflies. Both are great until the darn insect lands on your candy.


----------



## GoldenSail

It's very simple. Emphasis is always placed on motivational training. Just because an ecollar is used does not mean that the trainer is not praising their dog, playing with their dog, throwing fun bumpers. Honestly mine will drag her collar out of the training bag and bring it to me so she can go do field work. That collar comes out, her ears perk up and she starts jumping up and down and shaking with excitement!


----------



## K9-Design

GoldenSail said:


> It's very simple. Emphasis is always placed on motivational training. Just because an ecollar is used does not mean that the trainer is not praising their dog, playing with their dog, throwing fun bumpers. Honestly mine will drag her collar out of the training bag and bring it to me so she can go do field work. That collar comes out, her ears perk up and she starts jumping up and down and shaking with excitement!



Oh wait, I got this one. If you DIDN'T train with an ecollar the dog would be even HAPPIER and would DRIVE THE CAR TO TRAINING herself! Imagine the possibilities.
Where's that eye-rollie emoticon?


----------



## GoldenSail

K9-Design said:


> Woohoo, 20 pages!!


...and 5-Star rating!


----------



## Rob's GRs

Well once again we have to close a thread to do sarcasm and rudeness. Be advised we have now put into place a new rule about rudeness such as this. Here is the announcement of the new rule.

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com...admin/102987-excessive-rudeness-new-rule.html


----------

