# Do you believe you understand force fetch?



## EvanG

Do you believe you have a clear understanding of force fetch; it's goals, purposes, processes?

EvanG


----------



## AmberSunrise

Yes, I feel that I understand the goals and methods of Force Fetch. I had one golden who did very well on force fetch, another who was just about ruined by force fetching - the 'pro' said he 'wasn't tough enough' and 'needed to stay out of the kitchen since he could not stand the heat'...this after making my peaceful, loving Rowdy a nervous and skittish dog who took 4 years of positive training to get back into the ring.

So, I have seen both sides of force fetch and have decided I would rather stay out of the kitchen than have another beautiful golden on the 'washed out' list. Was the pro wrong? Yes, certainly he should have known to ease up but I too was wrong in listening to the advise that every dog needs to be force fetch trained, and not changing trainers way sooner.


----------



## HovawartMom

To tell you the truth,anything forced,sounds wrong but would love to learn more about it!.


----------



## Maxs Mom

I have no clue and not afraid to admit it! I do want to teach my dogs the proper way to fetch. I also believe the words "force fetch" are a misnomer. Just my opinion. 

I plan to get the training series from our OP, and I plan to contact a local trainer for some help too.


----------



## EvanG

golden&hovawart said:


> To tell you the truth, anything forced sounds wrong but would love to learn more about it!.


I appreciate your willingness to learn! I understand your aversion to force. Many people initially react to the word “force” being paired with “dog training” until they come to better understand the subject. To that end this thread is dedicated.

Let’s begin by clearing up a vitally important issue, which will be expanded upon a bit later.

Force*: 1 – compel, 2 – influence that causes motion, 3 – gain against resistance (may compel or correct behavior in dogs)*

By definition, if you blow out a candle on your birthday cake, you will have ‘forced’ it to go out. The word “force” does not imply an amount. But there is a pervasive knee jerk reaction to that word being synonymous with brutality, pain or harm. Not so, and certainly not necessarily so in the force fetch process. That will come as news to some. More on this later.


Sunrise said:


> Yes, I feel that I understand the goals and methods of Force Fetch. I had one golden who did very well on force fetch, another who was *just about ruined by force fetching* - the 'pro' said he 'wasn't tough enough' and 'needed to stay out of the kitchen since he could not stand the heat'...this after making my peaceful, loving Rowdy a nervous and skittish dog who took 4 years of positive training to get back into the ring.


Sharon,

Thanks for sharing that story. It says several things that can be valuable to many people. First, I submit that your second dog was not so much “*just about ruined by force fetching*”, but rather was _just about ruined_ by an inflexible or under-qualified pro. If I manage to do nothing else in this discussion, I hope to dispel some long-standing erroneous notions about force fetch.


Sunrise said:


> So, I have seen both sides of force fetch and have decided I would rather stay out of the kitchen than have another beautiful golden on the 'washed out' list. Was the pro wrong? Yes, certainly he should have known to ease up but I too was wrong in listening to the advise that every dog needs to be force fetch trained, and not *changing trainers way sooner*.


I hope to successfully illustrate yet _another_ side of force fetch; the accurate one. There are, at present, three distinct schools of thought on force fetch; its goals, purposes, and mechanisms.

1. Play at it. Just kid or trick the dog into picking up something and holding onto it. This is not force fetch at all, but one author writes about it as though it is.
2. Old school FF: Involves applying overwhelming force – even to the point of pain – which the dog cannot resist. The result is a reliable fetch on command, and sometimes a ruined dog.
3. ‘New School’; a conditioning process, in which the dog literally determines the amount of pressure. The process begins with virtually no pressure. That level gradually increases until the trainer reads that the dog is experiencing some form of annoyance or discomfort (not necessarily pain) that he or she would like to go away. The trainer shows the dog that having the fetch object in its mouth is what makes the annoyance stop, and the process has begun. There are many steps to this, as it’s a conditioning process, and not a war of man vs. dog.

Clearly, there will be much more discussion. But we can proceed in a constructive direction based on this, or upon any further ideas or questions.

EvanG


----------



## Debles

Hmmmm. Don't really get it.

My dogs retrieve on command.


----------



## EvanG

Debles said:


> Hmmmm. Don't really get it.
> 
> My dogs retrieve on command.


Mine too. Every one, every time, in every circumstance; mark or blind. In all conditions, all terrain, all distances up to and beyond 500 yards, if needed. Doubles, triples, quads, an occasional quint + blind combinations. They also handle like sports cars, cast off land into water, out of the suction of poison birds...in other words, they have all the tools. Being lucky and being smart are not the same things. 30+ years and several hundred retreivers have taught me that being smart is worth the effort.

But, it will depend whether you choose to be as trainable as your dogs. This will not only determine your ability to understand what force fetch is, but what vital role it plays in bringing out the best in each retriever.

I'm pulling for intellectual curiosity! :wavey:

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

I had a question on terminology. I find that when trainers talk about using pain or aversive methods with dogs, they often use a euphemism. Is it fair to characterize "pressure" as a euphemism here for "discomfort" or "pain?" When you say the trainer determines the amount of "pressure," could we substitute "discomfort" and still be accurate, or would there be situations in which you'd consider something "pressure" that wasn't at all uncomfortable or painful for the dog?

Another example of this principle is the use of the word "nick" in e-collar training instead of "shock."

I realize these questions might sound like a bit of a trap, but I really am sincerely curious.


----------



## Loisiana

I thought I would add that while the most common method of force fetch seems to be an ear pinch, it does not necessarily have to be that. Anything that you can use to tell your dog that he has to retrieve, it's not optional, can be considered a forced fetch. Other common forms of force fetch include a collar twist or an e-collar. There are still other forms out there.My dogs pretty much have a "forced" everything. No, I don't pinch their ear for anything other than retrieving, but I do have a way to "make" or "force" them to do something. If they don't follow a command, there is a consequence. For example, if they don't sit, I will either put pressure on their rear, or pull up on the leash. Some people say their dog is too soft or stresses too much for a forced retrieve, but I find that these dogs need a forced retrieve the most. A dog is more likely to stress when it thinks it has options. If you make it black and white that it is not optional, then the dog will usually be much happier about performing.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak writes: <<I had a question on terminology. I find that when trainers talk about using pain or aversive methods with dogs, they often use a euphemism. Is it fair to characterize "pressure" as a euphemism here for "discomfort" or "pain?" When you say the trainer determines the amount of "pressure," could we substitute "discomfort" and still be accurate, or would there be situations in which you'd consider something "pressure" that wasn't at all uncomfortable or painful for the dog?>>

Well the term "pressure" as relating directly to FF and collar conditioning certainly does mean discomfort. But the underlying foundation that these training techniques build is a generalized ability to deal with ANY kind of "pressure." And yes -- in field work -- there are lots of forms of "pressure" that are not at all uncomfortable for the dog. In my opinion, in advanced work, "pressure" comes from a lot of angles at the dog, and his goal is to avoid, deflect from, ignore or otherwise work over these pressures and do what his handler wants. So much of teaching in field work, mainly on blinds but certainly marks too, is getting through to the dog that YOU NEED TO DO IT MY WAY -- NOT YOURS!!! In blinds, the HANDLER knows where the bird is. But the DOG "thinks" he knows where it is until he's been trained to follow directions. All of the factors that the dog wants to naturally follow to find the bird (scent, areas of old falls, shores, sound, etc) are areas of pressure he must avoid or ignore to successfully follow the handler's direction to the blind. These are GOOD pressures -- the dog WANTS to go to them! But he must have the fortitude and gumption to ignore them and go where sent by the handler. The foundation of controlling impulse and acting on behalf of the handler, all while maintaining a stylish attitude, are set in the basics of FF. "Do what I say, you get what you want."

<<Another example of this principle is the use of the word "nick" in e-collar training instead of "shock.>>

Not really. We say "nick" to distinguish it from a "burn." Collars generally have two settings, you can give a "nick" (short zap) on the momentary setting, or a "burn" (longer zap) on the continuous setting. I would say most people use a nick when training as opposed to a burn, hence calling a collar correction a nick.

<<I realize these questions might sound like a bit of a trap, but I really am sincerely curious.>>

No prob, hope this helps.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> I had a question on terminology. I find that when trainers talk about using pain or aversive methods with dogs, they often use a euphemism. Is it fair to characterize "pressure" as a euphemism here for "discomfort" or "pain?"


I actually addressed this above, but I'll be happy to provide further clarity. The word “force” does not imply an amount. But there is a pervasive knee jerk reaction to that word being synonymous with brutality, pain or harm. Not so, and certainly not necessarily so in the force fetch process. That will come as news to some.

As you read anything I write on the subject of dog training, you will note that I don't tend to mince words. I'm not using one word, while meaning another. There are dogs that are more resistant to accepting the will of a trainer than others, and sometimes that means that they'll require pressure to rise to a point of actually being painful. We can certainly discuss those instances, but bear in mind that they are not the rule. They are the exception.


tippykayak said:


> When you say the trainer determines the amount of "pressure," could we substitute "discomfort" and still be accurate, or would there be situations in which you'd consider something "pressure" that wasn't at all uncomfortable or painful for the dog?


Force*: 1 – compel, 2 – influence that causes motion, 3 – gain against resistance (may compel or correct behavior in dogs)*

When I say "pressure", that's the correct context. When I say "pain", I'm referring to its correct context: *–noun *1.physical suffering or distress, as due to injury, illness, etc.2.a distressing sensation in a particular part of the body: _a back pain. _3.mental or emotional suffering or torment: _I am sorry my news causes you such pain._

I do not teach anyone to torment or injure a dog. If that's happening to your dog, it isn't correct or necessary. As I said, there are rare exceptions, but I mean _rare_. Now that I am no longer a pro, and only train my own dogs, if I meet one requiring that much pressure, he's done. He can be someone's pet. I like bright, sensitive, eager dogs, and will not live with one I have to train through pain.


tippykayak said:


> Another example of this principle is the use of the word "nick" in e-collar training instead of "shock."
> 
> I realize these questions might sound like a bit of a trap, but I really am sincerely curious.


The term "shock" is rather broad and general. We aren't talking about physically harmful amounts of electricity, such as one would encounter from a wall outlet. More correctly, we're talking about measured amounts of low quality electrical stimulus. I use the best e-collar there is; the Tri Tronics G3 Pro 500. I also have a G2 Pro 500. they allow me maximal variation in intensity of stimulus. They also allow me to choose 'nicks' (pre-measured momentary applications), or so-called 'burns' (a completely erroneous reference, except that the stimulus is applied continuously as long as the button is depressed). In addition, one of the greatest aspects of these units is a 'low' - 'medium' - 'high' selection of each of 6 levels of intensity. The majority of our dogs work on levels 1 & 2, and we hand test all our collars so we know exactly what we're delivering.

EvanG


----------



## GoldenSail

No, I don't think I understand the method completely and to be fair to it I think I would need to see it done under a skilled and qualified professional to have an accurate opinion. The problem is, it certainly sound like there is much room for error and there are probably a lot more so-so trainers than wonderful ones out there (But that is only speculation, I don't know that one either).

I would like to throw out there (any maybe this should be another thread) this question: What makes a good force-fetcher over a bad one? Do they put too much pressure on, is it the tools they are using?

I would love to learn about options too. As much as I want to have an open mind, I feel numb at the thought of pinching my dog's toe, nicking her with a collar, or pinching her ear. I have no problem correcting her for incorrect behavior (pop on the collar) and I rather like what Louisianna said--twisting the collar as a form of pressure. Hmmm...


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> When I say "pressure", that's the correct context. When I say "pain", I'm referring to its correct context: *–noun *1.physical suffering or distress, as due to injury, illness, etc.2.a distressing sensation in a particular part of the body: _a back pain. _3.mental or emotional suffering or torment: _I am sorry my news causes you such pain._
> 
> I do not teach anyone to torment or injure a dog. If that's happening to your dog, it isn't correct or necessary. As I said, there are rare exceptions, but I mean _rare_. Now that I am no longer a pro, and only train my own dogs, if I meet one requiring that much pressure, he's done. He can be someone's pet. I like bright, sensitive, eager dogs, and will not live with one I have to train through pain.


You didn't really answer the question. When you say "pressure," you often mean causing physical discomfort, right? You say you're not tormenting dogs, and I believe that, but I consider an ear pinch or a toe hitch the use of discomfort. I see the point in distinguishing that from "pain" in training, but an ear pinch is absolutely a "distressing sensation in a particular part of the body."


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> You didn't really answer the question. When you say "pressure," you often mean causing physical discomfort, right?


In my analogy about blowing out a candle, I referenced that as an application of force (pressure). If someone blew the same puff of air at you as at that candle, do you think it would qualify as 'discomfort'? If you pushed a pencil off the edge of a table, that would be an application of pressure. But if someone used the same amount of pressure and pushed against your shoulder (for example), do you think that would quaify as 'discomfort'.


tippykayak said:


> You say you're not tormenting dogs, and I believe that, but I consider an ear pinch or a toe hitch the use of discomfort.


How much pressure? What I'm telling you is that 'pressure' and 'force' do not imply or specify and amount. It is the amount of pressure that each dog will determine as being uncomfortable or not. That is what you must read, and it's pretty simple.


tippykayak said:


> I see the point in distinguishing that from "pain" in training, but an ear pinch is absolutely a "distressing sensation in a particular part of the body."


I think you're making an assumption that "an ear pinch" comes with a pre-determined amount of pressure that represents 'discomfort'. It does not. I've finished many dogs that clearly only regarded the amount of pressure used on them as an annoyance. Each one is different. I think you need to see some of the close up video in SmartFetch to see the 'reads'; just a shift in the eyebrows, or eye position - a distinct, however small change in the dog's demeanor that tells you he would like this new sensation to go away. I'm not talking about dogs writhing in pain, as some trainers have done for decades.

EvanG


----------



## AmberSunrise

Evan,

In the early stages of non-shaped fetch training, the mouth is opened and the object (dumbbell, bumper etc) is placed in the dogs mouth. This may take effort and then a finger could be placed under the chin to remind the dog to hold the object.

Would you consider this pressure? I think it could be considered mental pressure more than physical pressure, but pressure still.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

*I think you're making an assumption that "an ear pinch" comes with a pre-determined amount of pressure that represents 'discomfort'. It does not. I've finished many dogs that clearly only regarded the amount of pressure used on them as an annoyance. Each one is different. I think you need to see some of the close up video in SmartFetch to see the 'reads'; just a shift in the eyebrows, or eye position - a distinct, however small change in the dog's demeanor that tells you he would like this new sensation to go away. I'm not talking about dogs writhing in pain, as some trainers have done for decades.*

No matter how you do it, it's falling w/in the realm of negative reinforcement. It's using something the animal chooses to work to avoid. In obedience, I've seen people do it well, and I've seen people do it horribly, abusively poorly.

I think it takes a very skilled trainer to learn to look for the shift of the eyebrow and other subtle changes on the part of the dog. There are, IMO, very few "pet owners" ("pet owners" who train their dogs vs. people who train for a living) who are naturally that skilled. The danger (again, IMO) is in putting tools of negative reinforcement in the hands of non-professionals who may not REALLY understand the full training process or the time involved. In their desire to achieve results quickly (as a species, we're "results oriented") people can take what should be a simple, non- pain-causing technique and rachet it up thinking they'll achiave the result faster. (Analogy: "If it takes 9 hours to cook the turkey at 300 degrees, let's fire the oven up to 600 degrees and eat in 4.5!")

THAT, IMO, is where the problem lies - the proof of which is in peoples' comments about dogs being "ruined" by a force fetch program.

For that reason, it makes me uncomfortable when I see it so casually tossed out as the answer to all retrieving problems. Evan: How many people do you think are going to rush right out now and buy your instructional DVD? Some will, sure. Others will not, but may consider trying an ear pinch on their own. What are the odds that they'll truly get it right? How will the dog pay the price if they don't? Heck, how will the concept pay the price if they don't?


----------



## EvanG

Sunrise said:


> Evan,
> 
> In the early stages of non-shaped fetch training, the mouth is opened and the object (dumbbell, bumper etc) is placed in the dogs mouth. This may take effort and then a finger could be placed under the chin to remind the dog to hold the object.
> 
> Would you consider this pressure? I think it could be considered mental pressure more than physical pressure, but pressure still.


Yes, this is the "Hold" phase, and logically comes first. We teach the dog to hold what's been placed in his mouth until commanded to release. During this phase they are introduced to small corrections for chewing, dropping, etc. It certainly is an application of pressure; both physical and mental. Normally, both are in very low amounts. It's more a matter of conditioning than forcing these behaviors. But they are supported by pressure.

Stephanie,

You seem determined to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Force fetch is evil and brutal because of how badly some people have applied it. That flies in the face of reason.

People have driven cars badly, but I'll bet you drive anyway. People have flown airplanes wrong, but people still fly anyway. More people are killed each year with baseball bats than with guns. Are 3-day waiting periods for ball bat purchases in our future?:doh:

It's not the process. Hold the _people_ accountable. If someone ruins a dog with force fetch, they would have ruined them in some other way without it. Performing FF is not like surgery. It's not like handling nitroglycerine, either. You have to screw this up, and that's most often because someone did it with a "me vs. the dog" attitude, and that attitude will eventually permeate other areas of their work with dogs.

Sorry, this doesn't wash.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> In my analogy about blowing out a candle, I referenced that as an application of force (pressure). If someone blew the same puff of air at you as at that candle, do you think it would qualify as 'discomfort'?


Of course not, but in terms of application of "pressure" to a dog, why does it work if it isn't unpleasant in any way? Obviously you don't have to cause the dog serious pain, but this kind of "pressure" needs to be unpleasant so the dog wants it to stop. If he wants the sensation to go away, it's because it's uncomfortable. I think "annoyed" is an odd way to describe a dog who isn't enjoying an ear pinch. We can argue about whether it's "annoyance" or "discomfort," but we're talking about a physical stimulus the dog doesn't like and is trying to avoid.

I know you've heard me argue about the use of aversives generally in dog training before, but I'm really asking for the clarification of terms here, not building an anti-FF argument. I've seen the application of aversives work really well in the hands of experts, and while I'm not sure I would agree with every application you might suggest, I'm also not saying there is no situation in which it's warranted, particularly if it is applied with a great deal of skill.

I do think it's totally unnecessary to use physical aversives when doing basic obedience like come, heel, sit, down, fetch, etc. I also know it's possible to achieve incredible precision and reliability through positive reinforcement. Even so, I wouldn't say that you're off base here, and I would like to understand force fetching really, really well, even if I never use it.

I think we can all agree that by the time the dog is crying out, writhing, or panicking, too much pain has been applied, right?


----------



## FlyingQuizini

EvanG said:


> Stephanie,
> 
> You seem determined to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Force fetch is evil and brutal because of how badly some people have applied it. That flies in the face of reason.
> 
> People have driven cars badly, but I'll bet you drive anyway. People have flown airplanes wrong, but people still fly anyway. More people are killed each year with baseball bats than with guns. Are 3-day waiting periods for ball bat purchases in our future?:doh:
> 
> It's not the process. Hold the _people_ accountable. If someone ruins a dog with force fetch, they would have ruined them in some other way without it. Performing FF is not like surgery. It's not like handling nitroglycerine, either. You have to screw this up, and that's most often because someone did it with a "me vs. the dog" attitude, and that attitude will eventually permeate other areas of their work with dogs.
> 
> Sorry, this doesn't wash.
> 
> EvanG


And you seem determined to completely miss anything I say that speaks to an understanding that yes, SOME people can implement a "good" FF program while others, IMO, (the vast majority of others) have more problems with it.

I did not call it evil, or brutal. I said some people use it in that manner. And it has absolutely nothing to do with baseball bats or driving cars.

I think FF is often mis-used. I think it would take an extreme amount of education combined with a general shift in human nature (desire for wanting results quickly = escalation of the aversive in many handlers) for FF programs to gain a better reputation.

Just curious: What % of people out there do you think mess up a FF program?


----------



## Loisiana

tippykayak said:


> I think we can all agree that by the time the dog is crying out, writhing, or panicking, too much pain has been applied, right?


Actually, I'd say the crying out part is true most of the time, but there are some dogs who are just very vocal when they are in a situation they don't like. I have a small dog who screams anytime I attempt to restrain him if he wants to be doing something else. So, if I put a hand in his collar, or hold a paw, he sounds like I'm killing him, but I'm not really causing any pain at all.You can squeeze your own ear to see the different amounts of pressure that you can apply. It can vary anywhere from just fingers on the ear to gently squeezing to pinching with nails digging in. If someone took hold of my ear, even if they didn't squeeze it, I'd find it really annoying. At first I might try my own ways of getting the hand off, including pushing the person away, yelling at them, etc. Eventually, I'd get tired of it and just do whatever it was they wanted me to do, even though I wasn't in pain, just annoyed and ready to get that person off my ear.


----------



## tippykayak

Loisiana said:


> Actually, I'd say the crying out part is true most of the time, but there are some dogs who are just very vocal when they are in a situation they don't like.


Given what Evan was saying, I think he would identify that as too much, and given the description he was making, that you apply more and more force until you get a reaction, I don't think it's just frustration that you're holding the ear for too long.


----------



## Debles

I must be totally obtuse. If you are really into bird sports, hunting tests, whatever,that involves retrieves, I would think you would find a breeder of good dogs who have the healthy retriever genetics. That's 3/4 of success.
Then training. I believe any kind of force training is BS and any pain induced training cruel. Why would a dog want to retrieve anything when it involved pain?

My dogs, I have only ever had goldens, five over the years, have lived to retrieve. Some had a much stronger drive than others. Gunner would retrieve till he dropped dead if we allowed it. Part is his God given instinct/love to retrieve the rest his his desire to please us.

Why anyone would want to do it any other way is beyond me, unless they are sadistic. Sorry, you won't be convincing me of anything here, no matter how much you "explain" it.


----------



## K9-Design

Debles said:


> Why anyone would want to do it any other way is beyond me, unless they are sadistic. Sorry, you won't be convincing me of anything here, no matter how much you "explain" it.


So I am sadistic because I FF my retrievers?
It's that simple?
I absolutely respect someone who understands what FF is and does but chooses not to do that. Clearly you do not understand it. But -- don't you think there must be something to it other than being sadistic if 99% of professional retriever trainers use this technique? 
I really would like to know your theory behind the overwhelming popularity of FF among professionals and successful amateurs, besides the fact that they are all sadists.


----------



## EvanG

Debles said:


> Why anyone would want to do it any other way is beyond me, unless they are sadistic. Sorry, you won't be convincing me of anything here, no matter how much you "explain" it.


That's the best reason there is for why I'm not going to try explaining to you, much less convince you. You have set your own limits on learning. 

"There is none so blind as he who will not see." ~ Ray Stevens

Next,
EvanG


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Of course not, but in terms of application of "pressure" to a dog, why does it work if it isn't unpleasant in any way?


But it is. That's really the point. I first learned from an old school trainer who simply applied pain in an amount the dog could not resist, and showed the dog how to turn it off by fetching. Of course that's an over simplification. But it differs from my method.


tippykayak said:


> Obviously you don't have to cause the dog serious pain, but this kind of "pressure" needs to be unpleasant so the dog wants it to stop. If he wants the sensation to go away, it's because it's uncomfortable.


It sounds like you're getting a good grasp of it.


tippykayak said:


> I think "annoyed" is an odd way to describe a dog who isn't enjoying an ear pinch. We can argue about whether it's "annoyance" or "discomfort," but we're talking about a physical stimulus the dog doesn't like and is trying to avoid.


Once you've done it, or have seen someone do it this way you'll be able to relate to the term 'annoyance' better. The point being that the discomfort continues until the dog complies - thereby turning it off. That continual discomfort is little more than an annoyance, and the dog soon learns that he's in control of its presence, and can rid himself of it at will. Then we've got the ball rolling!


tippykayak said:


> I do think it's totally unnecessary to use physical aversives when doing basic obedience like come, heel, sit, down, fetch, etc. I also know it's possible to achieve incredible precision and reliability through positive reinforcement. Even so, I wouldn't say that you're off base here, and I would like to understand force fetching really, really well, even if I never use it.


Good. I want to make it clear that I do not teach any of thsoe basic functions with pressure. In my puppy program is a detailed course in OC, which guides the pup's training through their first 6-8 months.


tippykayak said:


> I think we can all agree that by the time the dog is crying out, writhing, or panicking, too much pain has been applied, right?


Absolutely! Your ability to think logically is obvious, and I believe it will help you learn the information you desire.

EvanG


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

All I can think of is my time with frozen shoulders. Pushing me with the same force of pushing a pencil off the side of the table would have dropped me to my knees. 

I'm sure you wouldn't be training a dog with such issues and would be well aware of their personality so...Back on Topic.


----------



## EvanG

FlyingQuizini said:


> And you seem determined to completely miss anything I say that speaks to an understanding that yes, SOME people can implement a "good" FF program while others, IMO, (the vast majority of others) have more problems with it.


Okay, I'll take your word for having that opinion. I have to wonder, of course, what research you have conducted that leads you to that conclusion? In other words, is this opinion based in fact, or is it just what you desire to believe?


FlyingQuizini said:


> I think FF is often mis-used.


Again, I would ask what research has led you to believe this?


FlyingQuizini said:


> I think it would take an extreme amount of education combined with a general shift in human nature (desire for wanting results quickly = escalation of the aversive in many handlers) for FF programs to gain a better reputation.
> 
> Just curious: What % of people out there do you think mess up a FF program?


I think that perhaps if you got your own real education about it from a competent source, you may see that this isn't necessarily so. I'll answer both questions together, if I can.

First, most people using my method, or that of Mike Lardy, or Rick Stawski, or Danny Farmer (together, those methods and mine constitute the most popular methods for retriever fieldwork) are _first time_ trainers with their first retrievers. I can't speak for the others, but I can tell you that safely 90% of those using my system are successful with it. One reason why is that I devote a hefty amount of time to remain available to answer questions and to help them along as they go.

As a pro, some of the greatest rewards were coming home from an extended tour of the field trial circuit and handing my owners their ribbons and trophies. Now, it's receiving an almost endless stream of emails, PM's and forum posts telling me things like;

"I have a GRF that is sensitive and I used Evan's SmartFetch - the DVD was extremely helpful. Once I figured out how to help my dog understand pressure and work through it, the rest of our training has gone even smoother than the first part. Force fetch establishes that fetch is a command, the same way that "sit" is a command - it teaches the dog that "you don't do whatever you want once you grab the bird - you do what I want you to - and that is pick it up and hold it nicely until I take it from you with my hand and command you to drop it." It also means that going out and getting that retrieve object is not optional - whether it's something the dog is used to, or a big fat Canada goose - (something that often causes confusion the 1st time a dog is sent to retrieve). Force fetching isn't pinching on a dog's ear or toe until it does what you want - it's teaching a dog about "pressure" and when it experiences pressure, compliance with the command is the way to turn off the pressure. Pressure comes in many forms - anyone who uses an e-collar should be familiar with the application of pressure as a teaching/correcting tool. We aren't out there abusing our dogs, quite the contrary - I believe that FF sets the dog up to succeed in much of its future training exercises and is one of the building blocks of formal training.

I encourage you to beg, borrow or buy a copy of the SmartFetch if you have any interest in learning more about the FF process."

JM – IL 

There is an entire page like this on my website, if you're really interested in how first time trainers are doing. That's why facts tend to trump innuendo. By all means read away. I can provide you with contact information, if you like. There are at least ten times more such comments yet to be posted. http://rushcreekpress.com/page7testimonials.html

I have never suggested to anyone that they go out and try force fetching without a quality course to follow, nor would I ever.

EvanG


----------



## hotel4dogs

I train obedience in an area where the main trainers are "old school". They "teach" that force fetch (in obedience, they don't do field work) is where you put a prong collar on the dog, face the prongs outward, sandwich the dog's ear between the prongs on the collar and your fingers, and pinch and squeeze until the dog screams and screams.
That's the kind of stuff that gives FF a bad name.
Therefore, I voted for "haven't got a clue" on the poll, and I'd like to learn more.


----------



## Loisiana

ouch, ouch, no, no


----------



## HovawartMom

My golden will retrieve anything,anywhere,anyplace!.She took to it,right away as a 3mth old pup!.My Hovawart will only retrieve,in the water and that's,cos I tell him to(voice command) but retrieving is not his stuff unless he can get another dog to go after him!.


----------



## Ljilly28

This year, I've trained with a big group of field people- mostly labs. FF is such a routine part of training inside that world that it is hard to consider it objectively through the lens of scientific training methods based on operant conditioning and positive reinforcement without aversives. Pragmatically, can a dog run MH without FF? I am really not sure.

However, one golden breeder who handles her own dogs in the field and is working on MH with two of her dogs does not FF or use an ecollar anymore,and I really respect that. It remains to be seen if she will succeed.

The beginner perspective: I have experienced small successes with my golden as we both learn & move through various stages & progress in various venues- he is very keen at the JH level without FF, and I will probably never pursue training at a higher level in which I cause my dog physical discomfort simply so he will do something fun/rewarding for me. He is not a soft dog, and I think he would take FF in stride and respond well to it; I am uncomfortable with it though. I recognize however, that pretty much every field person who I know personally uses FF if they are serious. We are training utility and and competing in open- and my dog has never once had so much as a collar correction. His novice scores were in the mid and high 190's- and I truly enjoy working together with him. There is no doubt he is very competitive in obedience without aversives - rarely even a no reward marker in a neutral tone. I doubt we could make it through SH this way though.


----------



## Ljilly28

Evan, how much do you think you are capable of achieving with a good dog if you couldnt use FF and an ecollar? I bet you could train a SH with a clicker!?


----------



## Debles

Apparently just because someone disagrees with your methods, they are ignorant.
I don't care if 99% use it, I think it is cruel. I won't apologize.

Too bad you can't ask your dogs if they think it's cruel or not. They don't have a choice.


----------



## Pudden

EvanG said:


> By definition, if you blow out a candle on your birthday cake, you will have ‘forced’ it to go out. The word “force” does not imply an amount. But there is a pervasive knee jerk reaction to that word being synonymous with brutality, pain or harm. Not so, and certainly not necessarily so in the force fetch process. That will come as news to some. More on this later.Sharon,


anything related to my dog with the word "force" in it turns me off. Yes, it implies "brutality, pain or harm". If that's not what they really mean, well, then they have to re-name the thing to more accurately reflect what it is about. Surely the English language offers enough vocabulary for that purpose. Until then, even though I know nothing else about this, I assume that when they say "force", they mean force.


----------



## K9-Design

Debles said:


> Apparently just because someone disagrees with your methods, they are ignorant.
> I don't care if 99% use it, I think it is cruel. I won't apologize.
> 
> Too bad you can't ask your dogs if they think it's cruel or not. They don't have a choice.


You are welcome to come watch us train and decide for yourself if it's cruel or not. 
Until you have watched or tried you really can't judge now can you?
To form an opinion without a basis of knowledge is ignorant. Knowledge of BOTH sides, not just yours.
If you want a dog who can traipse through the woods with you and pick up a shot bird every once in a while, or fetch tennis balls in the yard, you are right, you've probably never bumped into the need for FF.


----------



## K9-Design

Ljilly28 said:


> However, one golden breeder who handles her own dogs in the field and is working on MH with two of her dogs does not FF or use an ecollar anymore,and I really respect that. It remains to be seen if she will succeed.
> 
> The beginner perspective: I have experienced small successes with my golden as we both learn & move through various stages & progress in various venues- he is very keen at the JH level without FF, and I will probably never pursue training at a higher level in which I cause my dog physical discomfort simply so he will do something fun/rewarding for me. He is not a soft dog, and I think he would take FF in stride and respond well to it; I am uncomfortable with it though. I recognize however, that pretty much every field person who I know personally uses FF if they are serious. We are training utility and and competing in open- and my dog has never once had so much as a collar correction. His novice scores were in the mid and high 190's- and I truly enjoy working together with him. There is no doubt he is very competitive in obedience without aversives - rarely even a no reward marker in a neutral tone. I doubt we could make it through SH this way though.


Hey Jill, good post. I'd love to know who your friend is!
Your last post made me think of something.
I have a friend with a golden Fisher's age. He has his UD, JH, and some rally titles. He is a very talented dog. He got his JH/WC without FF. He is a very stylish worker and LOVES to retrieve. She comes and trains with us -- as in, throws birds -- but really, she does not follow a program for field training, for her it is more exercise for her dogs. However she wants to get a Senior title on her dog. In the past two years or so, after he got his JH title, he began dropping birds. This quickly developed into him dropping every bird or bumper upon getting within 10 feet of his handler. This is what she has done to try to fix it:
Physically putting the bird in his mouth
Making him sit and walk holding a bird for 10+ minutes at a time
Yelling at him
Shoving his face at the bird
Saying "fetch it up" 10 times before doing something else
Hitting him with a riding crop
Running away from him
Zapping with the ecollar before he gets near enough to drop it

Now remember -- this has been going on for TWO YEARS.
Two years of pestering, antagonizing, annoying, harping, nagging and generally making things unpleasant for the dog. He has NO IDEA what is wrong because she has no way to communicate to him how to do it right. Instead of getting better he is sliding backwards; his marking is going down and he is having trouble with concepts he once whizzed through.
Not only has she given up the dream of a SH but she now sometimes leaves him home from training sessions and just brings her younger dog. So here this dog is BEGGING to do the work, with a handler who is not willing to do what she needs to do to allow him to move forward and do MORE of what HE wants!
If she spent several weeks thoroughly force fetching this dog, she would have a way to communicate to him, he would know what is expected, and that huge road block would disappear. Instead, the dog stays home. 
Guess what? Her new golden, now a year old, is doing the same thing. His glass ceiling is even lower.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

This doesn't sound unpleasant. It's sounds abusive.


----------



## EvanG

Pudden said:


> anything related to my dog with the word "force" in it turns me off. Yes, it implies "brutality, pain or harm". If that's not what they really mean, well, then they have to re-name the thing to more accurately reflect what it is about.


Perhaps you learned English differently than I did. My definitions come from Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.

Force*: 1 – compel, 2 – influence that causes motion, 3 – gain against resistance (may compel or correct behavior in dogs)*

What part of Webster’s definition says that force is “brutality, pain or harm”?


Pudden said:


> Surely the English language offers enough vocabulary for that purpose. Until then, even though I know nothing else about this, I assume that when they say "force", they mean force.


Indeed, “force” means force. But in the definition of the word “force” there is no specification of _amount_. I find the English language sufficient. But I use its terms literally, rather than creating new meanings to suit my agenda.


Ljilly28 said:


> Evan, how much do you think you are capable of achieving with a good dog if you couldn’t use FF and an ecollar? I bet you could train a SH with a clicker!?


Thank you for asking. I’ve done this particular research on my own as well. My first two retrievers were Labs. Neither was ever force fetched, nor were they ever e-collar conditioned. Frankly, I didn’t know how, nor was I convinced that I needed to – again because I didn’t know better at the time. Both dogs were Qualified All-Age. Now, years later, I can only wonder what they might have been had they been given better tools to work with.

EvanG


----------



## EvanG

Kimm said:


> This doesn't sound unpleasant. It's sounds abusive.


Kimm,

I agree with you. In fact, you may have made an even better point than you intended. It is the center point of using pressure in dog training.

I believe that anytime you use a leash, a choker or prong, a heeling stick or crop, or even your hand to cause some behavior to occur, or to cease, you have used pressure. I also believe all of that is perfectly fine if used humanely and temperately. But here is the salient point: We use pressure in dog training - not to overwhelm dogs, or to merely inflict pain - but rather we use it to change behavior...period.

When someone uses pressure without illiciting a change in behavior, they are not training. They're nagging. Who likes that? If someone does what K9-Design described his friend doing, it's neither training, nor mere nagging. It's abuse.

So far, a couple obvious opponents of pressure here are blurring the lines of distinction between the three.

EvanG


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

Hmmm

Websters online. And this is just as a noun. 

Date: 14th century
_1 a __(1)_ *:* strength or energy exerted or brought to bear *:* cause of motion or change *:* active power <the force_s_ of nature> <the motivating force in her life> _(2)_ _capitalized_ —used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale <a _Force_ 10 hurricane> *b* *:* moral or mental strength *c* *:* capacity to persuade or convince <the force of the argument>
*2 a* *:* military strength _b __(1)_ *:* a body (as of troops or ships) assigned to a military purpose _(2)_ _plural_ *:* the whole military strength (as of a nation) *c* *:* a body of persons or things available for a particular end <a labor force> <the missile force> *d* *:* an individual or group having the power of effective action <join force_s_ to prevent violence> <a force in politics> *e* _often capitalized_ *:* police force —usually used with _the_
*3 : violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing*
*4 a* *:* an agency or influence that if applied to a free body results chiefly in an acceleration of the body and sometimes in elastic deformation and other effects *b* *:* any of the natural influences (as electromagnetism, gravity, the strong force, and the weak force) that exist especially between particles and determine the structure of the universe
*5* *:* the quality of conveying impressions intensely in writing or speech <stated the objectives with force>


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

EvanG said:


> Kimm,
> 
> I agree with you. In fact, you may have made an even better point than you intended. It is the center point of using pressure in dog training.
> 
> I believe that anytime you use a leash, a choker or prong, a heeling stick or crop, or even your hand to cause some behavior to occur, or to cease, you have used pressure. I also believe all of that is perfectly fine if used humanely and temperately. But here is the salient point: We use pressure in dog training - not to overwhelm dogs, or to merely inflict pain - but rather we use it to change behavior...period.
> 
> When someone uses pressure without illiciting a change in behavior, they are not training. They're nagging. Who likes that? If someone does what K9-Design described his friend doing, it's neither training, nor mere nagging. It's abuse.
> 
> So far, a couple obvious opponents of pressure here are blurring the lines of distinction between the three.
> 
> EvanG


Did you mean what you wrote that I have highlighted in red and underlined?


----------



## FlyingQuizini

> I think that perhaps if you got your own real education about it from a competent source, you may see that this isn't necessarily so. I'll answer both questions together, if I can.


You didn't answer my question at all. You just posted a testimonial for your video, which, if I knew someone who had one, I'd be more than happy to watch with an open mind.



> Originally Posted by FlyingQuizini
> I think FF is often mis-used.
> 
> Again, I would ask what research has led you to believe this?


Look at what people are posting about it? "Pinch the ear until the dog screams," etc. And there's a lot of that out there. If there wasn't, the concept of the FF wouldn't elicit such strong feeling of opposition from those who are against it. There's a reason why people pair it with words like "abusive," that reason most likely being poor implementation of the technique. I think that pretty much supports my statement of the method being frequently mis-used.

I'm glad your program is working for your students. 

We have a different training style and that's okay. Fundamentally, I choose not to train my dog to do things the way I'd like under threat of something unpleasant or annoying. I choose to embrace the fact that my dog has a *choice* in how he does things and I work to make sure he *wants* to make the choice that pleases me. Would that style of training hold up in the field beyond a basic level? I dunno. I haven't tried it. I hope to one day, though.


----------



## EvanG

Kimm said:


> Did you mean what you wrote that I have highlighted in red and underlined?


I mean that part _especially! _I know what excesses, especially excesses in pressure, tend to produce. I want no part of dogs that move like reptiles because they're only trying to keep the abuse from happening.

I started training retrievers in the mid 1970's. I don't even care to write about some of the techniques field trial pros used in those days. They selectively bred some very tough, hard going dogs that could stand up to that kind of abuse, and still want to retrieve. That has virtually no relationship to our methods now. 

We're literally making field champions now with dogs that would have never even made it through Basics in those days. Our little duck dog "Bitsy" is about to turn 12. She has all the skills a retriever can have, and she's had them all her adult life. I don't know a pro who would not have washed her out during Basics because she's so sensitive, yet to watch her over her career you would never know it. 

Watch the first part of this video with my friend Vince running her on a cheating single. Mind you, this was only 2 years ago when she was 10. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDtCU3S2aWk

EvanG


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

I will watch it. I think my computer needs an ear pinch because the video won't load right now. Actually, I have been wacking it on the side lately to get it to work right.

I'm sorry. I'm getting a bit silly. For some reason the question, "Did your Mama spank you as a child?" just came to mind. I must be tired and will bow out of the thread for the evening.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> If she spent several weeks thoroughly force fetching this dog, she would have a way to communicate to him, he would know what is expected, and that huge road block would disappear. Instead, the dog stays home.
> Guess what? Her new golden, now a year old, is doing the same thing. His glass ceiling is even lower.


In all honesty, though, you're describing bad training, bad communication, and bad timing, not necessarily a need for aversives.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> In all honesty, though, you're describing bad training, bad communication, and bad timing, not necessarily a need for aversives.



Ha! You are absolutely right!!!!! I would love for my friend to pick ANY program and stick with it! I don't care if it's crystal healing or voodoo! Anything is better than "wingin it!"


----------



## K9-Design

Kimm said:


> I will watch it. I think my computer needs an ear pinch because the video won't load right now. Actually, I have been wacking it on the side lately to get it to work right.
> 
> I'm sorry. I'm getting a bit silly. For some reason the question, "Did your Mama spank you as a child?" just came to mind. I must be tired and will bow out of the thread for the evening.



Aww come on Kimm, no levity allowed!!! 
And for the record, no, I was never spanked!


----------



## gabbys mom

Debles said:


> Apparently just because someone disagrees with your methods, they are ignorant.
> I don't care if 99% use it, I think it is cruel. I won't apologize.
> 
> Too bad you can't ask your dogs if they think it's cruel or not. They don't have a choice.



It's not the that you disagree. It's the way you phrase your disagreement and that you have no proven track record.


----------



## Pudden

EvanG said:


> Perhaps you learned English differently than I did. My definitions come from Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.
> 
> Force*: 1 – compel, 2 – influence that causes motion, 3 – gain against resistance (may compel or correct behavior in dogs)*


well, which one of those definitions is yours? And the dictionary I looked had had even more definitions, some of them less benign.

The point I was making: regardless of what the dictionary says, for most people the term "force" in regards to dog training has a negative flavor. This is the reason you've had to spend the entire thread defending your use of that word, explaining that "no, that's not how we mean it".

So why not find a word that better describes what you actually do, so people don't get the wrong idea about your training. That is, unless there isn't a better word and we've been getting the right idea all along...?


----------



## gabbys mom

My lab was force fetched and was ready for junior when she died this summer. Oz will be forced when he is old enough and his obedience is in place enough.

It may be because I come from the lab world, where this isn't really an issue at all...but I don't even understand why this is a debate. Force fetching is a complete program. It helps make things black and white for the dogs. Black and white is GOOD for dogs. It goes so much farther than just retriever, also. 

Also...there's a big difference than those that just play fetch with their dogs and say, 'but my dog fetches every time!" and those that do hunt tests, competitive obedience or actually hunt over their dogs...there is just no comparison between those things.


----------



## K9-Design

Pudden said:


> So why not find a word that better describes what you actually do, so people don't get the wrong idea about your training. That is, unless there isn't a better word and we've been getting the right idea all along...?


A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Is this really the crux of the discussion??


----------



## DNL2448

Debles said:


> Why anyone would want to do it any other way is beyond me, unless they are sadistic. Sorry, you won't be convincing me of anything here, no matter how much you "explain" it.


Wow, I really take exception to this statement. To say that I enjoy cruelty to my animals because I choose to train my dogs, is well, pretty rude. 

I treat my dogs better than most people treat their kids, however, like well mannered children, they are given guidance and, when needed, correction to ensure they know the boundries. However, I would NEVER, I repeat NEVER be cruel to my dogs. A correction is not a random act of violence. A correction is something that the dog has learned how to stop and how to avoid (pop on the leash, pressure on the ear, negative tone to the voice, etc.). Your dog should feel as comfortable about any correction that you have taught him. He should not feel scared or intimidated because he can control it.

I have seen several posts (nothing recent thank goodness) of dogs being hit by cars with their owners standing by. Do you think their owners were standing by quietly watching their dog run into traffic? NO, they were yelling their heads off and the dog totally tuned them out. I know if I told my dogs "down" or "come" they would do it without hesitation. I know my dogs love me, and when things are status quo, they will come when called, but I want to make sure, if they are chasing after a deer running throught the yard (happens all the time) that they will obey without a second thought. 

I'm sorry, but I just think it is wrong for someone who doesn't know me to assume I am sadistic!


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

Yes I know what it is, and I don't agree with it.


----------



## AmberSunrise

EvanG said:


> Yes, this is the "Hold" phase, and logically comes first. We teach the dog to hold what's been placed in his mouth until commanded to release. During this phase they are introduced to small corrections for chewing, dropping, etc. It certainly is an application of pressure; both physical and mental. Normally, both are in very low amounts. It's more a matter of conditioning than forcing these behaviors. But they are supported by pressure.
> EvanG


Evan,

I must admit you have my curiousity up since I actually don't think learning can occur without pressure or stress; since learning is stressful!! Force fetch is an issue for me not because of the pressure but rather the routine pain that was inflicted by an apparently old method trainer.

So, do I understand you correctly that a dog can be 'force fetch' trained without physical pain? 

Would the mental pressure of trying to get it right and working it out count as part of the pressure in your system? 

Could the entire FF program be done as a conditioning program?

I am genuinely curious and thank you in advance.


----------



## Bogey's Mom

hotel4dogs said:


> I train obedience in an area where the main trainers are "old school". They "teach" that force fetch (in obedience, they don't do field work) is where you put a prong collar on the dog, face the prongs outward, sandwich the dog's ear between the prongs on the collar and your fingers, and pinch and squeeze until the dog screams and screams.
> That's the kind of stuff that gives FF a bad name.
> Therefore, I voted for "haven't got a clue" on the poll, and I'd like to learn more.


Are you kidding me?! Wow. What a great way to create trust and love with your dog. That makes me want to throw up. To be honest, and I realize this is a risky thing to say, but I just see those kind of tactics as the lazy/easy way out. Sure, you can beat your dog into submission, but what's the point? Isn't the point of a companion dog for that dog to be, uh, your companion? I dunno - this stuff just irks me. Certainly these types of training do not have the best interest of the dog in mind. 

Why not just put in the time to really communicating with your dog and building a strong bond built on trust and love?

I'm editing this to say that I don't think ALL ways of training are cruel. I was speaking specifically about the one Barb mentioned in her post. Maybe I don't get it because I've never done anything in the field, but I just can't understand this specific technique. For me, and this might be just me, but working with my dog is supposed to be fun for both of us. Sure, there are times he might not be 100% into it, but we play games until his attention comes around or try again later. The only work I have ever done is the very beginning of obedience, so I am far from an expert, but if it's not fun for the dog then why do it? IMO, at this point the dog becomes a commodity or some sort of accolade for the owner. 

I know a very well-respected obedience trainer in the golden world, and I have no idea what her opinion on this would be, but the one thing she always say to me that makes my heart skip a beat because it's such an obvious sign to me that she really get it is "HE DOESN'T OWE ME ANYTHING!" Maybe I'm soft, but I think that's what it's all about. 

End of novice rant.


----------



## Bogey's Mom

FlyingQuizini said:


> *
> 
> I think it takes a very skilled trainer to learn to look for the shift of the eyebrow and other subtle changes on the part of the dog. There are, IMO, very few "pet owners" ("pet owners" who train their dogs vs. people who train for a living) who are naturally that skilled. The danger (again, IMO) is in putting tools of negative reinforcement in the hands of non-professionals who may not REALLY understand the full training process or the time involved. In their desire to achieve results quickly (as a species, we're "results oriented") people can take what should be a simple, non- pain-causing technique and rachet it up thinking they'll achiave the result faster. (Analogy: "If it takes 9 hours to cook the turkey at 300 degrees, let's fire the oven up to 600 degrees and eat in 4.5!")
> 
> *


*

Well said.*


----------



## Swampcollie

hotel4dogs said:


> I train obedience in an area where the main trainers are "old school". They "teach" that force fetch (in obedience, they don't do field work) is where you put a prong collar on the dog, face the prongs outward, sandwich the dog's ear between the prongs on the collar and your fingers, and pinch and squeeze until the dog screams and screams.
> That's the kind of stuff that gives FF a bad name.


That isn't Force Fetch and has nothing to do with Force Fetch, in the OB ring or in the Field.

I FF all my dogs and it has never included turning a prong collar inside out and pressing the dogs' ear against it. 


Angel is going through FF right now and her tail is wagging harder than ever. She springs enthusiastically out of her crate, grabs the training buck off the top and sits right down ready to learn. That is not the attitude of a dog who is being abused, or dislikes what she's doing. She loves to interact, learn, succeed and gain confidence.

It really comes down to what kind of a relationship do you have with your dog. Do you make requests of your dog or do you give commands? I don't make requests, I give commands. I expect them to be promptly executed without question or delay on a consistent basis.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

I have seen the dogs (on television) in the field during tests and what they do and how they follow did amaze me.


----------



## hotel4dogs

PLEASE don't misunderstand me, I've NEVER EVER done anything like that to Tito, nor would I!!!
Sheeesh. 
I'm a big softie!




Bogey's Mom said:


> Are you kidding me?! Wow. What a great way to create trust and love with your dog. That makes me want to throw up. To be honest, and I realize this is a risky thing to say, but I just see those kind of tactics as the lazy/easy way out. Sure, you can beat your dog into submission, but what's the point? Isn't the point of a companion dog for that dog to be, uh, your companion? I dunno - this stuff just irks me. Certainly these types of training do not have the best interest of the dog in mind.
> 
> Why not just put in the time to really communicating with your dog and building a strong bond built on trust and love?
> 
> I'm editing this to say that I don't think ALL ways of training are cruel. I was speaking specifically about the one Barb mentioned in her post. Maybe I don't get it because I've never done anything in the field, but I just can't understand this specific technique. For me, and this might be just me, but working with my dog is supposed to be fun for both of us. Sure, there are times he might not be 100% into it, but we play games until his attention comes around or try again later. The only work I have ever done is the very beginning of obedience, so I am far from an expert, but if it's not fun for the dog then why do it? IMO, at this point the dog becomes a commodity or some sort of accolade for the owner.
> 
> I know a very well-respected obedience trainer in the golden world, and I have no idea what her opinion on this would be, but the one thing she always say to me that makes my heart skip a beat because it's such an obvious sign to me that she really get it is "HE DOESN'T OWE ME ANYTHING!" Maybe I'm soft, but I think that's what it's all about.
> 
> End of novice rant.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Again, I've never done that with my dog, nor would I!! I hope I didn't lead everyone to think that's how I trained Tito. Just saying that's how some of the "major" trainers in this area train!!
AND it's why I always said I would NEVER EVER Force Fetch a dog, because in my limited experience (until My4Goldens, and this forum opened my eyes up) I thought that was what it meant.
And it's why I'm interested in learning what it *really* means!




Swampcollie said:


> That isn't Force Fetch and has nothing to do with Force Fetch, in the OB ring or in the Field.
> 
> I FF all my dogs and it has never included turning a prong collar inside out and pressing the dogs' ear against it.
> 
> 
> Angel is going through FF right now and her tail is wagging harder than ever. She springs enthusiastically out of her crate, grabs the training buck off the top and sits right down ready to learn. That is not the attitude of a dog who is being abused, or dislikes what she's doing. She loves to interact, learn, succeed and gain confidence.
> 
> It really comes down to what kind of a relationship do you have with your dog. Do you make requests of your dog or do you give commands? I don't make requests, I give commands. I expect them to be promptly executed without question or delay on a consistent basis.


----------



## EvanG

Kimm said:


> Webster’s online. And this is just as a noun.
> 
> Date: 14th century
> 
> *2 a* *:* *military* strength _b (1)_ *:* a body (as of troops or ships) assigned to a *military purpose* _(2)_ _plural_ *:* *the whole military strength* (as of a nation) *c* *:* a body of persons or things available for a particular end <a labor force> <the missile force> *d* *:* an individual or group having the power of effective action <join force_s_ to prevent violence> <a force in politics> *e* _often capitalized_ *:* police force —usually used with _the_
> *3 : violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing*


Oh, Kimm. This is your best? The military application of the word...that's supposed to connect with a dog training discussion? That's a pretty desperate stretch.


FlyingQuizini said:


> You didn't answer my question at all. You just posted a testimonial for your video, which, if I knew someone who had one, I'd be more than happy to watch with an open mind.


Are you referring to the question “_What % of people out there do you think mess up a FF program?_”, and my comment that “I can't speak for the others, but I can tell you that safely 90% of those using my system are successful with it.” Simple math, really. 10%, or fewer ‘mess up’ my FF program. I cannot speak for those following someone else’s program. To do that would require me to make the same reckless speculation others are more than willing to make in order to prove their opinions to be valid. If I provide information, or make a claim, it’s based on facts to which I have factual access. That's why I provided a link to a few of the testimonials from actual new trainers who have used my information. Those are facts, not wishful thinking.


FlyingQuizini said:


> Look at what people are posting about it? "Pinch the ear until the dog screams," etc. And there's a lot of that out there. If there wasn't, the concept of the FF wouldn't elicit such strong feeling of opposition from those who are against it. There's a reason why people pair it with words like "abusive," that reason most likely being poor implementation of the technique. I think that pretty much supports my statement of the method being frequently mis-used.


Actually, no it doesn’t. People posting exceptional abuses does not constitute a factual baseline. Your feelings are obvious, but feelings do not connect factual dots. That abusive story is not the rule. The difference _is_ that I can prove it. I know 90% of the top retriever trainers in this country, and a fair number in countries around the world. They don’t do anything like that. Those who do are part of the bigger problem, and the main reason I started this topic.

Let me stop right now, and clear up what has so far been transparent innuendo. I didn’t start this thread as a commercial to sell my products. I didn’t get into the dog training business because I saw millions of dollars to be made. I love dogs. I always have. It is ignorance and abuse that keeps me pursuing a better-educated populace in the retriever world, and I don’t plan on stopping because some shallow individual, who does not know me, is willing to make such accusations.


FlyingQuizini said:


> We have a different training style and that's okay.


”We” who? Who are you speaking for now?


FlyingQuizini said:


> Fundamentally, I choose not to train my dog to do things the way I'd like under threat of something unpleasant or annoying.


Good. Me too.


FlyingQuizini said:


> I choose to embrace the fact that my dog has a *choice* in how he does things and I work to make sure he *wants* to make the choice that pleases me. Would that style of training hold up in the field beyond a basic level? I dunno. I haven't tried it. I hope to one day, though.


I can save you some time, money, and potential embarrassment. If your dog goes into field competition thinking he/she can choose how he does things, it _won’t_ hold up. He’ll be competing against happy, secure, stylish dogs that are also under command. Those dogs don’t wonder where the line of right and wrong are, like the spoiled brat at the shopping center. The winner will be the winner because of great natural abilities, and because of a good caring trainer, who gave him the tools of his trade.

EvanG


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I do think pinching a dog's ear until it screams is abuse.

Some JERK tried it on my Whippet without asking me, and I nearly punched the person. I think dog sports should be fun and games. If you have to harm your dog, or upset your dog, or scare your dog so you can win a ribbon, then there's something wrong with it to me.

I do know some hard core working dogs are bothered by nearly nothing, including pain, but none of mine fall into that category.


----------



## EvanG

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I do think pinching a dog's ear until it screams is abuse.
> 
> Some JERK tried it on my Whippet without asking me, and I nearly punched the person. I think dog sports should be fun and games. If you have to harm your dog, or upset your dog, or scare your dog so you can win a ribbon, then there's something wrong with it to me.
> 
> I do know some hard core working dogs are bothered by nearly nothing, including pain, but none of mine fall into that category.


Either you haven't done much reading in this discussion, or your comprehension is weak. It has been clarified at length that "pinching a dog's ear until it screams _is_ abuse", and that it has no place in properly applied force fetching. Did you miss that?

EvanG


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I did not read. I just read the poll and put my answer  Too busy with my six month old son and with trying to save shelter dogs to read a long discussion during the day time. Maybe tonight I will.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

BTW, if you pinch my Whippet's ear *at all* he will scream. He will yelp if you just put a prong collar ON him with no leash attached. (and I am not against prongs at all for teaching important manners and life skills). So my point was that some dogs are just not cut out for these methods, and maybe you already said that. Like I said, I haven't read it.


----------



## EvanG

AquaClaraCanines said:


> I did not read. I just read the poll and put my answer  *Too busy with my six month old son* and with trying to save shelter dogs to read a long discussion during the day time. Maybe tonight I will.


You have the best job there is. I will always miss those days, although this 'grampa' gig is pretty sweet!

EvanG


----------



## Bogey's Mom

hotel4dogs said:


> PLEASE don't misunderstand me, I've NEVER EVER done anything like that to Tito, nor would I!!!
> Sheeesh.
> I'm a big softie!


I didn't think you had - I know you couldn't do that to Tito!! I'm just amazed the there are people that do that. I think I'd have to find another place to train though - that would be next to impossible for me to watch or know about. Eek!


----------



## my4goldens

hotel4dogs said:


> I train obedience in an area where the main trainers are "old school". They "teach" that force fetch (in obedience, they don't do field work) is where you put a prong collar on the dog, face the prongs outward, sandwich the dog's ear between the prongs on the collar and your fingers, and pinch and squeeze until the dog screams and screams.
> That's the kind of stuff that gives FF a bad name.
> Therefore, I voted for "haven't got a clue" on the poll, and I'd like to learn more.


Yep, this was my very first introduction 8 years ago to ear pinch. Trainer grabbed my dog, did this, she screamed, after class I said, never ever again. I was dumb, naive to even let him have a hand on my dog. Did research, learned that this was NOT the way to do it. Watched my son do a complete force fetch program on his lab, thru all the steps. Result, a labrador trained to fetch consistently every time. Attended seminars, many wonderful obedience trainers demonstrate their methods which were all humane, and effective. Proper force fetching is not inhumane and cruel. The method I witnessed done to my first obedience dog was.


----------



## Doolin

I have to say the discussion has been interesting, but too much a play on words and definitions. I am very interested in learning more about this topic. I have seen a FF done on a GSD with a pinch collar used as the stimulus. I would definitely like to learn other methods as some of my guys need much less pressure. The last thing I want to do is ruin the trust I have with my dog by trying this technique without the correct knowledge. All I have seen is one trainers version of FF, would definitely like to learn others!


----------



## EvanG

Doolin said:


> I have to say the discussion has been interesting, but too much a play on words and definitions. I am very interested in learning more about this topic.


I hope my contribuitons are helpful, rather than confusing. I pride myself on being as specific, especially in my terms, as possible.

What I hate in discussions of this nature are broad accusations like "I think most people do (this or that) wrong, so it's wrong for anyone to try it". Or statements like "This is something most people will apply wrong, so it should only be attempted by experts"...that sort of thing. I don't know anyone who knows 'most people'! And how could anyone become an expert without first having been new at this? :doh:

If I can be of help, let me know. 

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

Evan, is it fair to say that FF relies on teaching a dog to avoid an unwanted stimulus, rather than by using a positive stimulus to reinforce what a desired behavior?


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Evan, is it fair to say that FF relies on teaching a dog to avoid an unwanted stimulus, rather than by using a positive stimulus to reinforce what a desired behavior?


I must say, I really enjoy your posts. This goes right to the point in terms of the process. Yes, it relies on that dynamic to pressure-condition the dog. The great thing, as has been previously mentioned, is that for most dogs this is quite often very little actual pressure.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> I must say, I really enjoy your posts. This goes right to the point in terms of the process. Yes, it relies on that dynamic to pressure-condition the dog. The great thing, as has been previously mentioned, is that for most dogs this is quite often very little actual pressure.
> 
> EvanG


Thanks. As you can probably tell, I'm not very enthusiastic about the idea of FF, but I'd rather understand it than dismiss it, or at least fully understand it before I dismiss it.

Does any part of FF rely on rewarding or reinforcing desired behavior?


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Thanks. As you can probably tell, I'm not very enthusiastic about the idea of FF, but I'd rather understand it than dismiss it, or at least fully understand it before I dismiss it.


That speaks well of your intellect.


tippykayak said:


> Does any part of FF rely on rewarding or reinforcing desired behavior?


Yes. One of the most consistent messages in my seminars is that from the beginning of your work with the youngest puppies, compliance brings rewards. It is imparative that your dog has a firm expectation that complying with your directions will be rewarding - each and every time.

Note in this brief clip on "Hold", the first element of force fetch, that the emphasis is on rewarding compliant behavior. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd72kl9lZlc

EvanG


----------



## hotel4dogs

OT....yes, we found a new trainer, and we ADORE our new trainer! SHE is what has helped me get the UD on Tito at such a young age, not the "old school" people. 



Bogey's Mom said:


> I didn't think you had - I know you couldn't do that to Tito!! I'm just amazed the there are people that do that. I think I'd have to find another place to train though - that would be next to impossible for me to watch or know about. Eek!


----------



## hotel4dogs

Ok, I just went and watched the clip on HOLD, and I have to say I was absolutely SHOCKED and DUMBFOUNDED.
It's NOTHING like I had *thought*. Nothing at all.
It was very gentle and very positive. The corrections were very minor and certainly not at all painful.
It was very revealing, thanks for sharing that Evan.
And now I have to go see if Cabela's carries the DVDs, since I still have that gift certificate burning a hole in my pocket!





EvanG said:


> That speaks well of your intellect.Yes. One of the most consistent messages in my seminars is that from the beginning of your work with the youngest puppies, compliance brings rewards. It is imparative that your dog has a firm expectation that complying with your directions will be rewarding - each and every time.
> 
> Note in this brief clip on "Hold", the first element of force fetch, that the emphasis is on rewarding compliant behavior.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd72kl9lZlc
> 
> EvanG


----------



## FlyingQuizini

> Originally posted by EvanG: Are you referring to the question “What % of people out there do you think mess up a FF program?”, and my comment that “I can't speak for the others, but I can tell you that safely 90% of those using my system are successful with it.” Simple math, really. 10%, or fewer ‘mess up’ my FF program.


No, I asked your opinion on how many mess up "A" FF program, not "YOUR" FF program. FF is a concept... not a specific "product," although I understand you have marketed yours as a specific instructional product. I would think that someone with your length of experience in the world of retriever training would have been around the block enough times to comfortably formulate an opinion as to what % of people out there are incorrectly appying the concept of FF to their training. THAT'S what I was asking.

”Originally posted by EvanG: We” who? Who are you speaking for now?

I think it's pretty clear that we have a different style of training. If nothing else in the fact that you practice FF and I don't. 

*Originally Posted by FlyingQuizini 
Fundamentally, I choose not to train my dog to do things the way I'd like under threat of something unpleasant or annoying. *



> Originally posted by EvanG: Good. Me too.


You already established earlier in this thread that the basis of the FF program lies in teaching the dog that he has the power to make the unpleasant or annoying thing stop.



> Originally posted by EvanG: Let me stop right now, and clear up what has so far been transparent innuendo. I didn’t start this thread as a commercial to sell my products. I didn’t get into the dog training business because I saw millions of dollars to be made. I love dogs. I always have. It is ignorance and abuse that keeps me pursuing a better-educated populace in the retriever world, and I don’t plan on stopping because some shallow individual, who does not know me, is willing to make such accusations.


I was stating a fact. You didn't answer my question, you referred me to testimonials about your program. You may not have started the thread with the goal of selling videos, but you've mentioned them a lot and any good businessman wants to promote and move product - especially when you're passionate in what you're selling. Nothing wrong with that.

I have been nothing but polite and respectful in my exchanges with you. It's a shame that you choose to resort to name calling "... some shallow individual.." 



> Originally posted by EvanG: I can save you some time, money, and potential embarrassment. If your dog goes into field competition thinking he/she can choose how he does things, it won’t hold up. He’ll be competing against happy, secure, stylish dogs that are also under command. Those dogs don’t wonder where the line of right and wrong are, like the spoiled brat at the shopping center. The winner will be the winner because of great natural abilities, and because of a good caring trainer, who gave him the tools of his trade.


So dogs who aren't force fetched spend their lives not knowing right from wrong like spoiled brats? Who's the closed-minded one here? You can choose to follow a certain training style and believe 150% in your program. That, however, shouldn't give you the right to talk down about others who train differently. Your continued air of superiority is tiresome. I came to this discussion with a willingness to learn about your program and perhaps look at why FF programs in general have such a bad rap... is it b/c they are often poorly executed, etc. I came with curiosity and was met with condescention.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

Yeah, again I haven't read the whole thread, but I am neither stupid nor slow to comprehend, and I have to agree that my dogs are far from spoiled (okay, they sleep in bed, are indoor, clean, pampered, and go to the park every day, I am home all day with them, they have their own van, and my life revolves around them and my son) but they are NOT brats!


----------



## EvanG

FlyingQuizini said:


> No, I asked your opinion on how many mess up "A" FF program, not "YOUR" FF program. FF is a concept... not a specific "product,"


Perhaps I have somehow been unclear about not speaking for other trainers and their practitioners. I speak only for me and those whom I teach. You seem very comfortable speaking for others. That's your choice. I will not participate in that.

FF is more than a concept. As stated here earlier, there are, at present, three distinct schools of thought on force fetch; its goals, purposes, and mechanisms.

1. *Play at it.* Just kid or trick the dog into picking up something and holding onto it. This is not force fetch at all, but one author writes about it as though it is.
2. *Old school FF:* Involves applying overwhelming force – even to the point of pain – which the dog cannot resist. The result is a reliable fetch on command, and sometimes a ruined dog.
3. *‘New School’;* a conditioning process, in which the dog literally determines the amount of pressure. The process begins with virtually no pressure. That level gradually increases until the trainer reads that the dog is experiencing some form of annoyance or discomfort (not necessarily pain) that he or she would like to go away. The trainer shows the dog that having the fetch object in its mouth is what makes the annoyance stop, and the process has begun. There are many steps to this, as it’s a conditioning process, and not a war of man vs. dog.

That would be _me_ there at number 3. I don't really care how many failures there might be in the other schools of thought and practice. I don't do the things they do. I don't speak for them, and I'm not responsible for them. I am very uncomfortable with people who make broad pronouncements of opinion or of implied 'fact' about what or how "most people" do things. I'm not sure how to be any clearer about this. If your question must be answered with subjectivity I won't be the one answering it.


FlyingQuizini said:


> I would think that someone with your length of experience in the world of retriever training would have been around the block enough times to comfortably formulate an opinion as to what % of people out there are incorrectly appying the concept of FF to their training. THAT'S what I was asking.


I have an opinion about a number of things. But I retain the right to share that opinion with whom I choose. Any opinion I state on an open forum that might be construed as derogatory about a competitor can be damaging to me, so I'm going to remain picky. I don't know if you can relate to that, but that's how it is.


FlyingQuizini said:


> *Originally Posted by FlyingQuizini *
> _Fundamentally, I choose not to train my dog to do things the way I'd like under* threat* of something unpleasant or annoying._


And I think that's the right way of going about it, even if you don't understand why I say that.


FlyingQuizini said:


> You already established earlier in this thread that the basis of the FF program lies in teaching the dog that he has the power to make the unpleasant or annoying thing stop.


That is also correct. But conditioning a dog to properly respond to pressure is not the same thing as threatening him with it. Indeed, I go to great lengths to keep trainers from using any technique or tool as a threat. Apples and oranges.


FlyingQuizini said:


> You didn't answer my question, you referred me to testimonials about your program. You may not have started the thread with the goal of selling videos, but you've mentioned them a lot and any good businessman wants to promote and move product - especially when you're passionate in what you're selling. Nothing wrong with that.


I _did_ answer your question, and I answered it honestly - on my own terms. You didn't ask me for your opinion, you asked for mine. That's all I care to do. Those testimonials factually support my statements. I will not speak for someone else, especially without their permission.


FlyingQuizini said:


> I have been nothing but polite and respectful in my exchanges with you. It's a shame that you choose to resort to name calling "... some shallow individual.."


Actually, Stephanie, you have been rude, argumentative, and disrespectful in nearly every communication you've had with me, both here and on the other board. You just don't seem to recognize it, so I don't intend to hold it against you. But I will not allow false statements about me to pass unchallenged. Nor will I sit quietly by while false information is uttered here as if it were fact because it ends up affecting dogs.

EvanG


----------



## FlyingQuizini

EvanG said:


> Actually, Stephanie, you have been rude, argumentative, and disrespectful in nearly every communication you've had with me, both here and on the other board. You just don't seem to recognize it, so I don't intend to hold it against you. But I will not allow false statements about me to pass unchallenged. Nor will I sit quietly by while false information is uttered here as if it were fact because it ends up affecting dogs.
> EvanG


What other board? The only other board I contribute to is one related to Whippets, so unless you're also an expert in lure coursing or straight racing, I doubt we've had any communication there! Apparently you've confused me with someone else.

I've definitely stood up for my opinion here in this thread. I have done so politely, and while stating repeatedly that it was, in fact, my opinion. Nearly every contributed post includes sayings such as, "I think...." or "in my opinion..." Sorry - but I can't, and won't apoligize for my opinion.

It's too bad really. I was looking forward to hearing from someone who I was willing to think likely implemented a detailed FF program, as well as an open discussion as to why the concept of FF has a bad rap among many. But, since YOUR students are happy and successful with YOUR program, you seem completely unwilling to discuss anything else. Resorting to name calling and personal attacks on my training style has sealed the deal - there is no point in contributing any further.

If anyone feels I've been argumentative or rude, please feel free to call me on it either here, or privately. That was absolutely not my intention and I sincerely hope it did not come across as such. If it did, I'm more than willing to look at it as an opportunity for personal growth; it can sometimes be challenging to passionately defend one's opinion.


----------



## EvanG

FlyingQuizini said:


> What other board? The only other board I contribute to is one related to Whippets, so unless you're also an expert in lure coursing or straight racing, I doubt we've had any communication there! Apparently you've confused me with someone else.


There is no confusion about ths. There are multiple sub-boards under the Golden Retriever Forum.com heading. That one, on which I have not posted for some time, is the *Golden Retriever Training* board.


FlyingQuizini said:


> But, since YOUR students are happy and successful with YOUR program, you seem completely unwilling to discuss anything else.


As long as I'm not required to put words in someone else's mouth, I'll be only too happy to discuss anything you like. But I won't manufacture opinion that is unsupported in order to answer a question. Have you not noticed that a majority of respondents, with only a couple exceptions, have asked reasoned questions in a civil manner, and that I've responded in kind? You may want to give that a try. I remain open to it.

EvanG


----------



## GoldenSail

EvanG said:


> 3. *‘New School’;* a conditioning process, in which the dog literally determines the amount of pressure. The process begins with virtually no pressure. That level gradually increases until the trainer reads that the dog is experiencing some form of annoyance or discomfort (not necessarily pain) that he or she would like to go away. The trainer shows the dog that having the fetch object in its mouth is what makes the annoyance stop, and the process has begun. There are many steps to this, as it’s a conditioning process, and not a war of man vs. dog.
> 
> That would be _me_ there at number 3.
> 
> EvanG


You mentioned that the ear pinch is abuse in your book (and one I erroneously before reading this thread considered to be the sum of FF). But what is used to cause the pressure with the new method? Is it just the ecollar at an appropriate setting for the dog or does it depend?


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

Sorry EvanG. I thought I posted more of Webster's definitions of Force. I thought I only focused on the noun. Hmmm. I was tired. Too busy networking to save a few lives, made a few sigs, and on and on. Focus Kim, Focus. 

Good luck with your training!

Stephanie, I think Evan is referring to other tread topics on this board. Not another forum.


----------



## my4goldens

hotel4dogs said:


> Ok, I just went and watched the clip on HOLD, and I have to say I was absolutely SHOCKED and DUMBFOUNDED.
> It's NOTHING like I had *thought*. Nothing at all.
> It was very gentle and very positive. The corrections were very minor and certainly not at all painful.
> It was very revealing, thanks for sharing that Evan.
> And now I have to go see if Cabela's carries the DVDs, since I still have that gift certificate burning a hole in my pocket!


Haven't I been telling you all along that force fetch when done like this is not abusive??? Go and spend your gift certificate on these DVD's, maybe we can have a movie night watching them together.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

Kimm said:


> Stephanie, I think Evan is referring to other tread topics on this board. Not another forum.


I realize that now. I misunderstood his use of the term, "other board."

We no doubt offer conflicting advice on how to address certain issues. That would be expected based on what appears to be conceptual differences in how we train. Do I passionately defend my opinion and techniques? Absolutely! Not sure how that serves to make me rude and argumentative. And I don't resort to name calling.

Not everyone sees things the same way. If we did, cars wouldn't come in different colors.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

I take it all with a grain of salt now. EvanG called me irrational and told me they have docs to help people like me! I nearly fell off my chair in laughter!!!

I'm sorry. Back on Topic and I promise I am gone...


----------



## fostermom

For what it's worth Stephanie, I don't think you have been anything but polite in this thread (and others). I personally have read this thread and felt that the OP was dismissive and condescending to people who didn't agree with his methods. So I think that it should be re-thought about who was being rude. But hey, that's just my take on it.


----------



## EvanG

GoldenSail said:


> You mentioned that the ear pinch is abuse in your book (and one I erroneously before reading this thread considered to be the sum of FF). But what is used to cause the pressure with the new method? Is it just the ecollar at an appropriate setting for the dog or does it depend?


In _my_ book? I think you may be confusing someone elses' book for mine, as I teach ear pinch as a technique for this process. Perhaps you were reading one of Wolters' books. Interestingly, he began is a fierce opponent of FF, and later wrote instructional work on how to do it.

For reference, my books are:

Smartwork for Retrievers, voluem one; Basics and Transition
SmartFetch
Smartwork II, Secrets of the Pros

If you can pin down where this was written I'll be glad to help cross reference anything from my writings that may be helpful.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> One of the most consistent messages in my seminars is that from the beginning of your work with the youngest puppies, compliance brings rewards. It is imparative that your dog has a firm expectation that complying with your directions will be rewarding - each and every time.
> 
> Note in this brief clip on "Hold", the first element of force fetch, that the emphasis is on rewarding compliant behavior.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd72kl9lZlc
> 
> EvanG


Obviously nothing in that clip is particularly harsh or what mainstream dog trainers would consider abusive. Still, it does seem that the shaping aspects of the exercise are largely accomplished through aversive methods, and reward through attention is given to big chunks of successful behavior. Is that a fair characterization of FF in general or just of the skill being taught in the clip?


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Still, it does seem that the shaping aspects of the exercise are largely accomplished through aversive methods, and reward through attention is given to *big chunks* of successful behavior. Is that a fair characterization of FF in general or just of the skill being taught in the clip?


It's pretty close -at least to how I do it. I'm not sure about the 'big chunks' reference, though. Perhaps you wouldn't mind being more specific?

EvanG


----------



## Loisiana

Evan, at what age would you recommend to start teaching "hold" ?


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> It's pretty close -at least to how I do it. I'm not sure about the 'big chunks' reference, though. Perhaps you wouldn't mind being more specific?
> 
> EvanG


Sure. It seems like, for example, if you want to teach the dog to hold the bumper and drop it when you say, not when he feels like it, you collar correct when he drops it. Once he begins to do the desired behavior more consistently, he's praised. In the examples in which the dog is sitting and holding, praise is given, but it isn't timed to reinforce specific behavior the way that the corrections are. That is, the dogs are gently petted while they hold and gently corrected when they drop.

Or, to put it another way, you don't praise the dog for holding it for three seconds, then praise at four, then praise at 10, then 30, etc. You only seem to praise on and off during desired behavior or once the full behavior or at least a fairly large piece of behavior is successfully executed.


----------



## GoldenSail

EvanG said:


> In _my_ book? I think you may be confusing someone elses' book for mine, as I teach ear pinch as a technique for this process. Perhaps you were reading one of Wolters' books. Interestingly, he began is a fierce opponent of FF, and later wrote instructional work on how to do it.
> 
> For reference, my books are:
> 
> Smartwork for Retrievers, voluem one; Basics and Transition
> SmartFetch
> Smartwork II, Secrets of the Pros
> 
> If you can pin down where this was written I'll be glad to help cross reference anything from my writings that may be helpful.
> 
> EvanG


Oh sorry, just a play on words (not your actual book)! I meant that earlier in the thread someone mentioned mashing a dog's ear with a prong until they screamed and you said that it was abusive. I guess I just thought that meant you may not use the ear pinch at all. Now I am getting that you do use the ear pinch, just not to that extent?


----------



## EvanG

Loisiana said:


> Evan, at what age would you recommend to start teaching "hold" ?


Normally 6-8 months. But there are some important prerequisites for it.

Physical and emotional maturity to begin formal training
All permanent teeth should be in, and no sore gums.
Rock solid obedience



tippykayak said:


> Sure. It seems like, for example, if you want to teach the dog to hold the bumper and drop it when you say, not when he feels like it, you collar correct when he drops it. Once he begins to do the desired behavior more consistently, he's praised. In the examples in which the dog is sitting and holding, praise is given, but it isn't timed to reinforce specific behavior the way that the corrections are. That is, the dogs are gently petted while they hold and gently corrected when they drop.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, you don't praise the dog for holding it for three seconds, then praise at four, then praise at 10, then 30, etc. You only seem to praise on and off during desired behavior or once the full behavior or at least a fairly large piece of behavior is successfully executed.


All good points. It will make more sense as you see the process roll along with its steps/phases progressing. I don't mean to be cryptic about this, but the "Hold" portion is just the start.

Once "Fetch" training begins in formal fashion, "Hold" & "Fetch" soon become one standard; the dog is to hold what he's fetched until commanded to "Drop" (Give, Out...whatever command you prefer for release). The focus shifts to instant praise for each 'fetch'. I hope that all makes sense. It makes more sense on video or in person.

Still, we do praise as the pup holds the fetch object soothingly because we aren't just shaping one specific skill or behavior. We are praising this way so that the dog finds holding both rewarding _and_ comforting. Does that help?

EvanG


----------



## Rastadog

*Wow 88 responses*

I forced fetched my first golden for the obedience ring. It was 15 mins during a lesson from my teacher. I had tried everything else, all the fun stuff, which didn't work. The ear pinch was a last restort. I'll admit it wasn't much fun for me or my dog. What I did realize after we got home is that all the work we had done prior to using the earpinch had paid off. She knew, take it hold and get it. Now she understood the big picture. She was a little tenative at first. I worked on building up her confidence and attitude. Within a week she was retrieving with attitude, good, and having fun with it. I realized dogs learn differently than humans. She ended up loving her retrieving training work and had a very happy upbeat retrieve in the ring.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines

I don't think Stephanie has been rude either. Internet is hard to read the tone.


----------



## EvanG

GoldenSail said:


> Oh sorry, just a play on words (not your actual book)! I meant that earlier in the thread someone mentioned mashing a dog's ear with a prong until they screamed and you said that it was abusive. I guess I just thought that meant you may not use the ear pinch at all. Now I am getting that you do use the ear pinch, just not to that extent?


No where near it! I see what you're saying though. Yes, what was described earlier is the kind of application that leads people to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater', as I spoke of earlier because it truly _is_ abuse. It isn't FF that was the problem, but rather the aweful excuse for application. I think that if someone is prone to apply FF that way, they may well be expected to overdo nearly anything, don't you?

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> Still, we do praise as the pup holds the fetch object soothingly because we aren't just shaping one specific skill or behavior. We are praising this way so that the dog finds holding both rewarding _and_ comforting. Does that help?
> 
> EvanG


Yup. I think I get it. You do bop the dog in the face pretty firmly a few times in that video, and there's a lot of collar popping that happens too. I'm not sure I really like that, but my participation in this thread is really about understanding, not arguing that your methods are imperfect.

There does seem to be more reliance on correcting unwanted behavior than on reinforcing desired behavior. Just looking at the video you posted, I'd call the ratio somewhere around 75/25 of correction to positive reinforcement. Would you characterize FF as a method that relies on pressure significantly more than reward?


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> There does seem to be more reliance on correcting unwanted behavior than on reinforcing desired behavior. Just looking at the video you posted, I'd call the ratio somewhere around 75/25 of correction to positive reinforcement. Would you characterize FF as a method that relies on pressure significantly more than reward?


Honestly, I'd say that ratio varies from dog to dog. There are no set formulas to which I subscribe. FF surely relies more on pressure than reward by design. But reward is an essential component of good application in all cases.

EvanG


----------



## Loisiana

Watching the video, I wasn't seeing a method that was based on a ratio of correction vs. positive reinforcement, but instead a dog being corrected when wrong and praised when right. So a dog that is right more often than he is wrong would have a ratio higher in positive reinforcement than correction. Right?


----------



## EvanG

Jodie,

Yes, that's correct. It's great to see that light turn on, and to watch those young dogs begin to accelerate through the course - seeking to do the right thing. 

Have you ever been to a field event, and watched some handler constantly nagging/reminding their dog to behave or to obey? Drives judges nuts! Me too.  These dogs continually seek to do the right thing because it so consistently tips that balance in their favor.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

Loisiana said:


> Watching the video, I wasn't seeing a method that was based on a ratio of correction vs. positive reinforcement, but instead a dog being corrected when wrong and praised when right. So a dog that is right more often than he is wrong would have a ratio higher in positive reinforcement than correction. Right?


The issue is that the corrections are timed precisely to lower incidence of the undesired behavior but the praises are more general and not given as often.

In several of the clips, the dogs aren't reinforced at all, but are simply corrected for dropping or mishandling the "bumper." The philosophy, at least as Evan's described it here and in the video he posted, relies on using corrections to reduce undesired behavior than on rewards to reinforce desired behavior.

Or, to put it another way, the dogs are often simply non-reinforced when holding the bumper properly and then corrected for holding it improperly. Even when they are reinforced, it's sort of a general comforting voice and handling, not a precisely timed reinforcement at the instant of correct behavior.

I realize that the philosophy doesn't articulate a particular ratio, and that it would vary from dog to dog, but it does seem to, in practice, involve a reliance on aversives for shaping behavior rather than reinforcers.


----------



## katieanddusty

My problem with FF is that I just don't like the idea of applying force, pressure, discomfort, whatever you want to call it, to train a dog to do something that's a completely pointless and artificial human recreational activity. I understand that you are correctly using negative reinforcement in that the pressure/discomfort is not at an "abusive" level and the dog knows how to turn the pressure/discomfort off. So it's not a scientific/theoretical problem I have with it, but more of an ethical/moral problem.

I think it depends on the sport, but it's my opinion that a lot of obedience and field people take themselves way too seriously. I consider myself a fairly serious agility competitor. I've spent years analyzing how dogs react to their handler's movement and signals on course, I can name several methods of teaching a dog how to do any given agility obstacle, I've subscribed to a magazine all about how to succeed in agility and read tons of books, I consistently drove an hour one-way to class and up to 7 or 8 hours for really important competitions. And I am hardly the most dedicated agility person out there. There are many people out there who take agility just as seriously as you do field work (and probably more serious agility competitors than serious field competitors just because it's such an accessible sport).

But in the end, we train dogs to jump over PVC pipe and run through tunnels and then we go run around with them in city parks and hang out with a lot of other crazy people. It's absolutely ridiculous. I think that's part of the reason why force/pressure/discomfort/annoyance-based training is not popular in agility at all, because agility people in general are better at recognizing that it's all completely pointless. Yes, maybe my dog would knock fewer bars if I rubber-banded the bars to the jump cups, held onto the bar and bopped him in the back feet with it, etc. But it's a stupid piece of PVC pipe. Who cares if it falls every once in a while. I won't get a ribbon for that run. Big deal. Even people who are competitive at the national and international level know that it's not fair to their dog to do a discomfort-based "quick fix," instead choosing reward-based methods even when they require more ingenuity and time to get a reliable response from the dog.

All of the things we compete in with our dogs are games that humans made up for fun. First of all, part of that "fun" for me is knowing that my dog is also having a blast, and I put a lot of effort into making sure that I'm progressing gradually enough in training that my dog is always happy and never uncomfortable. And also, I find it unethical to use force/pressure/discomfort/annoyance just to get a dog to play my stupid game. Field work has a bit more historical basis in that dogs retrieving birds for humans once had a point, but now, it's just as stupid of a game as agility. Even if you eat the birds, you don't depend on them to survive. It's just a recreational activity for the humans' benefit. So I don't think our competitions and titles that we designed for our enjoyment are enough to ethically justify putting dogs through discomfort/annoyance/pressure.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> The issue is that the corrections are timed precisely to lower incidence of the undesired behavior but the praises are more general and not given as often.
> 
> In several of the clips, the dogs aren't reinforced at all, but are simply corrected for dropping or mishandling the "bumper." The philosophy, at least as Evan's described it here and in the video he posted, relies on using corrections to reduce undesired behavior than on rewards to reinforce desired behavior.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, the dogs are often simply non-reinforced when holding the bumper properly and then corrected for holding it improperly. Even when they are reinforced, it's sort of a general comforting voice and handling, not a precisely timed reinforcement at the instant of correct behavior.
> 
> I realize that the philosophy doesn't articulate a particular ratio, and that it would vary from dog to dog, but it does seem to, in practice, involve a reliance on aversives for shaping behavior rather than reinforcers.


Yes but please remember that the ultimate reward (reinforcement) in all of field training is GETTING THE BIRD (bumper). This desire is (hopefully) bred into the dogs, we don't have to teach them to want the thrown object. We just have to teach them when, where and how  Now during early stage of FF it's not as obvious as in later stages when you can visually see the dog's glee at getting to the bumper, but it's a different concept than praising so precisely and incrementally as in training something more abstract to the dog (i.e. contacts in agility or something similarly obtuse).
We praise a LOT during all phases of field training but in the end, getting the bird is the ultimate praise. This is why nobody uses treats to field train. Treats are value-less in that setting. You can TRY to give them a treat and they will literally spit it out if there is the chance of instead getting a bird/bumper. 
I see what you're getting at as it is a different flow than in free shaping clicker training where you are going to give praise at precisely the moment the dog makes an incremental improvement.


----------



## Loisiana

I could be way off here, so Evan can correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression that we were not seeing the initial, first time training of any dog on that video clip (if we were I'm jealous, none of my dogs ever took to hold so quickly!). I would think that initially a dog would be praised much more often for each bit of success. But as the dog becomes more proficient, the praise does not need to be so often (just like when teaching a dog to heel, I would intitially be praising every step, but later vary when I praise).

Again, I could be wrong about that, that's just what I was thinking while watching the video.


----------



## K9-Design

katieanddusty said:


> All of the things we compete in with our dogs are games that humans made up for fun. First of all, part of that "fun" for me is knowing that my dog is also having a blast, and I put a lot of effort into making sure that I'm progressing gradually enough in training that my dog is always happy and never uncomfortable. And also, I find it unethical to use force/pressure/discomfort/annoyance just to get a dog to play my stupid game. Field work has a bit more historical basis in that dogs retrieving birds for humans once had a point, but now, it's just as stupid of a game as agility. Even if you eat the birds, you don't depend on them to survive. It's just a recreational activity for the humans' benefit. So I don't think our competitions and titles that we designed for our enjoyment are enough to ethically justify putting dogs through discomfort/annoyance/pressure.


Katie, I agree with you to a point about it being games. This is one reason I have not gone anywhere with agility, it is just a game and we've got other things to concentrate on. I also have the same mentality in obedience -- if we aren't having fun, we move on, we've got better things to do. The dog is only doing obedience for me.
But there is a VERY deep rooted INSTINCT for field work in our retrievers -- it is NOT a game to them!
This is a behavior not too very far removed from the CHASE AND KILL of our dogs' ancestors. 
These dogs will go through brick walls to get that bird, and it's not because somewhere, someone pinched their ear. It's because it's hardwired in them and they love it more than life itself sometimes.
There is no comparison to this instinctual drive in agility.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> We praise a LOT during all phases of field training but in the end, getting the bird is the ultimate praise. This is why nobody uses treats to field train. Treats are value-less in that setting. You can TRY to give them a treat and they will literally spit it out if there is the chance of instead getting a bird/bumper.
> I see what you're getting at as it is a different flow than in free shaping clicker training where you are going to give praise at precisely the moment the dog makes an incremental improvement.


I agree with that. I work on motivating my guys and reinforcing the motivation itself so the dog enjoys the task and the work as the ultimate reward. I think that's how you get away from treats in a positive reinforcement model. You use treats as one of a whole toolbox of reinforcers, and you constantly impress on the dog how fun and rewarding it is to work with you.

I see how that's even easier with retrieve behavior, since it's less of a remove from the dog's ingrained prey/hold drive.


----------



## katieanddusty

Yes, it's a hardwired behavior for the dog to play fetch or chase birds. But the stylized variation of retrieving required for field work is your silly little game. There's nothing the dog is getting out of a field trial that they wouldn't be getting out of playing fetch (okay, they'd probably have more fun fetching real birds rather than a tennis ball, but they don't inherently need to be wearing an electronic collar or getting their ear pinched in order to fetch real birds). People invented the field trial for their enjoyment, and you're getting prizes and titles out of it.


----------



## Debles

"But there is a VERY deep rooted INSTINCT for field work in our retrievers -- it is NOT a game to them!
This is a behavior not too very far removed from the CHASE AND KILL of our dogs' ancestors. 
These dogs will go through brick walls to get that bird, and it's not because somewhere, someone pinched their ear. It's because it's hardwired in them and they love it more than life itself sometimes."


This was my point which no one chose to see. My dogs don't need to be shocked or pinched to retrieve bumpers or birds. They do it because they are driven to and love it.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

I finally watched the video. I suppose it's not bad, but I really don't want to be boppin' my dog under the chin like that to hold a bumper or a bird. Not the first few bops, but the later. You want to bop your dog, bop it. I know if someone bopped me like that, I'd bop him back.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> I realize that the philosophy doesn't articulate a particular ratio, and that it would vary from dog to dog, but it does seem to, in practice, involve a reliance on aversives for shaping behavior rather than reinforcers.


I think you see it for what it is – at least on the surface. But, if we leave that description without qualification the risk is, once again, framing FF as only on thing with only one application. It is that variation from dog to dog that keeps this from being a rule.

You seem to have a good clarity of thought, and that will help you understand this better in the long run. What happens to some dog people is that they learn some things about operant conditioning, academically, and make the illogical jump that dogs are somehow bound to it. In fact, dogs don’t know anything about those terms or ideas. It’s a nice guideline, but can be as confining as enlightening for a trainer.

One of my own constant admonitions is “Train the dog you’re training”. That means that your dog – the one you’re working with at the moment – is as individual as any person is. That dog has its own measure of talent, memory, ability to scent, desire to please, and so on. It hasn’t read any books, and didn’t create the acts you desire. All of that is fine, as long as we are willing to be flexible enough to adapt our training processes to the dog without being captive to some scientific formula that does not take the individual dog into consideration.




katieanddusty said:


> My problem with FF is that I just don't like the idea of applying force, pressure, discomfort, whatever you want to call it, to train a dog to do something that's a completely pointless and artificial human recreational activity.


Whether or not hunting is “completely pointless and artificial” is up to the individual to decide. I respect your opinion of it, but only as far as being _your_ opinion. No one here is recruiting for new hunters. But you can believe that many thousands of people view hunting as very important, as well as enjoyable, and retrievers are a very useful adjunct to it.


katieanddusty said:


> I understand that you are correctly using negative reinforcement in that the pressure/discomfort is not at an "abusive" level and the dog knows how to turn the pressure/discomfort off. So it's not a scientific/theoretical problem I have with it, but more of an ethical/moral problem.


Okay. Of course, your ethics & morals are your own, as any else’s are theirs.


katieanddusty said:


> All of the things we compete in with our dogs are games that humans made up for fun.


Yes, the sure are, except that hunt tests and field trials serve several other useful functions. Each gives the hunter something enjoyable to do with their dogs in the off season. More importantly, the selective breeding of dogs with the greatest concentration of the higher working traits depends on objective data gathered through proven performance under judgment. No breeding program is based on the results of one event, but rather on cumulative data of placements and titles earned through repeated high performance.


katieanddusty said:


> First of all, part of that "fun" for me is knowing that my dog is also having a blast, and I put a lot of effort into making sure that I'm progressing gradually enough in training that my dog is always happy and never uncomfortable.


Like you, I make sure my dogs have a great time doing their work. Like all athletes, our dogs have the most fun when they’re successful at their work. FF is a vital tool we give them in order to succeed more often, and under ever more challenging conditions.


katieanddusty said:


> And also, I find it unethical to use force/pressure/discomfort/annoyance just to get a dog to play my stupid game.


Then don’t do it.


katieanddusty said:


> *Field work has a bit more historical basis in that dogs retrieving birds for humans once had a point*, but now, it's just as stupid of a game as agility


Not so. As I mentioned, if you don’t care for hunting, that’s your choice. But many thousands of others around the world choose to hunt, and that’s their choice. Hunting also serves in an ongoing conservation effort to preclude over population of many species. That isn’t opinion, but that’s also another discussion. By maintaining our dogs throughout the year for competition, our dogs stay in top physical shape, and their training remains intact for the hunting season. Plus, it really is fun!

EvanG


----------



## hotel4dogs

What follows is JMO! But I do want to back it up by saying that I've taken care of well over 1000 dogs, so I'm not just talking about training or encountering my own handful of dogs. I've got a bit more experience behind me than that. Of those dogs, probably 10% are a pleasure. The other 90% are annoying brats that do as they please.
Not peeing/pooping in the house, not eating off the countertops, not jumping up on people, and so on are also completely pointless and artificial human rules...to your dog. Walking on a leash down a sidewalk is also a pointless activity to your dog, who would much rather be bounding off freely to take a look at whatever strikes his fancy at the moment. JUST GUESSING, to the dog, being "made" to jump over PVC pipes, or to pick up a dumbell or glove in the obedience ring, or to get a bird in the field, is no more ludicrous (and probably less so) than being told when and where to pee and poop and where to sleep.
My dog does ALL dog sports. He likes some better than others. Tough. I really don't care. (side note again....I've never hurt my dog in training, but I do collar pop him and I have been known to rap on the top of his head with my knuckles to see if there's anyone in there).
My dog has a GREAT life. It's better than mine. He gets a great place to live, soft comfy beds, free medical care without worrying about paying the bills, the best food money can buy, toys, brushing, bathing, and unlimited love and attention. He gets to exercise, play, run with other dogs. 
If I decide that he has to do obedience, or agility, or whatever sport I happen to like to do, whether he likes it or not, he can give me a few minutes a few times a week. That's just the way it is. Sure I try to keep it as fun for him as I can, but the bottom line is, he's GOING TO DO IT. It's a trade off. I take care of him, insanely well, and he can learn to do the sport(s) I like to do. 
And the best part is, it ends up bringing us so much closer together. Like most goldens, he wants to be wherever I am. He loves to get in the car and go places with me, and when we get where we're going, he jumps out and participates happily in whatever activity I've picked, be it agility, obedience, dock diving, whatever. 
But I had to lay the groundwork for each of those activities with him so that he and I can have that special time together, many many times a week. That groundwork involves teaching him what is and isn't acceptable in that sport. 
And now back to my initial comment about the 90% of the dogs I board that are annoying brats. They have very, very sad lives. The owners have coddled and pampered them, refusing to train and/or discipline the dogs, feeling that it was somehow cruel or inhumane to the dogs. Now the dogs NEVER GO ANYWHERE with the owners because they haven't been taught realistic manners and expectations. 
And finally, very very few of the owners I've met have the knowledge, patience, experience or time to teach their dogs with clickers or positive only training. They have to do what works, and works quickly, with the limited knowledge and experience they have. And for MOST dogs, a combination of positives and adversives works the fastest. Is it the best method? I'm not going to judge. But I will say it's the fastest.









katieanddusty said:


> My problem with FF is that I just don't like the idea of applying force, pressure, discomfort, whatever you want to call it, to train a dog to do something that's a completely pointless and artificial human recreational activity. I understand that you are correctly using negative reinforcement in that the pressure/discomfort is not at an "abusive" level and the dog knows how to turn the pressure/discomfort off. So it's not a scientific/theoretical problem I have with it, but more of an ethical/moral problem.
> 
> I think it depends on the sport, but it's my opinion that a lot of obedience and field people take themselves way too seriously. I consider myself a fairly serious agility competitor. I've spent years analyzing how dogs react to their handler's movement and signals on course, I can name several methods of teaching a dog how to do any given agility obstacle, I've subscribed to a magazine all about how to succeed in agility and read tons of books, I consistently drove an hour one-way to class and up to 7 or 8 hours for really important competitions. And I am hardly the most dedicated agility person out there. There are many people out there who take agility just as seriously as you do field work (and probably more serious agility competitors than serious field competitors just because it's such an accessible sport).
> 
> But in the end, we train dogs to jump over PVC pipe and run through tunnels and then we go run around with them in city parks and hang out with a lot of other crazy people. It's absolutely ridiculous. I think that's part of the reason why force/pressure/discomfort/annoyance-based training is not popular in agility at all, because agility people in general are better at recognizing that it's all completely pointless. Yes, maybe my dog would knock fewer bars if I rubber-banded the bars to the jump cups, held onto the bar and bopped him in the back feet with it, etc. But it's a stupid piece of PVC pipe. Who cares if it falls every once in a while. I won't get a ribbon for that run. Big deal. Even people who are competitive at the national and international level know that it's not fair to their dog to do a discomfort-based "quick fix," instead choosing reward-based methods even when they require more ingenuity and time to get a reliable response from the dog.
> 
> All of the things we compete in with our dogs are games that humans made up for fun. First of all, part of that "fun" for me is knowing that my dog is also having a blast, and I put a lot of effort into making sure that I'm progressing gradually enough in training that my dog is always happy and never uncomfortable. And also, I find it unethical to use force/pressure/discomfort/annoyance just to get a dog to play my stupid game. Field work has a bit more historical basis in that dogs retrieving birds for humans once had a point, but now, it's just as stupid of a game as agility. Even if you eat the birds, you don't depend on them to survive. It's just a recreational activity for the humans' benefit. So I don't think our competitions and titles that we designed for our enjoyment are enough to ethically justify putting dogs through discomfort/annoyance/pressure.


----------



## EvanG

Loisiana said:


> I could be way off here, so Evan can correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression that we were not seeing the initial, first time training of any dog on that video clip (if we were I'm jealous, none of my dogs ever took to hold so quickly!). I would think that initially a dog would be praised much more often for each bit of success. But as the dog becomes more proficient, the praise does not need to be so often (just like when teaching a dog to heel, I would intitially be praising every step, but later vary when I praise).
> 
> Again, I could be wrong about that, that's just what I was thinking while watching the video.


That is all very good insight. You are only seeing a clip, so you do not see the very first rep on the "hold" skill. But it was much the same. I'm going to edit some more work on this today, since the interest level is healthy here. I want to show my current pup (now 20 months old) that I used for our Puppy Program when he was little. I want you to see why most of my pups are that accepting when the time comes to start this.

You are also correct that as the dog matures and progresses in this skill that virtue becomes its own reward, and praise tails off a bit as a natural course of action. Also, we progress from "hold" to all the "fetch" work, and much more praise enters the process for all the new functions.

EvanG


----------



## DNL2448

BRAVO....BRAVO! Couldn't have said it better myself!

*De gustibus non est disputandum* 

(For those that don't know, this means “there is no disputing about tastes, and is essentially equivalent to the English expression "there's no accounting for taste. The implication is that opinions about matters of taste are not objectively right or wrong, and hence that disagreements about matters of taste cannot be objectively resolved).



hotel4dogs said:


> What follows is JMO! But I do want to back it up by saying that I've taken care of well over 1000 dogs, so I'm not just talking about training or encountering my own handful of dogs. I've got a bit more experience behind me than that. Of those dogs, probably 10% are a pleasure. The other 90% are annoying brats that do as they please.
> Not peeing/pooping in the house, not eating off the countertops, not jumping up on people, and so on are also completely pointless and artificial human rules...to your dog. Walking on a leash down a sidewalk is also a pointless activity to your dog, who would much rather be bounding off freely to take a look at whatever strikes his fancy at the moment. JUST GUESSING, to the dog, being "made" to jump over PVC pipes, or to pick up a dumbell or glove in the obedience ring, or to get a bird in the field, is no more ludicrous (and probably less so) than being told when and where to pee and poop and where to sleep.
> My dog does ALL dog sports. He likes some better than others. Tough. I really don't care. (side note again....I've never hurt my dog in training, but I do collar pop him and I have been known to rap on the top of his head with my knuckles to see if there's anyone in there).
> My dog has a GREAT life. It's better than mine. He gets a great place to live, soft comfy beds, free medical care without worrying about paying the bills, the best food money can buy, toys, brushing, bathing, and unlimited love and attention. He gets to exercise, play, run with other dogs.
> If I decide that he has to do obedience, or agility, or whatever sport I happen to like to do, whether he likes it or not, he can give me a few minutes a few times a week. That's just the way it is. Sure I try to keep it as fun for him as I can, but the bottom line is, he's GOING TO DO IT. It's a trade off. I take care of him, insanely well, and he can learn to do the sport(s) I like to do.
> And the best part is, it ends up bringing us so much closer together. Like most goldens, he wants to be wherever I am. He loves to get in the car and go places with me, and when we get where we're going, he jumps out and participates happily in whatever activity I've picked, be it agility, obedience, dock diving, whatever.
> But I had to lay the groundwork for each of those activities with him so that he and I can have that special time together, many many times a week. That groundwork involves teaching him what is and isn't acceptable in that sport.
> And now back to my initial comment about the 90% of the dogs I board that are annoying brats. They have very, very sad lives. The owners have coddled and pampered them, refusing to train and/or discipline the dogs, feeling that it was somehow cruel or inhumane to the dogs. Now the dogs NEVER GO ANYWHERE with the owners because they haven't been taught realistic manners and expectations.
> And finally, very very few of the owners I've met have the knowledge, patience, experience or time to teach their dogs with clickers or positive only training. They have to do what works, and works quickly, with the limited knowledge and experience they have. And for MOST dogs, a combination of positives and adversives works the fastest. Is it the best method? I'm not going to judge. But I will say it's the fastest.


----------



## EvanG

katieanddusty said:


> Yes, it's a hardwired behavior for the dog to play fetch or chase birds. But the stylized variation of retrieving required for field work is your silly little game.


I see you're still pretty bitter about field games. Let's get a couple items cleared up in factual terms. What retrievers do by their nature is chase after motion and honor their noses. That's about all they do naturally that relates to a functional retrieve. The rest is cultivated in various ways by people. I think we should retain our empathy about the quality of their performances with that in mind.


However, the "the stylized variation of retrieving required for field work" is not merely some fanciful behavioral experiment invented in order to play some "silly little game". There are useful and important aspects to those functions.
They exponentially increase the liklihood of game being brought to hand, thereby working as an effective tool of game conservation.
They provide critera for testing and evaluation of the higher traits in dogs for selective breeding programs, which promote and preserve the best attributes for future generations.
None of that is 'silly' to me.


katieanddusty said:


> People invented the field trial for their enjoyment, and you're getting prizes and titles out of it.


You're certainly entitled to your opinion of it. I strongly disagree with it.

EvanG


----------



## GoldenSail

hotel4dogs said:


> And for MOST dogs, a combination of positives and adversives works the fastest. Is it the best method? I'm not going to judge. But I will say it's the fastest.


And this is one gets me (and I used to fall in the all positive camp, hating FF and e-collars, leash pops, but I am leaning on some and changed on others). Why does it have to be wrong? Sadistic? Does it really 'hurt' my dog? I don't think so, there are dogs that don't really care if you leash pop them. They'll look at you and say, so what? 

Why don't we judge methods based on the individual dog's response to them, rather than on the method itself. Did it work? Was it efficient (and I'll agree, CT is not always very efficient). How well did it work? What is the dog's body language telling us? Is his head lowered or is his tail up and wagging? What do we want the dog's response to be and why? (I throw that in, because I am 100% aggression intolerant and when I correct a dog for it, the dog needs to show some sign of submission, like averted eyes, because it is serious).

But I mean, seriously, let's watch some videos of a FFed dogs and ask ourselves questions like these, and do it on a per dog basis.


----------



## hotel4dogs

well said. to each trainer and each dog the method that works the best. Interestingly, when I give Tito a collar pop (I don't use a prong collar on him simply because there's never been any reason to, whereas I have used them on other dogs) he tends to be not only more attentive but also happier, because he seems to understand better what my expectations are. (OH! So that's right, and the other is wrong, I get it now!)
Sort of like the old kids' game of "you're getting warmer, you're getting colder" when looking for an object. If I only got the "positive" reinforcement, I'd get frustrated real fast.




GoldenSail said:


> And this is one gets me (and I used to fall in the all positive camp, hating FF and e-collars, leash pops, but I am leaning on some and changed on others). Why does it have to be wrong? Sadistic? Does it really 'hurt' my dog? I don't think so, there are dogs that don't really care if you leash pop them. They'll look at you and say, so what?
> 
> Why don't we judge methods based on the individual dog's response to them, rather than on the method itself. Did it work? Was it efficient (and I'll agree, CT is not always very efficient). How well did it work? What is the dog's body language telling us? Is his head lowered or is his tail up and wagging? What do we want the dog's response to be and why? (I throw that in, because I am 100% aggression intolerant and when I correct a dog for it, the dog needs to show some sign of submission, like averted eyes, because it is serious).
> 
> But I mean, seriously, let's watch some videos of a FFed dogs and ask ourselves questions like these, and do it on a per dog basis.


----------



## Ljilly28

hotel4dogs said:


> . If I only got the "positive" reinforcement, I'd get frustrated real fast.


Tally doesnt need collar pops to have precise and animated heeling with intense focus on me. He learned hand targeting as a baby and he switches into heeling mode and lights up. There isnt once that he hasnt gone down on recall since he learned it, or messed up anything that he understands. Once he's got it, he does it. I like knowing he is working with me happily and that no force is involved. In learning new skills, he works hard to offer the right behavior. He genuinely doesnt need aversives in obedience.

I see lots of dogs in Obedience looking worried, licking thier lips/calming signals, crouching down to their owners,and moving very slowly through exercises, worried to make a mistake. I like the dashing, fluent, joyful quality that comes with a dog trained by methods that fit. Half the dogs in the obedience ring look like me when I have to go to the dentist- they do it bc they have to- with no style or flair. Many people training at higher levels IMO are too forceful with their dogs and it shows in the lack of sparkle in their performances. When you do see a dog with not just the precision to qualify but also confidence and presence, it is a beautiful thing.


----------



## Loisiana

Ljilly28 said:


> Tally doesnt need collar pops to have precise and animated heeling with intense focus on me. He learned hand targeting as a baby and he switches into heeling mode and lights up. There isnt once that he hasnt gone down on recall since he learned it, or messed up anything that he understands. Once he's got it, he does it. I like knowing he is working with me happily and that no force is involved. In learning new skills, he works hard to offer the right behavior. He genuinely doesnt need aversives in obedience.


 
I don't want to get too far off topic here, but when it comes to competitive obedience, I do think there is a difference between a dog that has only shown a couple of times and a dog that has been steadily campaigned. A lot of dogs do great work going for an initial title, but then the longer they show the more the work starts to fall apart. It's why the UDX is such a difficult title. It's not that the dogs don't understand the skills, but they've begun to learn alternative behaviors in a ring setting. If you talk to handlers working on their first UDX or OTCH, you will find that a lot of them will say that is when heeling (or another exercise) first started showing signs of problems. They could get through the basic titles without seeing any problems. It is a matter of maintaining that weekend after weekend. That's why so many Open A exhibitors don't understand the difficulties with open stays. Most dogs can do the open stays without a problem the first several times they're shown. But at some point, maybe after 30, 50, even a hundred times in the ring, the dog is going to go down, and that is when you have a problem start.

It's not a matter of teaching an exercise, I agree that most execises should be initially taught without adversives. It's a matter of being able to maintain that exercise over a long period of time in a ring setting, and that is where I find some kind of negative consequence (other than just withholding treat) for my dog necessary. That's why everyone in obedience is still waiting for someone to train a dog to an OTCH without the use of adversives. Every once in a while someone will claim they did, but then it is proven that at some point in the dog's training they did use them.


----------



## Loisiana

Ljilly28 said:


> I see lots of dogs in Obedience looking worried, licking thier lips/calming signals, crouching down to their owners,and moving very slowly through exercises, worried to make a mistake. I like the dashing, fluent, joyful quality that comes with a dog trained by methods that fit. Half the dogs in the obedience ring look like me when I have to go to the dentist- they do it bc they have to- with no style or flair. Many people training at higher levels IMO are too forceful with their dogs and it shows in the lack of sparkle in their performances. When you do see a dog with not just the precision to qualify but also confidence and presence, it is a beautiful thing.


So are you saying that when you see a dog looking worried, licking lips, and moving slowly, you assume that dog was taught with adversive methods? Because I've seen plenty of dogs that have gone through positive training that exhibit the same signs. It's not the method itself, it is the trainer not thoroughly finishing the training. I also like the dashing, fluent, joyful quality; that's what I'm training for. The methods I use still get that. I agree, the goal is a dog that works with both precision and confidence. I do think that can be achieved with the use of adversives. And my personal opinion is that you are actually more likely to achieve it that way.


----------



## EvanG

Ljilly28 said:


> Many people training at higher levels IMO are too forceful with their dogs and it shows in the lack of sparkle in their performances. When you do see a dog with not just the precision to qualify but also confidence and presence, it is a beautiful thing.


Hmmm. How 'bout some of these?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfB4XjjQ40Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d95uwfeoe4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1il0xaGTXm4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VclTqVDmVzk

EvanG


----------



## rappwizard

We have had a handful of hunt/field seminars--mostly out of my immediate area, but I sure keep meaning to go--sometimes I see that they prefer if you bring a dog, that it be already trained in the basics. Lorie Jolly is coming to my area, in mid-December, around 3, 4 hours from me--can I squeeze it in? sure would like to.


----------



## EvanG

Loisiana said:


> I would think that initially a dog would be praised much more often for each bit of success.


As mentioned earlier, I want you to see why my dogs are particularly accepting of the whole process from the beginning, especially "Hold". Here is a clip from my Puppy Program showing a game we play quite a lot with our young pups.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtFGWtp-hPs

EvanG


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

This one made me cringe. I know, I know. I'm irrational. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVbFKGrS5DE


----------



## rappwizard

when my golden retrieves a paint roller, she will "mouth" it--it's almost like she wants to treat it like a giant pack of chewing gum; she doesn't do this with her favorite--a small racquetball; I also have a small bumper, no string, since she has a tendency to "cigarette" and she would grab it by the string. she certainly has the desire and drive, but I know she could use better form, correct? and this is part of FF too? seems like I need to practice hold with her more--I am hesitant to practice FF without an instructor because I do not know much about hunt tests/field trials--I've only been to one.


----------



## EvanG

Kimm said:


> This one made me cringe. I know, I know. I'm irrational.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVbFKGrS5DE


Kimm,

I don't want to make you cringe! What bothered you in this clip?


rappwizard said:


> when my golden retrieves a paint roller, she will "mouth" it--it's almost like she wants to treat it like a giant pack of chewing gum; she doesn't do this with her favorite--a small racquetball; I also have a small bumper, no string, since she has a tendency to "cigarette" and she would grab it by the string. she certainly has the desire and drive, but I know she could use better form, correct? and this is part of FF too? seems like I need to practice hold with her more--I am hesitant to practice FF without an instructor because I do not know much about hunt tests/field trials--I've only been to one.


How old is your girl?

EvanG


----------



## katieanddusty

Right, so do your books mention that the primary purpose of this training is so that you and your dog can help with wildlife conservation, or did you just make that up? I'm pretty sure the primary reason most people hunt or do field trials is for their own recreation and enjoyment, which is great for them, but I do not think that justifies intentionally causing pain/discomfort/annoyance to a dog. I'm all for people who do field work with dogs trained by positive reinforcement. But come on, there's nothing the ear pinch or e-collar adds to either conservation or selective breeding efforts (in fact I'd much rather have a dog whose parents DIDN'T need an ear pinch or electronic collar to be successful in field work).

Hotel4Dogs (sorry I don't remember your real name), thank you for being honest instead of making up some higher purpose for obedience/field trials like others have done. I do think there's a distinction that you're missing, in that the dog can't go places without walking on a loose leash, the dog can't be in the house if he's going to pee and poop everywhere or eat off the countertops, etc. You're absolutely right that it's just as ridiculous to the dog. But learning those behaviors will inherently make the dog's life better - when the dog is housetrained he gets to be inside with the people, when the dog can walk on a loose leash he gets to go places, etc. Things like agility or competitive obedience are purely for our benefit. Sure, a dog might like to run through a tunnel, but not do a full agility course that includes lots of turning away from tunnels and running over scary teeter-totters. I feel that it's our responsibility then to a) give the dog good things for playing our game, and b) not involve any discomfort or pain for the dog. 

I just plain like having my dogs around and I think their company is more than enough to justify feeding them, taking them to the vet, and giving them a nice place to sleep. I don't think giving them a good life in general means that I have any less responsibility to make them enjoy playing my little games, and it certainly doesn't mean that I have the right to cause them discomfort in order to play my little games. The dog doesn't understand "well I don't have rabies right now because she paid for my vaccine, so I guess I should go fetch that bird and bring it back." Dogs live in the moment and all the dog knows is that you put a collar on him, you're holding a remote, and he's feeling discomfort that only happens when he's wearing the collar and you're holding the remote.

It's also my experience that a "pet person" who fully understands clicker training (as opposed to just being given a clicker and a Gentle Leader by some kid at Petsmart) will have no problem getting the results they want. I also think it's a lot easier to teach them how to clicker train correctly than how to use aversives in a truly humane and productive manner. And if they make a couple mistakes with clicker training, the dog just gets a couple extra cookies, whereas aversive training has a lot more potential to cause long-term problems. There are people who don't have the knowledge to solve a problem behavior with clicker training so they just give up, but that's more of a problem with the current how-to literature on clicker training (there are a lot of "recipe" type books for how to solve problem behaviors with aversives, but for clicker training you pretty much have to use the Internet). And there are just as many "spoiled brat" dogs whose owners have used aversives in an inconsistent or otherwise incorrect manner, like the ones who just stand there popping the collar over and over while their dog is going crazy.


----------



## GoldenSail

> Things like agility or obedience are purely for our benefit.


Obedience competition? Yes. Basic Obedience? Hell no.


----------



## rappwizard

Evan, my golden is 18 months old.


----------



## EvanG

katieanddusty said:


> Right, so do your books mention that the primary purpose of this training is so that you and your dog can help with wildlife conservation, or did you just make that up?


Is this the brand of civility you're accustomed to? If it is, this will likely be the last repose I'll indulge you with. It not only lacks civility, it lacks reason. How and/or why people train their dogs is their business, not mine, and not yours. My books and videos offer quality instruction on dog training. It is up to the individual to use it and apply it when and where they please.


katieanddusty said:


> I'm pretty sure the primary reason most people hunt or do field trials is for their own recreation and enjoyment, which is great for them, but I do not think that justifies intentionally causing pain/discomfort/annoyance to a dog.


And you seem to spend a good deal of time speaking for 'most people'.


katieanddusty said:


> I'm all for people who do field work with dogs trained by positive reinforcement. But come on, there's nothing the ear pinch or e-collar adds to either conservation or selective breeding efforts (in fact I'd much rather have a dog whose parents DIDN'T need an ear pinch or electronic collar to be successful in field work).


The application of aversives in the training program I teach, and that nearly all of the top field trial and hunt test pros employ, results in more reliable performances in the most demanding of situations. That equals not only more ribbons, but more game brought to hand, which is by far the broader use of the training. Only a very small percentage of retriever trainers run field trials. Nearly all of them benefit from the knowledge and breeding stock that result from them. I've posted several videos showing some of the techniques, and also demonstrating the happy, stylish dogs as they efficiently perform thier life's work. That is reality, not poluted, baseless opinion. I'm sure there are those who will readily line up in support of your positions, but who will also lack any empiricle evidence to support thier positions.

As you are apparently out of intellegent ideas to discuss, I'll simply wish you and your dogs well. If you care to start a new thread to debate dog games I may participate in that. I will _not_ continue to indulge you in this topic as you insist upon leading it off track. 

EvanG


----------



## EvanG

rappwizard said:


> Evan, my golden is 18 months old.


Then, to answer your question, "yes", FF does help with problems like this. And it's a good idea to get this taken care of before any retrieving of birds is involved. 

In particular, toward the end of the second disc of the SmartFetch DVD is a chapter titled 'Bonus material', in which you will be shown how to use the fully developed mechanisms of FF to properly work large bumpers, artificial game birds (Dokkens and the like), and a sequential introduction to real birds. This starts with small game birds, like Teal, and sequentially progresses through larger ducks, and on to geese. It also shows how to prepare frozen birds for this use. Your girl is certainly old enough to get going. Take your time, and be patient and thorough. Let me know if I can be of help along the way.

EvanG


----------



## rappwizard

Thanks; that is what I thought; I have had her retrieve a few large bumpers on occasion just for fun, and she has shown the best form (grasping the bumper in the center) when I had been boarding a cousin of hers, who is a big-boned dog with a good sized head and a nice set of jaws. I think she delighted in the competition between the two of them.


She has gotten better with the smaller bumper but not consistent at all--sometimes she will grasp it correctly when she brings it back to me, and sometimes she won't. I had someone (who doesn't have a JH, WC--no hunt/field titles on their dog) tell me that I should obsess over it, but I thought otherwise, so I'm glad I'm on the right track, especially when I saw her "mouthing" the paint roller.

I'm going to take a look at the info on the SmartFetch DVD and proceed step by step because I do have an enthusiastic retriever and I want to continue to encourage that; I know of someone in my breed club who sent their goldens out for training and the FF method was used and they are beautiful to watch--they are demo dogs many times to show the capabilities of the golden, and what it was bred to do; both are also "versatility titled" with the Golden Retriever Club of America--working, performance and conformation--beauty, brains and athleticism--so now you know my goal!


----------



## EvanG

Excellent! As the video states, make sure all of your dog's skills are sharp. Force to pile skills represent the fully-trained retrieve. Once that's solid, all additional skills come so easily it will amaze you.

EvanG


----------



## rappwizard

Will do; when we play "regular fetch," I have trained her as a pup to bring balls, frisbie, dummy to hand--the command to give me to hand is "release" which I've used since I had my first golden--but I don't know if that really is the right "field command" but it has worked so far. Now, would I say she is 100% reliable? No. I've taught her the command "pick it up" when she drops the item at my feet. So I know I have some work to do!


----------



## K9-Design

<<But come on, there's nothing the ear pinch or e-collar adds to either conservation or selective breeding efforts (in fact I'd much rather have a dog whose parents DIDN'T need an ear pinch or electronic collar to be successful in field work).>>

Okay then I guess you won't be buying a puppy out of dogs with anything higher than a junior title.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> <<But come on, there's nothing the ear pinch or e-collar adds to either conservation or selective breeding efforts (in fact I'd much rather have a dog whose parents DIDN'T need an ear pinch or electronic collar to be successful in field work).>>
> 
> Okay then I guess you won't be buying a puppy out of dogs with anything higher than a junior title.


I know of more than one SH dog who was trained "amish." I don't know any MHs, though. I guess that doesn't really undermine your point in general, but it is possible to do more than JH without an e-collar.


----------



## EvanG

rappwizard said:


> Now, would I say she is 100% reliable? No. I've taught her the command "pick it up" when she drops the item at my feet. So I know I have some work to do!


Lots! But you should also know going in that no dog becomes "100%" reliable at manmade functions or commands. They become reliable. They stay reliable through maintenance.

EvanG


----------



## katieanddusty

GoldenSail said:


> Obedience competition? Yes. Basic Obedience? Hell no.


Absolutely right (and I think the context of my post makes that clear, but I edited to clarify as well).

Evan, I think it's pretty obvious that using force/pressure/discomfort in training doesn't contribute anything to conservation efforts. The bluntness and incredulity of my response was a direct result of you having apparently made something up that really didn't make sense (and that you haven't tried to defend further). You'll also notice that in the same post I even thanked Hotel4Dogs for being honest and NOT just making up some nonsense higher purpose for field work or obedience trials.

The lack of "amish" trained dogs with higher field titles is an issue with the culture of the sport, not my attitude toward it. How many people are really trying to train without force fetch, versus the amount of people who just get sucked into "if you want to do well you have to force fetch"? How many people who say "if you want to do well you have to force fetch" have actually tried training using positive reinforcement methods with a full understanding of how to use them? Or are they just basing their opinion on people who don't fully understand positive reinforcement training and are using it incorrectly?


----------



## sammydog

Amish and positive are different training styles. I believe that amish training when referring to field training for retrievers implies no e-collar, not necessarily positive training.

For positive training, as far as I know, no one has reached a senior title. I am on a few lists and there are a lot of people trying. There is one person on the east coast has 3 senior passes on one Golden and 2 on another, but more that double that number in failures. I follow his blog on it pretty regularly…


----------



## Bogey's Mom

sammydog said:


> I follow his blog on it pretty regularly…


Would you mind sharing the blog? I'd love to read it!


----------



## sammydog

Bogey's Mom said:


> Would you mind sharing the blog? I'd love to read it!


http://lumi-laddie-test-series.blogspot.com/


----------



## Ljilly28

Brian, Ranger is "amish" isnt he?

UCDX HR SR Sand Dancer's XX MTB Ranger UDT, SH, WCX *


----------



## EvanG

katieanddusty said:


> Evan, I think it's pretty obvious that using force/pressure/discomfort in training doesn't contribute anything to conservation efforts. The bluntness and incredulity of my response was a direct result of you having *apparently made something up* that really didn't make sense (and that you haven't tried to defend further).


So, if you don’t know about something, or if you don’t understand something, it therefore cannot possibly exist. Is that it? If your doctor made a diagnosis of a condition you had no knowledge of, would you tell him he’d made that up? That’s what you’re doing here, and looking none to bright in so doing. Those facts don't 'make sense' to you, so I've made them up...meaning I've lied? Is that what you're saying?

I’m a retired pro trainer with over 30 years experience training retrievers. *You?*

I trained for clients who wanted only a hunting dog, while others wanted competition dogs that also hunted. I put dozens of dogs on the National Derby list (5 in a single year, 1992), four of which became field champions. *You?*

I’ve trained every recognized retriever breed, and one specimen that isn’t (Boykin Spaniel) – all with a full set of skills, successfully. *You?*

I’ve written three successful books on my method, and produced eleven DVD’s. *You?*

Each year I give seminars across North America (US & Canada) to diverse groups of trainers. *You?*

As I’ve already explained, this methodology produces dramatically elevated skill levels in dogs, as proven by their achievements. More reliable skill in a dog exponentially increases their rate of success in even the most challenging of situations, and that brings more downed game to hand. This contributes to conservation by directly reducing the amount of otherwise lost game. I’m sure I’m wasting my time here, but you’re the one making unfounded statements. If you can’t get this, it isn’t my fault.

Exactly what have you achieved and/or contributed to the retriever world that qualifies you as a higher authority on the subject of training? If you plan to continue making unfounded, unproven allegations, what positions you to acuse me of doing the same? You assert that I've "apparently made something up", but have no evidence or rationale for it. What on earth makes you so arrogant? My record is public, and can easily be found. *Yours?*

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

Ljilly28 said:


> Brian, Ranger is "amish" isnt he?
> 
> UCDX HR SR Sand Dancer's XX MTB Ranger UDT, SH, WCX *


I believe so, as is Rodin, who also has his SH.


----------



## tippykayak

sammydog said:


> Amish and positive are different training styles. I believe that amish training when referring to field training for retrievers implies no e-collar, not necessarily positive training.


I brought up "Amish" training because k9-design had included e-collars in her comment about dogs getting past JH and because Evan appears to rely on it in his FF program.

The "Amish" trained dogs I know may or may not have had aversive used at some points in training. I'm simply not aware of every moment they've been trained.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> I brought up "Amish" training because k9-design had included e-collars in her comment about dogs getting past JH and because Evan appears to rely on it in his FF program.


I'm glad you mentioned this. My program does not rely on the e-collar. But, since it's become so popular for very good reason, I include in all my instruction the proper applications for it. One of my most constant words of advice at seminars is "If you can't train a dog without an e-collar, you probably can't train a dog _with_ one, either."


tippykayak said:


> The "Amish" trained dogs I know may or may not have had aversive used at some points in training. I'm simply not aware of every moment they've been trained.


I began training retrievers in the mid 1970's. At that time almost no one trained with e-collars, at least not in the midwest. Nearly all field trial pros were "Amish" trainers, meaning they didn't use e-collars. But one fact you can take to the bank is that they were still some of the harshest, sometimes downright brutal trainers you can imagine. You folks who think an open handed swat on the fanny is mean - you have no idea!! _None!_ Training Amish is not the same as 'no aversives', or no pressure.

EvanG


----------



## Loisiana

Yeah, the fact that a dog is not trained with an e-collar means nothing about the rest their training program. Some of the most abusive trainers I've seen did not use e-collars.One thing that gets me is when people keep insisting that certain techniques aren't necessary to reach certain goals, but there is no proof to back that up. Those people's excuse is usually "because nobody bothers to try the other way." So for those who insist it can be done, I wish they would go out there and prove it! Show me someone who put a FC on a dog with no aversives, and I will be at their seminar learning their techniques. I would love to learn from someone who could compete successfully at the highest levels with different techniques.


----------



## tippykayak

I think it's very nice to suggest we identify dogs that haven't had aversives applied, but I'm not sure how you go about taking a sampling. I understand that no e-collar training doesn't mean all positives, but any all-positive training regimen would first have to go "Amish." 

I also don't understand mentality that would forego the e-collar but not other aversives.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> I think it's very nice to suggest we identify dogs that haven't had aversives applied, but I'm not sure how you go about taking a sampling. I understand that no e-collar training doesn't mean all positives, but any all-positive training regimen would first have to go "Amish."


This brings up an interesting thing. I wonder if an "all positive" (NO aversive) approach would even work for advanced field work. How do you condition a dog NOT to break? How do you condition a dog NOT to go after that flyer poison bird? In this case a LOW drive, non birdy dog would really fare much better....counter to what we WANT in a retriever! Hmmmm....this is an interesting topic. I would think it would be exceedingly difficult and frustrating to train an even moderately driven/birdy dog without using aversives of any kind beyond JH. 



> I also don't understand mentality that would forego the e-collar but not other aversives.


You mean if someone is going to use negative reinforcement by other means (leash, crop, strong verbal corrections, whatever) why would they draw the line at using an ecollar? Oh boy you haven't been to many field training groups have you? Sheesh this ABOUNDS!!!!! People have no hesitation hitting their dogs, yelling at them, swatting them with crops, yanking them around by their leashes but say "I would NEVER use an ecollar!" Just like this entire thread, they do not understand how, why or what the ecollar does so they are afraid of it and convince themselves that only someone who wanted the easy way out or was a sadistic control freak could possibly use on on their dog. That scenario repeats itself every single day, it is SOOOO common. And they go get a Junior title on their dog, and pat themselves on the back, and never even attempt some decent structured training beyond that.

And like you said before, it's not the tool or method that produces a good working dog, it's the trainer and their skill and sensitivity in working with dogs.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

EvanG said:


> So, if you don’t know about something, or if you don’t understand something, it therefore cannot possibly exist. Is that it? If your doctor made a diagnosis of a condition you had no knowledge of, would you tell him he’d made that up? That’s what you’re doing here, and looking none to bright in so doing. Those facts don't 'make sense' to you, so I've made them up...meaning I've lied? Is that what you're saying?
> 
> I’m a retired pro trainer with over 30 years experience training retrievers. *You?*
> 
> I trained for clients who wanted only a hunting dog, while others wanted competition dogs that also hunted. I put dozens of dogs on the National Derby list (5 in a single year, 1992), four of which became field champions. *You?*
> 
> I’ve trained every recognized retriever breed, and one specimen that isn’t (Boykin Spaniel) – all with a full set of skills, successfully. *You?*
> 
> I’ve written three successful books on my method, and produced eleven DVD’s. *You?*
> 
> Each year I give seminars across North America (US & Canada) to diverse groups of trainers. *You?*
> 
> As I’ve already explained, this methodology produces dramatically elevated skill levels in dogs, as proven by their achievements. More reliable skill in a dog exponentially increases their rate of success in even the most challenging of situations, and that brings more downed game to hand. This contributes to conservation by directly reducing the amount of otherwise lost game. I’m sure I’m wasting my time here, but you’re the one making unfounded statements. If you can’t get this, it isn’t my fault.
> 
> Exactly what have you achieved and/or contributed to the retriever world that qualifies you as a higher authority on the subject of training? If you plan to continue making unfounded, unproven allegations, what positions you to acuse me of doing the same? You assert that I've "apparently made something up", but have no evidence or rationale for it. What on earth makes you so arrogant? My record is public, and can easily be found. *Yours?*
> 
> EvanG


What do any of THOSE things have to do with conservation efforts?

Might it have been easier and far more on point to provide a link to further information on how the sport of hunting contributes to conservation efforts?

Your record, public or otherwise, and your laundry list of credentials has little to do with the broad statement that was challenged. And if your point is that your experience gives you the ability to comment on hunting, etc. as conservation, okay..... but if someone questions it, why not just back it up with facts?


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> This brings up an interesting thing. I wonder if an "all positive" (NO aversive) approach would even work for advanced field work. How do you condition a dog NOT to break? How do you condition a dog NOT to go after that flyer poison bird? In this case a LOW drive, non birdy dog would really fare much better....counter to what we WANT in a retriever! Hmmmm....this is an interesting topic. I would think it would be exceedingly difficult and frustrating to train an even moderately driven/birdy dog without using aversives of any kind beyond JH.


Are you seriously saying you don't know how to positively train a dog not to do something, even something really cool? That's like saying somebody can't positively train a dog not to break a stay in the face of a cookie or a pigeon. I have to believe you're more competent than that in your training knowhow.

Are you serious that you entirely train a dog not to break by using a negative stimulus each time he breaks?



K9-Design said:


> You mean if someone is going to use negative reinforcement by other means (leash, crop, strong verbal corrections, whatever) why would they draw the line at using an ecollar? Oh boy you haven't been to many field training groups have you?


I didn't say I had never seen it; in fact, three separate times in this thread I have clarified that I know that some people avoid e-collars and use other aversives. I simply said I didn't understand the mentality. Boy are you eager to point out what you see as other people's lack of experience. You have no idea how many trials I have been to, what groups I have trained with, or what experience I have with dogs, so why not argue your points on the merits instead of lording your experience over other people?

I've done you the courtesy of making sure I really understand where you are coming from and treating you with a great deal of respect. I would ask that you do the same, or this conversation will quickly become pointless.



K9-Design said:


> And like you said before, it's not the tool or method that produces a good working dog, it's the trainer and their skill and sensitivity in working with dogs.


I don't recall having said that. Perhaps you are thinking of Evan.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> Boy are you eager to point out what you see as other people's lack of experience. You have no idea how many trials I have been to, what groups I have trained with, or what experience I have with dogs, so why not argue your points on the merits instead of lording your experience over other people?
> 
> I've done you the courtesy of making sure I really understand where you are coming from and treating you with a great deal of respect. I would ask that you do the same, or this conversation will quickly become pointless.


Uhhh, sorry -- really -- you misinterpreted my tone in basically the whole post. Really you took it the wrong way, sorry. I'm was just thinking out loud and for some reason you took it as boasting or I don't know what.

<<Are you seriously saying you don't know how to positively train a dog not to do something, even something really cool? That's like saying somebody can't positively train a dog not to break a stay in the face of a cookie or a pigeon. I have to believe you're more competent than that in your training knowhow.

Are you serious that you entirely train a dog not to break by using a negative stimulus each time he breaks?>>

Umm, okay. By negative stimulus do you specifically mean ecollar or do you mean any aversive at all. If you mean ecollar then no, because I've never used an ecollar to correct a dog for breaking. If you mean an aversive well then yes, I have no idea how you'd get it through to the dog that he's not to break without using some sort of aversive...and by "some sort of aversive" I'm including telling the dog "NO"

<< I don't recall having said that. Perhaps you are thinking of Evan.>>

I meant when on my previous post about my training partner and her dog dropping the duck, that all of her efforts sounded more like bad training than the need for FF.

I would be interested to know what your interests in field training are, if you have field trained a dog without aversives and what your methods are, how you taught steadiness/honoring, handling away from suction, etc. Or you mentioned a friend who has a SH dog trained non-FF & non-collar, what their methods were, if they were anti-aversive at all or just Amish. Sorry again that you took my post the wrong way, your interpretation was not my intention.


----------



## grrrick

FlyingQuizini said:


> Might it have been easier and far more on point to provide a link to further information on how the sport of hunting contributes to conservation efforts?


It appears to me, that there are about 7 different arguments in this single thread. I really don't have a dog in this fight... pun intended.

At risk of "getting off the topic" of Force Fetching... 

And since it has been asked several times, I thought I would help address it. Given that I have been an avid hunter for 25 years and I live in the Midwest where hunting is not usually frowned upon, I take for granted that this is common knowledge but often forget that the general public may not make the same connection between hunting and wildlife conservation that I do. The two are, in fact, very tightly related. Below you will find a couple of points I want to make about the financial impact of hunters and how it relates to the conservation of game *and non-game species*.

Listed below is the revenue generated from hunting licenses ALONE. A VERY VERY large percentage of this revenue goes to wildlife conservation (game and non-game) and park recreation. These are the same state owned recreational places that some agility and dock diving events are held (at least in my part of the country), home of dog parks, walking trails, swimming holes, etc.

2002 - $658,993,797.00 
2003 - $679,824,466.00
2004 - $703,794,135.00
(figures found at www.nssf.org)

Most recent numbers are in excess of $1,100,000,000.00 but I don't have exact figures to give you so I will generalize. 

You may also want to familiarize yourself with the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 if you have not already. It is strongly supported by most hunters. This legislation transfers receipts from a 10 percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition from the general treasury to state wildlife conservation programs. This act has been contributing significant money to wildlife conservation every year since 1937 and now yields $163 million per year for wildlife conservation programs. This includes game species and NON-game species, alike. 

Another important piece of legislation is the Dingell-Hart Bill enacted in 1970. This is a 10 percent excise tax on handguns that is used for wildlife restoration and hunter safety training. Proceeds from this tax provide some $41 million per year.

Archers (those that hunt with a bow) have similar legislation (Dingell-Goodling Bill) that contributes $25 Million annually. Also, similar fishing legislation (they are hunting fish after all), contributes over $100 Million.

It's important to realize that ALL proceeds from these excise taxes are divided among the 50 state wildlife agencies. Each state’s share is based on its land area and number of licensed hunters and anglers. Funds cover about 75 percent of the funding approved for wildlife and fish restoration projects and total some $560 million per year. *That’s correct… 75% of the funding available for wildlife conservation and restoration is funded by sportsmen and women through excise tax.*

I would provide links but it’s just as easy for you to google the Pittman-Robertson Act or any of the other legislation for this other information. 

None of this includes the moneys provided by not-for-profit organizations for sportsmen and women or what I call the "private sector". There are incredible amounts of moneys raised by Pheasants Forever, Quail Forever, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, etc, etc, etc. These moneys are typically spent on habitat restoration for their respective species, but the benefits are great for wildlife in general.

Okay... back to the topic.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

grrrick said:


> It appears to me, that there are about 7 different arguments in this single thread. I really don't have a dog in this fight... pun intended.
> 
> At risk of "getting off the topic" of Force Fetching...
> 
> And since it has been asked several times, I thought I would help address it. Given that I have been an avid hunter for 25 years and I live in the Midwest where hunting is not usually frowned upon, I take for granted that this is common knowledge but often forget that the general public may not make the same connection between hunting and wildlife conservation that I do. The two are, in fact, very tightly related. Below you will find a couple of points I want to make about the financial impact of hunters and how it relates to the conservation of game *and non-game species*.
> 
> Listed below is the revenue generated from hunting licenses ALONE. A VERY VERY large percentage of this revenue goes to wildlife conservation (game and non-game) and park recreation. These are the same state owned recreational places that some agility and dock diving events are held (at least in my part of the country), home of dog parks, walking trails, swimming holes, etc.
> 
> 2002 - $658,993,797.00
> 2003 - $679,824,466.00
> 2004 - $703,794,135.00
> (figures found at www.nssf.org)
> 
> Most recent numbers are in excess of $1,100,000,000.00 but I don't have exact figures to give you so I will generalize.
> 
> You may also want to familiarize yourself with the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 if you have not already. It is strongly supported by most hunters. This legislation transfers receipts from a 10 percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition from the general treasury to state wildlife conservation programs. This act has been contributing significant money to wildlife conservation every year since 1937 and now yields $163 million per year for wildlife conservation programs. This includes game species and NON-game species, alike.
> 
> Another important piece of legislation is the Dingell-Hart Bill enacted in 1970. This is a 10 percent excise tax on handguns that is used for wildlife restoration and hunter safety training. Proceeds from this tax provide some $41 million per year.
> 
> Archers (those that hunt with a bow) have similar legislation (Dingell-Goodling Bill) that contributes $25 Million annually. Also, similar fishing legislation (they are hunting fish after all), contributes over $100 Million.
> 
> It's important to realize that ALL proceeds from these excise taxes are divided among the 50 state wildlife agencies. Each state’s share is based on its land area and number of licensed hunters and anglers. Funds cover about 75 percent of the funding approved for wildlife and fish restoration projects and total some $560 million per year. *That’s correct… 75% of the funding available for wildlife conservation and restoration is funded by sportsmen and women through excise tax.*
> 
> I would provide links but it’s just as easy for you to google the Pittman-Robertson Act or any of the other legislation this other information.
> 
> None of this includes the moneys provided by not-for-profit organizations for sportsmen and women or what I call the "private sector". There are incredible amounts of moneys raised by Pheasants Forever, Quail Forever, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, etc, etc, etc. These moneys are typically spent on habitat restoration for their respective species, but the benefits are great for wildlife in general.
> 
> Okay... back to the topic.


Hi!

Thanks for the info! In my mind hunting for sport may, in some areas, be useful in terms of managing over-population of certain species, etc. I hadn't thought about financial implications; revenue generated from hunting licenses, private sector, etc.

I'm a City Kid... you know... cows are for lattes and such! ;-) Not much hunting going on here in the Greater Los Angeles area - unless you count hunting for a parking space in the City! (Or one gang of Bangers hunting down members from another gang.) :-(


----------



## rappwizard

Ditto that. My citation: "Hunters are among the most generous Americans when it comes to funding conservation and wildlife . . . and many don’t even realize it. . . . . For more than sixty-five years hunters have contributed millions of dollars through this program (Pittman-Robertson act) and together with hunting license fees they have helped fund wildlife conservation in Georgia. Over $2 billion has been contributed nationwide."

http://www.atlanta.com/atlanta/articles/hunters-fund-conservation-efforts/


----------



## grrrick

I used to be a certified Hunter's Education instructor. My "un-patented" saying used to be: "Hunters are the original Tree Huggers. We were huggin' trees before huggin' trees was considered cool."

In all seriousness, wildlife conservation wouldn't exist, if it weren't for hunters.


----------



## katieanddusty

Cool. My comments were taken as much more anti-hunting than they actually were, and I understand that the actual killing element of it would help prevent over-population. My question is still: how does using an ear pinch or an electronic collar on a hunting dog contribute to any of that? Does it really matter for population-control purposes if a few of those birds don't get brought back to the person? Or is the "delivery to hand" concept just part of what makes it more rewarding for the person, having no direct relation to "conservation"? And however large a role hunters might have in supporting/funding conservation efforts, is conservation really the primary purpose of hunting, or is it for the person's enjoyment?


----------



## Doolin

katieanddusty said:


> I understand that the actual killing element of it would help prevent over-population. My question is still: how does using an ear pinch or an electronic collar on a hunting dog contribute to any of that? ?


To not believe that a majority of hunters are concerned about the prey they hunt would be false. For me it is important that my dog bring any bird I take in the field to hand, this way I can ensure that the animal does not suffer longer then necessary. It is also important to me not to waste our natural resources, leaving a bird or any animal in the field is irresponsible. So having a reliable dog is a must for many hunting activities.






katieanddusty said:


> "Does it really matter for population-control purposes if a few of those birds don't get brought back to the person? Or is the "delivery to hand" concept just part of what makes it more rewarding for the person, having no direct relation to "conservation"? ?


 
*As I said above not wasting our natural resources is a form of conserving them as well. So while we might enjoy watching our well trained dog work, it also serves a very important function. If I am allowed a bag limit of 2 birds a day and I only find every other bird I shot, well that would actually take 4 birds to fulfill my limit. Not saying I practice this but you understand the logic of finding every bird.*




katieanddusty said:


> And however large a role hunters might have in supporting/funding conservation efforts, is conservation really the primary purpose of hunting, or is it for the person's enjoyment? ?


I really can't separate the two, Hunting and Conservation. In today's world they seem synonymous. So whether we enjoy the sport or not is irrelivent, conservation is a product of our respect for our choosen activity.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Uhhh, sorry -- really -- you misinterpreted my tone in basically the whole post. Really you took it the wrong way, sorry. I'm was just thinking out loud and for some reason you took it as boasting or I don't know what.


I think it was because of the way we got in a similar argument in another thread and you dismissed my arguments because my Goldens didn't have hunting titles. There's also a "well, where are your MH dogs, then?" tactic that mainstream field trainers like you and Evan sometimes resort to in these discussions, and that's happened in this thread already, so I was assuming you were doing that. I'm perfectly willing to let it go and go back to the discussion.



K9-Design said:


> Umm, okay. By negative stimulus do you specifically mean ecollar or do you mean any aversive at all. If you mean ecollar then no, because I've never used an ecollar to correct a dog for breaking. If you mean an aversive well then yes, I have no idea how you'd get it through to the dog that he's not to break without using some sort of aversive...and by "some sort of aversive" I'm including telling the dog "NO"


I train a dog to stay as a pup by rewarding him for longer and longer periods of staying. With good practice and appropriate build up of distractions, you get a rock solid stay without ever pinching, bopping (is there a better term for striking a dog in the face?), or using a stern voice.



K9-Design said:


> I meant when on my previous post about my training partner and her dog dropping the duck, that all of her efforts sounded more like bad training than the need for FF.


Well, I would clarify that I do think that some techniques and tools that people commonly use seem barbaric to me in all applications, not just when they're completely abused. I refrained from making an argument about it because Evan started this thread to explain his FF methods and I wanted to learn as much as I could. I have no interest in derailing this thread into an argument about training philosophy, because we have that argument all the time. I simply want to know how you guys train dogs and why you think it works; at this point, I have no interest in trying to convince you that you're doing it wrong. Obviously you're doing it right in terms of how effective your techniques are, so I want to learn; whether I ever use some of the techniques is a whole other conversation.



K9-Design said:


> I would be interested to know what your interests in field training are, if you have field trained a dog without aversives and what your methods are, how you taught steadiness/honoring, handling away from suction, etc. Or you mentioned a friend who has a SH dog trained non-FF & non-collar, what their methods were, if they were anti-aversive at all or just Amish. Sorry again that you took my post the wrong way, your interpretation was not my intention.


My interest in field training is purely academic. I think it's the core of this breed, so even though I will probably never compete my dogs in that venue, I appreciate greatly those who do. I also think it's a venue that requires rigorous training, so I look to it for ideas.

I know of two people who train "Amish" and are positive field trainers. One I know fairly well. Since I don't train with either of them, I can't say if they're religiously positive or but I do know that they avoid striking, pinching, hitching, or shocking their dogs. Both have SH on multiple dogs; neither has an MH. I don't feel it's appropriate to announce their names or commit them or their dogs to an argument without their permission.

I have, however, trained very driven dogs to honor, to return to hand against _any_ distraction, and to give attention against just about anything. You absolutely can train a dog not to do something without using aversives. I'm not attempting to make the argument that aversives have no place in field training. I'm simply saying that it's very easy to positively train things like waiting for a command instead of rushing out or stopping and honoring at a distance. I haven't trained dogs for field competition, so there may be elements I don't know or understand. 

That said, I'm not philosophically opposed to any and all use of aversives. They may have a place in efficient and precise training. In my personal experience, though, using an aversive is less powerful and less motivating than using positives, and the behaviors you train with aversives are as not consistent and long-lasting as those that are positively reinforced. Each time I've been able to phase an aversive technique out of a program and replace it with a positive method, I've been very happy with the results.


----------



## tippykayak

For east coast, latte-drinking, Obama-voting, communist hippies like myself, the connection between hunting and conservation isn't a given. Hunters don't prominently stand out in the local conservation movements around here, so people don't make the connection. 

However, hunting has historically be a big part of the reasons people have for preserving wild areas, and many of the major players in the American conservation movement were hunters. Fly fishers around here are the local equivalent; we expend a great deal of time and energy on protecting the land around rivers and streams. After all, Trout Unlimited (of which I am a member) is a spinoff of Ducks Unlimited, and both are major players in conservation. A lot of east coast fly fishers spend as much time doing river cleanup as they do fishing and probably more money on conservation and cleanup than they do on equipment.

I think hunters do the sport a great service by making public conservation efforts and by belonging to organizations like DU. I would love to see more of that. 

I feel too reverent about birds to consider shooting them with anything but a telephoto; it's sort of a catch and release system. Even so, I recognize that careful, ethical hunting can be done with great reverence for life and nature, and there is absolutely something magical about a hunter and his well-trained retriever working together.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> For east coast, latte-drinking, Obama-voting, communist hippies like myself, the connection between hunting and conservation isn't a given. Hunters don't prominently stand out in the local conservation movements around here, so people don't make the connection.


I feel like one of my college professors trying to refocus a class that just can't stay on topic.

Ahem! Okay, class. One more time; the subject of our discussion is "Do you understand force fetch; it's *goals*, *purposes*, and *processes*?"

This is not a debate about the validity of hunting, conservation, field trials, hunt tests, e-collars, big foot, or the *Loch Ness Monster!* (I just know some poor, all too serious dweeb will fire back; I never said anything about monsters!)

If you would like to play semantical ping-pong with any of those topics, please start your own thread about them. I know some folks here passionately hate any type of training that isn't R+. That's peachy with me. If you're going to participate in this topic, please keep it on topic. I regard this an important discussion, and many who aren't of your 'non-pressure' stripes would like to know more. At present, more people have voted 'I don't understand it' than any other choice.

If you desire to know more than you do now, I'm here to help. I have no time to waste on jousting with anyone about some unfounded opinions - not in this thread.

EvanG


----------



## Loisiana

tippykayak said:


> I have, however, trained very driven dogs to honor, to return to hand against _any_ distraction, and to give attention against just about anything. You absolutely can train a dog not to do something without using aversives. I'm not attempting to make the argument that aversives have no place in field training. I'm simply saying that it's very easy to positively train things like waiting for a command instead of rushing out or stopping and honoring at a distance. I haven't trained dogs for field competition, so there may be elements I don't know or understand.


I'm curious how one would go about this when getting the duck is the ultimate reward. You say that you reward for longer and longer periods of stays, but what is that reward? I know you don't train for the field, but in theory, what would you do if your dog broke and started running for the duck?


----------



## DNL2448

Very well stated Tippy! I agree that we come from different parts of the country and have opposite views but we can still come together and recognize the commonality of our beliefs. I am a member of Ducks Unlimited and use a spinning reel to fish  (barbaric, I know).



tippykayak said:


> For east coast, latte-drinking, Obama-voting, communist hippies like myself, the connection between hunting and conservation isn't a given. Hunters don't prominently stand out in the local conservation movements around here, so people don't make the connection.
> 
> However, hunting has historically be a big part of the reasons people have for preserving wild areas, and many of the major players in the American conservation movement were hunters. Fly fishers around here are the local equivalent; we expend a great deal of time and energy on protecting the land around rivers and streams. After all, Trout Unlimited (of which I am a member) is a spinoff of Ducks Unlimited, and both are major players in conservation. A lot of east coast fly fishers spend as much time doing river cleanup as they do fishing and probably more money on conservation and cleanup than they do on equipment.
> 
> I think hunters do the sport a great service by making public conservation efforts and by belonging to organizations like DU. I would love to see more of that.
> 
> I feel too reverent about birds to consider shooting them with anything but a telephoto; it's sort of a catch and release system. Even so, I recognize that careful, ethical hunting can be done with great reverence for life and nature, and there is absolutely something magical about a hunter and his well-trained retriever working together.


----------



## AmberSunrise

EvanG said:


> I feel like one of my college professors trying to refocus a class that just can't stay on topic.
> 
> Ahem! Okay, class. One more time; the subject of our discussion is "Do you understand force fetch; it's *goals*, *purposes*, and *processes*?"
> 
> This is not a debate about the validity of hunting, conservation, field trials, hunt tests, e-collars, big foot, or the *Loch Ness Monster!* (I just know some poor, all too serious dweeb will fire back; I never said anything about monsters!)
> 
> If you would like to play semantical ping-pong with any of those topics, please start your own thread about them. I know some folks here passionately hate any type of training that isn't R+. That's peachy with me. If you're going to participate in this topic, please keep it on topic. I regard this an important discussion, and many who aren't of your 'non-pressure' stripes would like to know more. At present, more people have voted 'I don't understand it' than any other choice.
> 
> If you desire to know more than you do now, I'm here to help. I have no time to waste on jousting with anyone about some unfounded opinions - not in this thread.
> 
> EvanG


Hi Professor 

I would like to know more .. as mentioned earlier I was taught the old-school method and have since rejected it.

I do have several of your books and am considering a DVD, and am watching this thread fairly closely to help me decide if the amount of pressure and/or force in your system can fit into my training program.

I do not have specific questions yet though so please continue with your most helpful posts. I am learning a lot about kinder ways to 'force-fetch'


----------



## EvanG

Sunrise said:


> Hi Professor
> 
> I would like to know more .. as mentioned earlier I was taught the old-school method and have since rejected it.
> 
> I do have several of your books and am considering a DVD, and am watching this thread fairly closely to help me decide if the amount of pressure and/or force in your system can fit into my training program.
> 
> I do not have specific questions yet though so please continue with your most helpful posts. I am learning a lot about kinder ways to 'force-fetch'


Thank you. I'll help any way I can. Like you, I've pursued what I would call a more temperate approach for decades. I've been doing that with as many formal training issues as possible over that time.

If you look at the video clip I posted, which is an exerpt from the SmartFetch DVD, I think you can see that it's kept pretty low key. I think you'll enjoy the DVD, and also that you will find it far more detailed than anything you've seen on the subject.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

Loisiana said:


> I'm curious how one would go about this when getting the duck is the ultimate reward. You say that you reward for longer and longer periods of stays, but what is that reward? I know you don't train for the field, but in theory, what would you do if your dog broke and started running for the duck?


If my dog broke and ran for a duck, I would have made a mistake in my training. Dogs don't weigh rewards in their head before they make a choice, so strength of distraction is only one factor in whether they break or not. They're creatures of habit, and if you've previously reinforced a habit carefully enough, your relationship with the dog and the strength of his habit to give you attention, listen, and keep a stay is stronger than his desire to break. 

I don't compete, but I do feel confident I can train a dog not to run for a bird, since I can call a dog off a running deer in the woods or have him stay instead of running at a turkey in a field. You start with no distractions to build the habit, move to low-level distractions to test the habit, and graduate to high level distractions once the habit is rock solid and the dog truly understands that giving attention to you is what brings good things.

I will hold the collar sometimes as I test higher level distractions in order to prevent reinforcement for the wrong behavior. I'm not sure if you want to say that's not positive training, but I don't really care about the label. All I do with the collar is prevent the dog from acting out (and thus getting rewarded for) the undesired behavior. I don't "pop" it or otherwise use it to administer discomfort or surprise.

Indeed, if you do it correctly, the dog really gets the idea of waiting as part of the game, and quivers, poised, for the release word. And you've never had to shock, bop, pop, or whatever.


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> I feel like one of my college professors trying to refocus a class that just can't stay on topic.
> 
> Ahem! Okay, class. One more time; the subject of our discussion is "Do you understand force fetch; it's *goals*, *purposes*, and *processes*?"
> 
> This is not a debate about the validity of hunting, conservation, field trials, hunt tests, e-collars, big foot, or the *Loch Ness Monster!* (I just know some poor, all too serious dweeb will fire back; I never said anything about monsters!)
> 
> If you would like to play semantical ping-pong with any of those topics, please start your own thread about them. I know some folks here passionately hate any type of training that isn't R+. That's peachy with me. If you're going to participate in this topic, please keep it on topic. I regard this an important discussion, and many who aren't of your 'non-pressure' stripes would like to know more. At present, more people have voted 'I don't understand it' than any other choice.
> 
> If you desire to know more than you do now, I'm here to help. I have no time to waste on jousting with anyone about some unfounded opinions - not in this thread.
> 
> EvanG


Why don't you try some positive reinforcement to bring us back on topic instead of applying pressure like this?


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Why don't you try some positive reinforcement to bring us back on topic instead of applying pressure like this?


"Click"!

EvanG


----------



## GoldenSail

EvanG said:


> "Click"!
> 
> EvanG


Where's my cookie?


Ok, so I understand that there are a lot of steps in the process with goals for each step and the steps are performed in a certain order. Care to enlighten us? For example, I've heard force to pile thrown around.

AND

What form is the pressure coming in? I've heard of the toe pinch and ear pinch. Someone on here mentioned simply twisting the collar and I know the ecollar seems to be getting popular. I also watched one from a youtube search where a man slapped his dog hard under the chin for dropping an object (this one made me loose my lunch).


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> What form is the pressure coming in? I've heard of the toe pinch and ear pinch. Someone on here mentioned simply twisting the collar and I know the ecollar seems to be getting popular. I also watched one from a youtube search where a man slapped his dog hard under the chin for dropping an object (this one made me loose my lunch).


Evan posted a video earlier in this thread in which the dogs are "bopped" in the face when they mishandle a bumper or training bumper (paint roller). You should watch and see if it's a gentler version of things that's not quite so nauseating.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

tippykayak said:


> Indeed, if you do it correctly, the dog really gets the idea of waiting as part of the game, and quivers, poised, for the release word. And you've never had to shock, bop, pop, or whatever.


We can thank Dr. David Premack for that one!  I don't have wild turkeys here in the city, but we do have squirrels! Nothing beats a squirrel call-off mid-chase, followed by permission to go chase the squirrel! Yeehaw!


----------



## Bogey's Mom

FlyingQuizini said:


> Nothing beats a squirrel call-off mid-chase, followed by permission to go chase the squirrel! Yeehaw!


Wow! If you can accomplish that with Quiz you really must have magical powers!! IMPRESSIVE! I'm sending Bogey to your boot camp, Stephanie.


----------



## tippykayak

I have a question for Evan and k9: have you guys ever made a mistake with an aversive that made a dog shy or hesitant about a skill? Like you accidentally burn the dog at the wrong time and he becomes shy around something?


----------



## Emma&Tilly

Ok, there are 18 pages here and I have no idea on which page it explains what a 'force fetch' atually is. Could somebody, in maybe a couple of paragraphs, summerise what it is please? (or direct me to the page it is explained...I get the jist from reading a little here but wouldn't mind a summery!)


----------



## EvanG

Emma&Tilly said:


> Ok, there are 18 pages here and I have no idea on which page it explains what a 'force fetch' atually is. Could somebody, in maybe a couple of paragraphs, summerise what it is please? (or direct me to the page it is explained...I get the jist from reading a little here but wouldn't mind a summery!)


I understand your desire for a brief, clear definition. But one thing I'm trying to avoid is being unclear about this. Force fetch is one of the most misunderstood of all developmental skills, and deserves a clear definition, even if it's a bit lengthy.

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 its own meaning, as pertains to retrievers. I firmly believe that both are traits that should co-exist in a well-trained retriever.
From SmartFetch

EvanG


----------



## mdoats

Okay I read that whole explanation and it still doesn't really tell me what a force fetch is.


----------



## Emma&Tilly

Agreed Mdots. I am getting the sense of Evan defending it in the posts I have read (which instantly makes me a little curious)and thank you Evan for the info above but it is certainly not clear definition...infact it is everything BUT the actual definition! I am building a picture of the theory behind it but it is hard to understand when you have never so much as heard the term before and have no knowledge of what the actual process is. What is the force and how is it applied?? I understand the process goes through several stages so even if just one stage in the process is explained it may help me understand exactly what it is!

At least I can accurately answer the poll. No I don't understand it!


----------



## EvanG

Okay, I've told you what I thought you were asking for. But this apparently didn't register:

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.
So, I now must guess that you aren't looking for a description of what it is, so much as a description of how it's done. How to teach "Hold", how to teach "Fetch", and each of the steps or phases as it goes along. Is that what you're asking?

EvanG


----------



## Emma&Tilly

Yes. 

What you _told_ me did 'register' but it just didn't really tell me what 'force fetch' actually is. I assumed how you actually carry out the process would be incorporated in the definition. Learning to ride a bike is a process but you wouldn't stand a chance of understanding it without a mention of how you physically do it!


----------



## mdoats

EvanG said:


> Okay, I've told you what I thought you were asking for. But this apparently didn't register:


I hope it wasn't meant that way, but your response came across as very condescending. As I said, I really did read your whole post. Honestly. And I'm a relatively intelligent person. Reposting the exact same thing again isn't likely to make it clearer. So yes, I guess hearing how it's done might help me to understand what it actually is. Or even just the 25 word explanation that you would offer to someone you met while standing in line at the pet store. Simple is good!!


----------



## FlyingQuizini

EvanG said:


> Okay, I've told you what I thought you were asking for. But this apparently didn't register:


Or maybe your explanation wasn't as clear as you thought - at least not to those of us outside of the hunting and retriever trial world? Why the instant assumption that the error is on the part of the learner? 

I would be very interested to hear the concept of FF defined in approximately 25 words or so. At the very heart of the matter, what is it about? And, do you make a distinction between FF programs in GENERAL or YOUR specific FF program? If you draw a distinction, maybe that's the critical piece of information missing from the original question? It seems you're explaining/defending/selling, etc. YOUR take on FF. My understanding is that it's a CONCEPT.

Either way, I'd be interested in a short, concise definition -- with clarification regarding it being a definition of your program or the concept in general. Throughout the thread, I've been unsure.

To *me*, THE definition of FF (in general, not your program EG, b/c I'm not familiar with it) would be something along the lines of a systematic training protocol for retrieving that's rooted in *negative reinforcement* with the goal of removing the idea of "choice" when it comes to the dog following take/hold and related commands. I'm sure that in retriever sports, the concept goes farther than than the take/hold part -- that is, out to things like entries, following handling, etc. But overall, I think the main goal of the program is to remove the idea of "choice" from the dog's mind -- by using "pressure" to "encourage" compliance b/c the dog learns that "compliance" makes the "pressure" stop.


----------



## EvanG

mdoats said:


> I hope it wasn't meant that way, but your response came across as very condescending.....So yes, I guess hearing how it's done might help me to understand what it actually is. Or even *just the 25 word explanation that you would offer to someone you met while standing in line at the pet store.* Simple is good!!


Having spent over thirty years in the study and practice of training retrievers for high level fieldwork, I'm senistive to the importance of certain aspects of it. No, I don't intend to be condescending my response. But, at the same time, I'm struggling slightly to ascertain what your question really is. If it is to know what force fetch is, I've done that. If it's what it's for, I've done that - at least in principle. If it's how it's done, I have not begun to do that.

Some things deserve more than 25 words. Something as widely misunderstood, misconstrued, and baselessly condemned as force fetch is not something to be explained in brief. Too many of its enemies only know the snap shot version - _their_ snap shot version. That's largely the basis of some of the vitriol in this discussion. It is axiomatic that people fear what they understand least.

I wrote a book about how to do it. I then produced a 2-disc DVD. It would have been shorter, but then it would have also been less than the subject deserved. Frankly, I haven't seen that this thread has evolved to the point of inserting even a brief instruction because there is still so much not yet understood in fundamental principle

I'll think it over, and let you know how I feel about providing a 'how-to' post in brief. I thought long and hard about the book & DVD. This is less appetitizing. I hope you understand.

EvanG


----------



## EvanG

FlyingQuizini said:


> To *me*, THE definition of FF (in general, not your program EG, b/c I'm not familiar with it) would be something along the lines of a systematic training protocol for retrieving that's rooted in negative punishment with the goal of removing the idea of "choice" when it comes to the dog following take/hold and related commands. I'm sure that in retriever sports, the concept goes farther than than the take/hold part -- that is, out to things like entries, following handling, etc. But overall, I think the main goal of the program is to remove the idea of "choice" from the dog's mind -- by using "pressure" to "encourage" compliance b/c the dog learns that "compliance" makes the "pressure" stop.


That's pretty good, although it's 120 words!!!  But really, I think that at least captures a basic essence. You're right, in that it goes well beyond that, which is why there are so many steps in the process that didn't used to be there. I'm working on it.

EvanG


----------



## mdoats

> I wrote a book about how to do it. I then produced a 2-disc DVD.


What's on the back of the book or the DVD? The paragraph that the editor wrote to describe it on amazon.com or the catalog copy would probably actually help me to understand what it is.

ETA: FlyingQuizini's description helps. Thanks!


----------



## FlyingQuizini

EvanG said:


> That's pretty good, although it's 120 words!!!  But really, I think that at least captures a basic essence. You're right, in that it goes well beyond that, which is why there are so many steps in the process that didn't used to be there. I'm working on it.
> 
> EvanG


Yeah, well.... I was a journalism major. We don't "do" math. 

Whoops... and two words I incorrectly used... I meant to say "negative reinforcement" not "negative punishment". The trainer must first ADD the "pressure source" (whatever they're using; holding the ear, etc.) before he can remove it upon satisfactory compliance on the part of the dog.

Evan - I'm still curious.... do you define YOUR FF program as being different from FF programs in general? I'm assuming so since you're mention that YOU'RE working on other steps that didn't used to be there... but I havne't heard you actually say so.


----------



## Ljilly28

EvanG said:


> ]I trained for clients who wanted only a hunting dog, while others wanted competition dogs that also hunted. I put dozens of dogs on the National Derby list (5 in a single year, 1992), four of which became field champions. *You?*
> 
> I’ve trained every recognized retriever breed, and one specimen that isn’t (Boykin Spaniel) – all with a full set of skills, successfully. *You?*
> 
> I’ve written three successful books on my method, and produced eleven DVD’s. *You?*
> 
> Each year I give seminars across North America (US & Canada) to diverse groups of trainers. *You?*
> 
> As I’ve already explained, this methodology produces dramatically elevated skill levels in dogs, as proven by their achievements. More reliable skill in a dog exponentially increases their rate of success in even the most challenging of situations, and that brings more downed game to hand. This contributes to conservation by directly reducing the amount of otherwise lost game. I’m sure I’m wasting my time here, but you’re the one making unfounded statements. If you can’t get this, it isn’t my fault.
> 
> Exactly what have you achieved and/or contributed to the retriever world that qualifies you as a higher authority on the subject of training? If you plan to continue making unfounded, unproven allegations, what positions you to acuse me of doing the same? You assert that I've "apparently made something up", but have no evidence or rationale for it. What on earth makes you so arrogant? My record is public, and can easily be found. *Yours?*
> 
> EvanG



Youch. You are awfully hard on people who have other ideas and goals. There is no doubt you know how to train a retriever with force fetch and an ecollar- no one is challenging that you win/succeed and help others to do the same with your DVDs and clinics.. .

I do believe that you are excellent at training high level field dogs, as you say about yourself. Do you think my JH. companion hunting dog needs FF if he retrieves in a willing, trustworthy way without it, and I don't plan to compete in SH? 

I'd rather have my personal dog compete like the Sand Dancer goldens without many aversives in training, and my goal is a good brain/good relationship/fulfilled dog/time outside with my friend rather than a specific title/skill set. 

MH and field trials are exceedingly challenging for some dogs athletically bc the technology allows for it, but the golden standard calls for a gentleman's hunting dog and not an olympic athlete/fetching machine. 

My dog meets the standard beautifully- my grandfather can take him out hunting in real time and everyone wants to steal him- without an ecollar or force fetch.

I am 100 percent sure my dog would need to be FF in order to have any chance at MH, and one of my goldies couldn't work at MH level even with FF and an E collar. 2 of my goldens have sensational working pedigrees and I do feel twinges of guilt that they are not working to potential, and I admit that my discomfort with aversive methods clearly holds them back. However, my dog radiates joy in JH and is outstanding at that minor level. I don't believe in causing him deliberate discomfort or hurting him, burning him, nicking him, electric shocking him or pinching his ear in order to have him perform better. I do know the process with an expert is quick and offers benefits that last a lifetime for reliable fetching, and sometimes I am torn. But then I look at my dog's attentive face and all the trust, and I just feel queasy about the pragmatism there. 

Regardless of my opinion about FF for my own goldens, I recognize that more than 9/10th of the people succeeding in hunt test/ field trials use these training tools, and if they are used skillfully and the dog knows how to control the stimulus, I do not believe they are cruel or anything like that. I also dont believe these methods are on high or ideal just because of majority rule or bc dogs win the artificial contests humans set up for them. 

I truly believe a "gentleman"/"sportsman" should be able to train a nice, proficient hunting dog for an enjoyable Saturday outing without FF or an ecollar if the dog has natural can-do.


----------



## Emma&Tilly

EvanG said:


> No, I don't intend to be condescending my response. But, at the same time, I'm struggling slightly to ascertain what your question really is. If it is to know what force fetch is, I've done that. If it's what it's for, I've done that - at least in principle. If it's how it's done, I have not begun to do that.


Can you understand that to somebody who has never even heard the term before, not explaining how you do something might hinder your ability to understand what the process is? Is it so difficult to actually say what you do at any point in the programme? You have been careful to ensure I don't fall for the common myths and misunderstandings about it so I feel I am ready for a example of how you carry out a stage in the process. It's like everyone is talking around the subject and giving their opinions but very skillfully not giving a mention of what you do apart from occasionally mentioning an 'ear pinch'. I am so bloomin' curious at this point and with a little help from google and a private message I think I am getting more of an idea. I _have_ discovered that it is a training programme rarely utilised in the UK. Are our hunting dogs not as skilled? Would a UK dog not be able to compete at a high level? Obviously you may not be able to answer these questions, just wondering why some countries reject or have no idea about a training method that some see as so fundemental in training a hunting dog. It's very interesting. Maybe we don't have as advanced competitions? Maybe we draw the line at causing levels of discomfort to gain reliability? Maybe it is done but we just don't like to talk about it?!


----------



## 3340

I truly believe a "gentleman"/"sportsman" should be able to train a nice, proficient hunting dog for an enjoyable Saturday outing without FF or an ecollar if the dog has natural can-do.[/QUOTE]

Hi: I'm new to this forum, so I don't know all of your histories, so please forgive me if I say anything that upsets you. I hunt and run UKC hunt tests. I currently have a HR (AKC senior) title on my golden and am working on an HRCH title. If I were a better handler, we would already be there; But again, the struggle is part of the fun.

My dog is collar conditioned and force fetched. When I pull out the collar he loves it ! It means the game is on. Also this tool could save his life in a marsh. I don't know if you will believe me, and of course every dog is different - Once the pressure part of training is established, you usually use far less force than what you are thinking about. At the middle and upper levels of training, attrition and your own development of team skills is what drives progress.

Weather or not you collar condition and force fetch is up to you. If your final goal in the field games is a JH, you should probably be fine. However take your time and expose the dog to as many real ducks as you can. So what if you don't get there in the most efficient way... it's just a doggie game. 

I do have a problem with your statement about a gentleman's gun dog (whatever that means). Just because a dog is collar conditioned and force fetched doesn't make it a fire-breather that is out of control. More often than not, it is quite the reverse. Just because a dog can do a 300 yard blind doesn't mean he's a wild man right in front of you. As a hunter, my greatest pride this year is when my dog put up 5 grouse in 30 minutes in MT for a landowner we were hunting on. He all the birds up within 20 yards of the shooter, had sylish retrieves and returned the birds to hand. To me that is a gentleman's gundog.

Non-collar conditioned and non-force fetched dogs tend to be the more out of control, sloppy animals that are not fun to hunt with. There are thousands of them out there in the blinds and fields. 

Good luck to all of you with your dogs, 

Scott Furbeck


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

Hi Scott, Welcome! I don't find trained hunting dogs to be wild at all. I'm not a big fan of hunting for sport. I can accept it if a person has to put food on the table, but sometimes the nose bopping the zapping (I can accept the vibration mode of an e-collar) and the ear pinching are a bit too much for me to handle. I also have a hard time watching that bird...If a person goes back to EvanG's video I said made me cringe, I'm hoping that wasn't a live bird. I felt like I could hear it's screams. I decided it was best not to watch it again.

I wasn't going to post in this tread again, but I wanted to say, Welcome, and that I find hunting dogs to be very well trained. It's just some of the ways they are trained that make me go, ugh...


----------



## 3340

To each his own on hunting, thanks for respecting what I do with my dog. You might not understand it, but it is sustainable when done right. We do a lot of work in the local marshes and stuff so I figure that I feed four ducks for every one i shoot. It's actually a good deal for the ducks. I have friends that mainly do obedience and then are dabbling with hunt tests also. There's plenty of room for everybody.


----------



## Ljilly28

Hi Scott,

You sound like an excellent trainer, and welcome to the forum.

I learned the expression "gentleman's hunting dog"at Golden Retriever Club meetings as members attempted to define the AKC standard for golden retrievers, to define their original purpose and what level of proficiency should be expected as inherent in a good representitve of the breed. I think the point of the expression was to say that the golden was someone's hunting companion long before field trials in their modern form came along with the competitive expertise level demanded from both dog and handler. Field trials make unique demands on goldens in comparison to their original purpose, I think was the idea. What level do you think a good hunting dog should work at: SH? MH? Do you think field trails are above and beyond what a family hunting dog would encounter on a saturday of hunting or do you think it is approximately the same? These are the kind of questions that led to someone using that much -repeated phrase.

I am not generalizing about anyone else or their dogs; I am just saying that my goldens don't need FF/E collars to work in a stylish, in control way at the JH level. I know they could not do MH that way. However, they are able to meet the golden retriever standard as a pleasure to hunt with - and for me, field trials are above and beyond my personal interests. I would be more interested in field work if I did not realistically need to FF/ use an E collar to play the game at higher levels. I don't personally know many people whose goldens excel in higher levels of field without aversives, but I admire the few trainers I do know.


----------



## sammydog

Ljilly28 said:


> the golden standard calls for a gentleman's hunting dog and not an olympic athlete/fetching machine.


To be fair the Golden Retriever standard does not mention gentleman's hunting dog anywhere. It does say: "A symmetrical, powerful, active dog" and "Primarily a hunting dog". I am pretty sure that you get the GRNews, there was a great article in the Nov/Dec Field Issue called Gathering at Guisachan that discusses this topic. Great reading (as always)! Do you have that issue?

Welcome to the forum SMF, good points!


----------



## 3340

Thanks, I've had hunting goldens for about a decade, and only started hunt tests a couple years ago. I no way would I have the time or money to play the field trial game (I still have 2 children to send to college ). I really enjoy the HRC venue.. lots of nice people and dogs and many trials to go to that are close to me.

You asked what level dog would be a good hunting dog. I would have to say an AKC Senior or UKC Hunting retriever would fit the bill for most people. On a given day either dog would be better than 85% of the dogs out in the marsh. The Junior and UKC started trials are measuring basic desire, but not control (Steadiness and the ability to take directions from the handler) Control is important. The balance of control and desire is what makes a good hunting dog to me.

Take care

smf


----------



## hotel4dogs

Hi Scott and welcome. What area of the country do you hail from?




SMF said:


> To each his own on hunting, thanks for respecting what I do with my dog. You might not understand it, but it is sustainable when done right. We do a lot of work in the local marshes and stuff so I figure that I feed four ducks for every one i shoot. It's actually a good deal for the ducks. I have friends that mainly do obedience and then are dabbling with hunt tests also. There's plenty of room for everybody.


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

SMF said:


> To each his own on hunting, thanks for respecting what I do with my dog. You might not understand it, but it is sustainable when done right. We do a lot of work in the local marshes and stuff so I figure that I feed four ducks for every one i shoot. It's actually a good deal for the ducks. I have friends that mainly do obedience and then are dabbling with hunt tests also. There's plenty of room for everybody.


I do respect you. I alway respected Swampcollie, too. I know I'm taking this off topic, but my husband tried to go hunting once. First problem was that they put him in the back of a small pickup with a cap. He doesn't like close quarters. He got out of the truck in a bit of a tizzy. My BIL never let him go again. He's like me. He spent too much time making noise to scare everything away. I'm surprised my husband made it home! This hunting wasn't done using dogs though. 

As I mentioned, I don't find dogs trained to hunt wild at all.


----------



## 3340

Just south of you. Heyworth IL (just south of Bloomington). I have 2 dogs, 1 will be 15 YO in March, but he won't make it that far... Hemangiosarcoma. No regrets, he's doing well and not in pain. He was a Topbrass Cotton Grandson for those keeping score. My current working dog is a 3YO Golden I got from Susan Shelmadine and he is a Speaker Grandson. Both are far better dogs than I am a handler. I like to hunt first and do hunt tests to keep the fun going through the year. Any more dog stuff than that is too much with younger kids.


----------



## Ljilly28

SMF said:


> You asked what level dog would be a good hunting dog. I would have to say an AKC Senior or UKC Hunting retriever would fit the bill for most people. On a given day either dog would be better than 85% of the dogs out in the marsh. The Junior and UKC started trials are measuring basic desire, but not control (Steadiness and the ability to take directions from the handler) Control is important. The balance of control and desire is what makes a good hunting dog to me.
> 
> Take care
> 
> smf


I agree with this 100 percent.


----------



## 3340

The first hunt is always hard for a new dog. Generally a person needs to handle the dog and not even take a gun the first few times. Also a lot of non-dog hunters don't understand that you care more about the dog than the hunt. That means the first ducks are only singles that fall dead 25 yards from you...

Hunting, just like trialing takes practice. It doesn't always come together the first few times.


----------



## grrrick

This thread seems to be taking a turn for the better! Welcome Scott! When I first joined this forum, this hunting section was pretty inactive. I'm glad to see the activity has picked up and hope it continues. Stick around, Scott! You have provided some great insight. Having lost our beloved hunting companion recently and soon to be starting fresh with a new puppy, I have so much to learn and this forum is a great resource. 

Let me start by saying I've owned and trained one dog. I winged it. She was a great dog with some great instincts and it was my pleasure to hunt with her. Yes, she had faults. I wouldn't even consider myself an amatuer trainer. I know next to nothing! But as I prepare to begin training my 2nd dog, I do want to do it better than I did before, thus, I research, I learn, and I try again.

Obviously, there are differing opinions on FF'ing. I'm simply trying to decide what direction I'm going to take with my own dog, so I am absorbing all this information and researching it. From what I can tell, I think it really comes down to two things, your goals and your dog. To my simple brain, it's as simple as that. 

Here are two interesting articles. This might provoke some more interesting and helpful discussion.

http://www.wildfowlmag.com/tips_strategies/jsforcebreaking/index.html by James Spencer

http://www.fetchpup.com/training/forcefetch.php by Robert Milner

I think these two articles do a good job of explaining the history, the purpose and the process of FFing. I think it also helps "demyth" some things and even explains how and why FF'ing is viewed the way it is. But if you are like me, after reading these articles, I felt I had a much better understanding.

Robert Milner's website (www.fetchpup.com) is an interesting read and has some very interesting thoughts around Field Trials in the US and how they compare to Britian. Robert takes a very conservative approach (or is it liberal??) to FF'ing but is the first to say that is "required" for today's Field Trials. I think the same could be said for high level hunt titles. He's not opposed to FFing and does it with some dogs, based on the dog and the owners goals. Some of his notes on FF's are very interesting too. 

I also understand that neither of these two trainers are consistantly putting our FC titled dogs. But then again, most people don't have goals of producing a AFC/FC titled dog. However, like Scott said, I do believe FF'ing can help produce a dog that is a pleasure to hunt with, as well as keep him safer while hunting. I honestly don't see that much controversy in FFing itself, but more in the methodology and how it's done. 

I think many trainers are alot like many breeders. They feel strongly about their opinions and methods, as they should. To be good at what you do, you should be confident in your methods. I'm a coach and I'm the same way. It can come off as arrogant or egostical, but it is what it is... Confidence in what you do. This is in no way a dig on Evan, so please don't take it like that. I value your opinion, Evan, and I hope you continue to give it. You obviously have confidence in your methods, as you should. It will help me alot as I move through the next several years with my new pup. I also value the others opinions just as much. 

As a coach, I have learned this. You can copy methods and drills and it can make you a better coach, but if you try to copy another coaches style, you will fail. I don't think it is that different with trainers. Afterall, they are Dog Coaches, right?


----------



## hollyk

Woo Hoo! After reading both of the following links ( posted by Grrrick) I believe a do finally understand the basics of forced fetch.

http://www.fetchpup.com/training/forcefetch.php
http://www.wildfowlmag.com/tips_strategies/jsforcebreaking/index.html

Thanks Grrrick!


----------



## EvanG

mdoats said:


> What's on the back of the book or the DVD? The paragraph that the editor wrote to describe it on amazon.com or the catalog copy would probably actually help me to understand what it is.
> 
> ETA: FlyingQuizini's description helps. Thanks!


While I'm a fan of Operant Conditioning, I don't support making it a religion. It doesn't answer all the quandries of of dog training, but rather is a helpful guide. I'm not going to mire by contributions to this discussion in inflexible rhetoric because it won't take you beyond a rudamentary glimpse at the topic.

The Forced Fetch: A fully trained retrieve

Because I’ve worked with retrievers for more than thirty years, and trained with some of the best trainers ever, I believe strongly that a trained retrieve is superior in all ways to a “natural” one. A trained retrieve is complete, sure, and reliable. A dog that has been given a thorough course in all elements of the trained retrieve has a far better grasp of what is expected of him, and how to do it as well as he is physically capable. 

The trained retrieve is a complete course. Hold, fetch/hold, stick-fetch (optional), collar condition to fetch (also optional – but strongly recommended!), walking fetch, and forcing to a pile of bumpers (training dummies) - including sending the dog and training him to recall to heel for delivery - constitutes a good course in the trained retrieve. Through this process your dog learns how to properly hold a bird and/or fetch object, gains _impetus_ (a force that causes the motion of an object to overcome resistance and maintain its velocity) for fetching on command, and has that impetus magnified through the progressive steps culminating in “force to pile”. I would add to that process water forcing, as well. All of those steps cumulatively surpass and truly transcend a retrieve in its natural form. 


Some dogs, for example, naturally hold an object more reliably than others. A force-fetched dog does it every time.
Some dogs have enough inborn drive to fetch is strong enough that they retrieve more reliably than others. A force-fetched dog does it every time – regardless.
Few dogs fetch in their natural state in the organized manner needed to complete an efficient blind retrieve, including sophisticated handling skills; land or water. A fully force-fetched dog will tend to be easily groomed for these skills, and will do it every time.
But, while I'm not providing this to enlist anyone in the practice, it shojuld be understood that the application of pressure, and the release of that pressure accomplishes more than just one thing. That makes this a bit more abstract than something like a method that teaches "Here", for example. If you are to understand what force fetch really is, you must also understand its goals, purposes, and also its processes. The last of those three logically ranks behind the first two because you must know where you're going with it in order to understand what it means to have arrived to have arrived at a conclusion in the process. Calling force fetch a concept falls far short of an adequate description.

EvanG


----------



## sammydog

SMF said:


> You asked what level dog would be a good hunting dog. I would have to say an AKC Senior or UKC Hunting retriever would fit the bill for most people. On a given day either dog would be better than 85% of the dogs out in the marsh. The Junior and UKC started trials are measuring basic desire, but not control (Steadiness and the ability to take directions from the handler) Control is important. The balance of control and desire is what makes a good hunting dog to me.
> 
> Take care
> 
> smf


Very interesting! Something I have never really thought of before, as I have only recently been playing the field game, and I have never been hunting... More great input.

Mira is training for junior now, but I hope to keep working toward senior. I would like to do the WCX too, which requires them to be steady and also do an honor, but no blinds.

Like grrrick I am just absorbing everything on this thread, very interesting stuff!


----------



## EvanG

On your mark… get set…_’fetch’_
"

Scroll down the article of that name for an instructional article that may help those who are still not connecting the dots.

EvanG


----------



## grrrick

EvanG said:


> On your mark… get set…_’fetch’_
> "
> 
> Scroll down the article of that name for an instructional article that may help those who are still not connecting the dots.
> 
> EvanG


Bad link? or is it just me?


----------



## sammydog

Does not work for me either...


----------



## EvanG

http://rushcreekpress.com/page6glossaryarticles.html

EvanG


----------



## 3340

Few dogs fetch in their natural state in the organized manner needed to complete an efficient blind retrieve, including sophisticated handling skills; land or water. A fully force-fetched dog will tend to be easily groomed for these skills, and will do it every time. ...

I can agree that force fetching and collar conditioning both of my dogs did "turn on a light" in a very positive way in relation to teaching new tasks ..... probably with less pressure and aggravation than I would have had if I didn't force fetch. We both knew the rules of the game...

By the way Evan.. good info in your materials. I'm trying to work at the UKC finished level... lots of singles with stickmen and then put everything together at the end of a weekly basis. Still having some issues with blinds with a lot of suction... he still likes to rely on his nose and I'm probably not handling early enough is my suspicion. gotta get sombody to watch me when ... training groups fall apart this time of year.

I get so nervous during the tests, almost sick, I have to find a way to get over it.

Duck season starts on the 31st in IL.


----------



## EvanG

SMF said:


> By the way Evan.. good info in your materials. I'm trying to work at the UKC finished level... lots of singles with stickmen and then put everything together at the end of a weekly basis. Still having some issues with blinds with a lot of suction... he still likes to rely on his nose and I'm probably not handling early enough is my suspicion. gotta get sombody to watch me when ... training groups fall apart this time of year.
> 
> I get so nervous during the tests, almost sick, I have to find a way to get over it.
> 
> Duck season starts on the 31st in IL.


Really, only time and experience will help you master your ability to perform well when you're nervous. You'll still be nervous. It just won't hinder you so much.

Have you done any Definitive Casting work to strengthen your blinds in high suction set ups?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nNoXQyPz08

EvanG


----------



## K9-Design

EvanG said:


> Really, only time and experience will help you master your ability to perform well when you're nervous. You'll still be nervous. It just won't hinder you so much.
> 
> Have you done any Definitive Casting work to strengthen your blinds in high suction set ups?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nNoXQyPz08
> 
> EvanG


Whoa, cool video!!!! You know you can read something but it really just falls into sense if you can see it 
Thanks,


----------



## AmberSunrise

Thanks for that video shot!! It


----------



## EvanG

Sunrise said:


> Thanks for that video shot!!


You're welcome. I hope it's explanatory. Next spring my young Golden should be developed enough to begin starring in some of these training videos!

So far he's only been in the puppy vids - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtFGWtp-hPs

EvanG


----------



## AmberSunrise

Cool!! I have a youngster almost ready for his JH and WC (I believe) who needs more water work and a young foster who will be starting next spring; I'll be looking forward to those videos


----------



## tippykayak

tippykayak said:


> I have a question for Evan and k9: have you guys ever made a mistake with an aversive that made a dog shy or hesitant about a skill? Like you accidentally burn the dog at the wrong time and he becomes shy around something?


Hi - this question seems to have fallen by the wayside, and I think it's a really important issue to understand as we discuss FF. Can one of the FF experts please respond?


----------



## Swampcollie

Originally Posted by *tippykayak*  
_I have a question for Evan and k9: have you guys ever made a mistake with an aversive that made a dog shy or hesitant about a skill? Like you accidentally burn the dog at the wrong time and he becomes shy around something?_

_Have I done it? _

_No, but I do see it from time to time in dogs whose handler/owner didn't follow a well designed program and started adminstering corrections when the dog had no idea as to "why" they're being corrected. _

_When using aversives, the dog must already thoroughly understand a command before you can administer corrections. Aversives like collar corrections or leash corrections are used for "Refusal" to perform a known command or for a "Lack of Effort" in performing a well known and thoroughly understood command. _

_So if you as a handler haven't done a good and thorough job in "Teaching a Behavior" and you start using aversives, you can create confusion and hesitation in the dog, because they're not really sure of what you want them to do. _


----------



## tippykayak

Swampcollie said:


> _So if you as a handler haven't done a good and thorough job in "Teaching a Behavior" and you start using aversives, you can create confusion and hesitation in the dog, because they're not really sure of what you want them to do. _


That makes sense to me, but in Evan's video, I see people administering collar pops and jaw slaps to puppies to help them learn how to hold the bumper. It doesn't seem like the dog already gets it. It really seems to be during the teaching phase.


----------



## 3340

Thanks:

I'm right past the 4 phase drill + weekly wagonwheel & walking baseball and right before definitive casting. One question - since it's hunting season and I'll be only training 2 days a week - is it better to be in a mainainence mode until early spring or should I be trying to teach and hunt at the same time ? I'm having fun with the dog and am not in a huge hurry... I won't be running tests until March.


----------



## Swampcollie

tippykayak said:


> That makes sense to me, but in Evan's video, I see people administering collar pops and jaw slaps to puppies to help them learn how to hold the bumper. It doesn't seem like the dog already gets it. It really seems to be during the teaching phase.


I'll let Evan answer questions for the specific techniques used in his video. 

(I use a different technique to teach hold.)


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> That makes sense to me, but in Evan's video, I see people administering *collar pops* and *jaw slaps* to puppies to help them learn how to hold the bumper. It doesn't seem like the dog already gets it. It really seems to be during the teaching phase.


Okay, I have no problem addressing your statements, but these are your terms for what's happening, not mine. If I accepted those terms as given it would conjure a vision of a cage fighter pounding a baby into submission. That may be your vision of it, but it doesn't match mine. So let's look again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd72kl9lZlc

Since I personally edited this and all my videos, you can imagine how many times I've reviewed this footage. I see the physical corrections here as very gentle and minimal. The dog I personally work with in the clip was not just in the teaching phase, and I say that in the video; "He's already had quite a bit of this". The other dogs that were on their first lesson with me coaching, were only guided to hold, and with no corporal corrections at all. They were merely praised for compliance. I don't know what to tell anyone who sees this, and thinks it's some form of brutality. To each his/her own.

EvanG


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo

I'm not sure if this is the same video I was watching or not, but I don't remember thinking the bopping was brutal. I just remember something my husband once said about an annoying human. He said, "Imaging getting up in the morning and having someone poking you in the side all day." For some reason the bopping made me think of how annoying he found the behavior. I imagine a dog may find it annoying too and therefore complies.


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> Okay, I have no problem addressing your statements, but these are your terms for what's happening, not mine. If I accepted those terms as given it would conjure a vision of a cage fighter pounding a baby into submission. That may be your vision of it, but it doesn't match mine. So let's look again.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd72kl9lZlc
> 
> Since I personally edited this and all my videos, you can imagine how many times I've reviewed this footage. I see the physical corrections here as very gentle and minimal. The dog I personally work with in the clip was not just in the teaching phase, and I say that in the video; "He's already had quite a bit of this". The other dogs that were on their first lesson with me coaching, were only guided to hold, and with no corporal corrections at all. They were merely praised for compliance. I don't know what to tell anyone who sees this, and thinks it's some form of brutality. To each his/her own.
> 
> EvanG


Hey Evan,

No offense was meant there. I had asked what the common term for the bopping in the face was, since "bop" didn't seem very formal or accurate. I was told (not by you) that when you hit the dog in the face during training, it's called a "jaw slap." You do hit that dog in the face several times during the video, so please provide whatever term you like for it, and I'll happily use it. 

The young puppy who's learning to walk and hold the bumper is collar popped a number of times. "Popping" is about the friendliest term I've heard for it, so it's the one I chose. I'm not insinuating abuse, but there absolutely are aversives being used during the teaching phase in that video. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that (not saying I like it either), but I'm not just seeing dogs who fully understand skills being proofed with aversives. I'm definitely seeing aversive "pressure" being used on dogs who are still in the learning phase of the skill.

There was nothing in my post that called what you were doing abusive or brutal, and I asked a sincere question, which remains essentially unanswered, except by Swampcollie: If you make a mistake with a physical aversive, either with timing or severity, do you ever create shyness in a dog around a skill or a physical feature in the terrain?

Maybe you guys don't like talking about your personal mistakes with your personal dogs (I know I don't!), so maybe I can phrase it differently: Do you feel there's a risk of creating shyness, timidity, or phobic behavior when you make a mistake in the application of pressure? No trainer is perfect, so it's certainly possible to misread body language, slap harder than you mean to, or press the wrong button on a remote. What are the risks and the downsides?


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Hey Evan,
> 
> No offense was meant there. I had asked what the common term for the bopping in the face was, since "bop" didn't seem very formal or accurate. I was told (not by you) that when you hit the dog in the face during training, it's called a "jaw slap." You do hit that dog in the face several times during the video, so please provide whatever term you like for it, and I'll happily use it.


The terms used in the video are "cuffing" under the chin, and "tapping" on the muzzle. Both are clearly done with the dog described as having done this before, and is accepting of the roller. At this point we are dealing with finesse issues like mouthing and chomping.


tippykayak said:


> The young puppy who's learning to walk and hold the bumper is collar popped a number of times. "Popping" is about the friendliest term I've heard for it, so it's the one I chose.


I teach trainers to "tug" the leash because dogs (like horses) tend to universally resist a steady pull. That particular puppy (mine) pulled like a sled dog from an early age, and at that point I didn't make a big issue of it. When he was mature enough I trained him to heel and to come as called. And so it goes.

The dogs shown in the early learning phase are all passively taught, and praised as they comply. While verbal instruction in the video says to cuff or tap for infractions, it also says "...but don't start out by using corrections."

It is often misunderstood that the processes of force fetch has more goals, and certainly more important ones, than merely obtaining a hand delivery. There are multiple steps and phases that cause the trained dog to be more stable, more secure, and far more reliable about going on retrieve when sent, continuing to go, and to deliver according to standard.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

Thanks for the clarifications. I feel there's still this gaping silence around the question I keep asking about shyness and downsides to aversives like cuffing, collar pops, and use of the e-collar.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Thanks for the clarifications. I feel there's still this gaping silence around the question I keep asking about shyness and downsides to aversives like cuffing, collar pops, and use of the e-collar.


I'm not hiding from it. I was just hoping someone besides me would respond. Having been a pro trainer, I've trained hundreds of dogs, and so have had exponentially more opportunities for such an occasion.

Have I made a correction I would like to take back? Yes. But has any such correction caused lasting negative effect? None in my recollection. Not at all. Part of the reason for that is my adherance to making fair corrections at appropriate times, and with a fair amount of pressure applied. I also only use stimulus to which my dogs have previously been conditioned, and for commands they clearly understand and know how to comply with. When I present the e-collar to put it on a dog, they stick their necks out, wag their tails, and get excited because they equate it with going to have fun. We're going training!

I cannot vouch for anyone else.

EvanG


----------



## Loisiana

I've misused aversives occasionally, especially when first starting out training with no one to guide me. But I haven't had any cause any long term effects. In my mind, if my dog isn't happily wagging his tail soon after a correction, then I did something wrong. Every correction is immediately followed up with enthusiastic, sincere praise. I think problems occur when trainers correct out of anger. In most cases whatever someone does to a dog doesn't really physically hurt them (unless they are going to extremes), it is more often that the dog is hurt by negative emotions. That's why all of my corrections are done without emotion, and the praise that follows is filled with emotion.


----------



## GoldenSail

EvanG said:


> Okay, I have no problem addressing your statements, but these are your terms for what's happening, not mine. If I accepted those terms as given it would conjure a vision of a cage fighter pounding a baby into submission. That may be your vision of it, but it doesn't match mine. So let's look again.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd72kl9lZlc
> 
> Since I personally edited this and all my videos, you can imagine how many times I've reviewed this footage. I see the physical corrections here as very gentle and minimal. The dog I personally work with in the clip was not just in the teaching phase, and I say that in the video; "He's already had quite a bit of this". The other dogs that were on their first lesson with me coaching, were only guided to hold, and with no corporal corrections at all. They were merely praised for compliance. I don't know what to tell anyone who sees this, and thinks it's some form of brutality. To each his/her own.
> 
> EvanG


What a lovely little puppy in the video--is she all grown up? Personally, I didn't think what Evan did was harsh. The video I saw of bopping that was quite harsh the man had his arm a good foot away and swung it up to smack the dog in the jaw with it. Totally different.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you correct her on the bridge? I can understand the light correction under her jaw as that is a very intuitive place to do it.


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> I'm not hiding from it. I was just hoping someone besides me would respond. Having been a pro trainer, I've trained hundreds of dogs, and so have had exponentially more opportunities for such an occasion.
> 
> Have I made a correction I would like to take back? Yes. But has any such correction caused lasting negative effect? None in my recollection. Not at all. Part of the reason for that is my adherance to making fair corrections at appropriate times, and with a fair amount of pressure applied. I also only use stimulus to which my dogs have previously been conditioned, and for commands they clearly understand and know how to comply with. When I present the e-collar to put it on a dog, they stick their necks out, wag their tails, and get excited because they equate it with going to have fun. We're going training!


Thanks for the clarification. I thought there might be the real potential for shyness. For example, if you accidentally burned a dog on a high setting as he hit the water, he might be reluctant to hit the water for a while or otherwise avoid that kind of situation.

I also wonder if dogs who "washed out" of older, more physical FF training might simply have learned to avoid or resent parts of training that they associated with aversives. I think the kind of "pressure" you're advocating, where you find the smallest amount of discomfort that's effective, is a lot less likely to cause aversion than the more forceful approach.

I have an old retriever training book where it says to beat the dog with the free end of the leash until he cries out. It's nice to see a more progressive technique.


----------



## EvanG

GoldenSail said:


> What a lovely little puppy in the video--is she all grown up? Personally, I didn't think what Evan did was harsh. The video I saw of bopping that was quite harsh the man had his arm a good foot away and swung it up to smack the dog in the jaw with it. Totally different.


Actually, 'she' is a 'he'. He's 20 months old and learning to handle. His name is Moose.










GoldenSail said:


> If you don't mind me asking, why do you correct her on the bridge? I can understand the light correction under her jaw as that is a very intuitive place to do it.


You’re correct. I began using that technique as a result of trainer’s intuition, which is how many such techniques came to be. I use it very lightly, which is all that is usually needed. I noted that, while not at all painful, it was something of an insult to their senses, and so it worked well as a correction. All I was after was a change in behavior, so why be harsher? Good point.


tippykayak said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I thought there might be the real potential for shyness. For example, if you accidentally burned a dog on a high setting as he hit the water, he might be reluctant to hit the water for a while or otherwise avoid that kind of situation.


There sure is that risk – land or water. That’s why I do to such lengths to use only a level of correction I know will cause the desired change in behavior in a particular dog. Having conditioned each dog to pressure, and to the tool, I know where that level is in each one. Of course, keeping a training journal is important, too.


tippykayak said:


> I also wonder if dogs who "washed out" of older, more physical FF training might simply have learned to avoid or resent parts of training that they associated with aversives. I think the kind of "pressure" you're advocating, where you find the smallest amount of discomfort that's effective, is a lot less likely to cause aversion than the more forceful approach.





tippykayak said:


> I have an old retriever training book where it says to beat the dog with the free end of the leash until he cries out. It's nice to see a more progressive technique.


As a pro, I had only one dog wash out during FF. That dog washed out because he was so tough, and I was not willing to put as much pressure on a dog as it would have taken to get him through it. The old timers often were only concerned with the result, and not so sensitive to the dog. I have no connection with some of those practices – especially those that involve ‘beating’, as you may well imagine!

Washouts are a subject of their own.

EvanG


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> Thanks for the clarification. I thought there might be the real potential for shyness. For example, if you accidentally burned a dog on a high setting as he hit the water, he might be reluctant to hit the water for a while or otherwise avoid that kind of situation.


Yes there is a potential for this but that's why we read and take advice and go slow -- as to not do this. 
Yes I have seen others do this and yes it causes big problems with their dogs, but personally I have not caused a phobia or shyness with the collar, unless you want to include shore breaking -- that was not an accident though! 
Also, you have to realize that ONE zap from the collar -- even really a big one -- doesn't do anything. Yes it hurts and you might get a big reaction but it doesn't teach the dog anything. To the dog it is totally random. They'd have to be corrected multiple times in the same scenario for them to put two and two together and say "me standing here or me doing X caused the zap." If the big zap was an accident, presumably you're not doing it multiple times.
I would say the potential to cause shyness or a phobia about something is a lot less than one might think. I see much more of people who have not properly collar conditioned their dog and they themselves unsure when to use it, and basically being abusive to the dog -- the dog's behavior doesn't change one iota but he is getting a lot of heat from the collar. Totally unproductive and definitely a valuable tool in the wrong hands.


----------



## GoldenSail

EvanG said:


> Actually, 'she' is a 'he'. He's 20 months old and learning to handle. His name is Moose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re correct. I began using that technique as a result of trainer’s intuition, which is how many such techniques came to be. I use it very lightly, which is all that is usually needed. I noted that, while not at all painful, it was something of an insult to their senses, and so it worked well as a correction. All I was after was a change in behavior, so why be harsher? Good point.There sure is that risk – land or water. That’s why I do to such lengths to use only a level of correction I know will cause the desired change in behavior in a particular dog. Having conditioned each dog to pressure, and to the tool, I know where that level is in each one. Of course, keeping a training journal is important, too.As a pro, I had only one dog wash out during FF. That dog washed out because he was so tough, and I was not willing to put as much pressure on a dog as it would have taken to get him through it. The old timers often were only concerned with the result, and not so sensitive to the dog. I have no connection with some of those practices – especially those that involve ‘beating’, as you may well imagine!
> 
> Washouts are a subject of their own.
> 
> EvanG


I was referring to the beautiful black lab (which may still be a boy)--not that Moose isn't cute too . AND I wanted to know what warrants a tap over a cuff? If you cuff, it would seem they dog would be less likely to drop the item (under chin) but a tap?


----------



## EvanG

GoldenSail said:


> I was referring to the beautiful black lab (which may still be a boy)--not that Moose isn't cute too . AND I wanted to know what warrants a tap over a cuff? If you cuff, it would seem they dog would be less likely to drop the item (under chin) but a tap?


The answer to this question relates to all pressure applications. We use pressure (in any form) to change behavior. If a cuff under the ching does not produce a quieter mouth, a tap on the muzzle usually does. Each dog is different.

EvanG


----------

