# Advanced Force Fetch/real birds



## missmarstar

Is it really necessary to smack the dog's face to make him sit?


----------



## fostermom

missmarstar said:


> Is it really necessary to smack the dog's face to make him sit?


Remember, we're ignorant when it comes to training dogs. Whopping them when they don't do exactly what you want is a good thing!

Really disgusting to me, actually.


----------



## Loisiana

Do you think that the same benefits of force to pile could be gained by putting only one item out at a time, and having another person put a new item out each time as the dog is returning to the handler?

The only drawback I have heard about doing field work and competitive obedience together is if a dog isn't strong in scent discrimination before starting force to pile, it can cause lots of problems with scent articles and the dog just grabbing the first one it comes to, since that is the goal of force to pile. The other dogs I have done force to pile with had already been trained for awhile on scent articles before I started them on field work. Now that I'm training a puppy that hasn't been introduced to scent work yet, I don't want to cause a future problem. But then again I have a feeling that many trainers would say that you just train the differences to your dog. So I'm not sure which direction to take.


----------



## 12687

I'm pretty sure he was correcting for hold. Force fetch is my least, least favorite part of training. I did not force my first golden and she picked and choosed when she was going to fetch when we were competing. She got her JH and WCX and I stopped-she is 14.5 now and could have gone farther had she had a better owner-oh well-she is a happy girl. It really sucked how many donations I gave to clubs. God love her she is an awesome upland gun dog-never dropped a bird when hunting-the little turkey. Should you force fetch choose how you want to do it-there are different methods. I try to lay a good foundation for hold before I even start fetch-that helps when you head to the pile work. Ryder was a bad mouther, we spent lots of nights playing with a 4' long 2x4-he doesn't want to mouth that-that game his"get your stick" has greatly improved his hold. I put a band aid on it-and I'm ok with that since he only mouths bumps-never dropped a duck in comp-way more committed to hold that duck. It is what it is.

Jodie-for articles do you say fetch or find it? They are situational I don't think you'll have any trouble, follow a good program that fits your training style and be consistent. I would get the FF done long before you start teaching articles.


----------



## Loisiana

I do have different commands for each, but I have been told by several high level obedience/field people about the problems it can cause. Actually the first person who told me that is an OTCH/MH handler, and she said it wasn't an issue with her first couple of dogs because she did obedience first with them and then field. The first dog she did field with first before teaching articles to had a problem with snatching scent articles, so she now allows her dogs to "shop" a little in the bumper pile. She said it's not a compromise she's thrilled with, but it's what she's found has the best results for not getting a snatch on articles.


----------



## zephyr

Um... I couldn't keep watching after that smack. Obviously these are probably "proven" methods (whatever that means)... Sorry, but, just NOT for me. Neither is an e-collar.

I'm sure I could get Oscar to do tons of nifty tricks/fetches/whatever if I rung him me around on a line and smacked him on the nose when he didn't move fast enough... Well thanks but no thanks! I'll never be an obedience master, but I just have to think there are other ways to connect with my dog and make him understand what I am asking of him? I hope so, for both our sakes.


----------



## Emma&Tilly

Evan, is that you in the video? If so you are very rough with that dog. I am all for bowing down to greater knowledge in training but when it comes to whacking a dog in the face and yanking the lead like that then there is just no justification for whatever you gain from it. I absolutely know that whatever you achieve from training methods like that is just not worth it. It can't be, because you are physically hurting a dog during the process. Obviously, if it didn't hurt, it wouldn't work. Is that standard then? Do you happen to know if trainers in other countries use similar methods as standard? If so I will not get the same enjoyment from watching the gundogs working at game fairs!


----------



## IowaGold

Evan thanks for posting the video. It reminds me that I need to get a move on with Piper. I think I may just take Ruby back thru and actually finish this time (she's 5). It's finally going to be above freezing for the next week, so I think I'm going to start with my collar conditioning and then move into force fetch. I'm hoping to time it right so that when I'm finished with the inside stuff I can move directly outside to walking fetch, fetch to the pile, etc. Gotta get rid of some snow in the meantime.


----------



## Swampcollie

Watch the dogs' behavior as that will be a better barometer of what is or isn't excessive. What was dogs' behavior prior to the corrections? What was the dogs' behavior after the corrections? 

Was the dog showing signs of being unhappy or scared? Head down, slinking, tail tucked?


----------



## 12687

Swampcollie-
I don't think it will matter to some-the dog was not scared or hurt. I guess this is some of the open mindedness the PO people were claiming to have. FF is putting pressure on the dog to fetch, move quickly and work through stress. I would wager to bet that chuck under the chin looked much worse then it really was-the dog didn't hit the ground cowering did it?
Not everyones cup of tea and that's fine. I find it interesting that people who have not actually done field work with their GUN DOGS bash field training. I suppose allowing my dogs to pick up dead birds I shot makes me a horrible person-so be it. Field training has come a long way from the old school approach, and many people do train without the ecollar. But a solid fetch is always a top priority-how you go about teaching your dogs to fetch is your business. 

Evan-hope to see you at the KCRC ht in May-bring Moose I would love to meet him.


----------



## Emma&Tilly

pals said:


> I find it interesting that people who have not actually done field work with their GUN DOGS bash field training.


You certainly do not need to be wrapped up in the world of gundog training to understand that hitting a dog in the face and harshly yanking a lead or whipping it with a heeling stick (thats a new one on me, just watched some other Evan vids) is unacceptable. Watching that video I feel the same for the handler as I did when watching a young woman do a *very similar* thing when her dog was eating chips on the ground outside Macdonalds in Newcastle city centre...and believe me I said something to her aswell! I asked her if she thought that was a good way to train her dog not to eat chips...she swore at me and walked away (I'm hoping Evan won't do the same thing) I just do not understand how any dog lover could communicate with their dog in this way however experienced you are. Infact I feel more contempt for owners that ARE experienced and should know better. It is no excuse _whatever_ you are trying to train.

I have learnt a lot today by having a good old nosey at a UK based Gundog forum...the force fetch and E-collar is not something approved of and very seldom used in gundog training over here...infact it is a huge area of debate between the two styles of training. It was interesting to read about some of the historical reasons why and how field tests have developed across the pond. Still, if entire countries reject such harsh methods because...well, they know it is wrong to hit/shock dogs then I still think there is an argument as to why it is necessary at all. It *can* be done without punitive methods and entirely based on biddable, eager, happy, working dogs and very talented handlers. I shall continue to enjoy watching gundogs at competitions and game fairs happy in the knowledge that the handlers that have trained their dogs with methods that are a bit more...well, 'my cup of tea.'

I shall not post on this thread anymore and let you get back to discussing the technical stuff. Enjoy.


----------



## zephyr

pals said:


> Swampcollie-
> I don't think it will matter to some-the dog was not scared or hurt. I guess this is some of the open mindedness the PO people were claiming to have. FF is putting pressure on the dog to fetch, move quickly and work through stress. I would wager to bet that chuck under the chin looked much worse then it really was-the dog didn't hit the ground cowering did it?
> Not everyones cup of tea and that's fine. I find it interesting that people who have not actually done field work with their GUN DOGS bash field training. I suppose allowing my dogs to pick up dead birds I shot makes me a horrible person-so be it. Field training has come a long way from the old school approach, and many people do train without the ecollar. But a solid fetch is always a top priority-how you go about teaching your dogs to fetch is your business.


Perhaps surprisingly, I really don't have any problem with the hunting part of the equation in field work. I do have this (perhaps naive!) notion that the people/dog/whomever should eat everything they kill, since I don't really like the idea of killing another animal for no reason other than entertainment... :curtain: (does that actually happen? I have no clue!) And I understand that the "fetch" part of the field dog's job is essential, since s/he has to get that bird and get back to you ASAP. But, it just seems like the "pressure" in force fetch that you are talking about is basically giving the dog no other option because s/he is either in pain (if only for a microsecond) or ends up fearful of disappointing you. You say the dog was neither "scared or hurt,"... but it seems like if every time the dog does something wrong, it gets a smack (even if it's not a full-on hit that knocks the dog over or something), isn't the dog's motivation going to be "uh-oh I don't want to get smacked again, better drop this thing" rather than "I can't wait to get back to my person to get something nice"...? (Okay, I really anthropomorphized the dog there, but you get my drift I hope!)

Obviously that cuff on the face was only one tiny part of the relationship between the dog & the trainer -- I really do get that! But... isn't there another way to get the dog to do what you want? (Or there is, but it is too slow, compared to the normal pace of field dog training?) I am genuinely interested in how it all works in the field world... even though I'll definitely not be attempting those methods on my dog.


----------



## Swampcollie

pals said:


> Swampcollie-
> 
> I don't think it will matter to some-the dog was not scared or hurt. I guess this is some of the open mindedness the PO people were claiming to have. FF is putting pressure on the dog to fetch, move quickly and work through stress. I would wager to bet that chuck under the chin looked much worse then it really was-the dog didn't hit the ground cowering did it?


 
I suspect Evan chose this particular clip to stir the pot so to speak. And start some discussion. 

The reaction was typical from those in the PO circles. However if you noticed, nobody answered even one of my questions. They closed their minds and didn't see the dog or its' reactions. They only saw the handler.

As you suspected, the cuff under the jaw was due to the dog mouthing and chewing on the bird it was holding. If you're opposed to physical corrections, just how would you correct such an infraction?


----------



## Emma&Tilly

Swampcollie said:


> Watch the dogs' behavior as that will be a better barometer of what is or isn't excessive. What was dogs' behavior prior to the corrections? What was the dogs' behavior after the corrections?
> 
> Was the dog showing signs of being unhappy or scared? Head down, slinking, tail tucked?


Sorry SC to not acknowledge your questions on the forum, it certainly doesn't mean that they weren't considered, why would you assume that they weren't read or reflected on? I did watch the video again with your questions in mind...(I was actually thinking of them as more rhetorical questions.) It did provoke me to consider the dogs reaction more and my first thought was 'I don't think this is the first time that this dog has been bopped in the face'. It would be more interesting to see the dogs reaction the first time it endured this type of training. No, the dog doesn't cower to the floor...but really is that the reaction we need to assess whether hitting a dog during training is ok? Did I really just write that on a dog lovers forum??! Anyway, there is another video of Evans where another handler whips a dog with a heeling stick. The dog definitely reacts...cowers slightly to the floor. Is THAT the response that means a handler has gone too far then? The sad thing is, to me, as a bystander, it just shows a lack of skill and talent on the side of the handler...I know it can be done without these methods, if whole countries largely reject such styles of training then it proves it is not entirely necessary. Why is it acceptable in gundog training circles? If I used such force at flyball training or agility I would be out of the club before my dog hit the ground! Is it some kind of gentleman's agreement at gundog clubs?!


----------



## 12687

Apples and oranges the type of field games we play vs.the UK. Got a better method, that's all positive-bring it on. I'm all ears-seriously. I don't hit my dogs-but I do FF, FTP and CC. Like I said before there are different methods and styles. Just finished running 200 yard marks and blinds-did another series of shorter stuff-never once touched the collar-that's how it is most of the time. Actually no one used their collars today-8 dogs having a blast. Two goldens, 2 flats, 3 labbies and one terrier. Corrections were whistle sits, no no and try again. The dogs were in heaven getting fliers and dead birds, marking, using their noses and doing what they were bred for-hunting. We could go round and round-to each their own. Best of luck to you with your boy in the field-I hope you both enjoy it, no matter how you choose to train. BTW-he is very handsome.


----------



## 12687

Sorry zeph-I missed your post. I too have a problem with shooting birds and not eating them. Today all the ducks killed were pen raised mallards(I fed them and kept them warm and clean all winter) we will freeze these ducks after tagging and use them over and over for about a year of training-if you take care to dry them out. After they are finally beyond reusing we compost them. I personnally can't shoot them-one I a terrible shot under pressure and two I just hate it. I have 152 bumpers of every shape and model. Using real ducks or pheasants when training is necessary. 

And no-you don't HAVE to cuff your dog. Find what works for you-it is so much easier to start the young ones out with good fetch habits-then move into FF should you so desire. I can tell you this-darn near nothing makes my dogs more excited then training. If you put a prime rib in front of ryder while a duck was being shot and gave him the choice-he would take the duck. And he likes to eat.


----------



## fostermom

I do think that you are right, Swampcollie, Evan posted that video to stir the pot. I don't think he cares on whit though about a discussion. If the only way you can train a dog is by causing him pain, all the more power to you. I don't have a desire to whack my dogs when they don't do exactly like as I ask. I used to use much stronger methods to train my dogs, but I advanced beyond them. I have no urge to compete in a venue that requires me to hit, smack, beat my dog in order to win. That would be my ego instead of the enjoyment of the competition that would cause me to bully my dog into doing whatever I want them to do. 

And no, in that video the lab didn't cow down. But we don't know if this was his first harsh training session or his 20th. It could very well be by the 20th, he would be cowing down as soon as he is yanked back and smacked in the face.


----------



## danni's_girl

Swampcollie said:


> Watch the dogs' behavior as that will be a better barometer of what is or isn't excessive. What was dogs' behavior prior to the corrections? What was the dogs' behavior after the corrections?
> 
> Was the dog showing signs of being unhappy or scared? Head down, slinking, tail tucked?


Wow. How can you tell if the tail is tucked when the dog is sitting down...? :curtain: Or slinking? From the angle of the video, you cannot see the dog's expression, nor can you see what the dog is expressing through ears. I bet if there was a close up you'd see obvious signs of being "unhappy".

I know I wouldn't send my dog to train with that trainer after watching that video. :yuck: I firmly believe that everything can be done with positive training just as well (or better) as any other type.


----------



## EvanG

fostermom said:


> Remember, we're ignorant when it comes to training dogs. Whopping them when they don't do exactly what you want is a good thing!
> 
> Really disgusting to me, actually.


This is one of only two questions asked so far, neither of which were asked with any intent to acquire real knowledge. There is no shame in being ignorant. The shame is in insisting upon remaining that way.

No one has been intellectually honest enough to turn ignorance into an informed state, but rather have only offered pronouncements of “wrong”, and expressions of horror about a situation that offered only a glimpse of an exceptional treatment. So, you’re welcome to remain ignorant…ignorant of this dog, of his nature, of his history from the original trainer and the training that fostered and grew his bird crunching behavior, ignorant of how long it was allowed to persist and keep this otherwise wonderful animal from excelling, ignorant of the training process.

Not one pious condemning post was made by a trainer who does not use pressure in some form, and in some amount. Many were made by those who use pressure in ignorance. This, of course, was not intended to be the subject, but it was all your self-righteousness would allow you to see – and of course, judge.

‘The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.’
Henri Bergson — 

Pressure is used in dog training to change behavior. The amount of pressure used by a knowledgeable trainer is not pre-determined, but rather is determined by the dog. If a small amount of pressure brings about an appropriate change, that is what’s used. That’s effective training. If pressure is used in small amounts that do not change behavior, that’s not training; it’s nagging.

If pressure is routinely used in amounts greater than are needed to cause an appropriate behavior change, that’s not training; it’s abuse. That is not the case here, but _that’s_ been the knee-jerk reactive assumption that has kept the pious and presumptuous from making a single intelligent inquiry about the dog and the training involved.

When we got him back from his original owner/trainer, this dog with championship potential had so many flaws that he was a wreck. We did all his Basics over again. That ‘noisy’ mouth issue would have spelled the end to an otherwise fine career. Pressure was used in the amount the dog dictated, and the problem has been extinguished. In every video clip of this dog (and I have hours of his work on video) he is happy, stylish, tail up, and clear about his work. He’s secure. Even in the previous clip, he flew just as fast after the correction as before. There are two reasons why, if there is an open mind left in the audience prepared to receive them.

1. He understood the corrections because he was thoroughly schooled before applying any corrective measures
2. He’s a fine dog

We no longer deal with that issue because it’s gone. He’s now a fully trained dog, and will be competing this spring following a full season of duck hunting, during which he never offered to hard mouth a single duck in the most exciting environment a good dog can be exposed to. 

“The process of education is a transformation from cock-sure ignorance, to thoughtful uncertainty.”
Dr. Kendall McNabney M.D. —

Thanks for asking,
EvanG


----------



## EvanG

Loisiana said:


> Do you think that the same benefits of force to pile could be gained by putting only one item out at a time, and having another person put a new item out each time as the dog is returning to the handler?


You will obtain similar benefits on a single bumper, but they'll be limited. As you can see when Vince is performing force to pile, the pile is set so that the first bumper is isolated in front of the pile. That makes it easier for the dog to get started successfully, while learning to fetch the first object he comes to cleanly, and return to the handler and finish. But we progress to a row of 2, then 3, and so on to deepen this lesson.


Loisiana said:


> The only drawback I have heard about doing field work and competitive obedience together is if a dog isn't strong in scent discrimination before starting force to pile, it can cause lots of problems with scent articles and the dog just grabbing the first one it comes to, since that is the goal of force to pile. The other dogs I have done force to pile with had already been trained for awhile on scent articles before I started them on field work. Now that I'm training a puppy that hasn't been introduced to scent work yet, I don't want to cause a future problem. But then again I have a feeling that many trainers would say that you just train the differences to your dog. So I'm not sure which direction to take.


You can actually use fully developed FTP mechanics in your favor in scent discrimination. Once all the skills are established, we force on larger bumpers, artificial game birds, and then real birds. When the dog is proficient at that, we begin some sessions with a mixed 'pile'; different size bumpers with a mix of real birds and artificial game birds. When the skills have risen to that point, and the dog is working in the same efficient manner; fetching the first object, go to the field and perform your scenting drills.

EvanG


----------



## 12687

Give it up Evan-some just choose to see what they want. The PO with absolutely no pressure has never produced a single MH or FC, prolly not even a JH-my hands on experience with that group has seen produced piggy dogs who will do things on their own terms. May be just fine if all you care about is fetching sticks and having a couch patato. This thread is titled advanced Fetch-for field training. Those throwing rocks-lets see your methods and experience. Put it on the table. This horrible field training saved Ruckus's life three winters ago-pray you are never in a situation where your every command to your dog must be followed or they die. Do you think the PO method of training is going to override the panic and confusion? No. My hitting the sit whistle brought him back from that and through handling I was able to save his life. No title, no hunting story -nothing was better then that moment when he came out of the ice alive. And no we were not hunting we were at home and he chased a fox across the frozen pond while we were out for a walk, fox drowned. 

I would rather my dog get a timely swift correction then stand around "eh"ing him or waiting for him to do the right thing.


----------



## EvanG

pals said:


> Give it up Evan-some just choose to see what they want.


Nancy,

Reasoned voices like yours are why I don't 'give it up'.  Not everyone here has a mind shut tight as a clam. I offer what i offer because of my love for the dogs, and respect for the open minded among us. Ultimately, we _all_ choose to see what we want. If we have intellectual curiosity, we choose to learn, or at least to consider ideas and practices, which we may not have previously considered.


pals said:


> The PO with absolutely no pressure has never produced a single MH or FC, prolly not even a JH-my hands on experience with that group has seen produced piggy dogs who will do things on their own terms.


PO: "Positive-only" is an abberaton - really a misnomer. Nothing in our universe moves without pressure. Starry eyed dreamers imagine stellar performances being produced by dogs without any physical influence. Then there are realities like your dog and the fox, or any number of other realities that so influence dogs beyond their ability to comply with even a single command that enforced compliance may be the difference between life & death.


pals said:


> Do you think the PO method of training is going to override the panic and confusion? No.


The late Hall of Fame trainer, Rex Carr, noted that in order for any correction to be effective, the influence of the correction must be greater than the influence that enticed a refusal. Here in the _real_ world, an owner/trainer must be willing to do what the dog needs most.

EvanG


----------



## DNL2448

Evan, I for one hope you do not give it up. However, as you know, thick skin helps when posting anything contrary to PO. I enjoy reading your posts and your program has helped in my progress with my dogs.


----------



## tippykayak

Swampcollie said:


> Watch the dogs' behavior as that will be a better barometer of what is or isn't excessive. What was dogs' behavior prior to the corrections? What was the dogs' behavior after the corrections?
> 
> Was the dog showing signs of being unhappy or scared? Head down, slinking, tail tucked?


You can't see the dog's reactions really when he's getting hit in the fact the hardest. He's sitting, so a lot of body language is hard to read, and he's a black lab in a grainy video, so I can't read anything about his earset. 

He startles pretty hard, but seems to recover fast. I'm not against the use of pressure, per se, but I do question the effectiveness of communication when it comes to a slap in the face. Training arguments often break into yelling matches over categories of stimuli and accusations of unethical behavior. Sometimes the truth is a little finer-tuned than that. It's possible to be less than 100%-positive in your training outlook and still to argue that a jaw slap that hard might be indicative of training that's not as effective or fair to the dog as could be achieved.

"How would you deal that that positively?" isn't a fair question here, since the exercise is set up around the idea of causing the dog discomfort when he does something wrong. In a positive training model, you would reward and shape the mouth behavior you wanted, not hit the dog when you saw mouth behavior you didn't want, so you wouldn't be training mouth behavior and pile work at the same time. Your exercise would have to be rethought from the ground up.

As has been pointed out in other threads, I'm not a field expert. Just thinking things through. Evan's method is certainly effective, but I'm sure he'd concede that it's not perfect.


----------



## tippykayak

DNL2448 said:


> Evan, I for one hope you do not give it up. However, as you know, thick skin helps when posting anything contrary to PO. I enjoy reading your posts and your program has helped in my progress with my dogs.


I don't think that's so true. There are very few pure PO ideologues on this board. There are plenty of people, though, who have an emotional reaction to seeing a dog struck fairly firmly in the face. It's not as if the two options are to slap the dog every time or never use pressure at all. Sometimes the argument might be more helpful if it were more about what kinds of stimuli communicate more effectively and in what ratio correction and reward should be employed in a given situation or with a given dog.


----------



## DNL2448

tippykayak said:


> I don't think that's so true. There are very few pure PO ideologues on this board. There are plenty of people, though, who have an emotional reaction to seeing a dog struck fairly firmly in the face. It's not as if the two options are to slap the dog every time or never use pressure at all. Sometimes the argument might be more helpful if it were more about what kinds of stimuli communicate more effectively and in what ratio correction and reward should be employed in a given situation or with a given dog.


You are correct, I misspoke when I generalized all PO trainers, and for that I apologize. While I don't cuff my dog on the face, I will give correction when it is due. At times I grow weary of those, few, who condemn me or others who actually do use correction in our training as if we are the axis of evil. Trainers such as Evan do not abuse their dogs, granted their form of training is not for everyone, and that's OKAY!. As he stated, the correction took care of the problem without having to nag. The lightbulb went off in the dog, and they were able to continue. How many times do you hear people pleading with their dogs, sit...sit...Sit...SIT...SIT...*SIT* ! When if they had said, SIT and then enforced the next time the dog would most likely sit.


----------



## tippykayak

DNL2448 said:


> How many times do you hear people pleading with their dogs, sit...sit...Sit...SIT...SIT...*SIT* ! When if they had said, SIT and then enforced the next time the dog would most likely sit.


I no longer correct dogs for failing to sit, nor do I repeat myself to get a sit. It's not one or the other. You can see people who are happy to use negative stimuli who still end up repeating commands _ad infinitum_. That's an indication of unclear expectations and inconsistent training, not the difference between a positively trained behavior and a behavior trained by a mix of reward and correction.


----------



## DNL2448

tippykayak said:


> That's an indication of unclear expectations and inconsistent training, not the difference between a positively trained behavior and a behavior trained by a mix of reward and correction.


I totally agree! And if the truth be known, I am a more "positives" trainer (you should see my cookie and toy bills). If my dog shows me understanding and they mess up, I will break down the exercise to see where the break down in communication was. If I need to go back and work on something that is what I'll do. However, when my dog knows what they are supposed to do, and they don't I will correct them.


----------



## tippykayak

DNL2448 said:


> I totally agree! And if the truth be known, I am a more "positives" trainer (you should see my cookie and toy bills). If my dog shows me understanding and they mess up, I will break down the exercise to see where the break down in communication was. If I need to go back and work on something that is what I'll do. However, when my dog knows what they are supposed to do, and they don't I will correct them.


I see that, and I've used it. Still, if a dog is persistently refusing a behavior, I'm still inclined to question whether I've created a situation that maximizes success, rather than ever training along the lines of "he should know better."


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> I no longer correct dogs for failing to sit, nor do I repeat myself to get a sit. It's not one or the other. You can see people who are happy to use negative stimuli who still end up repeating commands _ad infinitum_.


That is true. There are many approaches to training retrievers. Anyone is welcome to follow the path they feel most comfortable with. I openly share my approach and philosophy with anyone, as it's proven to be highly effective, and produces efficient, happy working dogs.

Any trainer, with any method, may be inconsistent in the application of their training and produce results that show it. As I stated earlier, if pressure is used in small amounts that do not change behavior, that’s not training; it’s nagging. Continuously nagging a dog (or a person) is its very own form of cruelty.


tippykayak said:


> That's an indication of unclear expectations and inconsistent training, not the difference between a positively trained behavior and a behavior trained by a mix of reward and correction.


Producing unclear expectations may be a result of poor application of any method or philosophy. I won't honor PO as a legitimate form of training because, as stated earlier, there really is no such thing. But to approach training with the idea that a dog will perform consistently in the presence of significant distraction or temptations without a realistic formalization process is to deny the nature of the animal.

It has been my privilege to train with some of the finest retriever trainers in our sport's history, two of whom are Hall of Famer's. In that process, and with more than 35 years in the field, I've found some reaities about dogs that have shown themselves consistently. Those realities form the foundation of the Smartwork system.

"Deal with what happens." 
Rex Carr

EvanG


----------



## Abbydabbydo

By that age Finn had a firm sit and would not have needed the short/long line for recall to bring the bird back. Getting him to drop it may have needed a treat, but a smack in the face, not so much. 

Just last week he brought me a squirrel, dropped it mournfully and let the babe run away. No, I don't hunt, but I understand the ins and outs of lab fun.

And by the way, watch that pup around the outboard, recipe for disaster.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

DNL2448 said:


> Trainers such as Evan do not abuse their dogs, granted their form of training is not for everyone, and that's OKAY!. As he stated, the correction took care of the problem without having to nag.


Do we really know that? Do you believe that this was the first time this dog was "cuffed"... or the last? How many repetitions of this correction are needed before we deem it "nagging?"



EvanG said:


> <snip>
> I won't honor PO as a legitimate form of training because, as stated earlier, there really is no such thing. But to approach training with the idea that a dog will perform consistently in the presence of significant distraction or temptations without a realistic formalization process is to deny the nature of the animal.


You are correct that PO is a misnomer... no one has denied that. But a "realistic formalization process" does not have to include harsh physical correction, no matter how profitable it is for you to claim so. Positive trainers rule the day in sports like flyball, agility, and dock diving. They are gradually taking over the obedience ring. They are the predominant trainers in all areas of competition across the pond. And I firmly believe that it's only a matter of time before they overrun our fields and forests. Science, research, and (gradually) success are showing us that there is another way... and animal lovers from all over are slowly but surely getting the message.

QUOTE=EvanG;1077982]
It has been my privilege to train with some of the finest retriever trainers in our sport's history, two of whom are Hall of Famer's. In that process, and with more than 35 years in the field, I've found some reaities about dogs that have shown themselves consistently. Those realities form the foundation of the Smartwork system.
EvanG
<snip>[/QUOTE]
And there's the pitch.... knew it wouldn't be far behind.  

Julie and Jersey


----------



## EvanG

Jersey's Mom said:


> Do we really know that? Do you believe that this was the first time this dog was "cuffed"... or the last? How many repetitions of this correction are needed before we deem it "nagging?"


Three rhetorical questions in a row, or are you finally getting around to actually asking. It's crystal clear that you've already passed judgment. It's a little late for fact finding. _Fault finding_ appears more your specialty.


Jersey's Mom said:


> You are correct that PO is a misnomer... no one has denied that. But a "realistic formalization process" does not have to include harsh physical correction, no matter how profitable it is for you to claim so.


Is that your paranoid fear? Not only do other trainers disagree with your ideas, but may also derive a living from _theirs_? You're welcome to remain in a trance. Help anyone whose phiosophy you care to embrace make _their_ living - as long as they agree with _you_, of course.


Jersey's Mom said:


> Positive trainers rule the day in sports like *flyball, agility, and dock diving*.


Good grief! _That's_ what you think the retriever breeds were developed for? Parlor tricks turned into events? First and foremost, retrievers are hunting dogs. Do whatever you like. But the reason we still have these wonderful breeds is because they are suited first of all for hunting.


Jersey's Mom said:


> EvanG said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been my privilege to train with some of the finest retriever trainers in our sport's history, two of whom are Hall of Famer's. In that process, and with more than 35 years in the field, I've found some reaities about dogs that have shown themselves consistently. Those realities form the foundation of the Smartwork system.
> EvanG
> <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> And there's the pitch.... knew it wouldn't be far behind.
> 
> Julie and Jersey
Click to expand...

It's a statement of fact. My mentors are the late Rex Carr and recently deceased D.L. Walters, from whom I learned the core principles I base my own method on. Here is evidence of what my training produces. http://www.rushcreekpress.com/champions.html Not a pitch; just a statement of fact upon which my assertions are supported. And _yours is..._?

EvanG


----------



## Klamath Gold

I have read all four pages of this thread with great interest.

When I posted the series of threads "Building a field Golden," I only glossed over this topic for fear it would degenerate into a thread like this.

It is very sad that so many golden owners have forgotten or chose to absolutely ignore why the breed was developed, and that of course is to hunt. So many wish to turn their back on that fact, ignore it, wished it had never happened. It did and here we are with a gorgeous animal that does indeed hunt. For some, apparently it is also an unfortunate fact there are still people that chose to hunt with the breed, and heaven forbid choose to breed with the intentions of keeping the hunting instincts alive.


Its funny what we all deem as "cruel" or "inhumane." I have been flat out accused of mistreating my dogs for crating them. In fact, when I was first exposed to this, I thought it incredibly terrible. I have since changed my tune and in a BIG way. If one takes himself out of the present mindset and look at crating from the outside; what would you see: a dog, in a box, with a locked door, the box appears to be barely large enough to turn around in, the dog has big beautiful brown eyes, the dog isnt wagging its tail and must be sad. In fact with all these facts, the dog must be neglected and mistreated and clearly the owner is uncaring for the dogs well-being. Now we all know this is hogwash. We know now that there is safety in the box, protecting the dog from who knows what. The dog knows it too and will go there in times of uncertainty. I have two open crates now in my living room. They are there for two puppies and clearly help in potty training. When I let Teddy back inside, after a few moments of goofing off she will freely retire in there for her nap.

Depending on the "crowd," Force Fetch may also has that negative connotation. I took the time to learn about it and now use it. At the time of learning I found John and Amy Dahl's article "Force Fetch without the collar" and found it to be the most informative of all that I had read. You should be able to google it and find it. I found that FF is much more than "teaching a dog to fetch" (which is what it is not). FF changes the dogs mindset. I am struggling for the words to explain what it is and what it does. I really encourage you to read the article (s).

I now am running late for work and must get. I have so many more thoughts on this. I understand why many dont like this. I also understand why many will choose to never use this method. However I do challenge the nay sayers to take the time to read and learn. I have done so.

Randy


----------



## EvanG

Randy,

Thanks for your insightful comments. I'm sure neither of us looks in a mirror and sees someone who is looking forward to abusing our dogs today. And while a healthy discussion of different ideas can be a useful and educational pursuit, not much of that has occurred here. Still, I try never to lose hope that an open mind will come out of the crowd and ask real questions, and participate in more reasoned discussion.










This old girl was pictured on a calendar with her puppies. I fell in love with her and sketched her. I think it's easy to judge how a person feels about dogs with no more basis than a glimpse at something you don't understand, fueled by a blind prejudice.

_"No one loves dogs more than I do",_ said Rex Carr one day with a tear in his eye. Fair but firm were his teachings so that trainers would be able to bring out the real greatness in their dogs without the typical nagging, and constantly filling the air with "No!" Some things are very hard to relate to someone who hasn't stood there and watched a fine animal grow into greatness. It's impossible to relate to anyone whose mind is shut tight as a drum. It is not for them that I constantly keep offering what I believe is best, but rather for those who are intellectually thirsty.

EvanG


----------



## fostermom

It's interesting that Evan comments on how those of us who disagree with his methods are not open minded, as he says:



> And while a healthy discussion of different ideas can be a useful and educational pursuit, not much of that has occurred here. Still, I try never to lose hope that an open mind will come out of the crowd and ask real questions, and participate in more reasoned discussion.


I have to wonder if Evan has ever bothered to try more positive methods of training, but I have a feeling that I already know that answer. Yet we are the ones who aren't open minded.


----------



## IowaGold

fostermom said:


> I have to wonder if Evan has ever bothered to try more positive methods of training, but I have a feeling that I already know that answer. Yet we are the ones who aren't open minded.


I have Evan's videos. I've even watched most of them (I haven't watched the really advanced yet, because my dog is still a puppy). Evan recommends...GASP...food treats when starting a puppy with obedience. All happy, food rewards, no compulsion. By the time a dog gets to the point in it's training that it is doing force fetch (as in the posted video), a dog is past needing to be cheerleaded into doing things. They are mentally mature and can handle the pressure used in force fetch.


----------



## EvanG

fostermom said:


> It's interesting that Evan comments on how those of us who disagree with his methods are not open minded...


I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me or my ideas. The narrow mindedness is manifest in the presumptuous condemnation without any serious questions or dialogue about why I did or do the things presumed to be abuse. No inquiry, no exchange of ideas; just condemnation...


fostermom said:


> I have to wonder if Evan has ever bothered to try more positive methods of training, *but I have a feeling that I already know that answer.* Yet we are the ones who aren't open minded.


Pretty much like that! You presume to know the answer, but still have not really asked the question. Yes, that is a pretty good representation of _not_ being open minded.

As IowaGold pointed out, my Puppy Program contains a mini course in operant conditioning, using treats as a reward mechanism. All my material functions around the following definition of the training process and how I approach it:

*Be a Coach*​ 
How you approach this pursuit mentally can make all the difference in the result. This refers not only to how the dogs’ work looks, but how the two of you enjoy spending this time together. The best coaches are mentors to their athletes.

You are the coach on this team. The dog is the athlete. You know what results are required, and now have the methods at hand to achieve the goals you’ve set forth. The question is, how will the dog perceive the situation, and how will that affect the finished product? Will he end up slithering around in constant fear of correction, or fly around like he loves what he’s doing? 
​· *Big secret of the day: *Dogs fly around like they love what they’re doing because they* do *love what they’re doing! No one has robbed them of the joy in their work through heavy-handedness in the guise of training. You _were_ looking for deeply kept secrets about all of this, weren’t you?
​When your dog learns that you are the coach, and must be respected, but still loved and trusted, the two of you have become a team. When you establish that type of relationship with your dog, you are on your way to finding out just how good he might be. This, I believe, is provided that the team is equipped with a strong set of basics to build upon, and to maintain what skills are to come.
​The teamwork approach will help you to avoid some common traps. One of those traps is treating any one training session as though it can’t end until the final product or goal is achieved. Many people fall into this trap and take their dogs with them. They often feel the pressure of too little time vs. too much to do to stay on a developmental or maintenance schedule.

Pages 3 & 4 of Smartwork for Retrievers volume one; Basics and Transition

*Fundamental Tenets of Dog Training Application*​ 
To make it easier for you to understand the philosophy that drives my method I would like to make it clear that I view training as a three-phase process. The phases are as follows:
​1) _*Teach: *_This is the most important phase. As passively as possible, with maximum effort to clearly demonstrate to the dog the desired behaviors, and a simple way of performing it, show your dog what to do. This is the explanation your dog deserves. (The passive phase)
*2)* *Force: *When the dog clearly demonstrates an understanding and basic competence for a given skill or command, force is applied in a temperate, humane manner to insure compliance, even when the dog may be distracted*.* (The formalizing phase)
3) *Reinforce: *This term is often misunderstood; so let me make the meaning clear. Reinforcement is training that strengthens and supports previously taught skills and commands. (The maintenance phase)​​As for _teaching_, I would just like to say that any method is more effective when the trainer is a good teacher, first.
​On the subject of _force_, I want to make it clear that force is not a replacement for teaching. It is not always punishment. It is certainly not brutality. It may be compulsive or corrective in application, depending on the need. But, it should generally be in amounts needed to obtain the desired response – no more, and no less.
​In my method, reinforcement is most often done through the vehicle of drill work. Because drills, by definition, allow a dog to hone his skills through repeated exposure to his work, less pressure is needed for establishing high standards, and maintaining control. I feel that drills should out number “cold” setups on a 4 or 5:1 ratio.

It should be noted that drills also reinforce desired behavior by focusing on specific skills or commands. Without side issues clouding the issue it is easier for a dog to understand what is being presented.

I should point out that these phases are enumerated as developmental stages to establish lifetime skills. The principles involved apply to the maintaining of these skills over the dog's working career, as well.

Pages 11 – 13 of Smartwork for Retrievers volume one; Basics and Transition

Just a sampling. Thanks again for asking!

EvanG


----------



## Jersey's Mom

EvanG said:


> Three rhetorical questions in a row, or are you finally getting around to actually asking. It's crystal clear that you've already passed judgment. It's a little late for fact finding. _Fault finding_ appears more your specialty.


That wasn't about finding fault. I was posing honest questions to understand the previous poster's reasoning. They stated unequivocally that the problem had been solved, and specifically "without nagging." I'm curious exactly how many repetitions of a correction constitute "nagging" and whether they believe that the single "cuff" seen in that video was the one and only correction given for that behavior. If we're going to discuss training methods, it's important to define those terms and for a full picture of the training program to be given... clearly that one video was only a snippet of that dog's journey through field training. Why does questioning what came before and what came after disturb you so much? 



EvanG said:


> Is that your paranoid fear? Not only do other trainers disagree with your ideas, but may also derive a living from _theirs_? You're welcome to remain in a trance. Help anyone whose phiosophy you care to embrace make _their_ living - as long as they agree with _you_, of course.Good grief!


and


EvanG said:


> It's a statement of fact. My mentors are the late Rex Carr and recently deceased D.L. Walters, from whom I learned the core principles I base my own method on. Here is evidence of what my training produces. http://www.rushcreekpress.com/champions.html Not a pitch; just a statement of fact upon which my assertions are supported. And _yours is..._?


Holy defensiveness, Batman! First, allow me to assure you that I am neither paranoid nor fearful. I know there are other trainers who disagree with me and I know some of them make a living from it. No trance here. That does not mean that I will ignore the fact that this one trainer in particular is using this forum as nothing more than free advertising to hawk his products. There's nothing paranoid about calling the waddling, quacking, feathered and billed thing in front of you a duck.... that's all I'm doing here.

Of course I'm going to seek out trainers who hold a philosophy similar to my own... that's what everyone does. That's why you show up sporadically on this forum to browbeat anyone who disagrees with you in order to convince anyone you can that you know best. The more ridiculous you can paint the opposing side (paranoid, fearful, in a trance...) the more likely you are to sway novices to your way of thinking... and the more likely you are to sell a few DVDs in the process, especially when you plug them and your books in about every other post. Unfortunately you are speaking to an intelligent, rational and logical human being. Wanna get in depth discussing training techniques? Let's do it. Of course, that's not quite as easy as writing us all off as ignorant.

My statement of fact? Here it is: There is an entire country across the pond (as just one example) producing fine working dogs without ear pinches and shock collars. Is that factual enough for you?



EvanG said:


> _That's_ what you think the retriever breeds were developed for? Parlor tricks turned into events? First and foremost, retrievers are hunting dogs. Do whatever you like. But the reason we still have these wonderful breeds is because they are suited first of all for hunting.


I never stated that those activities were what retriever breeds were developed for. That would be a pretty ridiculous claim, wouldn't it? I notice that you conveniently left the rest of that paragraph out of your quotation box there. Of course, seeing as your whole marketing ploy here depends on you making anyone who disagrees with you appear ignorant and foolish, it should come as no surprise to me that you would take one sentence and completely misrepresent the context in which it was given. Though I do find your obvious abhorrence for other dog sports to be quite interesting.



EvanG said:


> 3) *Reinforce:*This term is often misunderstood; so let me make the meaning clear. Reinforcement is training that strengthens and supports previously taught skills and commands. (The maintenance phase)




This one I really enjoy. It gives such an informative glimpse into your entire persona. Forget the fact that "reinforce" has definitions that go well beyond yours there... those are just "misunderstandings." LOL. It's one thing to clarify the context in which you are using the word, but as someone who claims to fully cover operant conditioning in their "puppy program" it seems an odd assertion to make. Then again, maybe that's just my paranoia seeping through again.... :smooch:




Klamath Gold said:


> It is very sad that so many golden owners have forgotten or chose to absolutely ignore why the breed was developed, and that of course is to hunt. So many wish to turn their back on that fact, ignore it, wished it had never happened. It did and here we are with a gorgeous animal that does indeed hunt. For some, apparently it is also an unfortunate fact there are still people that chose to hunt with the breed, and heaven forbid choose to breed with the intentions of keeping the hunting instincts alive.


and


Klamath Gold said:


> Depending on the "crowd," Force Fetch may also has that negative connotation. I took the time to learn about it and now use it. At the time of learning I found John and Amy Dahl's article "Force Fetch without the collar" and found it to be the most informative of all that I had read. You should be able to google it and find it. I found that FF is much more than "teaching a dog to fetch" (which is what it is not). FF changes the dogs mindset. I am struggling for the words to explain what it is and what it does. I really encourage you to read the article (s).


Although I've quoted Randy here, this is also a response to you Evan. I have not forgotten, nor do I ignore why this breed was developed. Jersey and I have, in fact, dabbled in some field training. The only reason we have been unable to do more is limited access to training grounds/equipment and a restrictive work schedule. This is not an aversion to hunting (though I do not personally partake in the sport), nor is it that I see the history of this breed as unfortunate. Truth be told, I don't much enjoy trudging through mucky fields and handling dead birds, nevermind tick patrol when I get home... but the sight of a retriever doing the one thing it loves most in the world is beautiful enough to me that I get out there whenever the opportunity arises. ​
Though I've not read the particular article cited, this is also not born out of ignorance of what force fetch is and what it does. Though you may have struggled to find the words, I do understand exactly what it is you were referring to with your statement that it changes the dog's mindset. I did, in fact, fully research force fetch with the intention of using it. In fact, I embarked on the very beginning stages of a program with a wonderful and successful trainer (a good family friend that I admire very much). This isn't about personal grudges. This isn't a belief that people who use such programs are evil monsters who gleefully beat up their dogs. I know it's easier to paint anyone who disagrees with you using that broad brush, but that doesn't make it the case. And as long as I'm being honest here, it's very much my brief foray into force fetch that led me to research other forms of training and that eventually led me to the philosophy I now hold. 

This isn't a matter of closed mindedness, despite your accusations against anyone who sees and does things differently than you. I've driven on both sides of the training highway. In fact, it's you who consistently asserts that the ONLY way to develop a consistent and reliable retriever is to use your program (or one similar to it... can't violate those forum rules to flagrantly). Again, a profitable claim for you... but not exactly truthful... nor very open-minded of you.

Okay, one more and then I really have to get back to work:


IowaGold said:


> I have Evan's videos. I've even watched most of them (I haven't watched the really advanced yet, because my dog is still a puppy). Evan recommends...GASP...food treats when starting a puppy with obedience. All happy, food rewards, no compulsion. By the time a dog gets to the point in it's training that it is doing force fetch (as in the posted video), a dog is past needing to be cheerleaded into doing things. They are mentally mature and can handle the pressure used in force fetch.


Marker training and positive reinforcement are not about cheerleading.... and they're not simply about food rewards. Your assertion of such shows a general misunderstanding of the alternatives to a compulsory method such as Evan's. It doesn't surprise me in the least that Evan suggests food rewards for puppies or that it's part of a 3 step program: teach/force/reinforce is hardly a copyrighted system of training. That does not, in itself, show an open-minded attempt at understanding the type of training many of us on this board advocate. It just shows that he's following the same old model used by generations of traditional compulsive trainers. Did they get results? Sure. So did some early surgeons using bloodletting techniques... does that mean we shouldn't have continued learning and developing, eventually coming to discover that such treatments were potentially harmful and generally unnecessary? Personally I'm glad that intellectual curiosity prevailed.

Julie and Jersey


----------



## 12687

Ok-out of honest curiosity- what type of field training do you use? Is it a proven method? Does it produce reliable retrievers for both upland and waterfowl? Can I have a great hunting dog with great drive-and the willingness to work through trying conditions, distractions and hazards? Will they pick up that nasty duck 200 yards away from you? What about that duck I winged and fluttered out into the stickups 250 yards away-can I get my dog out there quickly on the ever important blind retrieve? Can I, as an amateur on my own- take my dogs to master hunters or open all age with this method; its basics foundation, drills (not the ones that makes holes),  de-cheating methods, etc... Can I pull off a punch or indent on a triple with this method? How do you "fix" popping, blinking, no-gos? These are just a few of the questions that as a golden junkie and lover of the game I would ask.

One of my training buddies judged over in the UK for some of their field games-he runs FT's here. I think I'll go ask him how similar the games are-if at all. Actually talk to someone who has participated in both games. I'm curious about why if their training is so wonderful(as stated here-I really don't know) has there been any imports come here and title to FC or AFC? I believe we may be comparing apples to oranges quite frankly. 

Need to go feed and play with the furry kids.


----------



## tippykayak

I'm afraid that a lot of what Julie says hits pretty close to home. A simple Google search of the link Evan posted will show anyone who cares to look that he's made an essentially identical post on at least three other dog forums this week. It's fairly clear that he is posting as part of his marketing campaign for the materials he sells.

I'm not really against that. Social marketing is the way things are done now. But I do believe in the principle of _caveat emptor_ when it comes to this kind of advertising, and people new to the forum or to retriever training should realize what his participation in this forum really entails.

Also, a lot of the comments in support of force fetch show a misunderstanding of positive-orientated training that's at least as severe as the close-mindedness Evan has accused others of. Training without an e-collar, jaw slaps, cuffing, and ear pinches doesn't mean cheerleading, bribing, or ending up with an inconsistent dog. There are absolutely MH dogs trained without those particular stimuli, and I for one admire trainers who work consistently to phase out harsh corrections in favor of better communication and positive reinforcement.

I'm not against what Evan does, _per se_, but I hate that these conversations so quickly become personal accusations rather than open discussions of the particular merits of a technique. I still maintain that slapping a dog in the face is not the clearest, most effective way to communicate with the dog, even though I also won't call it "evil" or "cruel."

But maybe it's a silly hope to think we'll discuss it. Lots of people think what Evan does is inhumane, and it's not in Evan's financial interest to change his mind about techniques that he has endorsed in his videos.


----------



## DNL2448

Jersey's Mom said:


> That wasn't about finding fault. I was posing honest questions to understand the previous poster's reasoning. They stated unequivocally that the problem had been solved, and specifically "without nagging." I'm curious exactly how many repetitions of a correction constitute "nagging" and whether they believe that the single "cuff" seen in that video was the one and only correction given for that behavior.


That would have been me...I said the problem had been solved because Evan stated it had and the dog went on to work well. Now was that single cuff the cure? Probably not, but I am also sure that Evan is not the type of person, let alone trainer, that would esculate to the abuse level. Firm, yes, abuse no. But then I am of the belief (good or bad) that the world is full of spoiled children who were not given proper discipline and grew up to be miserable adults, ones I am so lucky to deal with everyday.


----------



## tippykayak

DNL2448 said:


> That would have been me...I said the problem had been solved because Evan stated it had and the dog went on to work well. Now was that single cuff the cure? Probably not, but I am also sure that Evan is not the type of person, let alone trainer, that would esculate to the abuse level. Firm, yes, abuse no. But then I am of the belief (good or bad) that the world is full of spoiled children who were not given proper discipline and grew up to be miserable adults, ones I am so lucky to deal with everyday.


I'm not sure this analogy makes sense. Did those kids need to be slapped in the face more?

Nobody is advocating against discipline. It's not as if the two options are jaw slaps or no discipline at all. People who choose more positive methods do not do so because they are against discipline. In fact, it takes a great deal of precision and careful disciplining of the dog if you want to eschew methods like the jaw slap or the e-collar.


----------



## DNL2448

Okay, great. So it would seem that whatever I say is going to be thrown back in my face, so to avoid that, I shall keep my thoughts and opinions to myself from now on.


----------



## tippykayak

DNL2448 said:


> Okay, great. So it would seem that whatever I say is going to be thrown back in my face, so to avoid that, I shall keep my thoughts and opinions to myself from now on.


It's a discussion. Are we not allowed to quote each others' posts and disagree? Who said your opinion wasn't welcome?


----------



## Jersey's Mom

pals said:


> Ok-out of honest curiosity- what type of field training do you use? Is it a proven method? Does it produce reliable retrievers for both upland and waterfowl? Can I have a great hunting dog with great drive-and the willingness to work through trying conditions, distractions and hazards? Will they pick up that nasty duck 200 yards away from you? What about that duck I winged and fluttered out into the stickups 250 yards away-can I get my dog out there quickly on the ever important blind retrieve? Can I, as an amateur on my own- take my dogs to master hunters or open all age with this method; its basics foundation, drills (not the ones that makes holes),  de-cheating methods, etc... Can I pull off a punch or indent on a triple with this method? How do you "fix" popping, blinking, no-gos? These are just a few of the questions that as a golden junkie and lover of the game I would ask.
> 
> One of my training buddies judged over in the UK for some of their field games-he runs FT's here. I think I'll go ask him how similar the games are-if at all. Actually talk to someone who has participated in both games. I'm curious about why if their training is so wonderful(as stated here-I really don't know) has there been any imports come here and title to FC or AFC? I believe we may be comparing apples to oranges quite frankly.
> 
> Need to go feed and play with the furry kids.


I'm going to be brief because it's well past my bedtime, but I didn't want it to seem like I was avoiding your questions. I suspect you know that I cannot answer them from personal experience... I made my limitations clear in my previous post. Throwing out lingo to try and expose my deficits isn't highly effective when I've already admitted they're there. But the fact that I have not personally done it does not mean that others have not, nor that a more committed person than myself would not be able to. After all, the traditional obedience holdouts always give the same arguments... but that hasn't stopped positive/clicker/marker/whatever you want to call it trainers from achieving success in that venue. The face of training is changing across all venues and the field seems to be the last true stronghold of traditional, compulsory training. But for how long? It only takes a few to show that it can be done and inspire others.. and I believe we're well on our way to that point. A simple google search can be quite enlightening to see what people have achieved and how. Maybe in a few years I'll have that personal experience to relate to you, but until then I will follow the successes of others and learn from them.

I'd be very interested to hear what your friend in the UK has to say as I am similarly unfamiliar with the technical differences between the ways we compete. But when we're talking about shooting birds and dog's retrieving them... how different can these apples and oranges really be? The golden is, after all, designed to be a gentleman's hunting dog, not some crazed retrieving machine. Which brings up another honest question: Even with compulsory training, how successful are our goldens in Field Trials? I know that many of the people I've trained with (e-collars and all) tend to chat about how goldens have a hard time competing with those crazy labs... but like I said, it's just some idle chatter and perhaps I've misunderstood. Not to say goldens can't compete on any level, but more along the lines of how realistic is it to expect a golden to achieve a field champion title... to truly be the best of the best in that venue? No preconceived notions, just curious. 

Have a good night!

Julie and Jersey


----------



## Swampcollie

tippykayak said:


> There are absolutely MH dogs trained without those particular stimuli, and I for one admire trainers who work consistently to phase out harsh corrections in favor of better communication and positive reinforcement.


Looking at the big picture where Master Tests are concerned, there are simply very few MH dogs that are *not* a product of a force program. (in a given year, you could probably count them on one hand.) You're dealing with a small fraction of one percent of the MH dogs. Sorry, but that's the truth. When it comes to Field Trials, there are no active dogs, *none*, that are achieving their FC or AFC without employing some type of force program or components thereof along the way.

You can get away with a PO approach for some things associated with field work like general obedience and marking to some degree. But the wheels quickly come off the cart when you want a dog that handles precisely at a distance. (150 to 500 yards away) For those that advocate the PO approach, how are you going to deal with a cast refusal when the dog is 400 yards away and you need it to go angled back to the right and the dog wants to go to the left into the area of an old fall? 

With all due respect to our friends across the big pond, Field work here is very different and expectations regarding dog work are very different. An obedient, quiet companion is of primary importance on the east side of the big pond. Marking, memory and handling (directing the dog with hand signals) are less important. If a dog so much as makes a whimper while its' walking along with its' handler awaiting its' turn, it is excused. 

On the west side of the big pond things are different. Precise marking, strong memory and precise pin point handling are of great importance. Obedience and manners are a bit further down the list. 

Expectations on a blind retrieve illustrate the difference. On the east side of the big pond, the handler sends his dog to an area and releases it to hunt out the downed bird. On this side of the big pond, the handler is expected to send the dog, precisely controling its' path, until he puts the dogs' nose directly on the bird itself. Simply getting the dog to the area and releasing it to hunt out a bird is unacceptable work on this side of the pond in both Field Trials or Hunt Tests. Such a performance lacks the minimum precision required to be competitive in a Trial situation or to be considered acceptable work in a Testing situation. So as another poster alluded to earlier, you're comparing apples and oranges, and they're not the same.


----------



## EvanG

Jersey's Mom said:


> That wasn't about finding fault. I was posing honest questions to understand the previous poster's reasoning. They stated unequivocally that the problem had been solved, and specifically "without nagging." I'm curious exactly how many repetitions of a correction constitute "nagging" and whether they believe that the single "cuff" seen in that video was the one and only correction given for that behavior.


Okay, taking your 'questions' at face value, let’s overlook the fact that you used them to launch an attack. To directly answer your _honest questions_, he was corrected anytime he committed that hard-mouthed behavior. That cuff under the chin was not the only correction he received. It is truly unrealistic to assume that a single correction would form a new lifetime habit where a chronic bad behavior had been allowed to fester previously. But it took very few, in tandem with ongoing praise for correct behavior.

Being an exuberant dog by nature, he’s apt to allow his obedience standards to fall apart quickly when he’s happy, which is nearly always. When he’s praised he quickly becomes irresponsible, and his old bad habits reemerged. That has long since disappeared, and a much more consistent, solid, happy working dog is a result.

Because the training was adapted to fit the needs of the dog, exceptional corrections were made to solve an exceptional problem. That degree of pressure is not a norm, but rather a rarity. But no one has ‘honestly asked’. Instead there have been only baseless attacks. And, yes, when you condemn without making an effort to determine the facts of a matter, it’s baseless – exactly like making the assumption that a professional trainer only posts helpful information on Internet boards as a commercial.


Jersey's Mom said:


> If we're going to discuss training methods, it's important to define those terms and for a full picture of the training program to be given... clearly that one video was only a snippet of that dog's journey through field training. Why does questioning what came before and what came after disturb you so much?


If really want an answer to that, then let’s be a bit more honest about the premise. I love training questions; legitimate inquiries, whether or not the questioner agrees with my ideas or not. What disturbs me is not being questioned, but rather being accused by people who do not know me, or my motives, or my method. It disturbs me that instead of honest questions, those individuals simply make assumptions based, not on fact, but on their own preconceived notions about all those things.

If you have an honest question, ask it. That is what I do, day in and day out on discussion forums, email, and PM. I don’t charge for it. On all three venues, I frequently invite trainers who are struggling with an issue to come train with our group, and I personally coach them through the problem. And I don’t charge for that, either. But then, none my accusers here knew that either. They didn’t ask. They merely assumed that my motives were as larcenous as their own.


Jersey's Mom said:


> First, allow me to assure you that I am neither paranoid nor fearful. I know there are other trainers who disagree with me and I know some of them make a living from it. No trance here. That does not mean that I will ignore the fact that *this one trainer in particular is using this forum as nothing more than free advertising to hawk his products.*


That is an outright lie. You do not know me. Nor do you know my motives. Perhaps that is how you think and operate. But that does not mean that I do.


Jersey's Mom said:


> There's nothing paranoid about calling the waddling, quacking, feathered and billed thing in front of you a duck.... *that's all I'm doing here*.


No, you’re lying. You have nothing but your own preconceived suspicions to base that accusation on. Again, you do not know me, or my motives for putting so much effort into my ongoing offers of help to other trainers. Nor have you asked…even once. You’ve made no honest effort to really have any idea about it, but have simply assumed that the only reason for someone in my position to post dog training information on public forums is to advertise. And that is a lie.


Jersey's Mom said:


> Of course I'm going to seek out trainers who hold a philosophy similar to my own... that's what everyone does. That's why you show up sporadically on this forum to browbeat anyone who disagrees with you in order to convince anyone you can that you know best.


That is also a lie. I freely discuss differences of opinion with anyone who cares to do so in an honest and respectful manner. It’s being baselessly lied about and falsely accused that will not take lying down.


Jersey's Mom said:


> The more ridiculous you can paint the opposing side (paranoid, fearful, in a trance...) the more likely you are to sway novices to your way of thinking... and the more likely you are to sell a few DVDs in the process, especially when you plug them and your books in about every other post. Unfortunately you are speaking to an intelligent, rational and logical human being.


You must be referring to someone else I was speaking to. What you have posted is not representative of intelligence, but rather your own agenda gone wild. You don’t require factual evidence of yourself. Only your opinion will do to launch an attack. That isn’t intellect. And it isn’t honesty.


Jersey's Mom said:


> Wanna get in depth discussing training techniques? Let's do it. Of course, that's not quite as easy as writing us all off as ignorant.


Indepth discussion is what I do. But to have a discussion does not require me to sit back and be a catcher’s mitt for your attacks. A discussion is the consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate. You seem to view it as an event in which you merely accuse me, and I quietly acquiesce. That is not intelligent, rational, or logical. It isn’t even honest. It’s just hate.


Jersey's Mom said:


> My statement of fact? Here it is: There is an entire country across the pond (as just one example) producing fine working dogs without ear pinches and shock collars. Is that factual enough for you?


No, it isn’t. As Swampcollie rightly pointed out, they neither train, nor hunt as we do in Europe. Our demands and needs are different. But that isn’t really the issue. 

What I said was “It's a statement of fact. My mentors are the late Rex Carr and recently deceased D.L. Walters, from whom I learned the core principles I base my own method on. Here is evidence of what my training produces. http://www.rushcreekpress.com/champions.html Not a pitch; just a statement of fact upon which my assertions are supported. And _yours is..._?”

What that clearly means is that I’ve based my method on my own 35 years of experience, and upon what I learned from years of training with two of the most successful trainers in the history of retrievers. Further, my statement is in support of the results achieved through what I teach, along with my own track record. When I offer advice about dog training, it’s based on results, not simply my own presumptions. That is my background and record. What’s yours? Where are your achievements that you recklessly attack me? What exactly have _*you*_ done, not someone else from “across the pond”? Is that an ‘honest enough question’ for you?


Jersey's Mom said:


> I never stated that those activities were what retriever breeds were developed for. That would be a pretty ridiculous claim, wouldn't it?


Yes, it would. But if that was not your intent, why did _you_ use them as examples?


Jersey's Mom said:


> I notice that you conveniently left the rest of that paragraph out of your quotation box there. Of course, seeing as your whole marketing ploy here depends on you making anyone who disagrees with you appear ignorant and foolish, it should come as no surprise to me that you would take one sentence and completely misrepresent the context in which it was given. Though I do find your obvious abhorrence for other dog sports to be quite interesting.


I left it out because it was superfluous, and not germane to the discussion. But I’ll be happy to address that fluff, if you like.


Jersey's Mom said:


> This one I really enjoy. It gives such an informative glimpse into your entire persona. Forget the fact that “reinforce" has definitions that go well beyond yours there... those are just "misunderstandings." LOL. It's one thing to clarify the context in which you are using the word, but as someone who claims to fully cover operant conditioning in their "puppy program" it seems an odd assertion to make. Then again, maybe that's just my paranoia seeping through again....


*Reinforce:* 
*1* *:* to strengthen by additional assistance, material, or support *:* make stronger or more pronounced <reinforce levees> <reinforce the elbows of a jacket> <reinforce ideas>
*2* *:* to strengthen or increase by fresh additions <reinforce our troops> <were _reinforcing_ their pitching staff>
*3* *:* to stimulate (as an experimental animal or a student) with a reinforcer; _also_ *:* to encourage (a response) with a reinforcer

(From Merriam-Webster’s dictionary)

Once a trained skill or skill set has been established and formalized, it will need to be maintained (thus the 3rd phase of training; “reinforce” – the maintenance phase). Through continued drills and field exercises, skills can remain intact, and even sharpened over the course of a dog’s working career. Thanks again for asking. Is that factual enough for you?

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

Swampcollie said:


> Looking at the big picture where Master Tests are concerned, there are simply very few MH dogs that are *not* a product of a force program. (in a given year, you could probably count them on one hand.) You're dealing with a small fraction of one percent of the MH dogs. Sorry, but that's the truth. When it comes to Field Trials, there are no active dogs, *none*, that are achieving their FC or AFC without employing some type of force program or components thereof along the way.


I'm glad that we can at least concede the reality that there _are_ MH dogs who are not force fetched. I don't know the percentages either, but given how prevalent force fetch is among serious trainers, it's not surprising to me that only a handful of them go against the mainstream, and therefore only a handful of winning dogs are products of a different kind of program. What we don't know is whether or not force fetched dogs are actually getting MHs at a higher rate than non force-fetched dogs. I don't think any of us can make a definitive claim either way.



Swampcollie said:


> You can get away with a PO approach for some things associated with field work like general obedience and marking to some degree. But the wheels quickly come off the cart when you want a dog that handles precisely at a distance. (150 to 500 yards away) For those that advocate the PO approach, how are you going to deal with a cast refusal when the dog is 400 yards away and you need it to go angled back to the right and the dog wants to go to the left into the area of an old fall?


I don't think anybody in this thread is talking about PO. The only question that's really been raised is whether you can train as effectively without using some of the harsher aspects of FF (ear pinch, e-collar, jaw slap, etc.). I think it's quite likely that you could. I have trained no AFC dogs myself, so I couldn't say for sure, but I've also never slapped a dog in the face, and I feel pretty good about that. I did de-condition a dog once who had been the victim of some bad e-collar use, so my personal experience does instill a real caution about that particular tool.

There is also a broader question of whether you can train a dog as effectively without using FF at all, but since FF is so broadly defined, I don't see how a debate on that question would really be productive.

I can say, though, with great confidence, that achieving precision and teaching a dog to be serious about his work does not require the use of physical discomfort. I wouldn't know how to do that as an ideologically rigid PO-only trainer, but I do know how to get great precision, attention, and work ethic out of a dog without hitting, shocking, or pinching him. I've also seen better trainers than I work dogs precisely at a distance without ever having used an e-collar.


----------



## Pointgold

tippykayak said:


> I'm glad that we can at least concede the reality that there _are_ MH dogs who are not force fetched. I don't know the percentages either, but given how prevalent force fetch is among serious trainers, it's not surprising to me that only a handful of them go against the mainstream, and therefore only a handful of winning dogs are products of a different kind of program. What we don't know is whether or not force fetched dogs are actually getting MHs at a higher rate than non force-fetched dogs. I don't think any of us can make a definitive claim either way.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anybody in this thread is talking about PO. The only question that's really been raised is whether you can train as effectively without using some of the harsher aspects of FF (ear pinch, e-collar, jaw slap, etc.). I think it's quite likely that you could. I have trained no AFC dogs myself, so I couldn't say for sure, but I've also never slapped a dog in the face, and I feel pretty good about that. I did de-condition a dog once who had been the victim of some bad e-collar use, so my personal experience does instill a real caution about that particular tool.
> 
> There is also a broader question of whether you can train a dog as effectively without using FF at all, but since FF is so broadly defined, I don't see how a debate on that question would really be productive.
> 
> I can say, though, with great confidence, that achieving precision and teaching a dog to be serious about his work does not require the use of physical discomfort. I wouldn't know how to do that as an ideologically rigid PO-only trainer, but I do know how to get great precision, attention, and work ethic out of a dog without hitting, shocking, or pinching him. I've also seen better trainers than I work dogs precisely at a distance without ever having used an e-collar.


 
Just curious - have you trained an MH (or SH or JH)?


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> What that clearly means is that I’ve based my method on my own 35 years of experience, and upon what I learned from years of training with two of the most successful trainers in the history of retrievers. Further, my statement is in support of the results achieved through what I teach, along with my own track record. When I offer advice about dog training, it’s based on results, not simply my own presumptions. That is my background and record. What’s yours? Where are your achievements that you recklessly attack me? What exactly have _*you*_ done, not someone else from “across the pond”? Is that an ‘honest enough question’ for you?


The argument from authority is, as even medieval scholars pointed out, the weakest one of all. I leave it to Julie to defend herself as she sees fit, but "I knew famous guys" and "I've done this for a long time" don't actually say much about the methods themselves. It could just as easily mean that you're stuck training in 1975 while others have learned more and moved on.

I don't think anybody has argued that FF doesn't work. However, it has some clear downsides, and there's some good evidence to suggest that other methods, still being developed and tested, could work better. "This works well" is not a reason to stay with the same methods permanently.


----------



## tippykayak

Pointgold said:


> Just curious - have you trained an MH (or SH or JH)?


No, nor have I claimed to. That doesn't make me wrong.


----------



## Pointgold

tippykayak said:


> Cute, Laura. Have you?


That's your answer? It's a valid question, and not "cute" at all.
Yes. I have. To JH, and a Top Derby Dog with American Pointer Club.


----------



## Pointgold

You edited your reply (although it is quoted in mine). I never said that you were "wrong". 

But I think it is fair to say that discussing theory can be a very far cry from actually practicing it.


----------



## tippykayak

Pointgold said:


> You edited your reply (although it is quoted in mine). I never said that you were "wrong".
> 
> But I think it is fair to say that discussing theory can be a very far cry from actually practicing it.


Sure, and as soon as you come up with a way of implementing training practices on an internet forum, I'm game.

But for now, we're discussing it. Or at least, we were until you decided to take pot shots at me.

Do me a favor and leave me alone so we can back to the discussion, OK?


----------



## Pointgold

tippykayak said:


> Sure, and as soon as you come up with a way of implementing training practices on an internet forum, I'm game.
> 
> But for now, we're discussing it. Or at least, we were until you decided to take pot shots at me.
> 
> Do me a favor and leave me alone so we can back to the discussion, OK?


Wow. My question was valid. When someone hasn't trained a dog to the levels being discussed, attacking the methods used by successful professionals seems odd to me.


----------



## 12687

Pointgold said:


> *But I think it is fair to say that discussing theory can be a very far cry from actually practicing it.*


 
I totally agree with this. You will not get a MH or AFC/FC with PO training. I have lots of friends that train without the collar tippy, but every single one of them has done FF & FTP-some with old school ways and others with their own form of FF that works best with the dog. *A great dog trainer trains the dog on the end of their leash, not a theory.* Period. They have the ability to adjust training on the fly to fit that dog, listen to other methods and decide if it fits their dogs needs. As for the field work-I'm not going to take advice from someone who hasn't walked the walk. I love my dogs too much to take advice from people who don't have a clue about hunting, testing or trialing. I want my dogs to be happy, confident and get the job done. I'm willing to listen to new methods from people who have done the work-and their dogs are happy and confident. Abusive training methods will not produce that type of dog. I don't think that makes me close minded, I think that makes me a responsible dog owner, looking out for the best interests of my dog. I can't tell you how many times I've been embarrased for our breed-because bad trainers make the dog look bad. And that reflects on the breeds reputation. 

I also never wash any of my dogs out, they may not get the MH title after their name, but they will always be loved, spoiled, hunted with if able, trained as long as they are capable and adored. 

"It's about dogs picking stuff up...............or not"​


----------



## Pointgold

It has been several years since I have trained for any competitive field venues, and I am happy to read the posts from Evan G, Swampcollie, and others who still do. They make perfect sense to me.


----------



## Klamath Gold

tippykayak said:


> It could just as easily mean that you're stuck training in 1975 while others have learned more and moved on.


Just a small point of order, training methods in 1975 were incredibly harsh even by this discussions standards. I wont even discuss them here. Let's just say that we have come a LOOooooong way.

And for clarification, no I did not participate in them (I would have been 7 then). And before someone wants me to post my sources; a peruse of some of the older dog training books can give you a clue. Personal discussions with the older trainers would fill you in on the rest.


----------



## fostermom

Pointgold said:


> Wow. My question was valid. When someone hasn't trained a dog to the levels being discussed, attacking the methods used by successful professionals seems odd to me.


I didn't see Tippykayak *attacking *anything. He has actually been more open to the whole discussion than many of us. A lot of us haven't trained to those "levels" because we don't feel the need to become so competitive that whacking our dogs is the "acceptable" way to get them to do what we want them to do.


----------



## K9-Design

Boy we have some of these discussions about once every three months. Always the same players and arguments. 
Here's a question I don't think has been asked. Quite a few of the no-FF/ecollar crowd own dogs who are either out of, or siblings to, Master Hunters or even Senior Hunters, if not more (FT dogs). They own dogs bred by people very active in the HT or FT venue, who FF all their dogs and use the collar. They obviously like these people and the work of these dogs, otherwise they wouldn't have that particular dog of theirs. What do you think of your breeders, the owners of your dog's sire or siblings, that are committed FF/ecollar users? Do you think less of them? 
It would be like me buying a puppy out of two champions, then bemoaning how political and abusive dog shows are.


----------



## Pointgold

fostermom said:


> I didn't see Tippykayak *attacking *anything. He has actually been more open to the whole discussion than many of us. A lot of us haven't trained to those "levels" because we don't feel the need to become so competitive that whacking our dogs is the "acceptable" way to get them to do what we want them to do.


The definition of "attack" has become very subjective. 
I am the first person to nail anyone who is being abusive to ANY animal. I don't believe that in this case any abuse occurred.


----------



## tippykayak

Pointgold said:


> Wow. My question was valid. When someone hasn't trained a dog to the levels being discussed, attacking the methods used by successful professionals seems odd to me.


Can you point out where I attacked anything or anyone?

And I doubt anybody buys your fake sincerity and thinks this is anything but personal, vindictive behavior on your part.


----------



## tippykayak

Klamath Gold said:


> Just a small point of order, training methods in 1975 were incredibly harsh even by this discussions standards. I wont even discuss them here. Let's just say that we have come a LOOooooong way.
> 
> And for clarification, no I did not participate in them (I would have been 7 then). And before someone wants me to post my sources; a peruse of some of the older dog training books can give you a clue. Personal discussions with the older trainers would fill you in on the rest.


Yeah. That was essentially my point.


----------



## tippykayak

pals said:


> I totally agree with this. You will not get a MH or AFC/FC with PO training.


Nobody has said, at any point in this thread, that PO training would do it. You guys are arguing against a point of view that has not been expressed in this thread.


----------



## Pointgold

tippykayak said:


> Can you point out where I attacked anything or anyone?
> 
> And I doubt anybody buys your fake sincerity and thinks this is anything but personal, vindictive behavior on your part.


Stop, really. 
I am very sincere in what I've posted here. Period.


----------



## GoldenSail

tippykayak said:


> Nobody has said, at any point in this thread, that PO training would do it. You guys are arguing against a point of view that has not been expressed in this thread.


You are correct. Nobody has written about what would be an 'acceptable' alternative method of correction either. Or why it would be better. Or if it is in fact successful, or just speculative.


----------



## 12687

tippykayak said:


> Nobody has said, at any point in this thread, that PO training would do it. You guys are arguing against a point of view that has not been expressed in this thread.


Really? 

*"I firmly believe that everything can be done with positive training just as well (or better) as any other type."*

Thank goodness for Mrs. Thompsons 2nd grade comprehension class I might have missed that......

Anyway....I get the distinct impression reading your posts that you think anyone who uses the ecollar is stuck in the 70's? So not true. The old school ways Randy references would set this site on fire-justifiably so. But then again.....walk the walk or it is just talk.


----------



## IowaGold

Swampcollie said:


> Looking at the big picture where Master Tests are concerned, there are simply very few MH dogs that are *not* a product of a force program. (in a given year, you could probably count them on one hand.) You're dealing with a small fraction of one percent of the MH dogs. Sorry, but that's the truth. When it comes to Field Trials, there are no active dogs, *none*, that are achieving their FC or AFC without employing some type of force program or components thereof along the way.


I'd also like to see the ages of the PO MH dogs, especially in comparison with traditionally trained dogs.


----------



## GoldenSail

IowaGold said:


> I'd also like to see the ages of the PO MH dogs, especially in comparison with traditionally trained dogs.


...and I'll add it would be nice to compare the quality of the work and how many tries it took to get said title. I know in the obedience (I am a novice and learning in field) getting a CD with a 170 scores in ten shows is a whole lot different than getting a CD with 195+ scores in three shows.


----------



## rappwizard

GoldenSail said:


> ...and I'll add it would be nice to compare the quality of the work and how many tries it took to get said title. I know in the obedience (I am a novice and learning in field) getting a CD with a 170 scores in ten shows is a whole lot different than getting a CD with 195+ scores in three shows.


I was wondering about that in field/hunt work. I see owners who are proud of their JH/SH/MH titles on their dogs, but when you look at the track record you see that for every leg they passed, they failed one (or two--or even more). Is that the norm? In obedience, if someone earned a CD that way, and bragged about it, well, it would be more along the lines of . . ."We FINALLY got that CD!" 

It just seems that if you're going for that leg, then you're going for that leg. Or am I missing something? Are dogs maybe taking longer to earn their titles now in hunt/field venues?


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Boy we have some of these discussions about once every three months. Always the same players and arguments.
> Here's a question I don't think has been asked. Quite a few of the no-FF/ecollar crowd own dogs who are either out of, or siblings to, Master Hunters or even Senior Hunters, if not more (FT dogs). They own dogs bred by people very active in the HT or FT venue, who FF all their dogs and use the collar. They obviously like these people and the work of these dogs, otherwise they wouldn't have that particular dog of theirs. What do you think of your breeders, the owners of your dog's sire or siblings, that are committed FF/ecollar users? Do you think less of them?
> It would be like me buying a puppy out of two champions, then bemoaning how political and abusive dog shows are.


I can only speak for myself, and I haven't once used the word "abusive" to describe FF or any of the corrections. Has anyone in this thread? I feel like FF is being defended against an attack that hasn't been made.

Comet's breeder force fetches her dogs, and she uses an e-collar. I try to learn from her when we train together, but we respect each other enough that she doesn't act contemptuously towards me just because I don't compete in that venue.


----------



## tippykayak

pals said:


> Really?
> 
> *"I firmly believe that everything can be done with positive training just as well (or better) as any other type."*
> 
> Thank goodness for Mrs. Thompsons 2nd grade comprehension class I might have missed that......
> 
> Anyway....I get the distinct impression reading your posts that you think anyone who uses the ecollar is stuck in the 70's? So not true. The old school ways Randy references would set this site on fire-justifiably so. But then again.....walk the walk or it is just talk.


I said "positive training," not PO training, which is a whole other ball of wax. I didn't define what I meant clearly, but PO is a term introduced to this thread as a sort of straw man by people defending the use of jaw slaps and e-collars.

Pure PO training is its own beast, and I don't train that way either. There is absolutely a middle ground, practiced by many people with successful dogs, that eschews certain methods that are the norm in FFing.

And the whole "walk the walk" thing is, frankly, rude. Do we all have to post all the dogs we've ever worked with and all of their credentials before we're allowed to discuss training methods? How many AFC dogs have you trained? Exactly how many MH dogs do we have to have under our belts before we're allowed to question anything Evan or you say?

I've never said FFing doesn't work, simply that in my experience many things that have been traditionally trained through harsh methods have evolved into less harsh training, and I think that's a good thing.


----------



## 12687

tippykayak said:


> No, nor have I claimed to. That doesn't make me wrong.


 
And it doesn't make you right either. 

I'm not trying to be "rude" I really believe in improving my training methods be listening to those who have done the work. (Just caught your edit) Oh thanks for asking about the AFC's-not a single one. And you sure don't see me commenting about someones training who has or telling them how to train. Now that would be rude. I have for the record,4 goldens in 14 years-all trained by little ole me- 4 JH, 2 SH(4 for 4-that I'm very proud of) and one MH that I worked my arse off for. I've never had a pop, no-go, switch, or refusal--and I'm very proud of that and my dogs water work. I've suffered many snide comments from competitors and judges about my marsh mops...the gee I hope they get wet kind, and I've let my dogs desire and attitudes do the talking for me. I hunt, actually shoot-doves, ducks, geese, pheasant and quail. I'm taking agility lessons now and I follow Bridget Carlsens Just the Facts for obedience--my hope is to find the time to compete Weezie in both ag and ob. and let Ryder play in Ag. I worried when I started judging--could I be a good judge? I think I am, I've gotten cards in the mail from people who have run under me-thanking me for being there for the dogs. So I don't start fights to be a rip, but I will defend myself if need be. Question Evan all you want, he's a big boy. Just don't expect us to sit back and let people take pot shots without bringing something of value to the table-give us a better way. 

rappwizard-my experience in the field is that yes it is common to fail a test for lots of reasons. While we would all love to say 5 for 5 to a MH it is tough because of the nature of the game. Way to many factors influencing the dog during a test to try and spell out on a post. Ruckus passed 3 MH in a row, then he flunked the next 2 in the last series on the last bird-he went into autopilot. He then broke in the first series of his next test and the following weekend I messed up in what we call a Handler error. He passed his next two in a row. Putting it all together for a pass/fail in three series, in fields and ponds that are always different, it is not easy by any means. IMO MH seem to be getting tougher and longer marks. MH is a two day event-I go through about 27 immodiums and two jugs of Pepto. I can't speak for FT's as I'm not running them yet. They are hard. 
Senior and Junior are two series events, land and water, lasting one day. Still nerve racking for sure as they are dogs, working far away from you and anything can happen. 

I enjoy judging the JH level best of all-it is so much fun to encourage new handlers and see the reward on a job well done. I will say that the goldens I judged last year in the JR/SH's were wonderful and did good work.


----------



## rappwizard

tippykayak said:


> . . .And the whole "walk the walk" thing is, frankly, rude. Do we all have to post all the dogs we've ever worked with and all of their credentials before we're allowed to discuss training methods? How many AFC dogs have you trained? Exactly how many MH dogs do we have to have under our belts before we're allowed to question anything Evan or you say?
> 
> I've never said FFing doesn't work, simply that in my experience many things that have been traditionally trained through harsh methods have evolved into less harsh training, and I think that's a good thing.


I don't find it rude at all--I think it's helpful for all of us to know the experience of each other; I have posted when people have asked "should I breed my golden?" responding. . "I am not a breeder but. . ." and have shared my experiences with my breeder friends (one of whom lost her golden in whelp) and my experience as to whether or not to breed my own bitch that had it's clearances--I didn't.

Also, any experiences with obedience, conformation, field/hunt work, agility--even if it's an introductory class--this is how we all learn from each other. If someone is giving their opinion from a video, not having gone through any training with their golden for the venue (whatever it is) they are most likely going to have a different perspective--and inquiring as to what that person's experience and background is with their golden is a valid point.


----------



## GoldenSail

tippykayak said:


> And the whole "walk the walk" thing is, frankly, rude. Do we all have to post all the dogs we've ever worked with and all of their credentials before we're allowed to discuss training methods? How many AFC dogs have you trained? Exactly how many MH dogs do we have to have under our belts before we're allowed to question anything Evan or you say?


I don't think it is rude at all to ask about someone's qualifications--that doesn't mean they can't discuss it--but it makes readers able to put the discussion into context. As a novice, I like to take training advice from those who have done it, personally.


----------



## tippykayak

I find it interesting that my questions and views elicit such a personal response.

Why is it so infuriating that I might suggest that there could be a better way than slapping a dog in the face to prevent him from mouthing a bumper?

Are people just confusing that viewpoint with accusations of abuse?


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> I can only speak for myself, and I haven't once used the word "abusive" to describe FF or any of the corrections. Has anyone in this thread? I feel like FF is being defended against an attack that hasn't been made.


Well maybe "abusive" is my own extrapolation of your views, sorry if that is an exaggeration. If you didn't find it abusive - involving more than tolerable levels of pain - then you wouldn't have a problem with it, right? So it must be abusive if you find it objectionable.



> Comet's breeder force fetches her dogs, and she uses an e-collar. I try to learn from her when we train together, but we respect each other enough that she doesn't act contemptuously towards me just because I don't compete in that venue.


Well that's good, I wouldn't expect her to act negatively toward one of her own puppy buyers. But how do YOU feel about HER training methods?


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> Why is it so infuriating that I might suggest that there could be a better way than slapping a dog in the face to prevent him from mouthing a bumper?


Because as of yet you have not actually suggested a better way, you just suggested there might be a better way. Big difference. 

Sorta like, I feel sorry for the Florida football players that have to do two-a-days in August, which is exhausting and grueling both mentally and physically. If they want to play football, they HAVE to do it, their coaches force them. It would be wonderful if they could be AS successful without it, but I have no idea how you'd accomplish that, and me, as just a fan and someone who has never played a down of football in my life, I'm not about to tell the coaches they shouldn't do two-a-days because I think it's too hard on the players.

Now personally I have not watched the video although I know what it entails, and yes I absolutely can see how slapping a dog in the face is distasteful and to many, an unnecessary means to an end. I personally have not done this with my own dogs. But as someone else stated before : train the dog you've got. My guess is this lab is way higher wired than most of our goldens, and methods that might work for your soft and sensitive golden wouldn't be a blip on this dog's radar.


----------



## K9-Design

Tippy -- I think why you do get a lot of response is because unlike many, you are genuinely interested in training methods and generally are able to stick to the topic. Many others are fly-by naysayers, you at least have some sticking power! Also you have dogs from proven hunting lines, so whether or not you actually participate, you have some background in it at least by association. I'm hoping you'll read enough that you'll want to get involved!


----------



## GoldenSail

tippykayak said:


> I find it interesting that my questions and views elicit such a personal response.
> 
> Why is it so infuriating that I might suggest that there could be a better way than slapping a dog in the face to prevent him from mouthing a bumper?
> 
> Are people just confusing that viewpoint with accusations of abuse?


I just thought it was silly that you think it rude that someone question your expertise on this subject. To me, it is important when having a discussion to know what people have or haven't done. I wouldn't go to the brickmaker to buy jewels....

Your view doesn't bother me. I understand that you *think* there is a better way, but you have not suggested what that would be exactly. You say that you are not against correction but you will not say what type of correction is acceptable or what you would do instead.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Well maybe "abusive" is my own extrapolation of your views, sorry if that is an exaggeration. If you didn't find it abusive - involving more than tolerable levels of pain - then you wouldn't have a problem with it, right? So it must be abusive if you find it objectionable.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's good, I wouldn't expect her to act negatively toward one of her own puppy buyers. But how do YOU feel about HER training methods?


"It must be abusive if you find it objectionable" is false logic. Just because I don't think something's abusive doesn't mean I think it's the best way to teach a dog a particular behavior. I also never called anything objectionable. 

What I've been trying to discuss is how to improve something that works. Are you really saying all aspects of FF, as Evan has laid it out, are absolutely perfect and can't be improved on? Once he trained his first FC, he should stop trying to refine his technique? Hasn't training been improved by the shift away from harsh correction over the last few decades? Shouldn't we seek for ways to improve it more?

Do you really think there's no possibility that there's any better way to teach a dog to hold a bumper properly than to hit him in the face when he doesn't?

I really feel like I keep getting responded to as if I'm holding a position that isn't really mine. That's why I keep bringing it back to individual training choices. If you want to generalize, then yes, I'm inclined to train more positively than the FF program Evan is presenting, and I admire people who have success doing so. That doesn't necessarily mean that I think Evan is evil, or abusive, or ineffective. Quite the contrary.

I also have little personal experience in field training, and I have never titled a dog with a JH, SH, or MH.


----------



## sammydog

rappwizard said:


> I was wondering about that in field/hunt work. I see owners who are proud of their JH/SH/MH titles on their dogs, but when you look at the track record you see that for every leg they passed, they failed one (or two--or even more). Is that the norm? In obedience, if someone earned a CD that way, and bragged about it, well, it would be more along the lines of . . ."We FINALLY got that CD!"
> 
> It just seems that if you're going for that leg, then you're going for that leg. Or am I missing something? Are dogs maybe taking longer to earn their titles now in hunt/field venues?


I have never done obedience, but I do agility and play with some field stuff. From talking to obedience people who do all three I have heard there is a much higher failure rate in agility and field. Do you know what the average pass rate is for any obedience classes? I heard from a judge once in agility it was about 25% pass rate. From one webpage I got a 44% pass rate for MH. The WC passrate for 2008 was 49% and WCX was 41%


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Well that's good, I wouldn't expect her to act negatively toward one of her own puppy buyers. But how do YOU feel about HER training methods?


Sorry - didn't mean to ignore this part of your response last time. I really don't feel comfortable discussing individuals who aren't part of the discussion, since they can't clarify their views. I love that breeder dearly and do train obedience and rally skills with her, and while I wouldn't do everything exactly the same way that she does, I do observe her methods carefully, and I try to learn from them.


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> I just thought it was silly that you think it rude that someone question your expertise on this subject. To me, it is important when having a discussion to know what people have or haven't done. I wouldn't go to the brickmaker to buy jewels....
> 
> Your view doesn't bother me. I understand that you *think* there is a better way, but you have not suggested what that would be exactly. You say that you are not against correction but you will not say what type of correction is acceptable or what you would do instead.


"A better way" discussion is what I'd like to have, but it would have to be discussed about each individual skill. Instead of having that discussion, I've had to fend off accusations about what I said and questions about my qualifications, simply because I questioned the orthodoxy of FF.

But let's go about it, shall we? That's the discussion I've been asking to have since the beginning.

Take the issue in question: the dog mouths the bumper, and the owner strikes the dog firmly with a flat hand to the front of the nose and mouth. The dog startles, but doesn't seem to show fear (hard to see in the video). He mouths again and is struck again; he startles. The video cuts away before we can really tell if he stops mouthing or at least decreases his enthusiasm for it. That's being touted as the best way to correct the issue for that particular dog.

None of us can say for sure exactly what that dog needed, but I wouldn't be comfortable striking him (regardless of how "hard" he was), so I'd try to rethink a more positive way to shape that skill.

Would it be so hard to hold the bumper with him and develop the skill by rewarding the kind of mouth? You'd have to train the dog from the ground up by pairing sounds and touches with other rewards and by teaching him what signs indicate your disapproval (or if you want to shift to even more positive methods, what your NRM is). Once you have a dog really working for you and trying to figure out what you want, it's not that hard to shape even a small behavior like that. He gets rewarded for holding properly, and a clear signal that mouthing isn't what you want.

I'd be more comfortable working like that than by doing something that causes the dog to startle, since it's crystal clear to me that there are things that can go very, very wrong when you hit a dog in the face as part of his regular training regimen.


----------



## tippykayak

GoldenSail said:


> I just thought it was silly that you think it rude that someone question your expertise on this subject. To me, it is important when having a discussion to know what people have or haven't done. I wouldn't go to the brickmaker to buy jewels....
> 
> Your view doesn't bother me. I understand that you *think* there is a better way, but you have not suggested what that would be exactly. You say that you are not against correction but you will not say what type of correction is acceptable or what you would do instead.


I thought it was rude when it seemed confrontational. Like, "you disagree? well, why do you have the right to do so when you haven't gotten an MH on a dog?" Clearly that's not how it was meant, but that's how it came across. No hard feelings here.


----------



## 12687

How about we start a new thread on "hold"? Different ways people teach, when they start, etc....


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> The argument from authority is, as even medieval scholars pointed out, the weakest one of all. I leave it to Julie to defend herself as she sees fit, but "I knew famous guys" and "I've done this for a long time" don't actually say much about the methods themselves. It could just as easily mean that you're stuck training in 1975 while others have learned more and moved on.


Well, perhaps that is at least part of the rub here. I didn’t study under medieval trainers. The two pros I mentioned were two of the best ever. I don’t know what your sources are, but I sought the best.

The last 30+ national field champions were trained via Carr-based methods like mine; FF, e-collars, Swim-by and all.











This dog (*2003 Nat RT Ch Terraway Sargeant Major*
*(Australian National Retrieving Trial Champion)*
Graeme Parkinson (NSW)) was trained specifically by my method, as have been many FC’s and MH’s. Those are results, not rhetoric. As has been mentioned, it has bearing on credibility to have actually done something instead of criticizing from the sidelines, having never achieved anything.


tippykayak said:


> I don't think anybody has argued that FF doesn't work. However, it has some clear downsides, and there's some good evidence to suggest that other methods, still being developed and tested, could work better. "This works well" is not a reason to stay with the same methods permanently.


I have questions about both these assertions. What clear downsides are there…factually speaking? What “good evidence” exists to suggest other methods could work better? Are there accomplishments we can point to as evidence of this? I’d love to know. Could it be that we’re finally on the precipice of a discussion?

EvanG


----------



## rappwizard

From this discussion, I can't see how there would be any "good evidence." We've just had a couple of people weigh in with experience in this venue saying that it is not unusual to have a difficult pass rate--for the dogs to pass, they must perform at a very high level.


----------



## GoldenSail

pals said:


> How about we start a new thread on "hold"? Different ways people teach, when they start, etc....


I think that is a great idea if tippy and others are willing (at least for the breakdown).


----------



## K9-Design

sammydog said:


> I have never done obedience, but I do agility and play with some field stuff. From talking to obedience people who do all three I have heard there is a much higher failure rate in agility and field. Do you know what the average pass rate is for any obedience classes? I heard from a judge once in agility it was about 25% pass rate. From one webpage I got a 44% pass rate for MH. The WC passrate for 2008 was 49% and WCX was 41%


These pass rates can be very misleading. 
There is a HUGE difference between the pass rate of Novice B obedience and Utility A obedience. I know that the pass rate of Utility A is 11%. Novice B would be extraordinarily higher. Overall pass rate of "obedience" is irrelevant, especially if you are trying to compare it to the difficulty of other venues.
Also -- in Hunt Tests you do not have A vs. B classes. You have three : Junior, Senior, Master. You do not have to get JH before SH, or SH before MH, you can take an untitled dog and enter a Master test. So while I believe the pass rate for Master is 44%, you have to understand the demographics of a Master test. In any given Master test you probably have 75% of the entries are ALREADY MH titled dogs, going for Master National qualification passes or just because they enjoy testing their dogs. That remaining 25% are going for their MH. Obviously the older, experienced, MH dogs are going to have a MUCH MUCH higher pass rate overall than the non-MH dogs. So that really skews the pass rate. This would be like comparing OTCH dogs to someone their first time in the ring in Utility A. The pass rate is very different.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> Sorry - didn't mean to ignore this part of your response last time. I really don't feel comfortable discussing individuals who aren't part of the discussion, since they can't clarify their views. I love that breeder dearly and do train obedience and rally skills with her, and while I wouldn't do everything exactly the same way that she does, I do observe her methods carefully, and I try to learn from them.


Fair enough, in retrospect that's not a fair question for me to ask in public. I am curious though if you are uncomfortable when she uses the ecollar, or you feel that is cutting corners, or what. Surely if she's a good trainer, fair to the dogs, and you enjoy your training time together, you can see the benefits and fair use of these methods and realize their value. Yes or no?
I train with people occasionally that do not FF and do not use the collar. Mainly because they don't know how and/or are afraid of using it. I respect that, much better than going forward blindly! They have no problem with me using these methods and see the benefits.


----------



## K9-Design

rappwizard said:


> I was wondering about that in field/hunt work. I see owners who are proud of their JH/SH/MH titles on their dogs, but when you look at the track record you see that for every leg they passed, they failed one (or two--or even more). Is that the norm? In obedience, if someone earned a CD that way, and bragged about it, well, it would be more along the lines of . . ."We FINALLY got that CD!"
> 
> It just seems that if you're going for that leg, then you're going for that leg. Or am I missing something? Are dogs maybe taking longer to earn their titles now in hunt/field venues?


Linda I think it is all relative. Honestly I do not know the pass % or average # of tries to title for each level of hunt tests. 
I get what you're saying but that's sorta true in every venue. Some people are out to pass with high scores, finish a dog in a month, get titles in straight passes or on the first try or whatever. Others just like to enter because they like to trial and they've got the dough to do it. 
That goes back to what I say in regards to picking dogs to breed or buy from : titles don't say very much. HOW they got the titles DO.


----------



## EvanG

K9-Design said:


> So while I believe the pass rate for Master is 44%, you have to understand the demographics of a Master test.


An important consideration is that if it were easy, _anyone_ could do it. Where would the distinction be in that? It should be challenging, like any other pursuit that leads to a title.

EvanG


----------



## Swampcollie

tippykayak;1079332
said:


> I'm glad that we can at least concede the reality that there _are_ MH dogs who are not force fetched. I don't know the percentages either, but given how prevalent force fetch is among serious trainers, it's not surprising to me that only a handful of them go against the mainstream, and therefore only a handful of winning dogs are products of a different kind of program. What we don't know is whether or not force fetched dogs are actually getting MHs at a higher rate than non force-fetched dogs. I don't think any of us can make a definitive claim either way.


I don't think you've drawn the correct conclusion. There are litterally thousands of dogs earning new MH Titles each year. There are so few dogs that achieve that title with the PO only approach that it's more likely the natural talent and ability of the dog helping them get there than it is their method of training. 

There are quite a few handlers who are successful in achieving a JH or WC employing the PO approach. But the number PO success stories drop off sharply at the SH or WCX level. When you get to the MH or QAA level there are almost none, only a small fraction of one percent (thousandths of one percent) are successful with a PO approach. To draw the conclusion that because .003 percent of MH's earned their title without FF makes non-FF methods a path for success is a bit of a leap. 

To most people it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a force program and/or components thereof is the way to go if your goal is to achieve an MH with your dog. 

There have been a few people who are trying very hard to prove that a PO approach can be successful in field events. Success on a consistant basis has been elusive for them once they go beyond the Junior level. They have to "invent" their program as they go because no complete program exists. None of them has found consistant success yet beyond the Junior/WC level. 

The PO approach comes from areas where the dog (or animal) is working in a controled environment or setting (Show Ring, OB Ring, Agility Ring, Flyball etc.). If the dog slips a command, or blows off the handler you may lose points or even be DQ'd and excused from the ring. It isn't a life threatening situation if the dog blows off your command, tomorrow is another day.

In the Field Events or in a Hunting situation, the environment is NOT controled and there are dangers present that could cause an out of control dog serious injury or even cost it his/her life. Poisonous Snakes, gators, wild predators, toxic chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides), abandoned farm/industrial equipment, traps, guns, barbed wire, thin ice, stong currents and busy highways are just a few of the hazards present in the outdoor world. A dog must have the dicipline and control to work safely in and around that environment. A blown off command here could prove hazardous perhaps to the point of being deadly for the dog.

The stakes are very different.


----------



## tippykayak

Swampcollie said:


> I don't think you've drawn the correct conclusion. There are litterally thousands of dogs earning new MH Titles each year. There are so few dogs that achieve that title with the PO only approach that it's more likely the natural talent and ability of the dog helping them get there than it is their method of training.
> 
> There are quite a few handlers who are successful in achieving a JH or WC employing the PO approach. But the number PO success stories drop off sharply at the SH or WCX level. When you get to the MH or QAA level there are almost none, only a small fraction of one percent (thousandths of one percent) are successful with a PO approach. To draw the conclusion that because .003 percent of MH's earned their title without FF makes non-FF methods a path for success is a bit of a leap.
> 
> To most people it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a force program and/or components thereof is the way to go if your goal is to achieve an MH with your dog.
> 
> There have been a few people who are trying very hard to prove that a PO approach can be successful in field events. Success on a consistant basis has been elusive for them once they go beyond the Junior level. They have to "invent" their program as they go because no complete program exists. None of them has found consistant success yet beyond the Junior/WC level.
> 
> The PO approach comes from areas where the dog (or animal) is working in a controled environment or setting (Show Ring, OB Ring, Agility Ring, Flyball etc.). If the dog slips a command, or blows off the handler you may lose points or even be DQ'd and excused from the ring. It isn't a life threatening situation if the dog blows off your command, tomorrow is another day.
> 
> In the Field Events or in a Hunting situation, the environment is NOT controled and there are dangers present that could cause an out of control dog serious injury or even cost it his/her life. Poisonous Snakes, gators, wild predators, toxic chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides), abandoned farm/industrial equipment, traps, guns, barbed wire, thin ice, stong currents and busy highways are just a few of the hazards present in the outdoor world. A dog must have the dicipline and control to work safely in and around that environment. A blown off command here could prove hazardous perhaps to the point of being deadly for the dog.
> 
> The stakes are very different.


I'm not talking about PO dogs, and I've made it clear that I never was, so I don't know why you keep quoting me as if I have. 

None of us knows the percentage of MH dogs who are PO trained, who are "Amish" trained, and who were simply never hit by their handler. My only point is that the prevalence of FF in the field world tells us that most successful dogs are going to be from FF. It doesn't tell us that it's the only way or that there's no way to improve on it.

And as someone who works dogs off leash in the woods several times a week, I know exactly how dangerous a blown off command is, and I know that I don't need to shock or hit the dogs to get the level of reliability I need. Obviously, that's not the same as a field environment, but still, I don't think 100% reliability needs to be the result of hitting or shocking a dog.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Fair enough, in retrospect that's not a fair question for me to ask in public. I am curious though if you are uncomfortable when she uses the ecollar, or you feel that is cutting corners, or what. Surely if she's a good trainer, fair to the dogs, and you enjoy your training time together, you can see the benefits and fair use of these methods and realize their value. Yes or no?
> I train with people occasionally that do not FF and do not use the collar. Mainly because they don't know how and/or are afraid of using it. I respect that, much better than going forward blindly! They have no problem with me using these methods and see the benefits.


Yes, absolutely. I see the value in all ways of training that have a successful result. And then I think about the kind of relationship I want to have to my dogs and what I feel appropriate doing. Hitting a dog _feels wrong_ to me. Maybe that's because my personal dogs are "softer," but I've worked with some really hardheaded dogs and still wouldn't feel comfortable.

Actually, with Jax, I'm sure you could pop him a good one right in the face and he wouldn't shy or take too long to recover from it. I still wouldn't do it.


----------



## rappwizard

I was also told the stakes are very different--and it doesn't have to be at a hunt test or field trial.

I was walking my goldens at a nearby park (my ol' boy was still alive at the time). It was a park that had a shooting range and I wanted to have them get used to the sound of gunfire (in particular, my younger golden, as I want to enter hunt tests one day with her). On the way out, I saw a man with what I learned was his son, training a young male lab that was a bit younger than my bitch.

I got out of the car and asked to watch and saw the dog work the land retrieves with a dummy. This man was teaching his lab not really for competition, but for sport--he actually hunted with his lab. I asked him about the water, and gators, and he said that it was not unusual to spot gators when hunting in the water in Florida--and that he would give the command (I believe a whistle? I'm sorry if I'm not using proper terms) to bring his dog back to him. He said that your dog had to be solid on the recall, and as much as it loved water, if it didn't return when you gave the command, that you would be looking at a dead dog in the Florida waters.


----------



## 12687

I feel that anyone who has dogs that go for walks or runs off lead, should whistle train their dogs on recall. Your whistle is much louder then your panicked voice. Especially in situations with background noise, surf, wind, crowds. My whistle is around my neck everytime I leave the house with the dogs in tow. It's fun and easy to teach, Weezie can be in a terrier run and I can hit the whistle once, she will sit instantly, 3 tweets and she is racing back to me-no matter what. Beats the heck out of hollering.


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> I have questions about both these assertions. What clear downsides are there…factually speaking? What “good evidence” exists to suggest other methods could work better? Are there accomplishments we can point to as evidence of this? I’d love to know. Could it be that we’re finally on the precipice of a discussion?


The clear downsides of some FF programs: dogs who become headshy from being slapped and pinched. When I looked at your posts on other forums, I noticed a woman who was asking you how to deal with a dog who had become afraid of her because she was slapping him for having a hard mouth. You essentially told her she hadn't applied enough pressure on that behavior, which to me appeared to be encouragement to take the dog off birds and hit him harder when working on his hard mouth. Maybe I didn't understand it.

Then there's the issue of dogs who "wash out" of FF programs because they can't take the communication-through-discomfort that is often the norm. I realize that your program is more adaptive and fewer dogs (none?) wash out in that way, but it's a pretty common story you hear among field trainers. Everybody seems to know a dog who washed out or was "ruined" by a harsh application of FF training.

There are also a whole series of issues that can crop up around e-collars, though my personal experience there is mostly with dogs whose collars were truly and consistently misapplied. I did hear a story, though, about a fairly well known trainer who had made her fairly well known dog shy of water entry because of some poor timing.

The use of discomfort as a source of pressure can always have the side effect of creating fear and avoidance behavior, especially if the dog misinterprets the cause of the discomfort.

That's my impression of the downsides of using FF.


The evidence that other things might work better is in the fact that dog training has gradually shifted towards more positive methods over the last several decades. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, things that were the norm thirty years ago would make most of us flinch today. Isn't your FF program, which relies less on the truly harsh methods, better than the FF methods of several decades ago that washed out more dogs?

There's also plenty of evidence in behavioral psychology that positive reinforcement is much more powerful and durable than negative, so it only makes sense that shifting towards positive methods at least has the potential to be more effective.

We simply don't know enough to rule out these possibilities, and as long as we go with "this works, so it's the only valid idea," nobody will have a chance to develop truly refined alternatives.


And I'm not sure we're on the edge of a real discussion. There has been a whole lot of contempt expressed in this thread for not just my suggestions but for me personally.


----------



## Emma&Tilly

I am totally out of my depth in this conversation now...but I have enjoyed the explanations and discussion from Swampcollie and Tippy especially. SC, thanks for explaining for about the differences between hunting in the UK and US and the expectations. I can see how it makes a difference where I previously only had knowledge on the styles of training. I am still rather pleased about the way things are done over this side of the pond. This country is known to be a contry of dog lovers...and maybe these types of force fetch programmes are just a step too far over here and handlers are not prepared to routinely train that way....and would rather a less precise test to prove hunting skills. I do wonder though...is a test like you have described actually quite far removed from what a golden was bred for? I know that sounds ridiculous but I thought a gentlemans hunting companion was the aim of the breed and getting a dog up to the glory of such titles using a training programme that involves force and pain isn't quite what was envisaged! Of course, it is a sight to behold, watching dogs work...but my god, I couldn't hit my dog in the face to achieve anything. Not worth it. 

I am the first to admit that I expect no more of my dogs to enjoy their lives. They do so by having good manners and are trusted with freedom on walks we are involved in dog sports that they love. They are trained in a kind and loving way. I just CANNOT see how cuffing/hitting/a quick whip with a stick could be involved in any dog lovers training...you are either in it for the dogs or in it for yourself...maybe thats the difference?


----------



## marsh mop

I am a member of three retriever clubs. Two of these clubs have monthly training days. At these club training days their are handlers that do not FF or use any E-collar and sadly it shows in the dogs work and also in the dogs attitude towards work. It is painfull to watch as they beg and plead for the dog to work with them just to bring a bird back. If you go to any club training day or a lower level hunt test [JH, Started] it is easy to pick these dogs and handlers out. Sorry, my pup and I will stick with what works and she is very happy!
Jim


----------



## Loisiana

K9-Design said:


> That goes back to what I say in regards to picking dogs to breed or buy from : titles don't say very much. HOW they got the titles DO.


Now THAT is the best advice I've seen in this whole thread!


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> The clear downsides of some FF programs: dogs who become headshy from being slapped and pinched. When I looked at your posts on other forums, I noticed a woman who was asking you how to deal with a dog who had become afraid of her because she was slapping him for having a hard mouth. You essentially told her she hadn't applied enough pressure on that behavior, which to me appeared to be encouragement to take the dog off birds and hit him harder when working on his hard mouth. Maybe I didn't understand it.


What you didn’t read were the PM discussions about her dog. I’ll post the discussion from the open forum and anyone who cares to can interpret it for himself or herself, or they can simply click on the link, which I appreciate your using.

What I got from her was that she had done the right thing the wrong way, and the dog had become hand-shy. I surely don’t want that. We worked through it, and found her obedience had not been properly formalized, and that her corrections needed to be less confrontational with this dog. He’s coming along well, and has no residual shyness.


tippykayak said:


> Then there's the issue of dogs who "wash out" of FF programs because they can't take the communication-through-discomfort that is often the norm. I realize that your program is more adaptive and fewer dogs (none?) wash out in that way, but it's a pretty common story you hear among field trainers. Everybody seems to know a dog who washed out or was "ruined" by a harsh application of FF training.


Here we are in complete harmony. One of the main reasons why I worked for several years modifying the FF program was to accomplish the lofty goal of improving the efficiency of the overall process, while effectively reducing the usual amount of pressure in older programs. It’s always made my skin crawl hearing about the guys who used bottle openers, and other objects to apply pressure. This could get long and sad, but none of those practices are part of my system.


tippykayak said:


> There are also a whole series of issues that can crop up around e-collars, though my personal experience there is mostly with dogs whose collars were truly and consistently *misapplied*. I did hear a story, though, about a fairly well known trainer who had made her fairly well known dog shy of water entry because of some poor timing.


I’m sure you’ll agree that bad results can be expected when any tool is consistently misapplied.


tippykayak said:


> The use of discomfort as a source of pressure can always have the side effect of creating fear and avoidance behavior, especially if the dog misinterprets the cause of the discomfort.





tippykayak said:


> That's my impression of the downsides of using FF.


But truly, all those things could rightly be said of improper training of nearly any type, and with nearly any instrument, couldn’t it? I don’t know about you, but it’s nice to be conducting an actual dialogue!


tippykayak said:


> The evidence that other things might work better is in the fact that dog training has gradually shifted towards more positive methods over the last several decades. As has been pointed out several times in this thread, things that were the norm thirty years ago would make most of us flinch today. Isn't your FF program, which relies less on the truly harsh methods, better than the FF methods of several decades ago that washed out more dogs?


By far, and you are correct that washouts have become a thing of the past in this application. You’re also correct that a more positive approach is the prime reason for it.


tippykayak said:


> There's also plenty of evidence in behavioral psychology that positive reinforcement is much more powerful and durable than negative, so it only makes sense that shifting towards positive methods at least has the potential to be more effective.


That, I believe is a centerpiece of my system. But, as I state in the front of my first book, this system is continually evolving in that direction.


tippykayak said:


> We simply don't know enough to rule out these possibilities, and as long as we go with "this works, so it's the only valid idea," nobody will have a chance to develop truly refined alternatives.





tippykayak said:


> And I'm not sure we're on the edge of a real discussion. There has been a whole lot of contempt expressed in this thread for not just my suggestions but for me personally.


It is not my approach to ever assert that my way is the only way. I will happily assert that I believe it to be the best, or I would be doing things differently until it met that standard. That’s how it got this far.

With regard to evidence, I require of myself what I require of others. Evidence must amount to more than suspicions or claims, or even reasonable conclusions. Evidence of the effectiveness of a training technique or system can only be produced in the dogs by way of their success. Why else would we do these things?

Thank you for guiding this into a discussion, and away from a war. In case you're wondering, somehow the forum software has divided some of the quotes into two portions, and I can't seem to over ride it. No big deal, just thought I'd mention it.

EvanG


----------



## EvanG

K9-Design said:


> That goes back to what I say in regards to picking dogs to breed or buy from : titles don't say very much. HOW they got the titles DO.


Very close to agreeing with this. But I would offer a slight modification. I believe higher titles say a great deal about the inner qualities in a dog, but that how those titles came to pass says even more.

EvanG


----------



## Loisiana

Let me see if I can get some reasonable discussion here.

Flip is a natural mouther. His first reaction whenever something is in his mouth is to start chomping away. He totally delights in this behavior. Since with every chomp of his mouth I am thinking "point, point, point" for the obedience ring, I have been working with him on this aspect. Here is what I've done so far:

Two different things I've used. For the first, I get a pile of treats. While Flip is holding the bumper (or other object), I will slowly start to bring a treat in towards him. As long as his mouth is held still, I will continue bringing the treat towards him and if it gets all the way to him I will take the object and give him the treat. As soon as I see the beginning of mouth movement the treat is returned to the pile. The second thing I do is a gentle tap under the chin to remind him to hold. Between these two methods, I have seen remarkable progress. However, it has not been tested anywhere except at my house.

I truly doubt that these methods would hold up in the field. You have to realize that a dog working out in the field is in a completely different state of mind than a dog training in a living room. He wouldn't be interested in the treats, and I don't think the little tap under the chin would even begin to sink in. So for those that say there is better way to train this than what was shown in Evan's video, I'm ready to hear the ideas! What can you do to stop the immensely self-rewarding behavior of mouthing while the dog is in such a high drive, focus-driven state of mind?


----------



## RedDogs

Loisiana said:


> I truly doubt that these methods would hold up in the field. You have to realize that a dog working out in the field is in a completely different state of mind than a dog training in a living room. He wouldn't be interested in the treats, and I don't think the little tap under the chin would even begin to sink in. So for those that say there is better way to train this than what was shown in Evan's video, I'm ready to hear the ideas! What can you do to stop the immensely self-rewarding behavior of mouthing while the dog is in such a high drive, focus-driven state of mind?


If we took a dog that would mouth objects and worked through x protocol with -many- different objects, would we be more likely to succeed when using birds? And if this was practiced outside the context of birds-field-bumpers-everyone else before going to that environment would we be more likely to succeed long-term?

For a dog that may be doing field work, should a solid hold be trained for even in play? 

I thought we'd stopped it but it sure came back when we started retrieving food. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I get a solid hold and retrieve on food the birds won't be a problem, but we'll see what happens. 

I'll also throw out it's a challenge to find anyone to train with/learn from if you aren't at a point where you are wanting to use electronics. No one wants to take me seriously and I don't want to be training with someone not super-experienced and have to re-train later.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> Yes, absolutely. I see the value in all ways of training that have a successful result. And then I think about the kind of relationship I want to have to my dogs and what I feel appropriate doing. Hitting a dog _feels wrong_ to me. Maybe that's because my personal dogs are "softer," but I've worked with some really hardheaded dogs and still wouldn't feel comfortable.
> 
> Actually, with Jax, I'm sure you could pop him a good one right in the face and he wouldn't shy or take too long to recover from it. I still wouldn't do it.



No no, not HIT -- I said specifically ecollar. Specifically ear pinch or collar for force fetch. What are your feelings when you see these two things used as part of a comprehensive field training program?
I agree with your feelings on hitting -- and frankly, if that was the ONLY correction shown in Evan's original video I'm not sure what the point was as that is NOT a standard protocol or necessary step for FF. I'm not going to say I would never ever in a million years hit a dog, but I cannot say it's any regularly programmed part of my training regime or daily life.


----------



## EvanG

K9-Design said:


> I agree with your feelings on hitting -- and frankly, if that was the ONLY correction shown in Evan's original video I'm not sure what the point was as that is NOT a standard protocol or necessary step for FF. I'm not going to say I would never ever in a million years hit a dog, but I cannot say it's any regularly programmed part of my training regime or daily life.


It's not a _regular_ part of any top program. I don't know how to make it clearer that this was an _exceptional_ circumstance with a dog that had an _exceptional_ problem. It's probably lost now, but the point was forcing on birds.

EvanG


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Disclaimer: To say I'm short on time tonight would be an understatement, as I still have a few hours of work left to do tonight. So I'm fairly certain that this will not be the most organized post. Though I may use one person's words or thoughts as a jumping off point, that's really all they are. This response is to the 8 or so pages that popped up while I was at work today, and to address each bit and piece separately would only assure that I get literally no sleep tonight. If I'm completely unclear about anything, please take into account that I'm rushed and that I will do my best to clarify when I can... but don't expect a speedy response.

This conversation has evolved and shifted more than once today, and though I hesitate to disrupt the recent rhythm that has been developing, there are a few things I have to address. 

First, I have no idea if the comment was anywhere near directed toward me, but to address the concept of "fly-by" agitators.... I think it's important to acknowledge that some of us do not have the luxury of participating in this forum at will. I personally am away from home 12 hours a day for work, and though browsing the forum on my phone is a pleasure I enjoy for short spurts (for example, I take about 10 minutes to read and decompress during my lunch break and occasionally browse on the train) posting anything meaningful with it is truly an exercise in futility. I do not post and run by choice... I jump in for a short period in the evenings when my schedule permits. That should not preclude me (or others whose demands make access to the internet a challenge throughout the day) from participating in discussions such as this.

Second, Anney you raised a very good point in asking what those of us who are turned off by the concept of force fetch think of the breeders/trainers who handled the fine working dogs who produced our pups. In my case, this hits a number of levels... many people I greatly admire, including my father, strongly adhere to this type of program. I do not admire them or their dogs less because of the methods they've chosen and I do my best to learn what I can from them. What I do not do is use their success to justify abandoning my personal standards for training. The feeling I get when I consider their programs or watch them in action is hard to put into words... but it's not doubt in my chosen route and mostly it's a stronger resolve to follow the path I've chosen. 

I think SC put things most clearly in perspective with the statement that those who are attempting to do this without the traditional force fetch methods are working from the ground up. It's impossible to expect that people working from ground zero -- experimenting, testing, and sometimes guessing as they go along -- are going to succeed at the same rate and with the same speed as a far larger pool of people who are following set protocols. It has already been conceded in this thread that there are some who have found success (in the form of a MH title) using more positive methods. Perhaps it is from their success that future protocols will develop, it's too early to tell. But that doesn't make us who are pushing for or actively pursuing such a future ignorant, in a trance, or otherwise loony. (this is an example of what I mean in the disclaimer... clearly, Anney accused no one of these things). And to discount empirical information regarding the psychology of learning out of hand because the practical implications are only now being developed and tested shows a lack of intellectual curiosity that is far more closed-minded than those who have been repeatedly called such in this thread. 

To go back to an observation made by one poster earlier about being able to pick out the dogs trained without force fetch, the truth is hardly that cut and dried. In my outings with field training groups I have seen more than one handler- e-collar remote in hand nicking- begging, pleading, and eventually shouting until they're blue in the face in an effort to gain compliance. These aren't rookies, they're folks who have achieved various levels of success with various numbers of dogs... and yet, there it is. Sometimes a dog/handler team just can't pull it together regardless of the training techniques they ascribe to. This goes right along with the earlier comment that tied positive trainers to those who would stand around repeating "sit, sit, sit, sit, SIT...." Examples of poor training do not discount those who are capable and competent.

Do I expect that Evan will abandon 25 years of work and start from the ground up on a new program because some members here do not agree with his current one? Of course not. But I also find his behavior toward those who do not adhere to his methods to cross the line. It really shouldn't be shocking that a forum made up predominantly of pet people would contain a portion of members who are appalled at seeing a dog smacked in the face, regardless of the reason, the venue, or the prestige of the poster. Yet, despite his protests and pleading for a rational discussion later in the thread, Evan's first action was to call those folks ignorant, intellectually dishonest, pious, and self-righteous... and all that was in his second post in this thread. Of course, some of the animosity on both sides comes back to previous threads that have followed exactly this pattern. And that's really the point I was driving at. Every so often one of these threads pops up. Some non-field people express their issues with using such methods (they are, after all, members of this forum and free to participate in these threads... aren't they?) Evan then berates and browbeats them, claims that force fetch is the only way to obtain reliability, throws in the name of his product a handful of times, quotes the same 2 or 3 pages of his book providing definitions for force and such, and likely makes a little money in the process. We have a number of professionals in various fields of training and pet care who manage to provide advice and insight to the forum without ever mentioning their places of business or products. So, no, I'm not lying... I am observing. And I'm hardly the first or only person on this forum to have noted that pattern. But I will concede one point. A fuller review of Evan's posts on this forum did show me that he pops into other people's threads with some frequency and discusses the larger picture of field training and provides some advice without the plug. So I was, absolutely, off base in my assertion that he does not partake in the forum except to advertise, and for that I am sorry. But I make no apologies for my observation that he does, in fact, advertise his merchandise in a way that no other professional has dared or been allowed to on this forum.

Evan, it's clear that you have little to no respect for a large portion of this forum. If your posts here were not enough to get that across, this little doozy certainly drives the point home:
From Alducks.com


> Thanks for asking, Mike. I posted this on a "bunny-foo-foo" Golden board, and they had such a heart attack over the cuff under the dog's chin that they couldn't even discuss FTP!


Perhaps this "bunny-foo-foo" forum does not contain the right audience for you. Not all members here participate in field training and not all members here with an interest in the field ascribe to force fetch. Too foo-foo? Too bad. These are the demographics. The low-blow insults and condescension aimed against anyone who dares to disagree with you are not going to quiet your critics and they certainly do nothing to gain our respect or understanding. Think oppositional reflex... it only entices us to pull back harder.

I'm sure I missed a ton... but I really can't give any more time to this tonight. Hope you all have a good Thursday!

Julie and Jersey


----------



## K9-Design

EEEEEK!!!! I am both a bunny foo foo AND I do FF/ecollar. OH NO IDENTITY CRISIS!!!!!

Good post all around Julie, thanks for sharing your thoughts. And no you are not the fly-by agitator (or one of them) I was referring to! You get cred for training your dogs in something beyond fetch in the back yard and that pulls a lot more weight than the normal crowd that never has and never will train nor compete at a higher level than that -- but tells the rest of us we are animal abusers in the name of an ego. Well it's easy for me to say I refuse to be an NBA player because I feel practicing free throws for hours is harmful to my psyche, but um, well ya know. 

I'm pretty much over talking people into or out of FF/ecollar, but please know I was there, I was in that same spot and did try the "feel your own way", and I had (have) a dog with a lot of drive and a lot of obedience...it still didn't work too well. Hence, collar program. Lot less wear and tear on everyone. Anyways....


----------



## DNL2448

Okay, now I do have to say something....Evan, did you really say that on another forum? Bunny foo-foo? Wow, not nice. While I was bugged about the way some reacted, I think this is far worse. I can appreciate that people have different styles of training and again...THAT'S OKAY. I would hope they would respect mine, and for the most part, I think they do. The things that make you go HUH.


----------



## EvanG

DNL2448 said:


> Okay, now I do have to say something....Evan, did you really say that on another forum? Bunny foo-foo? Wow, not nice. While I was bugged about the way some reacted, I think this is far worse.


Yes, and I misspoke. I apologize for that crack. It was an unfair characterization, and certainly inappropriate.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> Yes, and I misspoke. I apologize for that crack. It was an unfair characterization, and certainly inappropriate.
> 
> EvanG


And yet, I think, indicative of the sense of contempt felt by many of us who have the temerity to disagree with you. Thanks for the apology, but that comment really sours this conversation for me and saps my interest in continuing it.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I feel sort of like I felt when I discovered there was no easter bunny. Very disallusioned.




DNL2448 said:


> Okay, now I do have to say something....Evan, did you really say that on another forum? Bunny foo-foo? Wow, not nice. While I was bugged about the way some reacted, I think this is far worse. I can appreciate that people have different styles of training and again...THAT'S OKAY. I would hope they would respect mine, and for the most part, I think they do (for the record, I like K9 Design, won't say I have never cuffed my dog for a sloppy hold, but is the exception, not the rule, I can't remember when the last time or dog it was, pretty sure it wasn't one of my current crew). The things that make you go HUH.


----------



## fostermom

K9-Design said:


> Good post all around Julie, thanks for sharing your thoughts. And no you are not the fly-by agitator (or one of them) I was referring to! You get cred for training your dogs in something beyond fetch in the back yard and that pulls a lot more weight than the normal crowd that never has and never will train nor compete at a higher level than that -- but tells the rest of us we are animal abusers in the name of an ego. Well it's easy for me to say I refuse to be an NBA player because I feel practicing free throws for hours is harmful to my psyche, but um, well ya know.


Well, since I am the one who said I have no desire to compete in a "sport" that would require me to hit my dog to get him to comply, I would guess that your comment is directed towards me. 

You have the choice whether to compete as an NBA player, the dog doesn't have a choice. So to me that was quite the silly comparison.

I also never said anyone was an animal abuser. I did think it was disgusting that the lab was smacked in the face more than once. I stopped watching the video after that. I do think it's interesting that if you saw a clip of something like that without Evan's endorsement, and it was just Joe Blow smacking their dog, I am sure there would have been a totally different reaction from many of the FF proponents.


----------



## Kelbys'Dad

I've followed this entire discussion, and I've made every attempt to consider both sides with an open mind.

A bunny foo foo forum?

Well...... this did it for me. It shows little or no consideration for not only those who disagree...... but for everyone here on this forum.





Jersey's Mom said:


> Perhaps this "bunny-foo-foo" forum does not contain the right audience for you. Not all members here participate in field training and not all members here with an interest in the field ascribe to force fetch. Too foo-foo? Too bad. These are the demographics. The low-blow insults and condescension aimed against anyone who dares to disagree with you are not going to quiet your critics and they certainly do nothing to gain our respect or understanding. Think oppositional reflex... it only entices us to pull back harder.
> Julie and Jersey


Thanks Julie.


----------



## Abbydabbydo

I have always been surprised that Evan gets to come on here and hawk his wares and talk about treating his dogs the way many of us foo-fooers find a little harsh, while we drive off legitimate trainers like Joel Silverman and Veterinarians that want to participate ..


----------



## mylissyk

EvanG said:


> This is one of only two questions asked so far, neither of which were asked with any intent to acquire real knowledge. There is no shame in being ignorant. The shame is in insisting upon remaining that way.
> 
> No one has been intellectually honest enough to turn ignorance into an informed state, but rather have only offered pronouncements of “wrong”, and expressions of horror about a situation that offered only a glimpse of an exceptional treatment. So, you’re welcome to remain ignorant…ignorant of this dog, of his nature, of his history from the original trainer and the training that fostered and grew his bird crunching behavior, ignorant of how long it was allowed to persist and keep this otherwise wonderful animal from excelling, ignorant of the training process.
> 
> Not one pious condemning post was made by a trainer who does not use pressure in some form, and in some amount. Many were made by those who use pressure in ignorance. This, of course, was not intended to be the subject, but it was all your self-righteousness would allow you to see – and of course, judge.
> 
> ‘The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.’
> Henri Bergson —
> 
> Pressure is used in dog training to change behavior. The amount of pressure used by a knowledgeable trainer is not pre-determined, but rather is determined by the dog. If a small amount of pressure brings about an appropriate change, that is what’s used. That’s effective training. If pressure is used in small amounts that do not change behavior, that’s not training; it’s nagging.
> 
> If pressure is routinely used in amounts greater than are needed to cause an appropriate behavior change, that’s not training; it’s abuse. That is not the case here, but _that’s_ been the knee-jerk reactive assumption that has kept the pious and presumptuous from making a single intelligent inquiry about the dog and the training involved.
> 
> When we got him back from his original owner/trainer, this dog with championship potential had so many flaws that he was a wreck. We did all his Basics over again. That ‘noisy’ mouth issue would have spelled the end to an otherwise fine career. Pressure was used in the amount the dog dictated, and the problem has been extinguished. In every video clip of this dog (and I have hours of his work on video) he is happy, stylish, tail up, and clear about his work. He’s secure. Even in the previous clip, he flew just as fast after the correction as before. There are two reasons why, if there is an open mind left in the audience prepared to receive them.
> 
> 1. He understood the corrections because he was thoroughly schooled before applying any corrective measures
> 2. He’s a fine dog
> 
> We no longer deal with that issue because it’s gone. He’s now a fully trained dog, and will be competing this spring following a full season of duck hunting, during which he never offered to hard mouth a single duck in the most exciting environment a good dog can be exposed to.
> 
> “The process of education is a transformation from cock-sure ignorance, to thoughtful uncertainty.”
> Dr. Kendall McNabney M.D. —
> 
> Thanks for asking,
> EvanG


Why does it have to be a smack to correct that problem? Surely there is another method that would be effective?


----------



## GoldenSail




----------



## EvanG

mylissyk said:


> Why does it have to be a smack to correct that problem? Surely there is another method that would be effective?


Thank your for asking. After 13 pages of accusation and pretence, someone finally...just...asked. I appreciate that.

First, let me ask; did you watch the video clip, and have you read the description of the dog and his history? I'm asking because I've gone to quite an extent to make it clear that this dog is an exception, and so is the treatment. The video is merely a demo of a logical transition from forcing on bumpers (force to pile) to forcing on real birds. This is a topic that I get lots of questions about, so I put together a short clip showing the transfer of skills to adapt to birds.

There have been precious few earnest questions here, and I very much appreciate yours.

EvanG


----------



## DNL2448

So, why did you choose to use _that_ clip, being that we are such bunny foo-foo trainers on this site? (Sorry, couldn't resist). You had to know it would cause issues. Couldn't you have first had a discussion on FTP and then show a clip, perhaps with a normal dog, not one with issues, like for instance Moose? (I enjoy watching Moose, by the way, as he is my dogs half brother). 

I, for one, would love to know more about FTP, Swim by, really anything constructive, especially for those of us just learning or in my case re-learning. Though I have all of your DVD's and books, I still like the discussion your posts generate, even if they are not all constructive.

Maybe next time put a disclaimer at the start of your post...


----------



## Emma&Tilly

EvanG said:


> Thank your for asking. After 13 pages of accusation and pretence, someone finally...just...asked. I appreciate that.


Man alive! I'm pretty sure thats the exact thing that I (and many others) have been banging on about since Evan started posting. Considering NOBODY on this rather lovely forum would object to the fact that somebody is working their golden retriever...the ONLY thing that anybody has objected to is the wallop in the face we have seen as a method of training a dog not to mouth. So, surely that means most would love to hear about alternatives...I've asked why some countries generally don't use such training programmes with their gundogs...I would have hoped that would lead to a little discussion about other methods of training. ah well. I'm not sure why Mylissyk asking was suddenly more earnest than others. Maybe other people's opinions make their questions somehow insincere? What an odd approach to a discussion.


----------



## solinvictus

I am a bunny foo foo.  I still am very glad that Evan takes the time to come onto the bunny foo foo forum and discuss field training. If I was Evan I might also in frustration said the same.


----------



## missmarstar

EvanG said:


> Thank your for asking. After 13 pages of accusation and pretence, someone finally...just...asked. I appreciate that.



Post #2 on this thread, made by me:



missmarstar said:


> Is it really necessary to smack the dog's face to make him sit?



No accusations, no pretence, just a question that went unanswered. Instead I was called ignorant. Yes, I am ignorant about these field training practices.. That's why I asked.



Now, off I go back to scooping up those field mice and bopping them on the head....


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> Thank your for asking. After 13 pages of accusation and pretence, someone finally...just...asked. I appreciate that.
> 
> First, let me ask; did you watch the video clip, and have you read the description of the dog and his history? I'm asking because I've gone to quite an extent to make it clear that this dog is an exception, and so is the treatment. The video is merely a demo of a logical transition from forcing on bumpers (force to pile) to forcing on real birds. This is a topic that I get lots of questions about, so I put together a short clip showing the transfer of skills to adapt to birds.
> 
> There have been precious few earnest questions here, and I very much appreciate yours.
> 
> EvanG


I think I've watched three of your clips so far, and in all three, dogs are struck in the face. Maybe I just happened on the wrong three?


----------



## EvanG

DNL2448 said:


> So, why did you choose to use _that_ clip, being that we are such bunny foo-foo trainers on this site? (Sorry, couldn't resist). You had to know it would cause issues. Couldn't you have first had a discussion on FTP and then show a clip, perhaps with a normal dog, not one with issues, like for instance Moose? (I enjoy watching Moose, by the way, as he is my dogs half brother).
> 
> I, for one, would love to know more about FTP, Swim by, really anything constructive, especially for those of us just learning or in my case re-learning. Though I have all of your DVD's and books, I still like the discussion your posts generate, even if they are not all constructive.
> 
> Maybe next time put a disclaimer at the start of your post...


Honestly, Laura, if I had it to do again, I would have picked a different segment, except that that was his first 'force on birds' run, and I like to show the honest mistakes dogs make, rather than featuring some perfect All-Age dog. _Real_ developing dogs struggle at many new tasks their first few times, and trainers need to see how they are handled. I posted that clip on three other boards before this one, and have had *no one* react to the chin cuff at all. I'm confident you know that it was not representative of my normal course of training. It was the right correction, at the right time, for the right dog. 

I was looking in on this board, and noted that it had been pretty dead for a week or so, and offered what I hoped would be useful information - especially to those here who _do_ run hunt tests and field trials. I respect most of the folks here, and I don't think of it as I posted on the other board. But after so much acrimony...it reminds me of a quote I hadn't seen for a while. "Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret." I let it get to me, and spoke in anger. And I do regret it. Anyone can make of that what they desire...and obviously have.

Interestingly, I have wanted to use Moose for many of these little training clips, and I have for some. But since he has matured, and has begun moving along in training, he makes so few mistakes there really isn't much to show in terms of corrections. But he also got off to a much better start in life than Wimpy (the Lab on the video). But Moose is a lovely dog, and quite a good marker.

I hope you follow more forums than this one for samples of my participation. It's very different from how this one has gone.










Anne with 'Arnie' having completed his MH.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> I posted that clip on three other boards before this one, and have had *no one* react to the chin cuff at all.


I'm sure that style and degree of correction are very common in the field world, so on a board in which most or all members are hunters or field trialers, it probably felt very normal.

But for the rest of us who work in different ways or different venues, and for those who don't work their dogs at all, it's a pretty startling thing to see. From where you're coming from, that correction was a lot _less_ than what you're used to seeing, I'd guess. For many others, it's absolutely shocking, since many non-field training programs (at least those I've seen) don't employ striking the dog in that fashion, even when they do use ear pinching, prongs, and e-collars.


----------



## EvanG

Emma&Tilly said:


> Man alive! I'm pretty sure thats the exact thing that I (and many others) have been *banging on about* since Evan started posting. Considering NOBODY on this rather lovely forum would object to the fact that somebody is working their golden retriever...the ONLY thing that anybody has objected to is the wallop in the face we have seen as a method of training a dog not to mouth.


Perhaps the differences are more subtle than you are able to discern. There is a substantial difference between asking honest, probing questions, and “banging on” someone. There is also a substantial difference between “walloping” a dog in the face (which didn’t happen, by the way) and solidly cuffing a dog under the chin. Mylissyk has illustrated what an actual question looks like, and I’m preparing to reply, as I would to anyone who asked, rather than ‘banged’.


solinvictus said:


> I am a bunny foo foo. I still am very glad that Evan takes the time to come onto the bunny foo foo forum and discuss field training. If I was Evan I might also in frustration said the same.


God bless you! I promise not to have such a lapse again, but I sure appreciate your kindness.


tippykayak said:


> I'm sure that style and degree of correction are very common in the field world, so on a board in which most or all members are hunters or field trialers, it probably felt very normal.


Not as much as you might think. This level of pressure was actually far more common before the Carr-based/e-collar methods that are now prevalent in retriever training. After all this friction, I’m reluctant to even mention what was “common” in days past. I could not sit by and accept it as a norm, so Rex’s ideas really appealed to me. I have continued to refine that method through added incremental steps to make it easier for dogs to understand and graduate from one skill set to the next.


tippykayak said:


> But for the rest of us who work in different ways or different venues, and for those who don't work their dogs at all, it's a pretty startling thing to see. From where you're coming from, that correction was a lot _less_ than what you're used to seeing, I'd guess. For many others, it's absolutely shocking, since many non-field training programs (at least those I've seen) don't employ striking the dog in that fashion, even when they do use ear pinching, prongs, and e-collars.


I understand that, and I appreciate your point of view and reaction to physical pressure. I do want to try, once again, to make it clear that this amount of pressure is a rare exception – not a routine part of my program. Because that event ended up literally sucking all the attention away from the point of the video, we ended up with a protracted spear tossing event instead of a discussion. I wish that had not been the case, which is why I welcome a simple open, honest question about it.

EvanG


----------



## EvanG

missmarstar said:


> Post #2 on this thread, made by me:
> 
> "Is it really necessary to smack the dog's face to make him sit?"
> 
> No accusations, no pretence, just a question that went unanswered. Instead I was called ignorant. Yes, I am ignorant about these field training practices.. That's why I asked.


I missed that post. I'm sorry to have overlooked it. I appreciate all your questions, and will try to provide an adequate explanaiton. However, it was actually fostermom who said, "Remember, *we're ignorant* when it comes to training dogs. Whopping them when they don't do exactly what you want is a good thing!" That was only one of many presumptive comments that led to this sparring match.

In a subsequent post I'll outline more common corrections relative to force fetch, and common faults with mouth habits.

EvanG


----------



## fostermom

EvanG said:


> I missed that post. I'm sorry to have overlooked it. I appreciate all your questions, and will try to provide an adequate explanaiton. However, it was actually fostermom who said, "Remember, *we're ignorant* when it comes to training dogs. Whopping them when they don't do exactly what you want is a good thing!" That was only one of many presumptive comments that led to this sparring match.
> 
> In a subsequent post I'll outline more common corrections relative to force fetch, and common faults with mouth habits.
> 
> EvanG


You are correct, I did say that and it was a preemptive strike. I apologize for that. A few of us have been called ignorant before when we have voiced our dislike for seeing dogs shocked or hit in the name of training. So I jumped the gun and insinuated that you would call us ignorant for speaking up in this thread.


----------



## Emma&Tilly

EvanG said:


> Perhaps the differences are more subtle than you are able to discern. There is a substantial difference between asking honest, probing questions, and “banging on” someone. There is also a substantial difference between “walloping” a dog in the face (which didn’t happen, by the way) and solidly cuffing a dog under the chin.


No, no...it turns in to 'banging on' *about* something (not 'on' someone...that is an expression I have not heard before) when people ask and ask and ask about what the alternatives in training are and it is not really discussed. I can see why you don't discuss it as it is not your style of training. I am also not familiar with the term 'cuffing'. The Oxford Eng dictionary defines it as a '*strike* *with an open hand, especially on the head'*, using the term wallop (lets be honest, a stern strike to the face could be colloquially described as a wallop...not that I did at the beginning of this thread anyway, I actually said you were 'rough' and you whacked the dog...which you..well, did.) AND by page 13 in the discussion I was pretty frustrated with the sentiment that everybody else in the discussion so far has been insincere. Most people, far more knowledgeable than me have really wanted to discuss training methods. I think you have got exactly what you wanted from this thread.


----------



## EvanG

fostermom said:


> You are correct, I did say that and it was a preemptive strike. I apologize for that. A few of us have been called ignorant before when we have voiced our dislike for seeing dogs shocked or hit in the name of training. So I jumped the gun and insinuated that you would call us ignorant for speaking up in this thread.


I understand. Several of us got off on the wrong foot here. The two largest factions for whom I give seminars are HRC clubs here and in Canada, and clubs or groups of trainers whose background is competitive obedience – now crossing over to fieldwork. The lady whose picture I placed in one of my most recent posts is Anne Everett. She’s from Vancouver Island. She’s been very successful making numerous OTCH’s, and has done an outstanding job of moving to fieldwork. She has now trained numerous MH titled Goldens, as well as QAA Goldens. One has Open points, and others have All-Age JAM’s. 

I’m very familiar with the contrast in training styles, as well as some of the all too typical intolerance between the two camps. So I also understand why someone may expect me to scoff at other types of trainers. I try not to allow myself to carry that kind of luggage – even when I am on the receiving end. I understand…it isn’t easy.


Emma&Tilly said:


> No, no...it turns in to 'banging on' *about* something (not 'on' someone...that is an expression I have not heard before) when people ask and ask and ask about what the alternatives in training are and it is not really discussed. I can see why you don't discuss it as it is not your style of training. I am also not familiar with the term 'cuffing'. The Oxford Eng dictionary defines it as a '*strike* *with an open hand, especially on the head'*, using the term wallop (lets be honest, a stern strike to the face could be colloquially described as a wallop...not that I did at the beginning of this thread anyway, I actually said you were 'rough' and you whacked the dog...which you..well, did.) AND by page 13 in the discussion I was pretty frustrated with the sentiment that everybody else in the discussion so far has been insincere. Most people, far more knowledgeable than me have really wanted to discuss training methods. I think you have got exactly what you wanted from this thread.


I'm beginning to. It's evolving into a discussion. I appreciate the clarification. As stated above, I know non-fieldwork folks are used to catching unfair attacks from other trainers, and visa versa. We’ve all become expectant of it, and I hope we can get past it.

Thanks for your posts.

EvanG


----------



## marsh mop

Wow ,miss a day and you miss so much. Bunny-foo-foo, I love it. I train with a bunch of lab guys and thought I had heard it all, that is classic! Jersey's Mom thanks for the heads up on alducks .com, looks like a great duck hunters site. Who is Joel Silverman? Does he do hunt test training or is it more towards field trials. Oh well time to train. Finished test this weekend!
I'm glad to see some excitement here.
JB


----------



## K9-Design

Oh guys, I can't believe I forgot to post this sooner!!!!!!


----------



## Emma&Tilly

Ha! Perfect!


----------



## EvanG

Anney,

You are sooooooooooooo bad! :--devil:

EvanG


----------



## DNL2448

I'm lovin it! Bunny Foo-Foo ROCKS!


----------



## K9-Design

Hey, I embrace my inner (and sometimes, quite outer) bunny foo foo.


----------



## Swampcollie

K9-Design said:


> Oh guys, I can't believe I forgot to post this sooner!!!!!!


Bwaa Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!! 

Anney, You've been a naughty girl!


----------



## rappwizard

I love it! If I can find any photos my husband took several years ago of Jake and Alli, now at the Bridge, and the two house rabbits we had at the time, Lucy and Bandit, also now gone, sitting on the couch together, I will post that too, as Bunny Foo Foo Part II!


----------



## Ljilly28

Jersey's Mom said:


> Disclaimer:
> This conversation has evolved and shifted more than once today, and though I hesitate to disrupt the recent rhythm that has been developing, there are a few things I have to address.
> 
> First, I have no idea if the comment was anywhere near directed toward me, but to address the concept of "fly-by" agitators.... I think it's important to acknowledge that some of us do not have the luxury of participating in this forum at will. I personally am away from home 12 hours a day for work, and though browsing the forum on my phone is a pleasure I enjoy for short spurts (for example, I take about 10 minutes to read and decompress during my lunch break and occasionally browse on the train) posting anything meaningful with it is truly an exercise in futility. I do not post and run by choice... I jump in for a short period in the evenings when my schedule permits. That should not preclude me (or others whose demands make access to the internet a challenge throughout the day) from participating in discussions such as this.
> 
> Second, Anney you raised a very good point in asking what those of us who are turned off by the concept of force fetch think of the breeders/trainers who handled the fine working dogs who produced our pups. In my case, this hits a number of levels... many people I greatly admire, including my father, strongly adhere to this type of program. I do not admire them or their dogs less because of the methods they've chosen and I do my best to learn what I can from them. What I do not do is use their success to justify abandoning my personal standards for training. The feeling I get when I consider their programs or watch them in action is hard to put into words... but it's not doubt in my chosen route and mostly it's a stronger resolve to follow the path I've chosen. psychology of learning out of hand because the practical implications are only now being developed and tested shows a lack of intellectual curiosity that is far more closed-minded than those who have been repeatedly called such in this thread.
> 
> Perhaps this "bunny-foo-foo" forum does not contain the right audience for you. Not all members here participate in field training and not all members here with an interest in the field ascribe to force fetch. Too foo-foo? Too bad. These are the demographics. The low-blow insults and condescension aimed against anyone who dares to disagree with you are not going to quiet your critics and they certainly do nothing to gain our respect or understanding. Think oppositional reflex... it only entices us to pull back harder.
> 
> Julie and Jersey


Julie, thank you for this post. It is thoughtful, salient, and insightful!


----------



## mylissyk

EvanG said:


> Thank your for asking. After 13 pages of accusation and pretence, someone finally...just...asked. I appreciate that.
> 
> First, let me ask; did you watch the video clip, and have you read the description of the dog and his history? I'm asking because I've gone to quite an extent to make it clear that this dog is an exception, and so is the treatment. The video is merely a demo of a logical transition from forcing on bumpers (force to pile) to forcing on real birds. This is a topic that I get lots of questions about, so I put together a short clip showing the transfer of skills to adapt to birds.
> 
> There have been precious few earnest questions here, and I very much appreciate yours.
> 
> EvanG


Yes, actually I did watch the video, and I do understand that this dog at the time had a persistent bad habit of crunching the birds. Even so my question still stands, surely there is another method to correct that problem.

And you still have not answered that question.


----------



## franswit

I'm so not interested in smacking my dog around to get her to do what I want or need...there are other ways!


----------



## EvanG

mylissyk said:


> Yes, actually I did watch the video, and I do understand that this dog at the time had a *persistent bad habit* of crunching the birds. Even so my question still stands, surely there is another method to correct that problem.





mylissyk said:


> And you still have not answered that question.


Not persistent; chronic. And the question was “Is it really necessary to smack the dog's face to make him sit?” The answer to that is “No”. But this is a deeper subject than that. Let me start by framing the topics individually.

There is a standard for ‘Sit’ in high level fieldwork. It begins as simple and superficial as for many other applications, but dynamically expands as training progresses. First, it’s just rump on the ground, sitting up tall and straight on command. I would add that as the dog is acquiring higher standards that the response grows ever quicker.

The AKC steadiness protocols call for a dog on line to “Sit still and quiet as birds fall…”. In addition, we require a still, quiet mouth, and that the dog handle game appropriately. In progressive training we tie in “Quiet” (for noisy dogs on line), and make “Hold” corrections for dogs with mouth issues like the dog in the video, and those a part of the dog’s ‘sit’ standard. Just as we transition from ‘fetch’ to ‘Back’ during T work, we transition from commands like ‘hold’ and ‘quiet’ to blend into the sit standard as it will fall under the single command “sit”. That is why the word “Sit” was spoken in tandem with the correction for the mouthiness problem. That’s probably only half of what you were asking about.

The other is what everyone has obsessed about – the “smack”, “whack”, or in other more correct training verbiage “cuff” under the chin…not the face, for the hundredth time.

Of course there are other things we do for that problem, and I would prefer that the least amount of pressure be involved. As a problem persists, I move to more stringent measures, step by step, as the dog requires. How do I know when enough is “enough”? 

We use pressure in dog training to change the dog’s behavior. If minimal pressure accomplishes that, we use no more. If it doesn’t, we use gradually more pressure, or pressure of a different kind until we reach compliance. We then praise for compliance, and continue drilling to build and hone the skill, as we reduce the roll of pressure to zero – or such is our constant goal.

I used a host of creative measures with “Wimpy” (video dog), but none had lasting effect. We began with walking hold for several weeks, using no more than a long lead, part of which was looped around his muzzle to habituate him to a quiet soft hold. It's nothing more than a steady, gentle reminder to hold quietly.











This worked until the first time a shot was fired in the field. He is just so brimming with desire (and in the well established habit of showing it as seen) that he reverted instantly. Soft taps on the chin – same result.

Using the degree of pressure seen in the video is very rare (for the hundredth time), and is a last resort. That is the answer. I’ll be happy to address further training questions. But I’m done making excuses for the sound and appropriate training seen on that video, whether anyone else agrees with it or not. Each of us decides what our standards are.


franswit said:


> I'm so not interested in smacking my dog around to get her to do what I want or need...there are other ways!


Will you have time for 'other ways', or will you be too busy criticizing what you know nothing about?

EvanG


----------



## DNL2448

There you have it. I think Evan answered "the question" fairly and honestly. Now I hesitated to ask if we can get back to the reason this thread was created, to learn about FTP. It may be too much at this point, however I for one am interested in learning more. 

My question, and perhaps it is for another thread, but how do you decide what your training is going to be for instance: I know what my dog needs to work on...let's say swinging wide to the mark. Knowing what his issue is, what does your training need to take into account...wind, terrain, etc. My biggest problem is until now, I have never taken wind into consideration (though I am looking to get a puffer bottle with baby powder and start incorporating that into my set up). Basically I guess I am asking is how to plan your session to get the most out of it?


----------



## EvanG

DNL2448 said:


> There you have it. I think Evan answered "the question" fairly and honestly. Now I hesitated to ask if we can get back to the reason this thread was created, to learn about FTP. It may be too much at this point, however I for one am interested in learning more.


Laura,

This is a separate issue from your questions below. So let’s cover FTP here, and perhaps start a new thread on organizing a training regimen for specific issues? If you have questions about FTP please list them here, and I’ll address any of them you like.


DNL2448 said:


> My question, and perhaps it is for another thread, but how do you decide what your training is going to be for instance: I know what my dog needs to work on...let's say swinging wide to the mark.


I want to make sure I understand your question. Are you asking about multiple marking set ups, where you’ll need the dog to move with you, or swing with the gun barrel as they do in HRC? Or is the purely hypothetical?


DNL2448 said:


> Knowing what his issue is, what does your training need to take into account...wind, terrain, etc?


I suppose more specific background will help move this topic along. But regardless of the issue, one of the most helpful guides a trainer can have is a well-kept training journal. You’ll not only track specific behavioral issues, but also tendencies in the dog that will be important. Such considerations as how prone a given dog is to drifting in a crossing wind should appear in your journal. Other items, like needing to be stronger on short middle retired memory marks, and negotiating points, and so on – all will guide your planning.


DNL2448 said:


> My biggest problem is until now, I have never taken wind into consideration (though I am looking to get a puffer bottle with baby powder and start incorporating that into my set up). Basically I guess I am asking is how to plan your session to get the most out of it?


The better you are at journal keeping, the easier it will be for you to plan constructive sessions over a course of time. As a side note, I check wind by simply grabbing a handful of grass, holding it up and letting it drift in the wind.

Judges usually try to adjust tests according to the forecast of prevailing wind, and set up their tests usually downwind. I alternate my training for downwind and crossing wind, depending on my goals.

Taking this information as a start, how do you feel about starting a new thread to proceed with it, and address FTP issues here?

EvanG


----------



## DNL2448

I'll start a new thread. But my break is over, so I'll post tonight. Thanks Evan.


----------



## DNL2448

Okay first question...

Why force to pile? My understanding is that is to keep dogs from shopping around. However all hunt tests and field trials I have been to there is only one bird thrown. I know that in actual hunting situations, multiple birds fall, but wouldn't the training need to be more focused on the recall? Am I way out in left field and missing the point?

In the now infamous video, it looked like Evan was using the long line for a quick turn around, again, isn't this a recall issue? 

I imagine that about 50% of us reading this thread are also planning to or currently working dogs in utility and scent discrimination. Someone briefly touched on this, earlier however it was lost in the "foo fooness". Would the FTP cause issues with the SD? If not, why not and how do we seperate the two?


----------



## kgiff

DNL2448 said:


> Would the FTP cause issues with the SD? If not, why not and how do we seperate the two?


I have not done either sent discrimination or pile work yet, but I know you could dedicate a whole topic just to that issue alone. I've read so many experiences and theories on other forums and mailing lists, but I'm not familiar enough with either concept to really understand the details of what people were saying. Like everything else in training, different people have different ways of training each, different reasonings as to which should be done first and why, and different levels of expectations set for cross-trained dogs.


----------



## EvanG

DNL2448 said:


> Okay first question. Why force to pile? My understanding is that is to keep dogs from shopping around.


I understand that perception. That’s a logical result of taking the obvious at face value. And, indeed, de-shopping is a component of the process. It just isn’t it’s focus, so thanks for asking.

Fort to pile, aka FTP, is a net result of the multi-phase force fetch process. Force fetch is widely misunderstood, which is why I devoted an entire book, as well as a 2-½ hour DVD to it. More is wrongly assumed about it, than correctly understood. There are still a great many people who assume that FF is done purely for the sake of a hand delivery. That, of course, is a fraction of the story.

FF, in modern methodology, represents the “trained retrieve”. It grooms the performance of a naturally driven act into its most highly useful and efficient form. Because FTP is the final stage of construction, it represents “the fully-trained retrieve”. What that means is that, having formalized fundamental obedience tasks, we then set out to form all the components of force fetch, and finally assembled them into one dynamic form. FTP brings all those things together in a high functioning state that makes a good retriever a better and more reliable one.

A dog so trained walks at heel and sits on command. There, he may be sent on a mark or blind retrieve as commanded. He will go reliably, fetch the first appropriate fetch object he comes to cleanly and efficiently, and return promptly to the handlers side, sit and deliver – all on command. The fundamental obedience commands & tasks are tied to well organized mouth habits for the most effective form of retrieve, which can be relied upon regardless of circumstances or the whims or moods of the dog.

That’s why.


DNL2448 said:


> However all hunt tests and field trials I have been to there is only one bird thrown. I know that in actual hunting situations, multiple birds fall, but wouldn't the training need to be more focused on the recall? Am I way out in left field and missing the point?


If you have the opportunity to watch enough tests and/or trials, you will see dogs that get to the bird, and do things like look back at the handler, roll it with their feet, or roll on the bird…put a foot on it, and rip feathers from it, and a host of things – none of which are equal to fetching cleanly and returning promptly to the handler. They’re just obeying their natural whims, of course. But that is a poor execution of their work, and reveal poor training and preparation.


DNL2448 said:


> In the now infamous video, it looked like Evan was using the long line for a quick turn around, again, isn't this a recall issue?


Recall is only a component of the _'formalized obedience' _I spoke of. It’s a vitally important one, but still only one piece. They are tied together. The rope is a low-pressure enforcement in the early stages of building the fully trained retrieve, and ensures that when the dog reaches the first bumper, he goes no further, but rather fetches that bumper and returns as commanded. Recall was already taught. The distraction of other bumpers right before his eyes temps him to allow that standard to be diluted into disobedience; not coming when called. We simply enforce the commands with tugs of the rope in conjunction with verbally calling the dog. 



DNL2448 said:


> I imagine that about 50% of us reading this thread are also planning to or currently working dogs in utility and scent discrimination. Someone briefly touched on this, earlier however it was lost in the "foo fooness". Would the FTP cause issues with the SD? If not, why not and how do we separate the two?


SD is not one of the things a title like “Hunting and Field Forum” brought to mind, so I did not have that pursuit in mind with this topic. But I can see where FF (incl. FTP) might either end up helping or hurting in that venue. One of the foremost authorities in the SD field, Roger Sigler - Master Trainer, and acquaintance of mine and follower of my system for fieldwork, would be an outstanding source for that information. He bought a copy of the SmartFetch DVD because he believed that system would improve his dog’s SD performance. I defer to his expertise. His website is very informative. http://www.antlerdogs.com/

EvanG


----------

