Forced Retrieve Versus Other Methods

[dogdude]

Just interested in hearing your views on the forced retrieve as it is a subject very rarely brought up. Personally, I see it in the same basket as prong collars when it comes to misconceptions.

Pehaps you have reasons for having a different view?

Edited December 7, 2006 by dogdude

[MolassesLass]

DD is this a fair description of forced retrieval?

[dogdude]

Yes Mollassaslas, but very vague at best! What I am interested in is actually how many DOL triallers use it, and if not, what was it that made them choose the methods they do use? I find it strange that many people at dog obedience clubs are so afraid that when they reach the trialling classes that their dog wont retrieve because they're not intrested. On the other hand, a lot of clubs teach retrieve as a play type exercise. I know a large percentage of these instructors use the forced retrieve themselves. I have seen many people give up on the idea because they dont own a playfull dog that "plays fetch". "Fetch", is not "retrieve".

[Staranais]

I don't see the advantage of teaching a formal retrieve by the force retrieve method, not when compared to teaching it with something like the clicker method. Can you explain what the advantages are?

In general, I'm not a fan of using corrections on a dog in the learning phase, not until the dog understands what he's meant to be doing. But to be fair, I have never seen anyone use a forced retrieve.

[Cosmolo]

I asked this question to Steve Austin a few years ago regarding my own dog who i couldn't get to hold things in her mouth- she was only 6 months old at the time. Steve demonstrated a forced retrieve with a dog or two and i don't think there is anything wrong with it when done properly. As it turned out Steve suggested a positive retrieve approach for my girl (basically building drive) which was brilliant. So, once again- it depends on the dog.

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: First, I dont believe all dogs will make good retrievers, so having that said, if I could not get a dog to retrieve through motivatio, I would choose another dog or give up on the retrieve before going to force.

There are many varying degrees of the Forced fetch/retrieve, some can be so barbaric its unthinkable...

The say & I dont argue that the forced retrieve is the most accurate & reliable retrieve there is. But I feel the atitude (drive) of the dog can be lost in this part of he excercise, & the stress that can come from it & the fact that you lose your "clear headed" dog makes the forced Retrieve out of my desired training methods...

[Kelpie-i]

I can't really see the reason behind forced retrieves, especially those involving ear pinches and the like. I'm like K9 in that if the dog doesn't retrieve using motivation, then either use another dog or try a different exercise.

I know the method used by Steve Austin and it certainly isn't a bad sort of method compared to some. But I have also seen the ear pinch and thought it was absolutely outrageous - all in the name of an obedience title.

[dogdude]

Hi Amhailte

I too aggree with you about using corrections during the learning phase, but for whatever reason (possibly fear of changing a winning method), make an exception for the retreive although once learnt, revert to food drive for motivation.

To answer your question about the advantages, IMO reliability.

K9: I too agree with your thoughts about a clear headed dog regarding any exercise. Do you think that what I have done about changing the dogs drive would make a difference? I think that when learning this exercise at first they seem a little reserved of their opinion of it until it is made clear. By introducing the food drive seems to have quickly made it his favorite exercise, but at the same time, kept his reliability. By combining the two, he was reliably retreiving (without full proofing) in about a week and a half. He had no natural play drive to fetch before this.

Please remember that I am not here to argue which method is better, just interested in everyones opinions!

[MonElite]

As I dont have any experience in either I cant say what I preffer. But obviously using of any type of force isnt my preference.

What I would like to know is if someone has one dog and wants to do a competition obidience and the dog wont retrieve through drive than what? Get rid of the dog? Forget about competing of move over to plan B of the forced retrieve?

What do people do?

[Staranais]

To answer your question about the advantages, IMO reliability.

I understand the use of corrections to make the dog reliable under distraction.

What I don't understand is what the advantage is of using corrections in the learning phase, before the dog knows how to avoid them? Why not teach the retrieve with positive methods (like clicker), then once the exercise is learned you can correct for disobedience?

Just thinking that this is what most people do when training most of the other obedience exercises - teach with positive, then proof with corrections once the exercise is known - and these other exericses all seem to turn out reliable enough. Why would the retrieve be different?

(That's a genuine question, BTW, I know very little about the forced retrieve so don't have a closed mind either way).

[Working_Setters]

Force retrieving (FR) isn't that common in Oz, our gundog training methods are largely inherited from the British, who traditionally also don't use FR. However the vast majority of working gundogs, working retrievers etc in the USA and parts of Europe (Germany for example) are routinely FR.

The advantage of FR? IMO, and in the opinion of the hundreds of thousands of other folk that use this method, it makes a dog a more dependable retriever. Obedience trials etc are one thing, but when you are using a dog to retrieve shot ducks etc, then a dog refusing a retrieve is not acceptable. If you are going to shoot an animal, then you need to make every effort to recover that animal for the table, that includes having a well trained dog.

The problem I have with not FRing a dog is this, if you say "FETCH" and the dog doesn't go, how do you enforce the command? If I say "SIT" and the dog's ass doesn't hit the grass, there will be a negative consequence for the dog. If I say "COME" and the dog ignores this command, there will be a negative consequence for the dog. Why should "FETCH" be any different? FR gives you the structure to be able to apply a negative to a dog refusing a "FETCH" command and it's done in such a way that the dog knows to stop/prevent the negative, all it has to do is obey the "FETCH" command. I don't know how to achieve this with any other method of teaching fetch.

ETA: I'm talking about applying a negative to trained dog, a dog that knows what the command means, but has decided it would prefer not to obey. Ignoring COME in preference to chasing a rabbit for example.

I know there are some barbaric idiots out there, but done correctly (or at least what I consider to be correctly) FR results in minimal discomfort to the dog. Like all other corrections, it's about timing and reading the dog, not causing the maximum amount of pain. That's cruel and pointless in every aspect of training (or at least every aspect of training with which I familiar) and FR is no different.

[Steve K9Pro]

DD: I too aggree with you about using corrections during the learning phase, but for whatever reason (possibly fear of changing a winning method), make an exception for the retreive although once learnt, revert to food drive for motivation.

K9: using the old training rule, "the command must be seen by the dog to earn a reward" means that if you start with force, the command will be seen as an opportunity to avoid pain, you wont change this association in a hurry. Hence the dog is in avoidance through part of the excercise, ie: not clear headed.

D: Do you think that what I have done about changing the dogs drive would make a difference?

K9: No, I havent seen what you do with food but most people dont have a food driven dog.

They have one that understands; an action = piece of food, there is no drive, no adrenalin or high state of arousal.

This can be acheived with food in some dogs but few go that far...

DD: I think that when learning this exercise at first they seem a little reserved of their opinion of it until it is made clear.

K9: in more advanced excercises we call this freezing... The lack of willinness to do anything in avoidance of pain or the threat of... The dog isnt in pain now, so it keeps this state going rather than run the risk of finding the pain.....

DD: By introducing the food drive seems to have quickly made it his favorite exercise, but at the same time, kept his reliability. By combining the two, he was reliably retreiving (without full proofing) in about a week and a half. He had no natural play drive to fetch before this.

K9: I guess I am talking about more than dumbell retrieval in your back yard. Keep in mind he is not fetching in prey drive now either..

Adding pressure or making the retrieve part of some more complicated excercises (ie adding pressure) will usually see a dog like this freeze a whole lot more...

Again, when people have a dog the go looking for a sport to compete in, I dont think many of those people change the world. Those that choose a dog for the sport often do.

I was at a seminar where a guy was teaching tracking, a suden brought his dog along wearing a botcher. (A device to keep the dogs nose on the ground)

The teacher took the botcher off & said, we dont teach Girraffes to track here, if he dont want his nose on the ground, he isnt a real tracker, get a dog that is, he then said he was just saving anyone serious, a lot of time....

I also believe that the true champions of a sport are not switching drives every two minutes from food to prey & back again.... This will not leave the dog clear headed either..

Edited December 7, 2006 by K9 Force

[Steve K9Pro]

WS: The advantage of FR? IMO, and in the opinion of the hundreds of thousands of other folk that use this method, it makes a dog a more dependable retriever. Obedience trials etc are one thing, but when you are using a dog to retrieve shot ducks etc, then a dog refusing a retrieve is not acceptable.

K9: More dependable, thats a possibility, as I said I wont argue that, but.. It takes a much harder dog to work for long periods of time in a FR. Many of the successful dogs are stacked on a mountain of failures...

I also think that you will get a high degree of reliability from a high prey driven dog, maybe only equal to or just under the FR dog, but for me thats worth it...

WS: The problem I have with not FRing a dog is this, if you say "FETCH" and the dog doesn't go, how do you enforce the command?

K9: there are ways & means... Most start by adding discomfort, & having the dog turn off the discomfort or pain, by holding or fetching for eg...

I may even hold a dumbell in my mouth if some one had fishing wire round my toe or pliers on my ear...

[dogdude]

I personally use the ear pinch method. Like all other aversive methods, IMO are not cruel or

barbaric. Thats just the reason I liken the method to prong collars as far as misconception goes. If you pinch your own ear you will find it uncomfortable, but not barbaric.

Like all other aversive methods, they are not used constantly on the dog for all of time.

I certainly see the points made about getting a dog for the job, if you had that luxury, but in the real world of pet owners, not practical.

Personally, I cant see merrit in getting rid of a dog because it was not genetically geared to do a certain task otherwise we would not need to train dogs to do anything that they were not bred for. This is why the forced retrieve is great for dogs that were not bred to do so, if not an alternative.

K9: Pliers? fishing wire? WTF??? I certainly would never go that far and cant see a reason for anybody to go there in the first place!

THANKS FOR ALL YOUR OPINIONS AND KEEP THEM COMING!

Edited December 7, 2006 by dogdude

[Steve K9Pro]

DD: I personally use the ear pinch method. Like all other aversive methods, IMO are not cruel or

barbaric. Thats just the reason I liken the method to prong collars as far as misconception goes.

K9: no, it is nothing like the prong collar. Aversives I will use are to stop the dog doing something, eg: pulling on the leash...

Motivators I use are for getting the dog to do something eg: fetch a dumbell..

DD: I certainly see the points made about getting a dog for the job, if you had that luxury, but in the real world of pet owners, not practical.

K9: & for a "pet", neither is the retrieve..

I always am fascinated about people who talk about the "real world". The real world is the world that each of us live in, & for each of us its different.

DD: Personally, I cant see merrit in getting rid of a dog because it was not genetically geared to do a certain task otherwise we would not need to train dogs to do anything that they were not bred for.

K9: if you are out to win a retrieving trial, then keeping a dog that cant win would be a mistake.

If your just playing retrieve with your family pet, I would ask you, why would a family pinch a pets ear to get something that is not a requirement?

As for whats dogs were bred for, what dog was "bred" to walk in the heel position?

DD: This is why the forced retrieve is great for dogs that were not bred to do so, if not an alternative.

K9: no, thats also incorrect, FR was designed in an era of force, there were no motivational methods back then... (Only Dinasours lol)

DD: K9: Pliers? fishing wire? WTF??? I certainly would never go that far and cant see a reason for anybody to go there in the first place!

K9: They do because they feel it is neccessary. They might say something like....

DD wrote: Like all other aversive methods, they are not used constantly on the dog for all of time.

Edited December 7, 2006 by K9 Force

[Kelpie-i]

DD, you are using the ear pinch to teach the dog the retrieve, not as a correction for not retrieving. This is the difference.

Sorry, but IMO, I feel the ear pinch method is completely unnecessary. I remember having my ear pinched as a young mischievious child and it bloody hurt!

[Steve K9Pro]

KI: DD, you are using the ear pinch to teach the dog the retrieve, not as a correction for not retrieving. This is the difference.

K9: A very popular method with the ear pinch is escape training, pinch the ear until the dog holds the dumbell, then when it does release the pressure, when the dog drops the dumbell you increase the pressure.

I will be the first to say it works, & it works very well if you can carry out it without emotion.

But it also extinguishes the dogs drive so you get a very slow retrieve, the asthetics of the dog look very poor also..

[dogdude]

K9: Question: Would you agree that most trialling dogs start life as simple pets purchased without intention of trialling?

Question: Would you really get rid of a pet in order to get a retreiving dog?

Question: Are you so against obedience trialling that you find need to twist every sentence I and others have written in order to mock people?

I can appreciate that you are a qualified person but surely this cant be good for your business?

I do however appreciate your constructive thoughts on the matter.

I would like to add that I certainly would not bother to teach a pet fetch forcefully because fetch is play, retrieve IMO is work.

Anyway, moving on.....

Edited December 7, 2006 by dogdude

[Working_Setters]

But it also extinguishes the dogs drive so you get a very slow retrieve, the asthetics of the dog look very poor also..

Certainly that is a possibility, but IMO it very much depends on the trainer. I have seen many, many dogs that were FRed in this way that were extremely driven/snappy(fast)/happy/determined retrievers.

ETA I'm talking about working and trialing gundogs, I have no experience with other breeds and obedience trials etc.

[dogdude]

Kelpie-i

I use it to "teach", not correct. The reason I posted this was to get different opinions and also to highlight some misconceptions, and I thank you for your opinion.