Forced Retrieve Versus Other Methods

[Steve K9Pro]

WS: I hope these folk were in the process of engaging your services, as IMO they are clearly in need of assistance.

K9: well yes they were however, it wasnt so clear & usually isnt unl someone poins it out...

WS: Minimal experience is enough to teach that sort of physicality is going to kill the drive in all but the most hardened (wilful/hard-headed) dogs, and even with these dogs sustained physical abuse must eventually take it's toll. My setters are very responsive dogs and would be quickly destroyed by such a training approach.

K9: I guess what happens is, the dog makes a mistake by trying to satisfy its own drive, the people want that mistake gone & their main priority is just that, & not maintaining drive...

WS: A good example of what I'm talking about happened on Friday, I let the dogs out for their morning run, they run around emptying out etc, when they smell a rabbit in a brush pile. They start working the brush pile enthusiastically, round and round, squeezing their way deeper and deeper into the pile. After about 10 mins the flush the rabbit from the depths of the pile, they see the rabbit flush and begin to give pursuit, they've taken about two steps in pursuit of the rabbit when I hit the stop whistle. They were in a state of high excitement, they badly wanted that rabbit, but the instant I blew the whistle, they sat, and their attention focused on me. The dogs weren't cowered into submission, I walked over to the dogs, praised them for a very nice stop and cast them off in a different direction, they took off full of drive in search of new game.

K9: thats a great test! Can I ask, why did they stop? why would they when they are so driven...

I believe there are only two reasons why a dog would stop under these conditions...

[Erny]

Erny.

In general terms not doing the job correctly can have fatal consequences for a gundog.

In Victoria there are 4 different gundog trial games for people and their dogs to play to play. 3 of these involve shooting live ammunition.

I don't need to paint a picture for you of a dog running in at the wrong time.

Country Joe. That's a different scenario. My musing/conversation was in relation to the difference between a dog taking and holding a dumbell as opposed to not doing so. It wasn't about the dog running when he's not supposed to run. The latter is probably more in line with the obedience control within community that I spoke of.

When you actually stand up there with a blue ribbon in your hand it is a whole new world ...

I don't wish to detract or denegrate from the joys (and the hard work that goes before it) of achieving ultimate goals in competition. But isn't 'sport' about the dog being the best dog? In other words, the dog doing what he does because 'its in him' as opposed to doing what he does only because of the form of discomfort he has received in 'making' him do it?

Don't get me wrong, please. I train in obedience by using, where necessary (and only then) aversives. The reason I do this is because the field of obedience is not IMO a sport (speaking generally) .... it is a necessity if our dogs are going to be permitted to live within the society we are.

I also see nothing wrong with the gentler forms of FR (eg. the "Guide, Show, Place" method that Steve Austin has demonstrated as discussed in earlier posts here) as to my mind it may be about simply showing the dog what action is required for the dog to achieve his ultimate goal. IE Drive satisfaction. But I can identify the difference between that and a dog that has learnt that picking up the dumbell is what he needs to do to avoid unpleasantries.

I’ve heard this argument on community safety used before like it’s supposed to mean something. Like someone is taking the moral high ground. Give me a break.

No "moral high ground" here. Purely discussional as far as I'm concerned. I don't have to like FR (but my mind is open if I can recognise true and necessary purpose) nor practice it and I don't believe I have put anyone down for their opposite view in my earlier post. So I don't think I need to "give you a break" as my approach in this thread is not intended as threatening or challenging. But it is intended as thought provocation - at least on my part. Perhaps you're fed up with hearing the type of musings I utter here? For me, though, it's new and therefore fresh and therefore an area where I can stand to learn and therefore self-educate.

Edited December 11, 2006 by Erny

[Working_Setters]

K9: thats a great test! Can I ask, why did they stop? why would they when they are so driven...

I believe the dogs stopped b/c they have been conditioned to stop.

I have spent a lot of time training stop. I start in a distraction free environment and teach stop to whistle, then gradually increase distractions. I do it gradually, over a period of time, stop to whistle is the bedrock on which I build all my other training, so I want it solid, not rushed. It's nothing negative, dogs understand sitting to whistle will please me, they are happy and confident, knowing that stopping will earn my praise.

My dogs are NEVER allowed to get away with not stopping, once I blow that whistle the dogs WILL stop, even if I have to run them down, drag them back to the spot where they ignored the whistle and physically push their butt to the ground. (E-collar can make that process much easier on both me and the dogs). I guess the whistle becomes "god-like" to the dogs, whenever they hear it they WILL sit, one way or the other. Usually, if training is correctly paced, dogs will only "try it on" (not stop to whistle) a couple of times, after that, they understand that stopping to whistle is unconditional. We practice it over and over, dogs are just out playing, running flat out, I hit the whistle - they hit the deck, I praise and release, they resume playing and running flat out. Everybody is happy.

Over time (my current dogs are just achieving this) stop becomes a reflexive action, there is no thought of not stopping. Dogs hear the whistle, their training kicks in and their butt hits the deck, no matter what is going on around them.

Dogs ALWAYS stopping instantly to whistle is of premium importance to me. However dogs that run HARD and hunt with great DESIRE are also of premium importance to me. I go to great pains to achieve both.

K9: I believe there are only two reasons why a dog would stop under these conditions...

I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: I believe there are only two reasons why a dog would stop under these conditions...

WS: I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.

K9: ok, think of this concept...

WS: My dogs are NEVER allowed to get away with not stopping, once I blow that whistle the dogs WILL stop, even if I have to run them down, drag them back to the spot where they ignored the whistle and physically push their butt to the ground. (E-collar can make that process much easier on both me and the dogs). I guess the whistle becomes "god-like" to the dogs, whenever they hear it they WILL sit, one way or the other. Usually, if training is correctly paced, dogs will only "try it on" (not stop to whistle) a couple of times, after that, they understand that stopping to whistle is unconditional.

K9: or what? They recieve some unpleasantness as we have discussed....

So the dogs dont really "want" to stop as much as they feel they have to to avoid the consequences...

Enough reps with the dog recieving no consequences usually returns attitude to the dog, I agree..

But when I train in drive, I want the dog to stop in prey drive, not exit prey drive though avoidance... I think this drive swicthing & taking your mind off the job (& puting it back on yourself) takes the clear head away from the dog...

& I further think that if the trainer is simply asking a lil too much too quick, more consequences are issued & drive is lost...

I like to take more control of the reward & have the dog stop as it believes it will have a better chance to get drive satisfaction, by listening to me...

WS: Dogs ALWAYS stopping instantly to whistle is of premium importance to me. However dogs that run HARD and hunt with great DESIRE are also of premium importance to me. I go to great pains to achieve both.

K9: Some of the methods I have can take some of the pain out of training....

[dogdude]

Hi Erny

Im having a little difficulty in understanding your view on the FR and obedience. Do you trial?

The difference between obedience and a sport is obviously the trial. I find it hard to think it is not a sport when they hand out prizes for the various categorys etc. The points system is still the benchmark criteria for a title, but at some stage it did become a sport.

As previously stated, I for one wouldnt teach FR to a non trialling dog. If trialling was originally designed to showcase a dog that "fits into society" then why do we need to teach them retrieve in the first place? Same could be said of countless other useless exercises incorporated into a trial.

Personally, I would like to see a review on the exercises with more relevance to modern society.

This is probably for a different thread. (dont quote me too quickly, I would have to think about it)

[country joe]

K9

I don't have any issues with what your advocating.

As a matter of fact it makes a lot of sense.

I am interested in how it is applied in the field.

Have you worked with many retriever trainers?

If you have, what level of success did they have before using your methods and what level of success have they had using your methods?

Country Joe. who doesn't advocate FF.

[Steve K9Pro]

CJ: K9

I don't have any issues with what your advocating.

As a matter of fact it makes a lot of sense.

I am interested in how it is applied in the field.

K9: Its applied through the concepts of reward manipulation.

CJ: Have you worked with many retriever trainers?

K9: yes a few...

CJ: If you have, what level of success did they have before using your methods and what level of success have they had using your methods?

K9: Thats a hard question to answer, if I tell you about those dogs that have won since converting to my concepts, those dogs may have won anyway, who is to know..

This example may be of more relevance, I worked with some guys maybe a year ago, 2 day workshop, on the second day, we got to run the participants trained dogs.

At the addition of this concept, problems that had bee arising in training, such as mouthing, non stopping on the whistle, stress related issues such as vocalising etc, refusing to hand over the birds etc all were all showing signs of improvement in only 2 - 3 runs...

[country joe]

Thats ok.

I was just trying to get a handle on the level of retriever trainer you have been dealing with.

Your answer tells me a lot.

Do you believe your method means the electric collar or running shoes are no longer needed or just less often.?

country joe.

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: If your dog has already been trained how to win the reward over you, then some of these may be required, if you start with a pup, likely you will need none...

Depends heavily on the assesment made on the dog at the time...

But always wear appropriate foot wear. lol...

[Sardog]

CJ:

I am very interested in the search & rescue dog you have bred is?

And also the lines of the retrieving trial dogs you have bred?

[country joe]

Now if I told you that you would know who I was wouldn't you.

Well ok.

To my understanding there are two internationally accredited search and rescue dogs in Oz.

I bred one.

As for the retrieving dogs I have bred a National winner. but don't consider myself a dog breeder.

I can at least and in the dim dark past have trained a dog or two in retrieving trials and field trials. What do they say been there got the T shirts. They are very old and ratty.

Hell, I have even been in an OB competition, I think 3 to be exact.

but don't consider myself a dog trainer.

I am of course willing to discuss dog training. They didn't kick me out of the 3 OB trials so that has to stand for something.

Now you kow who I am, I have a question for you.

Where is my birthday card???????

country joe.

[Sardog]

OMG... all these months I have been reading your posts and no idea who you were!

As for the birthday card...."it's in the mail" late, but in the mail.

Breed me another sardog please.

[Erny]

Hi Erny

Im having a little difficulty in understanding your view on the FR and obedience. Do you trial?

The difference between obedience and a sport is obviously the trial.

Hi Dogdude.

I apologise that I am not wording myself very well. Might I be excused by the fact that the Retrieving Trial world is very new to me. I've seen some very good demonstrations as well as having had a number of opportunities to watch dogs being trained in this regime. But that is the extent of my 'experience' in that particular application. So no, I don't trial. Nor do I trial obedience. As far as hard work leading up to trials and the "world" of competition is concerned (and sometimes the heartache when things don't go right on the day), I am familiar, having competed for quite some time in equestrian eventing and dressage.

When we speak of dogs, my personal interpretation of:

"Obedience" : A discipline in which the canine learns to 'perform' to high standard of reliability under a very broad spectrum of every day distractions that form part of the lives of human society.

"Sport" : A demonstration of performance ability. (ie Not necessarily "performance reliability")

My interpretation is "loose" and is not designed to inflame. Nor is it intended to sound cynical (which it may well do, given the loss of tone in the written word). But I do see and hear of many "obedience triallers" who work for a very high and polished performance in the ring, but do not or cannot (time restraints? practicalities?) aim for such standards outside of the ring.

So, I regard "sport" as a performance that within that environment (for a good part at least) is not a necessity in life.

I regard "obedience" as a performance without which our dogs would not be tolerated by us, by our neighbours, by the community or even (eventually) the eyes of the law. Not to mention the injurious potential to the dogs themselves.

Personally, I would like to see a review on the exercises with more relevance to modern society.

I think that would be an excellent move, DD.

This is probably for a different thread. (dont quote me too quickly, I would have to think about it) :p

I'll look forward to reading on it when you create it.

I trust I have explained myself more clearly to all and sundry. My mind is thinking "is it the BEST dog if FR (of the more aversive nature ..... and that's a generalised statement if ever I heard one!) is the only reason the dog "made it"? Or, is the BEST dog the dog that was able to do the (in this case) retrieve by virtue of its natural instincts only? (This is STILL not worded quite the way I wish ..... I hope my intended meaning is clear enough.) I guess part of the answer to that is whether the "trained" dog is then performing because he seeks drive satisfaction, or whether he is doing so because he's feels from an outside influence that he MUST.

ETA: CJ. I think I might have guessed at who you might be and if I'm thinking correctly (and having used my limited powers of deduction ) then I am compelled to congratulate you on your fine breeding. Of course, I don't wish to detract from the fine training that has also been instilled to achieve the high standard your bred-dog exhibits in his line of work. But it helps greatly that the right "ingredients" were there to begin with. ;) A fine 'specimen' if I may say so.

Edited December 11, 2006 by Erny

[country joe]

Having a decent pup is only the start of a long road.

If the training isn't there you end up with a mess anyway.

We all and I include myself here, should remember that arguing about FF is just a natural thing.

Below is a link to an American Retriever Training site.

The people in this thread are all FF users and they are arguing about teaching the hold command before FF.

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/vi...pic.php?t=38908

Country Joe

[dogdude]

I think the guy getting flamed in the US thread has a valid point, If the dog knows fetch, it should already know that hold is a component. The others seem to be arguing that "hold"should be used to correct or warn a dog that is mouthing, or looking like it is about to drop the retreive article/bird? Does'nt make sense to me.

[MrsD]

I think the guy getting flamed in the US thread has a valid point, If the dog knows fetch, it should already know that hold is a component. The others seem to be arguing that "hold"should be used to correct or warn a dog that is mouthing, or looking like it is about to drop the retreive article/bird? Does'nt make sense to me.

I can understand teaching both hold & fetch & sometimes using the commands separately, at least when training. I can see what you are saying - if the dog already knows fetch then a secondary command (like hold) shouldn't be necessary? But think of the other times in training when you use a secondary command eg. in the recall you tell the dog to come, then sometimes may give it a different command to correct its sit in front (like closer or whatever you use) etc, I dont think its much different.

I like to teach my dogs hold & fetch separately, I work up to the point where I can give my dogs something to hold while they do a sit stay or while they do a heeling workout, to me it is a separate command, even though fetch incorporates it.

(sorry if this is completely offtrack & irrelevant to what you were commenting on - I am only relating it to obedience trials & I havent actually read the US thread ).

[dogdude]

Hi MrsD

Yeah, in the learning stage of most new exercises I will give a double command while "showing" the dog what I want, but I dont invent another adjustment command, just gently guide the dog physically into the correct position using lots of praise. I cant see merrit in continually verbally correcting or warning during a retreiving trial as in that thread. To me its training the dog to not bother remembering.

[country joe]

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/vi...pic.php?t=38873

want some more.

Here is one about a dog that won't open its mouth for FF.

Smartwork is a book. Smartwork for Retrievers by Even Graham

for those who wonder what the hell it is.

A google search will find it.

country joe.

[MrsD]

Hi MrsD

Yeah, in the learning stage of most new exercises I will give a double command while "showing" the dog what I want, but I dont invent another adjustment command, just gently guide the dog physically into the correct position using lots of praise. I cant see merrit in continually verbally correcting or warning during a retreiving trial as in that thread. To me its training the dog to not bother remembering.

I can see what you are saying, but I do train an "adjustment" command like "close" if the dog isnt sitting close enough at heel or in front whilst physically putting the dog in the correct position, lots of praise etc. My logic is that if I walk up to the start peg in an obedience trial & my dog sits wide, I want to be able to correct its position using a command rather than physically putting it in position (which would probably get me thrown out of the trial ring ) or moving myself x times around & around until the dog gets it correct.

(btw, once again, Im just talking about my own training for obedience, Ive never had the pleasure of seeing a retieving trial or competing in one, that's probably a whole different ball game )

Edited to clarify something.

Edited December 12, 2006 by MrsD

[dogdude]

Hi MrsD

Me either! My comments are based on obedience as well. I would love to watch a retreiving trial and learn it but I doubt my Bull Terrier or Staffy would be very interested!