Modern training methods

[Naj]

It’s a long time since I had cockers but I did find that more retrieving issues cropped up with them than with springers, which I always found pretty straightforward. I think she mentions that she’d tried the dog on cold game previously and as a result of this had decided to revert back to a form of clicker retrieve, which is likely what the dog was used to with dummies. The clicker retrieve is really the force free equivalent of the forced retrieve and is effective at ironing out any issues and if you look at the following video she has a nice retrieve to hand of cold game. But if you are considering ‘modern’ training methods as being force free, then trainers do take advantage of the dog’s natural retrieving desire the same as has been described by Nick and WGD and if their dog is keen to dash out and return will develop it from there and just work on any weaknesses.

Reward based trainers work on food motivation from the get-go so I don’t believe that to be detrimental to ‘drive’ or desire to find or retrieve game, after all, they are working with the same bloodlines, temperaments and drives as any other trainer. Certainly, where young dogs in training are concerned and good habits are being developed it’s important to keep them reward motivated around game and keen to work for reward and edible rewards are simply the most convenient to use when it comes to clicker training.

Naj

[Nickheref]

I wasn't knocking the training method as the dog is happy and keen but I just get the impression from this and other films in the series that the end result is not necessarily to have a good shooting companion, which might be done a lot easier, but rather a well trained (possibly over trained) dog and the whole point is training and the dog following the instructions. As Naj said some time ago we are becoming a nation of trainers rather than people who use dogs for a purpose for which they were bred. That is my major concern as in practice you are breeding out ability in favour of blind obedience to follow commands no matter how taught.
That does not produce dogs who are prepared to hunt difficult cover, out of sight using their own initiative to find a bird that you are uncertain of the fall and possibly may have run, unseen by you.

[newf]

An example of useless training for real field conditions. https://share.icloud.com/photos/08ZyLGm ... GUm4-mmpEQ

[CockerCanuck]

An example of useless training for real field conditions. https://share.icloud.com/photos/08ZyLGm ... GUm4-mmpEQ

Really should have a green whistle for the Lab Newf

[CockerCanuck]

Interesting, I have said before I don't have a problem with ecollars used properly except for their impact on gundog breeding (especially retrievers here). It seems to me they have led to the breeding of increasingly "hot" very high drive dogs which can only be trained with them. When one of these "firebreathers" ends up in the hands of the average hunter with limited experience and other daily responsibilities and priorities, the results are often negative for man and dog.

What Nickheref has said has made me ponder if "positive only clicker training" if widespread in gundog training could have the same result. It allows a skilled trainer to train a dog with little or the wrong natural inclinations to work.

It seems to me what the average shooting sportsman is looking for is a dog with lots of natural desire to hunt and retrieve and a well balanced disposition that is easy to communicate with. (To use the old term biddable). Sadly I think few breeders have this goal in mind these days.

[CockerCanuck]

It’s a long time since I had cockers but I did find that more retrieving issues cropped up with them than with springers, which I always found pretty straightforward. I think she mentions that she’d tried the dog on cold game previously and as a result of this had decided to revert back to a form of clicker retrieve, which is likely what the dog was used to with dummies. The clicker retrieve is really the force free equivalent of the forced retrieve and is effective at ironing out any issues and if you look at the following video she has a nice retrieve to hand of cold game. But if you are considering ‘modern’ training methods as being force free, then trainers do take advantage of the dog’s natural retrieving desire the same as has been described by Nick and WGD and if their dog is keen to dash out and return will develop it from there and just work on any weaknesses.

Reward based trainers work on food motivation from the get-go so I don’t believe that to be detrimental to ‘drive’ or desire to find or retrieve game, after all, they are working with the same bloodlines, temperaments and drives as any other trainer. Certainly, where young dogs in training are concerned and good habits are being developed it’s important to keep them reward motivated around game and keen to work for reward and edible rewards are simply the most convenient to use when it comes to clicker training.

Naj

Interesting observation Naj, in my vast experience of one cocker mine as a pup was a very keen natural retriever. Never had a dog easier to train to retrieve nicely to hand of any breed. As you know I am not adverse to using the e-collar or the force fetch technique if it seems required. I never thought about using either on the Cocker. His in-born desires and drive always seemed to move him along in the right direction with very little corrections. I guess I was lucky when I reached into the whelping box. In my training of him I could say I was verging on a positive only trainer.

I am afraid I regressed somewhat with the CBR who came along later, but ended up with results I am happy with in both cases.

[chrokeva]

I have no problem with the video or training to a higher degree than is necessary.
My experience is that most people just want "to shoot a bird over there dog" and do not care about having a properly trained dog. Poor deliveries and sloppy mouths are par for the course even in the trial world in my experience.

[Nickheref]

I have no problem with people training more than is necessary but to me that is not the point.

Correct me if I am wrong but one of the important premises of positive training is - dogs do things best if they like doing them and I completely agree with that. My view is that much of the methodology of some positive training came about as they were teaching dogs to do things that do not come naturally, whether that is searching for drugs, explosives or dancing with humans! You are taking natural behaviours of the dog and altering them to suit your purpose, as no dog naturally wants to find small bags of cocaine hidden in a car, it has to be taught that it is looking for cocaine and that its handler wants it to find it! I would expect a young dog to be interested in the smell of a rabbit without me having to teach it to be.

Well bred gundogs should naturally want to hunt and retrieve and if you have to get a dog to do those things or worse look like they want to do them (chucking treats around to get a dog to look into very soft cover) through bribery with food then we are heading in the wrong direction. A collie could easily be taught to do simple retrieves, running from side to side around the handler and walking at heel etc. It should not be necessary to have to spend a long time teaching a dog to hunt or retrieve and going back to my earlier point, if they do it because the want to, they will do it better and more effectively than if they have needed to be taught to do it. They will instinctively know far more about hunting using wind etc than we can ever teach them and have more drive when the going gets tough.

As an example a small cocker who wants to retrieve will figure out for itself how to carry a pheasant better than a bigger dog who doesn't really want to carry it.

I use treat training and place boards early on to teach pups things that do not come naturally, because the methods work well but no spaniel pup should want to sit still or not run in after a retrieve. I don't want to have to do that for everything.

The danger is these highly trained but lack of natural ability dogs can win some trials on the right ground or tests and are regarded as good gundogs.

Great hunting dogs in my view are born and trained how to work with us using their ability, not taught how to do absolutely everything, if we have to teach them everything we will get more and more pups that need rabbit pens or huge amounts of game to get them interested in hunting.

The same trainer has this film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsk4HW28kJw

At 4.38 she explains that the dog is on a long line as it "bogs off" if put under too much pressure. So according to this all methods of training put dogs under some pressure which I agree with. If this dog finally makes the grade would you want a pup out of it?! All working dogs have to be able to handle pressure whether that is sitting quietly when watching birds shot in a drive or stopping on the whistle having flushed a bird. Dogs who cannot handle pressure are extremely difficult to train and I would not want to have to give a dog treats to get it to give me eye contact.

[Nickheref]

Having watched the whole film she says it is not going to be a gundog, it crossed my mind watching it that the dog just loses interest in bits of food and bogging off may simply lack on interest in doing what it is asked because it is bored and is actually going off to find something more interesting to do. I have seen plenty of dogs who don't pay attention to their handlers because they don't find them interesting. The dog is clearly a keen retriever on tennis balls and when allowed to "hunts in its own way" which to me looked at least it was doing something rather than hanging around waiting for a treat, is it untrainable to be a gundog because that method doesn't suit it? All my dogs hunt in their own way when young, I want them to, training comes later!

Obviously I have not seen the dog in the flesh but it was watching her without bits of food. I don't know the background of the dog but it certainly looks working bred.

[CockerCanuck]

I have been thinking about this thread and "modern" training methods. There is not doubt that dog training has progressed a long way in the last few decades. If you are a positive trainer clicker training has been refined to teach almost anything and lots of experts to help you either through courses and classes or digitally. The same can be said of e-collar training which has also gotten much more sophisticated and has its own set of experts and teachers.

This casts my mind to what is being tested in modern field trails, breeding or training? (Nature or Nurture?). I beleive when field trails were first started they were judging 90% breeding and only about 10% training. Indeed the stated purpose was "to improve the breed". Training wasn't very sophisticated so judges were really looking for dogs that did the required job pretty naturally. Over time this balance has certainly shifted and now I beleive we are judging training much more than breeding. You can see this in the way many trials are dominated by a few "Pros" who seem to do well with dogs of a variety of breeding. In NA Retriever Trials this has gone so far that I beleive the breeding part is largely to get dogs who can take the training.

I guess I am just a grumpy old man who thinks things were always better in the past but I still look for a dog with lots of natural impulse to do the job he is supposed to be bred for, a great nose and an easy going biddable nature. I don't think modern trails are doing much to encourage the breeding of dogs of this type.