It's all about the training!

[ips]

Great post naj

Yes, verily (unsolicited "Yes, verily" ) - and CC's as well.

MG

[munstyman]

I'm watching events over the pond with equal amounts of admiration and disbelief CC, its a reminder and wake up call for all free loving democracies who have been a little to blase about who we put in to power over our lives. There but for the grace of Party gate could have gone for us as well
I have a Canadian flag on my van, and my `procreation' Trudeau hoodie arriving in the next few days, even wrote a letter to my MP ... First time for anything. Stay strong.
Regarding the training of dogs, yes it is simple, if you have even the slightest empathy for the animal your dealing with, and are prepared to learn as you go. There are ample sources of information out there in books, DVDs and the internet, but I do wonder if the time spent reading all this information would be better spent just watching the dog for some people. The written word can be confusing because putting everything we can absorb from a glance is often long winded and often will lose the context of the moment.
It was difficult in my day, as it was a case of the blind leading the blind, with very little information apart from Moxon. But I can see it is equally difficult for novices these days because there is so much information which pulls you in every which way overlaid with `expert opinion'.
Just remember kibble the dog will love you regardless of how good a trainer you are, spending time with you is the highlight of its day.

[CockerCanuck]

Thank you Newf, Munstyman, Nickheref, CockerCanuck and Crackered for your expert, considered and encouraging replies. I find forum threads very helpul, especially with encouraging me to become more confident in reading my puppy, thinking how best I can train her, and in not getting too stressed about my inevitable errors. It's great that people with gundog training experience are prepared to share their stories of individual dogs and the training approaches they have used. I take the view that if I want to read I should contribute, however limited my puppy training experience. I have question about The Gundog Club.

The Gundog Club' is a UK based organisation (charity) with almost nationwide coverage across England. It provides accreditation for trainers (who run gundog training classes), training manuals and staged assessments. This organisation therefore has the potential for greater gundog training influence, albeit mostly pet gundogs for now, than any one individual trainer alone. Should this be a concern?

The stage one training manual is very prescriptive, even formulaic. I found it daunting and the approach pedantic. I am relieved that this forum has stories of more relaxed, varied and creative approaches to gundog training. I understand the need for basic obedience, but maybe there are different ways to achieve this and working with a puppy's natural ability and desire, in the first instance, seems like a good idea.
The Gundog Club will now only acredit trainers who do not use aversives. In their literature, aversives are defined as 'anything the dog does not like.' Some general examples of likely aversives (such as hitting and growling) are provided.
Irrespective of anyone's view on modern 'force free' versus other 'traditional' training methods, is this definition of aversives workable?
I think the Gundog Club definition is problematic, not to say daft. First I need to know what my puppy does not like and then avoid it. To start with she didn't like her (clip on) lead. She still hates being ignored.
Does a workable definition of 'aversives' in the context of gundog training matter? Is there a good definition of aversives or even of 'force free'?

With just a nod to MG and his penchant for bestowing unsolicited soubriquets on others, and in an effort to clarify the murk surrounding terminology, the Gundog Club, nor any other club or individual, doesn’t have any copyright on accepted training terminology. They are simply using industry standard wording. By definition, an aversive stimulus is something that a dog (person or any other animal, for that matter) would wish to escape or avoid. It’s that simple no matter whether you’re training a gundog, pet dog, sheep dog or any other dog or animal. It’s just part and parcel of the science of behaviour modification. Whether you want to learn the science behind what you are training is entirely up to the individual. Many have little to no interest in behavioural science and successfully train their dogs.

What you might find confusing about ‘aversives’ is that the dog has the final word on what is aversive and what is not. So you might think that a hard intimidating glare might be aversive but your dog might not. If what you’re doing to correct an unwanted behaviour isn’t leading to behaviour change then what you’re doing isn’t aversive from the dogs perspective. If it associated the aversive/correction with a specific behaviour then it would lead to a change in that behaviour, but that necessitates that you have the skill to communicate that association between aversive and unwanted behaviour, which isn’t as easy as is often made out. You can see that with your clip on lead. We’ve all made these mistakes so I’m not picking on you but your dog’s response to it has been inadvertently trained by you. Somehow you’ve turned it into a negative experience to be escaped from and/or avoided, hence, it’s become aversive to the dog. If you turned the sight of the lead into a pleasurable experience then the dog’s response to the lead would change to a positive and welcoming one. On the other hand, being ignored can be a potent negative punisher for a social creature such as a dog so this is sometimes used in the form of time-outs.

I don’t think there is any firm definition of Force Free, it’s more of a philosophy based around teaching animals without pain, intimidation, threats, force or coercion, which I think is pretty laudable. But as with all training methodologies you get extremes of views at both ends with most falling somewhere in the middle. I can’t speak for the Gundog Club but it does provide a structured training plan based on Force Free for those who want that sort of thing. She may have changed by now but the Founder of the Club didn’t hide the fact that she wasn’t entirely force free when she started it. Nowadays you see a cross section of trainers within the community, some who try to use no aversives whatsoever in their training, others who accept a few ‘verbals’ but nothing physical, and the rest, cross over trainers trying to reduce the use of aversives in their training and that, I think, is where things are generally heading.

Like everyone starting out, Kibble, you need to decide what methodology suits you and be guided accordingly. Don’t kid yourself that this or that doesn’t work, just because you can’t get it to work, because there are others who can. Like MunstyM I started out using corrections (there were no other options back then) and was very effective with them, but now I prefer to train without them. I hunt two or three times a week throughout the season, do all my training and exercising off leash on game holding ground and manage perfectly well without corrections.

Naj

Nothing Naj has said above I disagree with. I am posting this because I see his post appears ahead of mine on the forum but we were probably typing at the same time and I wanted to clarify that my post was not a response to his. I don't consider Naj an ideologue. He has had experience and success with all types of training. He has chosen a path somewhat different than mine but I would be dishonest if I did not say he has influenced mine and made me consider my options.

[Naj]

Great post naj

Yes, verily (unsolicited "Yes, verily" ) - and CC's as well.

MG

[Naj]

Thanks, CC. Our posts did cross and I didn’t see any offence in yours.

I might appear pedantic at times but, like you and many others, I’ve enjoyed learning from both American and European gundog cultures and incorporated elements within my own.
It’s all part of the fun.

Naj

[Kibble]

Thank you for your patience Naj. I know similar cans of worms have been stirred a few times already and I appreciate that you write about what you choose to do in terms of gundog training, rather than what other people should or must do or not do. .
I am really only bothered about training one little puppy, but I do like theory and I value the opportunity to read different gundog training views, on this forum.
If an aversive, in this context, requires the subjective assessment of meaning to a dog, in relation to its behaviour change, that's good. Responsibility rests with the trainer.
It is to be hoped that, experts won't take it on themselves to promote a 'science based' list of agreed aversives. For example there are already questions about using a slip lead, especially as figure eight. Lez Graham has a video saying this is a bad idea. Should trainers be worried about the imposition of restrictions?

[Naj]

Thanks, Kibble.

Re aversives, there’s nothing subjective about them, which was my point. On the contrary, they’re something quite objective and with specific meaning in behavioural terms and therefore not open to wide interpretation. So they’re part of a common language for discussion that everyone understands, providing you don’t try to misinterpret or stretch their meaning.

And it’s not ‘experts’ who are promoting science based lists of agreed aversives, it’s simply a fact that such training ‘tools’ are inherently aversive by the very nature of how they operate on behaviour. A prong collar, rattle can, scruffing etc all work by triggering an escape/avoidance response from the dog. So does a figure of eight or halti, which work by making it uncomfortable for the dog to pull against them. And if a slip leash is used as a correction tool then that is also an aversive. But some aversive tools are milder in nature than others and it’s really up to the individual to choose which are acceptable to them. There are ‘positive’ trainers who build a positive introduction to a halti and then use it as a management tool when getting from A to B. There are other Positive trainers who see this as not being very Positive. But nobody is imposing any restrictions on you as an individual, other than what is covered under animal welfare legislation.

If you’re really interested in behaviour and theory then you should look at Denise Fenzi, Susan Garret, Drinking from the Toilet podcasts, Tremlo, Jane Arden, Pippa Williams, Helen Phillips and such like. Lots of info out there for those who have an interest in that side of things.

Naj

[Kibble]

I do wonder if the time spent reading all this information would be better spent just watching the dog for some people.

Really good advice munstyman. Thank you. I know I took too much notice of words about 'protecting the retrieve' by restricting its frequency. In hindsight this was frustrating for a pup that would have played 'fetch' all day and not much fun for me either.
Pup and I are communicating better now.

[Kibble]

Pointless puppy games
Somehow my pup found it difficult to have my hand near her face, without her wanting to mouth on it. To provide an alternative I taught her to put her paw (or other paw) in my hand (other hand!). She learnt this daft puppy game instantly, it is fun for both of us and solved the mouth problem. It's the sort of thing children might teach. I have since taught a couple more in house daft interactive puppy games, with no obvious work training function. Do others do this? Are these a good idea? Any suggestions?

[chrokeva]

I spend a lot of time with my dogs on yard work before shooting birds over my dogs so the first time my dog is shot over they are prepared and so am I.
Good training, consistency, and the relationship you have with your dog at home and in the field all play into developing a great partnership.