Gundog Training Forum

I think to many none shooting folk are involved in retriever trials at present, they seem to have forgotten that its supposed to replicate a shoot day. They seem to becoming much more like tests. An friend of mine who is an A panel judge has almost give up on them. I think he's said than out of about 30 dog's sent for runners he's only had about five succeed over the last two seasons.

Maybe the game is getting smarter David?

I noticed a long time ago that it is often the "wilder" dogs that do best on runners. The reason why ? .... Those dogs pay no attention to their owners whistles and arm signals.

Wullie

we have 'Chuck', on here that could probably offer a better slant from the other side of the pond?

trekmoor wrote:I noticed a long time ago that it is often the "wilder" dogs that do best on runners. The reason why ? .... Those dogs pay no attention to their owners whistles and arm signals.

Wullie

Errmmm, I've noticed that too.

Fancy me agreeing wiv a bloke!

Yes, I'd like to hear his thoughts on this. As I understand his previous posts he trains a sort of limited force type of F.F. I sometimes do that myself but only with some dogs and never as part of a training programme. I sometimes insist Rosie the vizsla pup holds the dummy and I pop it back into her mouth if she tries to drop it . Even this is a form of F.F.

Wullie

Did somebody call my name

I have several comments:

1) FF, in operant conditioning terms, is ‘negative reinforcement’ – or taking away something aversive as a reward for compliance. The training problem is providing the aversive in a consistent, controlled way. Hence, the ‘ear pinch’. But, “…therein lies the rub.” The ‘ear pinch’ is definitely ‘positive punishment’. The resulting sequence is positive punishment (ear pinch) followed immediately by releasing the ear pinch the instant the dog complies. The dog learns he can turn off the pain by grabbing the buck, or whatever. As a side note, knowing exactly when to release the ear pinch takes exquisite timing that many do not have. If you don’t have that timing you end up with a very confused dog. I once heard a renowned trainer say he had to FF about 25 dogs before he got it right. I wonder what happened to the first 24 dogs he practiced on.

2) And, that’s what I object to. It is ethically wrong, in my humble opinion, to force an intelligent, sensient being like a dog to do anything he doesn’t want to just for our entertainment. If the dog isn't enjoying the game, and really doesn't want to retrieve - find him a good home and get another dog. There's an old US Air Force adage that you can make a brick fly if you put a big enough engine on it. This kind of forcing is even more aggravating when using pain and fear to enforce compliance. I once had a young trainer suggest that I FF my dog. He’d never seen my dog, so I guess he was trying to drum up business. When I told him I had ethical issues with FF he suggested I let somebody else FF my dog for me. I said, ‘Why would I let someone else do something to my dog that I am not willing to do myself.’

3) In the US, FF is used almost universally by very serious hunt test and trial trainers. But, there are plenty of people who do not FF their dogs and they and their dogs are still having a wonderful time. But, ‘Hold’ is not what is really sought after with regard to FF. As someone has already mentioned, it’s about trying to get 100% compliance from a dog in every respect. FF is the basis of ‘force/pressure’ training methodology. Accordingly, it is a prerequisite for using the e-collar.

4) In the US there are lots of unsupported claims about how any dog will be a better dog after FF. The problem with this claim is that dogs in the US are typically FF’d right after they get their adult teeth. That’s pretty early in the dog’s development and training, so if you FF that early you can never know how the dog would have turned out sans FF. And, you can’t un-FF a dog! The dog is changed forever. There is no way to do a side by side comparison because all dogs in field trials are FF- - period! So, how does one know it gives added performance and compliance? Answer: One doesn't know!

5) If FF works so well, why doesn’t anyone FF a wolf? Seems a natural thing to do when people have to handle wolves raised in captivity.

6) I have not FF my dog. FF training is very structured and has several steps. I put my dog through all the structured steps of FF, using positive reinforcement (beef liver) instead of positive punishment/negative reinforcement. There is a lengthy description of how I did that in the glossary.

7) As for compliance – well, Buddy occasionally flips me the paw and goes the way he thinks is best. But, it’s not really a problem, and I’ve seen plenty of FF dogs do the same. If you think about it, a field trial in the US is a collection of dogs that are all highly trained with FF and ecollars. But, only one dog can win, meaning that all the other dogs are eliminated for various faults, and some of those faults are cast refusals, running in, and all kinds of other disobedient behaviors that FF dogs are not supposed to exhibit. Hmmmm?

Well, I guess that’s about it from my side of the pond. I am not representative of Left Ponders .

Snicklefritz wrote:Did somebody call my name

I have several comments:

1) FF, in operant conditioning terms, is ‘negative reinforcement’ – or taking away something aversive as a reward for compliance. The training problem is providing the aversive in a consistent, controlled way. Hence, the ‘ear pinch’. But, “…therein lies the rub.” The ‘ear pinch’ is definitely ‘positive punishment’. The resulting sequence is positive punishment (ear pinch) followed immediately by releasing the ear pinch the instant the dog complies. The dog learns he can turn off the pain by grabbing the buck, or whatever. As a side note, knowing exactly when to release the ear pinch takes exquisite timing that many do not have. If you don’t have that timing you end up with a very confused dog. I once heard a renowned trainer say he had to FF about 25 dogs before he got it right. I wonder what happened to the first 24 dogs he practiced on.

2) And, that’s what I object to. It is ethically wrong, in my humble opinion, to force an intelligent, sensient being like a dog to do anything he doesn’t want to just for our entertainment. If the dog isn't enjoying the game, and really doesn't want to retrieve - find him a good home and get another dog. There's an old US Air Force adage that you can make a brick fly if you put a big enough engine on it. This kind of forcing is even more aggravating when using pain and fear to enforce compliance. I once had a young trainer suggest that I FF my dog. He’d never seen my dog, so I guess he was trying to drum up business. When I told him I had ethical issues with FF he suggested I let somebody else FF my dog for me. I said, ‘Why would I let someone else do something to my dog that I am not willing to do myself.’

3) In the US, FF is used almost universally by very serious hunt test and trial trainers. But, there are plenty of people who do not FF their dogs and they and their dogs are still having a wonderful time. But, ‘Hold’ is not what is really sought after with regard to FF. As someone has already mentioned, it’s about trying to get 100% compliance from a dog in every respect. FF is the basis of ‘force/pressure’ training methodology. Accordingly, it is a prerequisite for using the e-collar.

4) In the US there are lots of unsupported claims about how any dog will be a better dog after FF. The problem with this claim is that dogs in the US are typically FF’d right after they get their adult teeth. That’s pretty early in the dog’s development and training, so if you FF that early you can never know how the dog would have turned out sans FF. And, you can’t un-FF a dog! The dog is changed forever. There is no way to do a side by side comparison because all dogs in field trials are FF- - period! So, how does one know it gives added performance and compliance? Answer: One doesn't know!

5) If FF works so well, why doesn’t anyone FF a wolf? Seems a natural thing to do when people have to handle wolves raised in captivity.

6) I have not FF my dog. FF training is very structured and has several steps. I put my dog through all the structured steps of FF, using positive reinforcement (beef liver) instead of positive punishment/negative reinforcement. There is a lengthy description of how I did that in the glossary.

7) As for compliance – well, Buddy occasionally flips me the paw and goes the way he thinks is best. But, it’s not really a problem, and I’ve seen plenty of FF dogs do the same. If you think about it, a field trial in the US is a collection of dogs that are all highly trained with FF and ecollars. But, only one dog can win, meaning that all the other dogs are eliminated for various faults, and some of those faults are cast refusals, running in, and all kinds of other disobedient behaviors that FF dogs are not supposed to exhibit. Hmmmm?

Well, I guess that’s about it from my side of the pond. I am not representative of Left Ponders .

Brilliant, informative, on the button, you never fail to deliver Snicklefritz!

I agree, a very good post.

I'm not entirely sure how right I am about this for I have never seen it but I have had two or three little disagreements about the F.F. v Natural retrieving dogs. I posted on a U.S. fora that I saw no need to F.F. my dogs because they will pick and carry any kind of game they encounter .....if I gave them sufficient experience of that type of game (I'm thinking snipe and woodcock here.) Some of the Americans seemed doubtful that non F.F.'d dogs would pick game they didn't fancy just to please me to begin with but later because it then pleased them too.

I could only reply that my dogs like most other dogs in Britain are very often worked in cover situations where the handler has no idea of when his dog has found a bird and therefor could not "tell" the dog it must retrieve it. How would an F.F. trained dog be "forced" by vocal command to pick what it had found under such conditions if that should prove neccessary ? Would an F.F.'d dog then become keen to pick that game species again ?

I cannot say for certain because I have only F.F. trained one dog , a border collie, that I later worked as a gundog. He was a good keen gundog and a good retriever too but I never want to F.F. train another dog, especially not a gundog. I.M.O. a dog bred for the job should not need to be F.F. trained.
Even among well bred gundogs an occasional pup crops up that shows little interest in retrieving . These dogs make their owners think they are banging their heads against a brick wall. They should stop trying to break through the wall and look for a door to use instead. In just about every dogs head that door does exist it just needs to be looked for. Very often a change of dummy type, or a change of location or a change of the handlers attitudes towards his dog during retrieving will cause the door in the brick wall to open wide.

Bill T.

Snicklefritz wrote:Did somebody call my name

I have several comments:

1) FF, in operant conditioning terms, is ‘negative reinforcement’ – or taking away something aversive as a reward for compliance. The training problem is providing the aversive in a consistent, controlled way. Hence, the ‘ear pinch’. But, “…therein lies the rub.” The ‘ear pinch’ is definitely ‘positive punishment’. The resulting sequence is positive punishment (ear pinch) followed immediately by releasing the ear pinch the instant the dog complies. The dog learns he can turn off the pain by grabbing the buck, or whatever. As a side note, knowing exactly when to release the ear pinch takes exquisite timing that many do not have. If you don’t have that timing you end up with a very confused dog. I once heard a renowned trainer say he had to FF about 25 dogs before he got it right. I wonder what happened to the first 24 dogs he practiced on.

2) And, that’s what I object to. It is ethically wrong, in my humble opinion, to force an intelligent, sensient being like a dog to do anything he doesn’t want to just for our entertainment. If the dog isn't enjoying the game, and really doesn't want to retrieve - find him a good home and get another dog. There's an old US Air Force adage that you can make a brick fly if you put a big enough engine on it. This kind of forcing is even more aggravating when using pain and fear to enforce compliance. I once had a young trainer suggest that I FF my dog. He’d never seen my dog, so I guess he was trying to drum up business. When I told him I had ethical issues with FF he suggested I let somebody else FF my dog for me. I said, ‘Why would I let someone else do something to my dog that I am not willing to do myself.’

3) In the US, FF is used almost universally by very serious hunt test and trial trainers. But, there are plenty of people who do not FF their dogs and they and their dogs are still having a wonderful time. But, ‘Hold’ is not what is really sought after with regard to FF. As someone has already mentioned, it’s about trying to get 100% compliance from a dog in every respect. FF is the basis of ‘force/pressure’ training methodology. Accordingly, it is a prerequisite for using the e-collar.

4) In the US there are lots of unsupported claims about how any dog will be a better dog after FF. The problem with this claim is that dogs in the US are typically FF’d right after they get their adult teeth. That’s pretty early in the dog’s development and training, so if you FF that early you can never know how the dog would have turned out sans FF. And, you can’t un-FF a dog! The dog is changed forever. There is no way to do a side by side comparison because all dogs in field trials are FF- - period! So, how does one know it gives added performance and compliance? Answer: One doesn't know!

5) If FF works so well, why doesn’t anyone FF a wolf? Seems a natural thing to do when people have to handle wolves raised in captivity.

6) I have not FF my dog. FF training is very structured and has several steps. I put my dog through all the structured steps of FF, using positive reinforcement (beef liver) instead of positive punishment/negative reinforcement. There is a lengthy description of how I did that in the glossary.

7) As for compliance – well, Buddy occasionally flips me the paw and goes the way he thinks is best. But, it’s not really a problem, and I’ve seen plenty of FF dogs do the same. If you think about it, a field trial in the US is a collection of dogs that are all highly trained with FF and ecollars. But, only one dog can win, meaning that all the other dogs are eliminated for various faults, and some of those faults are cast refusals, running in, and all kinds of other disobedient behaviors that FF dogs are not supposed to exhibit. Hmmmm?

Well, I guess that’s about it from my side of the pond. I am not representative of Left Ponders .

Excellent post.

What always amuses me is that where LIVES depend on the accuracy, consistency and reliability of a dog, FF or any other positive punishment or negative reinforcement is not needed or used and in fact would be directly contra indicated.

Systems like FF are usually used when the individual EGO of an owner/handler is at stake.................. just to win a ribbon or a title.