Question for balanced trainers/trainers who use aversives in their training plan - I have a couple questions! —A +R trainer

[davecb]

@coreopsis

Retriever trainers in Europe don’t use e-collars. BUT they aren’t 100% R+ and their dogs would struggle to pass a US Master test and couldn’t compete in US (or Canadian) field trials.

Agreed. What I've seen online of their dogs working is not at all comparable to what is expected here in the US.

 

[annaliseh]

@davecb Force fetch, I believe, since predisposition to retrieve is genetic and can be bred for. My dog has a really good natural retrieve (though if he didn't I wouldn't FF him anyway -- I don't trial nor do I mind walking over to pick up a bird). As you say, it's a common thing to FF even dogs that are predisposed to retrieve naturally, just so it's rock solid.

But I've not run across anyone with a pointing breed that hasn't collar conditioned (or used some other sort of aversive methods) by the time the dog is working in real hunting conditions. I am sure it happens, as you mention with your friend, and I would love to hear how people do it (hence my original q).

 

[coreopsis]

@annaliseh To me, the best description of the purpose of FF came from Pat Nolan. The point of FF is to get the dog to understand that the retrieve is for the handler, not the dog. Most retrievers are hard wired to chase and pick up something. It’s the return and give and are the issue.

 

[annaliseh]

@coreopsis Yup, that makes total sense. My dog loves to go get the bird, and he's a pleaser, so he likes to bring it generally to me. Giving it up, however, is hard for him. We don't get into tug-o-wars, but if I wanted to trial or hunt test, he'd need to be FFd. "Leave it" works for a pair of socks no problemo, but a big juicy rooster that is still flapping is basically the highest value treat on the planet. I am always still amazed that he's willing to give them up at all.

 

[davecb]

@annaliseh

As you say, it's a common thing to FF even dogs that are predisposed to retrieve naturally, just so it's rock solid.

I am currently FF'ing my older dog. He'll retrieve anything I ask him to get including flapping, angry birds He's a little too crazed to be reliable in an obedience ring where I want him to bring back ONE article, that he's found with his nose, and not the random one that he bounced on, tossed in the air, and decided was the funnest.

I've heard from old time obedience people who have retrieving breeds that sometimes the most intense retrieving dogs are the hardest ones to get to slow down and use their nose work the pile. And those old time obedience people, if they have Golden Retrievers, force fetch their dogs for that reason.

But I've not run across anyone with a pointing breed that hasn't collar conditioned (or used some other sort of aversive methods) by the time the dog is working in real hunting conditions.

I think that the tougher conditions that they may face would require that. Not to disparage pointers at all but I can't see them wanting to get a bird so badly that they'll get it no matter what.

My first dog that I ran in hunt tests, didn't GAF about anything, and would probably have gone thru literally fire if he thought that the end result would be a bird. The second one I worked was not that easy or straight forward and very much needed to be FF'ed.

I am sure it happens, as you mention with your friend, and I would love to hear how people do it (hence my original q).

I know plenty of retriever owners (of the various breeds) that get thru Junior without FF. Senior is where the people who didn't FF off the bat, do.

I don't know anyone who has put a MH on a dog, who didn't FF a dog.

I've seen people on FB who loudly say that if a dog needs to be FF'd then they shouldn't be bred. All they do is look silly, as invariably their experience with retrieving is tennis balls in the back yard.

 

[christian_violet]

@annaliseh

I've not run across anyone with a pointing breed that hasn't collar conditioned (or used some other sort of aversive methods) by the time the dog is working in real hunting conditions.

Not the OP, but you see more of it more in Western Europe than in North America. Jo Laurens in the UK (who has a book called "Force Free Gundog") works GSPs, Weims and Slovakian Pointers, for example. I'm in Canada (Southern Ontario), and my experience here is people are about 85% ecollar, with the rest a split of R+, dropped aversives, or pure shaping - but when I lived in the US (Northern Virginia and later Texas) it did feel closer to 99%.

I'm on the shaping side, and I have my dogs in the in the field without ecollars (GSPs in the past, currently a GSP/Braque cross and a Pointer/terrier). But having said that, my dogs have all come to me second-hand after not working out with their original owners or trainers, and I imagine all of them were started with aversives (my current two came from rural Greece and the Southern US, so that's almost a guarantee), so I can't speak to how they'd react to training/work without that start.

Personally, I don't judge the training practices of 99% of the people (in the bird dog world, at least) because as far as I'm concerned, most of it works given consistency. My 1% exception might be a specific forced fetch method that results in dogs that will be harder to groom if they ever end up in a pet home, which is fairly minor in the grand scheme of things.

 

[andy2014]

@airamnire First and third aren’t actually hunting their dogs on wild birds or successfully field trialing their dogs. Those are the two indicators of success in a bird dog trainer.

Regarding the second, British bred dogs are different than those bred in North America or continental Europe. They’re far softer and hunted/trialed different usually on pen reared birds primarily without the hazards that our dogs face in far different country. I wouldn’t apply their training methodology to training a big running American bred Brittany, pointer or setter.

A German Wirehair/shorthair direct from the motherland will kill a cat without a second glance. And take on a porcupine and go back for more even with a face full of quills.

Edit to add: your second link further directly states that most of their clientele aren’t using their dogs on shoots or field trialing their dogs. Nor do I see a record of field trial winners they’ve trained from any of their trainers. Most of their trainers are on their first dog and still very green

 

[cathyj]

@airamnire So to me the bigger picture is that many people start with an ideology and build their training from there, instead of training the dog infront of them. Or actually understanding the science.

This goes for balanced trainers and R+ only trainers. And the divide / arguments / blog wars have done nothing but drive people into corners and stop progress. Zak George is making a shit ton of money off of DogDaddy and these fights he stirs up.

I think it's well established that teaching basic obedience, sits etc is best done reward based.

But the short answer to your question is that if r+ only was just as effective as using all 4 quadrants, there wouldn't even be a discussion. But in reality all animals learn from the quadrants. All of them.

Take reactivity - and my dog for an example. Two R+ trainers told Fry's previous owners that he had bad genetics and needed to be euthanized because their methods failed. All of them. BAT, LAT, scatter feeding etc. We adopted him after watching how they handled him, and having a trainer we respected do an evaluation. He is now a near perfect dog. No DogDaddy crap, just rewarding wanted behaviors and correcting unwanted behaviors.
He's now a near perfect dog. We're working get corrections left behind, and without his prong collar, he is still far better behaved that 90%!of the dogs we see walking , and I can redirect him from a barking dog with a simple "touch" command. (Hit your nose to my palm)

My methods were very much like Tom Davis - these methods work, and wrk well without the negative boogie man bad outcomes that some claim. Why use these methods? Because they work.... you can see it on YouTube and in reality everyday, and there's a reason why we don't see R+ trainers making videos like many balanced trainers. To stop a behavior, it is far more effective to correct the unwanted behaviors and reward the desired behaviors, while working to understand the root cause.

On the ecollar question. There are good and bad ways to use it. For recall, allow level stim is like tap on the shoulder. My experience is that once a good recall has been taught, and the ecollar has been layered on top of a solid recall you have a much more reliable recall. My dog had a better recall after 2 months than people I've seen welling reward only for 2 years. No pain, just a very low level tap on the shoulder. So the short answer is - I use it because it works better.

 

[rcarter]

@cathyj This is the best answer. People need to train the dog in front of them, and it's wild we created dog training religions instead of just doing that.

I had a breeder return who had been to three different r+ trainers for resource guarding issues with his owner. When I (the breeder) got him back, I think the owner thought he was a euthanasia and wanted me to do it.

For the first month, I also tried r+ because that is what I default to, because it usually works best. And I got no progress. With the help of a very good trainer, I got aversives involved. Two months later, we had nearly no problems. Seven years later, my children show this dog in juniors.

People are not making up the stories about r+ completely failing, even with knowledgeable owners. I've been in the obedience and conformation world for 20 years. I definitely know how to do shaping and redirection and every kind of management, and it simply didn't work.

It doesn't even have to be extreme examples - I've seen many families go from being constantly stressed all the time by their young active dog to genuinely enjoying its company in the space of 30 minutes by adding a prong collar. That's all the time it takes for the dog to figure out that the barking/lunging/pulling is now a no-go, and it should try cooperating instead. Why wouldn't we help people this way? Why should they have to take the long way and the stress that comes with it?

It's not what is being asked, but it's also ridiculous to go to the other extreme and do the "no food, only correction and verbal praise" camp, which some still do. Because it doesn't work well at all.

The stress we put on both dogs and people trying to fit them into a box instead of doing what works is unconscionable. I will do whatever technique works best for the dog I'm working with, and so will every trainer I ever thought was truly excellent.