Force Fetching

[Dana Nichols]

I used to compete in upper level hunt tests with my labs. If you are just talking about getting a dog to retrieve a dumbbell or even retrieve birds in the lowest levels, force fetch is probably not necessary. You can easily get done what you need to with a positive trained retrieve through clicker training or really by just encouraging the dog.

 

For the higher levels, force fetch is the beginning of how you teach all of the advanced work for blind retrieves (hand signals, etc.). The fact that labs have such an extreme retrieving drive is actually why you need those skills. A dog 200 yards out in the field has to sit on a whistle and listen to your commands even when they are sure they know where the bird is instead of you. Retriever training has advanced dramatically over the past few years. Good trainers are not about inflicting pain, but more about teaching the concepts to the dogs. It's a very different skill set than herding, obedience, flyball or anything else. It's not for everyone, that's for sure. But for the folks who enjoy it, they are every bit as obsessed with it as stock dog folks are.

 

There was a border collie several years ago who competed in NAHRA (north american hunting retriever association) tests. That's the only organization BCs can compete in. All of the other groups (AKC, UKC, etc.) are limited to retriever breeds, Tollers, and Poodles. The BC who competed in NAHRA (I think his name was Travis) obtained the highest title that was offered at the time.

[geonni banner]

For the OP, (and anyone else that's interested) I found this book on training gundogs with all positive methods. This is a link to an Amazon page for the book. It has a "look inside" feature which lets you see parts of the book - including two pages with a side bar on the forced retrieve and main text that explains why the author finds it unnecessary to use to get good results.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Positive-Gun-Dogs-Training-Sporting/dp/1890948330/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287011970&sr=1-1

 

for contrast, here is one hunt trainer's method fro teaching the forced retrieve.

http://www.gundogsonline.com/Article/the-forced-retrieve-gun-dog-Page1.htm

[juliepoudrier]

The fact that labs have such an extreme retrieving drive is actually why you need those skills. A dog 200 yards out in the field has to sit on a whistle and listen to your commands even when they are sure they know where the bird is instead of you.

But if someone were to insert "border collie" in the place of "lab" and "sheep" in the place of "bird" and you have a situation that you would encounter while working a border collie on stock (except the 200 yards could be 600 or 800 yards). And force training methods aren't needed. That's what I don't get. If you breed a dog to do the work naturally (i.e., it's in there genetically), then you ought to be able to shape the natural behaviors without resorting to force under most circumstances. JMO.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

Good trainers are not about inflicting pain, but more about teaching the concepts to the dogs.

 

Hi Dana,

 

Would it be possible for you to explain a few of the specific concepts for which force is considered necessary in order for the retrievers to learn the advanced work? You don't need to go into a lot of detail - just a brief summary would be fantastic.

 

What principles are force designed to convey in these cases? And what is considered unique about the role of force in the teaching of these principles?

 

I understand what you mean about it being a different skill set. All the same, learning is learning and understanding is understanding, regardless of the discipline for which one is training the dog. I am interested in trying to understand what is unique about this type of learning that it is regarded by so many to require force in order for the retrievers to learn and understand these particular concepts.

 

Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.

[Journey]

But if someone were to insert "border collie" in the place of "lab" and "sheep" in the place of "bird" and you have a situation that you would encounter while working a border collie on stock (except the 200 yards could be 600 or 800 yards). And force training methods aren't needed. That's what I don't get. If you breed a dog to do the work naturally (i.e., it's in there genetically), then you ought to be able to shape the natural behaviors without resorting to force under most circumstances. JMO.

 

J.

 

Except, when you replace bird with sheep - you can see the sheep as can the dog. Whereas in field work the dog "thinks" they know where the bird is and you "know" so they could be wrong but their training has taught them to listen. I might almost say it's close to a blind outrun, however, once you send the dog, you then stop them and change your mind as to where you want them to go. Not really sure how to explain it...I just find it puzzling that some want to jump on the method or the extreme and paint the entire picture evil. If you haven't been there, done it or know the proper concept and the dogs involved it's a little presumptuous to paint the entire picture wrong, imo. What impression would JQP get if hey went to a Bobby D clinic and saw the "lunge whip"? Granted he's brilliant with it but in the wrong hands and done improperly it can or will be disastrous.

[geonni banner]

Hi Dana,

 

Would it be possible for you to explain a few of the specific concepts for which force is considered necessary in order for the retrievers to learn the advanced work? You don't need to go into a lot of detail - just a brief summary would be fantastic.

 

What principles are force designed to convey in these cases? And what is considered unique about the role of force in the teaching of these principles?

 

I understand what you mean about it being a different skill set. All the same, learning is learning and understanding is understanding, regardless of the discipline for which one is training the dog. I am interested in trying to understand what is unique about this type of learning that it is regarded by so many to require force in order for the retrievers to learn and understand these particular concepts.

 

Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.

 

I'm not Dana (nor do I play her on television) but one thing I read in several places this afternoon is that if you are just teaching your dog to fetch a ball or some other toy, or if you are someone who hunts only occasionally, that you don't need to teach a forced retrieve - that the dog's natural desire to retrieve will be enough to get adequate performance. But if the dog is going to hunt or field trial a lot, in adverse conditions, etc. the forced retrieve will make the dog much less likely to refuse or quit. I do not presume to know if this is true or not, but it does seem to be a widely held belief.

[Root Beer]

But if the dog is going to hunt or field trial a lot, in adverse conditions, etc. the forced retrieve will make the dog much less likely to refuse or quit. I do not presume to know if this is true or not, but it does seem to be a widely held belief.

 

That's where I'm interested in more specifics.

 

For instance, what concept does a retriever need to learn through force that should make him less likely to refuse or quit in such conditions? Dogs, including retrievers, do learn to continue to work in averse conditions without the use of force in other disciplines. Is it possible to identify a distinct concept that the retrievers need to learn for hunting and field work? And what is unique about the role of force in teaching that concept?

[juliepoudrier]

Except, when you replace bird with sheep - you can see the sheep as can the dog. Whereas in field work the dog "thinks" they know where the bird is and you "know" so they could be wrong but their training has taught them to listen. I might almost say it's close to a blind outrun, however, once you send the dog, you then stop them and change your mind as to where you want them to go. Not really sure how to explain it...I just find it puzzling that some want to jump on the method or the extreme and paint the entire picture evil. If you haven't been there, done it or know the proper concept and the dogs involved it's a little presumptuous to paint the entire picture wrong, imo. What impression would JQP get if hey went to a Bobby D clinic and saw the "lunge whip"? Granted he's brilliant with it but in the wrong hands and done improperly it can or will be disastrous.

I think it's about obedience, no matter what the discipline. Whether my dog can see the sheep or not doesn't really matter: the point is that if I redirect the dog for whatever reason, the dog needs to respond to my commands, which is what Dana seems to be saying with the retrieving dog--that the dog needs to learn to take direction even at a distance. (In fact, one could argue that when the sheep are right in front of the dog and it thinks it knows better than the human, then willingness to be obedient and go against its own instincts and take the handler's instruction is even more challenging than simply not knowing where the bird is and needing to take direction to find it.) I just fail to see how asking for obedience at a distance requires force training, when IME (granted, not with hunting dogs) implies that obedience at a distance can be taught without force training.

 

As for JQP and Bobby Dalziel, unless Bobby is actually inflicting pain on the dog with a whip, I don't see how the analogy applies. And while I think this argument could apply in an e-collar discussion where use and misuse of tools could be debated, it doesn't address the issue here as I see it, which is why one needs to inflict pain to teach a dog to retrieve properly.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

But if the dog is going to hunt or field trial a lot, in adverse conditions, etc. the forced retrieve will make the dog much less likely to refuse or quit. I do not presume to know if this is true or not, but it does seem to be a widely held belief.

And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, why aren't the dogs being bred for a keenness for the work that would carry them through the most adverse of conditions (granted, this is becoming somewhat circular, since the argument seems to be that for dogs who are so keen to do the work they must be impervious to pain and therefore require pain for training, and at the same time these same dogs must be trained with pain so they'll keep working in really sucky conditions--it just doesn't compute)?

 

J.

[herdcentral]

I have taught both my ACD and BC to do awesome retrieves of the dumbell without any force. My ACD is a natural retriever and I had her taught with the use of a clicker in a couple of days. My BC took a bit more time and I could have lost patience but if I had inflicted pain on her I would have poisoned the dumbell. She is that type of dog.

 

They both have rock solid dumbells and is their favourite exercise

As to field retrieving, I cant comment on that but it never crossed my mind to do it in obedience, it just wasnt neccessary and I beliveve I would have lost a certain amount of trust with my dogs.

[Journey]

which is why one needs to inflict pain to teach a dog to retrieve properly.

 

J.

 

Which may be where the disconnect is - when done properly it's no more "painful" than clipping toe nails, ime (actually less if the dog hates having it's toes done!). People have been throwing out extremesand a few have given good descriptions of properly applied pressure, no emotion, no fits, no screaming, no blood, done in 5 minutes.

 

As for why they aren't breeding for keenness....3 letters come to mind

[juliepoudrier]

Which may be where the disconnect is - when done properly it's no more "painful" than clipping toe nails, ime (actually less if the dog hates having it's toes done!). People have been throwing out extremesand a few have given good descriptions of properly applied pressure, no emotion, no fits, no screaming, no blood, done in 5 minutes.

 

Maybe there is a disconnect here, but what I've read here is that the ear is pinched ear to cause pain and make the dog open its mouth (or conversely to make the dog not open its mouth) (see MyTDogs' post regarding what she observed). Clearly I don't have a problem with pressure-release, since I use that method to train my stockdogs, nor do I mind a physical correction when it's used for good reason (tearing into a sheep, for example), but from the descriptions given regarding "cause pain to get the dog to open its mouth so that the dog associates holding the object with cessation of pain, then later cause pain if the dog doesn't hold the object until told to let go = cessation of pain" I think it's a pretty extreme (and perhaps unnecessary) form of pressure-release.

 

As for why they aren't breeding for keenness....3 letters come to mind

Lol! True.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

Which may be where the disconnect is - when done properly it's no more "painful" than clipping toe nails, ime (actually less if the dog hates having it's toes done!). People have been throwing out extremesand a few have given good descriptions of properly applied pressure, no emotion, no fits, no screaming, no blood, done in 5 minutes.

 

I realize that there are two different discussions going on here - forced retrieves for obedience and forced retrieves for field work.

 

Just out of interest, I looked up some info on the forced retrieves for field work. What I read was pretty extreme. And while it did not involve blood, it did involve some screaming. On the dog's part, anyway.

 

Also, it is described as a process that is done step by step and takes a good bit of quality time to carry through to completion. This takes far longer than five minutes. The article mentions that normally all other kinds of training stop for a dog during the time when the forced retrieve training is taking place. I believe four to six weeks was the timeframe mentioned, but I might not be remembering that exactly.

 

Reading through that, two things came to mind. First, Julie's point of, "why don't they look to breeding to create the kind of retrievers that they are looking to create through this process". A process which does involve a large measure of pain for the dog, especially in the early stages of training. Second, I can't help but think that there have to be other ways to go about training the same concepts, even to retrievers in this context. I am really interested to hear more from Dana about the concepts that the dog must understand in the higher levels of field work and why force is considered to be the only way to communicate those concepts to the dog.

[Dana Nichols]

I'm happy to provide some additional information. Bottom line, the retriever folks feel very strongly about what they do. Every bit as strongly as the folks on this board feel about what they do. The original poster was asking about using force fetch for her border collie. I haven't used force fetch with any of my border collies or mixes. I've never found it necessary for the retrieving work we did. It was absolutely essential for my labs who competed in master level hunt tests.

 

Retriever training methods have changed dramatically over the past years. The old school methods were not what I would consider to be humane. And, frankly, some of the descriptions of force fetch that you'll find on the internet are much more old school. One of the trainers who has really elevated retriever training is Mike Lardy. His methods are very humane and he has been incredibly successful with multiple national field champions. He has revolutionized the use of the electronic collar for retrievers and implemented a much more teaching/training based program.

 

Retrievers do two main types of retrieving - marks and blinds. Marks are when a dog is sitting at your side and watches the birds go down. The dog then goes out to retrieve the birds and bring them back to hand. For marks, the dog should take the straightest line to the bird possible (to disturb as little cover - vegetation - as possible), including through water, terrain, hills, etc. The retrieves may be a single (one bird) or up to a triple or quad (watching 3 or 4 separate birds go down). The dog must also remain steady, meaning the dog cannot get up or break towards the bird until they are sent (important so they see all birds go down & also so they don't get shot). For dogs with intense drive this can be pretty challenging if a duck is shot fairly close. For marks, the dog has to go out in as straight a line as possible to the bird and can't switch and go to another bird after they've established a hunt for a bird. For dogs with good strong retrieving drive, marks are generally the easier part - although they can be extremely challenging, especially to have a dog cut across the end of a piece of water, etc. But in general, marks are where dogs are primarily working on instinct. Even with all the training in the world, if you don't have a dog who is a strong marker (remembers where all the birds went down), you'll never be able to be very successful.

 

The second type are blinds. For a blind retrieve, you know where the bird is, but the dog does not. The goal is to send the dog on as straight a line as possible to the bird. You set the dog up at your side so they are lined up towards the bird (sometimes you'll give them a slightly false line to compensate for wind, hill, etc. that may push them off line). Any time the dog starts to veer from the line, you blow a whistle. The dog should immediately turn and sit facing you. You then give them hand signals to direct them back to the appropriate line. The dog turns left or right according to your direction. All the while, there are competing elements to make things challenging - such as marks the dog just ran nearby that may induce the dog to want to head back to where a bird was, water, rough terrain, ditches, areas where the dog may be out of sight to you briefly, etc. For hunt tests the blinds are generally 100 - 150 yards. In field trials, it's not unusual to have a 300 yard blind.

 

For labradors at least, there is a strong split between field and show type labs. It's similar to the AKC/USBCHA split in BCs. But in this case, the AKC field trials are the equivalent to the big hat trials. So basically, the field lab people aren't against AKC, they are against conformation showing (or breeding for show type conformation) rather than drive & performance they breed for in field trial dogs. I'm sure it would be very possible for someone to clicker train or use other positive methods to have a dog run in lower level hunt tests. But in all reality, to be able to compete in high level hunt tests or field trials, you'd be hard pressed to get the skills accomplished without training with an electronic collar and force fetch. Labradors are very different dogs than border collies and have been bred for many, many years to do this kind of work. They've also been bred for trainability and the ability to handle the kind of pressure involved in field work & training. Again, this is not a sport for everyone. But these folks take it extremely seriously. Watching a high level field trial dog in my mind is just as impressive as watching the high level sheep or cattle dogs. It's these dogs doing what they were bred and trained to do. And these dogs absolutely love retrieving birds.

[geonni banner]

For labradors at least, there is a strong split between field and show type labs. It's similar to the AKC/USBCHA split in BCs. But in this case, the AKC field trials are the equivalent to the big hat trials. So basically, the field lab people aren't against AKC, they are against conformation showing (or breeding for show type conformation) rather than drive & performance they breed for in field trial dogs. I'm sure it would be very possible for someone to clicker train or use other positive methods to have a dog run in lower level hunt tests. But in all reality, to be able to compete in high level hunt tests or field trials, you'd be hard pressed to get the skills accomplished without training with an electronic collar and force fetch. Labradors are very different dogs than border collies and have been bred for many, many years to do this kind of work. They've also been bred for trainability and the ability to handle the kind of pressure involved in field work & training. Again, this is not a sport for everyone. But these folks take it extremely seriously. Watching a high level field trial dog in my mind is just as impressive as watching the high level sheep or cattle dogs. It's these dogs doing what they were bred and trained to do. And these dogs absolutely love retrieving birds.

 

(bolded text mine)

 

Heads up, Root Beer - I'm agreeing with you here...

 

Ok, If they love to do it so much, why do you have to "shock" them into doing it right? I have heard stock dog trainers say that the greatest reward you can give a working dog is sheep. Conversely, one of the strongest "punishments" you can give a dog for failure to follow instructions, etc. is to walk them away from sheep. Both stock dogs and hunting dogs typically work far beyond the reach of a liver treat or a swat on the butt. So why the reliance on a shock collar to perfect the dog's technique and/or obedience to the handler? What did hunters do in the time between the invention of the shotgun and the invention of the shock collar? I don't believe they just put up with crappy performance, any more than old-time shepherds put up with crappy performance with their sheepdogs.

 

So Julie's question comes into play. Why are retriever/ gun dog breeders not breeding the work ethic into their dogs rather than using an e-collar to insure reliability and performance?

 

Thank you for the info on the tasks that the gun dog performs. It was clearly written and instructive. But the two questions remain. Why a shock collar/forced retrieve over another method for training staunchness, and why isn't this staunchness bred in along with the necessary desire to retrieve and general toughness?

[Root Beer]

Retrievers do two main types of retrieving - marks and blinds. Marks are when a dog is sitting at your side and watches the birds go down. The dog then goes out to retrieve the birds and bring them back to hand. For marks, the dog should take the straightest line to the bird possible (to disturb as little cover - vegetation - as possible), including through water, terrain, hills, etc. The retrieves may be a single (one bird) or up to a triple or quad (watching 3 or 4 separate birds go down). The dog must also remain steady, meaning the dog cannot get up or break towards the bird until they are sent (important so they see all birds go down & also so they don't get shot). For dogs with intense drive this can be pretty challenging if a duck is shot fairly close. For marks, the dog has to go out in as straight a line as possible to the bird and can't switch and go to another bird after they've established a hunt for a bird. For dogs with good strong retrieving drive, marks are generally the easier part - although they can be extremely challenging, especially to have a dog cut across the end of a piece of water, etc. But in general, marks are where dogs are primarily working on instinct. Even with all the training in the world, if you don't have a dog who is a strong marker (remembers where all the birds went down), you'll never be able to be very successful.

 

The second type are blinds. For a blind retrieve, you know where the bird is, but the dog does not. The goal is to send the dog on as straight a line as possible to the bird. You set the dog up at your side so they are lined up towards the bird (sometimes you'll give them a slightly false line to compensate for wind, hill, etc. that may push them off line). Any time the dog starts to veer from the line, you blow a whistle. The dog should immediately turn and sit facing you. You then give them hand signals to direct them back to the appropriate line. The dog turns left or right according to your direction. All the while, there are competing elements to make things challenging - such as marks the dog just ran nearby that may induce the dog to want to head back to where a bird was, water, rough terrain, ditches, areas where the dog may be out of sight to you briefly, etc. For hunt tests the blinds are generally 100 - 150 yards. In field trials, it's not unusual to have a 300 yard blind.

 

Thanks for the information. It's excellent.

 

Now could you explain exactly why force is considered essential for the dog to understand those things? You have made the tasks clear, but I'm not seeing where force would be an absolute requirement for the dog to grasp those concepts and carry out the tasks reliably, especially given the fact that the retrievers do have a love for retrieving the birds, so there is a high level of natural desire and drive to capitalize on in their training.

 

I am aware that the majority of the people in the high levels of field work are using force based methods to train. I am also aware that there are others who are exploring reinforcement based approaches (ex. the positive gun dog yahoo group folks). I'd be interested to know what those folks have learned and how they have modified their approach to teaching these same tasks and what their results have been. That is rhetorical musing - as far as I know, nobody on this board is a member of that group.