The force to pile process just doesn’t make sense to me. I understand the process, just not the logic. “Back, nick, back” just doesn’t make sense to me. I know the very best retriever trainers in the world support this, but it just doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve watched the Lardy tapes, Fowl Dogs, etc., but the logic of why it works is never clear to me. I understand the process, just not the why? I am also a student of K-9 learning theory, and “Back-Nick-Back” just doesn’t seem to mesh with learning theory.

For me to implement a training technique with my dog, it has to make sense to me.

This makes sense to me: Operant conditioning description of using pressure. In laymen’s term, “Escape” and “Avoidance.”

For example, “Escape” training would first introduce pressure, then the command. When the dog responds to the command, the pressure ends. In essence, the dog learns to turn off or escape the pressure by listening and responding to the command. Many FF their dogs using this aspect of training. Turn off the pressure by putting the bumper in your mouth.

“Avoidance” training also makes sense to me. Once the dog knows the command and how to handle pressure, the trainer gives the command, if instantly obeyed, there is no pressure and the dog has “avoided” the pressure. If the dog does not instantly respond, then the dog gets the pressure with a repeat of the command. The message is clear, respond to the command the 1st time, and you will avoid the nick. I understand this as well.

Back-Nick-Back doesn’t fit with either of those concepts. Here is where I get confused. The dog is responding to the “back” command, then gets nicked for doing the command. To me, this is backwards. I just don’t get it, the dog gets nicked for responding.

Can someone clearly articulate, from the dog’s perspective, why “Back, Nick, Back” works or makes sense? I’m trying to think like a dog, and I’m lost on this one.

Thanks in advance,

Zeke

Mike, I understand your thought process. Here is my 2 cents. And I admit it has been a couple of years since I did this last.

For perspective, back-nick-back is a building block of learning force to pile which is a concept building to advanced handling.   So it is a step [the dog needs to understand] in a process that ultimately teaches momentum and pressure avoidance. Realize force to pile is done right after force fetch where you have applied pressure to the dog at one stage of process concurrent with giving the command which really does not give the dog an opportunity to avoid pressure either. It is teaching them what pressure is and how to deal with it. They "turn it off" by taking the command.

Momentum building? Yes ! Correct response to pressure? Yes ! Did I mention MOMENTUM ?

All commands are sandwiched when collar conditioning the learned command , hear/nick/ hear, sit/nick/ sit...or even in our little world whoa/nick/ whoa

Pile work is go as sent, back is a command.... back/nick/back....

My simple response, but if you want to get deep ........ Rex Carr methods, and you have one of his best disciples right near you, I would talk to Vickie Lamb.

I understand that Momentum is the goal of this process, I get that loud and clear.

What I don't understand is how dogs understand this sequence - they get nicked for responding.

From the dog’s perspective, why “Back, Nick, Back” works or makes sense? I’m trying to think like a dog and I don't get it.

Zeke

OK, here is 4cents now :-)

As Frank indicated, this is a "sandwiched" command. If you think about this as three things...back, nick, back and you gave time for the dog to respond fully to the first back, then nicked him after he had complied, then sent him "back" again you would be messing with the dogs head. You sandwich with the last "back" to remind the dog what the reaction is you want that you are applying pressure for. Yes, dog started to comply, and I still applied pressure and let him know what I wanted and that he needs to operate and comply under pressure (doesnt need to be a lot of pressure, but that is an important learning point). This is delivered as ONE command and the dog has learned through ff that 1) I turn pressure off by compliance, and 2) pressure also means dont stop - "comply faster". Seems very important to me that the dog first understands #2 coming out of ff before they go to FTP. Then FTP again employes and builds on "dont stop on pressure - go faster". Few things are univesal lessons with dogs that apply in every situation. Teaching "speed up" as a reaction to pressue works for this lesson but not in all situations. That is why this part is only done long enough to establish the dogs understanding of the appropriate reaction, then move on.

I guess in short it should make sense to them because they should have learned the "go harder" reaction to pressure in ff first (pressure concurrent with "fetch"). Here you teach the roots of this lesson because you dont just apply pressure if they dont comply, you also apply pressure before they have a chance to comply (concurent with the command), to create the "go faster" reaction to pressure. Some dogs need this because they want to shut down on the pressure. Other dogs may already have so much momentum going that you dont necessarily even notice a reaction when you force but they still need to understand it and experience it - because you build on it in FTP as well as other things later on.

Bruce...that is EXACTLY what I was going to say! LOL! nice "breakdown"! I thought I understood but now know I did...as far as you explain it....

Posted By Zeke on 16 Oct 2011 06:31 AM
The force to pile process just doesn’t make sense to me. I understand the process, just not the logic. “Back, nick, back” just doesn’t make sense to me. I know the very best retriever trainers in the world support this, but it just doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve watched the Lardy tapes, Fowl Dogs, etc., but the logic of why it works is never clear to me. I understand the process, just not the why? I am also a student of K-9 learning theory, and “Back-Nick-Back” just doesn’t seem to mesh with learning theory.

For me to implement a training technique with my dog, it has to make sense to me.

This makes sense to me: Operant conditioning description of using pressure. In laymen’s term, “Escape” and “Avoidance.”

For example, “Escape” training would first introduce pressure, then the command. When the dog responds to the command, the pressure ends. In essence, the dog learns to turn off or escape the pressure by listening and responding to the command. Many FF their dogs using this aspect of training. Turn off the pressure by putting the bumper in your mouth.

“Avoidance” training also makes sense to me. Once the dog knows the command and how to handle pressure, the trainer gives the command, if instantly obeyed, there is no pressure and the dog has “avoided” the pressure. If the dog does not instantly respond, then the dog gets the pressure with a repeat of the command. The message is clear, respond to the command the 1st time, and you will avoid the nick. I understand this as well.

Back-Nick-Back doesn’t fit with either of those concepts. Here is where I get confused. The dog is responding to the “back” command, then gets nicked for doing the command. To me, this is backwards. I just don’t get it, the dog gets nicked for responding.

Can someone clearly articulate, from the dog’s perspective, why “Back, Nick, Back” works or makes sense? I’m trying to think like a dog, and I’m lost on this one.

Thanks in advance,

Zeke

Do you have the Lardy Retriever Journal article reprints? Get and read Vol I, it may help.

Know, though, he avoids use of the language of "operant conditioning" almost totally and he seems to use 'escape' sometimes to reference 'escape response' and other times to reference 'avoidance response' which he scarcely mentions.

Try and understand what he says more explicitly in terms of escape or avoidance where applicable.

Note: by the time pup gets to FTP in this program he's been through many scenarios where several different "pressure applicators" (aversives) have been used and should "understand" escape and avoidance quite generally.

My "read" of the FTP thing is like this: The "Back - Nick" sequence, with the nick following quickly AFTER pup begins to execute the proper response to the "Back" command, is intended to build the 'avoidance response.' As Lardy says: "The ideal response to forcing is to have the dog develop a real compulsion to go directly to the pile." The second "Back," following the "Nick," helps to prevent any confusion which could develop because the aversive "Nick" is applied when the dog is "doing good." It reafirms for the dog what it should be doing even though the "Nick" might have been interpreted as punishment (in the OC vocabulary) for the initial (correct) response to the first "Back."

Jere

Hey Guys,

Thanks for all the responses (i.e., 4 cents).

I appreciate it. I'm not there yet, just thinking and planning out the training session after hunting season. I may start to experiment with the technique in other commands first (kennel, touch pad, etc.).

Thanks again,

Zeke

Posted By Zeke on 20 Oct 2011 06:45 AM
Hey Guys,

Thanks for all the responses (i.e., 4 cents).

I appreciate it. I'm not there yet, just thinking and planning out the training session after hunting season. I may start to experiment with the technique in other commands first (kennel, touch pad, etc.).

Thanks again,

Zeke

Maybe I can, again, keep some discussion going on this moribund site.

Guess it all depends on where you want to go with the pup, what your philosophy on training might be, your relationship with the pup, the pup's psychological profile and on and on; but from my perspective, having worked with a compliant, willing (nay driven) retrieving fiend and having achieved 95++% "compliance" to handling "commands" w/o ANY force of the conventionally discussed kind, I'm with Mike Gould on the concept and use of "force" as a general requisite to a trained dog: "Why force the dog to do something it will do willingly?"

A "conditioned response" is a conditioned response no matter how you get there. All other aspects of the human - dog relationship are not necessarily the same no matter how you get there!

OTOH, I'm pretty sure there are some critters being bred today which will never "get there" without going through a "Force Program" such as that originating with Rex Carr, then further developed and refined by Lardy et al. Could this be an unintended consequence of the typical breeding programs for performance retrievers in place in the USA over the past half century or so????

When you talk with Vickie, I'll bet she'll agree there are some dogs that will make it w/o any force. Those are the ones I'd be using in my breeding program - they are a JOY to work with!

Jere

Mike Lardy has trained some of the most talented dogs we have seen with these methods. This is a training method that builds - teaching dogs to comprehend some pretty complicated things. You can argue that there may be better ways but to view it as an outgrowth of a predominance of non-talented dogs - I think that is a stretch. To me that is kind of like saying that young athletes that engage in strength and speed training do so because we have mediocre athletes.

"Why force the dog to do something it will do willingly?"

Because if you get into serious advanced retriever work, there will be times when the well timed application of a pressure correction goes a long way to solidify a concept (not teach it, but get it ingrained in the dog). These early uses of pressure introduce this concept to the dog so that working with pressure down the road is no big deal to the dog. They see it for what it is and should be (oh, got a correction, lets move on)- no big deal.

Jere I understand your comment as it relates to some dogs that just really struggle with the whole process. The worst examples I see out there are the dogs that just frankly dont want to work - and many of those eventually obtain very high titles and are bred. However, the really talented dogs go through these step-by-step programs like Lardy's very smothly. As an amaterure you have to be careful with those dogs that you make sure you go though all the steps even though they seem not to need it because the steps build and sometime down the road when you get into some really complicated stuff it will come in handy. Personally I think if you are not going to adequately teach your dog to understand working with pressure you should not use the collar at all.

If you are looking for a finished gun dog, have a nice dog, and are not playing the complicated retriever games, you could probably do just fine without these processes since you are less likely to ask them to do things that are unnatural and required in the advanced retriever games. Yes, I understand that dogs can be trained to do this without the e-collar - with repetition and attrition. Lots of dogs were trained before the e-collar was developed. It would be interesting to quantify though how much more difficult FT and hunt test games have become since the e-collar has been around.

Posted By bsmiley on 20 Oct 2011 05:44 PM
1. ...You can argue that there may be better ways but to view it as an outgrowth of a predominance of non-talented dogs - I think that is a stretch. ...

2.

"Why force the dog to do something it will do willingly?"

Because if you get into serious advanced retriever work, there will be times when the well timed application of a pressure correction goes a long way to solidify a concept (not teach it, but get it ingrained in the dog). ...

3. ... The worst examples I see out there are the dogs that just frankly dont want to work - and many of those eventually obtain very high titles and are bred.

4. ... Personally I think if you are not going to adequately teach your dog to understand working with pressure you should not use the collar at all.

5. If you are looking for a finished gun dog, have a nice dog, and are not playing the complicated retriever games, you could probably do just fine without these processes since you are less likely to ask them to do things that are unnatural and required in the advanced retriever games.

6. It would be interesting to quantify though how much more difficult FT and hunt test games have become since the e-collar has been around.

1. I don't see the relationship of this comment to what I posted. My suggestion was a deterioration of the breed may have occurred as a result of the ability to achieve by forcing less talented dogs what couldn't be achieved w/o. I didn't mean to imply all forced dogs come from the less talented subset. You, later, seem to agree - see 3.

2. As I qualified my comments - It depends on where one wants to go with the pup. We may agree on that.

3. Ain't that a shame - polluting the gene pool that-a-way. Those dogs should have been weeded out of the gene pool - not enabled to contribute to it. Same with taking a pup with little in the way of the characteristics (action patterns I've mentioned before) specific to natural retrieving and, through "Force Fetch," "correcting" the deficiencies in that dog but perpetuating them, perhaps even enhancing them, in its progeny.

4. Now that's a pretty "broad brush" you're using. I readily use an e-collar training the unnatural aspects of steadiness in "bird manners" but in such a manner there is essentially no pressure - the e-stim is, in essence, usually, a cue or command which works at about any distance but has the same characteristic as the human voice - it can easily be ramped up to serve as a "correction." Dogs seem to inherently "understand" this apparent dichotomy. OTOH, I'd much prefer working on retrieving skills with a dog that doesn't need much if any pressure. But then, I have little desire to go where some others want to go with their dogs.

5. Been over this from the start - just not in such detail. See 2.

6. Yes, that would be interesting. It would also be interesting to try and figure out just how specific the games are to characteristics inherent in Labs. versus other retriever breeds which seem to have been largely left in the dust.

Jere

My reaction comes from a couple of places. A well structured program is a benefit to the dog. I have, in training been around many instances of dogs trying to do advanced work and their handlers bragging that the dog "never had X or Y done with them". Well the dogs I have seen have holes in their training as a result of that and it is not fair to ask the dog to do things it has not been trained to do. Same for the application of pressure which normally goes hand in hand with this. Collar use is a big issue for me. I am by no means perfect here and have made my share of collar mistakes but I make every effort to prepare the dog for understanding pressure then use it in a way he understands it. For perspective my dogs, in heavy training, may get an actual collar correction a couple of times a week.

My fear, Jere, and the point I am trying to make is that there is enough misuse of the collar out there and people who inadequately train their dogs for the expectations they have from them. I cringe when [inexperienced] people start experimenting with mixing up traning programs or skipping steps. Those programs are there because they work. I put myself in the "inexperienced" bucket. Even though I have taken my dogs into some pretty high levels the reality is that I have only delt with a few,and their learning processes were all different. I dont have an issue, for instance following Lardy's program then going to SmartWorks to get a drill that the dog understands better to solifify a concept but I encourage people to pick a program and follow all steps.

I am not saying you are suggesting otherwise, Jere. When we get into conversations of a dog being a "natural" and never having had training of a certain type, my personal experience is that situation rarely ever turns out to the benefit of the dog v/s a structured training program. This is mainly a handler expectation issue.

You are probably someone that has enough self control and understanding of the dog to decide when to use the collar and when not to and what to expect of the dog based on training. Many, Many people do not understand this and would benefit (dog and handler) from a structured program.

Yes, I realize I am off on a tangent with this.  I have just seen so many dogs recently being pushed to do work that they are not ready for and have obvious holes in their foundation training.

Bruce, I have not argued against a "structured" training program. Indeed I heartily recommend the Lardy materials (along with another book or three) most anytime someone asks about a training program for retrievers. But, I do not necessarily consider the use of force methods as prerequisite to a program being declared "structured." In the case of the Lardy program, eg, I try and progress through it in so far as the force is left out (with a suitably endowed dog) and have achieved very satisfactory results as I have earlier related. Like I said, A conditioned response is a conditioned response no matter how the conditioning was achieved. Note the caveat "suitably endowed dog!" Some, maybe even many, unfortunately, of today's US bred labs. may not be suitably endowed.

OTOH, I doubt there are very many beginners who are going to be able to work through the full Lardy force program w/o unfortunate repercussions wrt the development of the dog and the development of the relationship between the dog and man - provided that beginner attempts to go it cold turkey w/o considerable oversight and coaching by skilled experience professional. In fact, I've seen plenty of video of well known pros interacting with dogs which convinced me I'd never consider sending a dog to them - all pros are not created equal regardless of his/her stature in the community or accomplishments in the games - IMO.

I suspect a very small fraction of PL owners really aspire to FTCH level performance or expect to achieve same w/o the services of a professional trainer/handler. For those who want a hunting companion I would submit the results of time spent in the field with the dog, extensive On the Job Training in the form of hunting with copious bird contacts will greatly surpass any amount of time spent on formal yardwork in developing a superb final product.

We haven't even touched on the blending of some "structured" retriever skills training program such as Lardy's with upland hunting and manners on birds for a pointing dog.

I wish you were correct about my abilities. When I started this stuff nearly two decades ago, someone told me I needed to use an e-collar and told me how to use it (a la Dobbs - pure "negative reinforcement" forcing) and another fellow loaned me his old glow in the dark thing. The first thing I learned was the first guy was FOS and the second was I didn't then have the temperament to use that one speed welder on a dog. I've mellowed some since and had some guidance by some folks I consider to be amongst the best and who have achievements to back that up. Still, I find my emotions getting the better of me from time to time. When I can fully train a retriever dog w/o e-c; maybe I'll try the e-c force stuff. Or maybe a dog will come along that tips me over the edge.

I'm about done with this, I know I am in a tiny minority on the e-c force/no force thing.

I really don't care how other folks train their dogs, for what etc. except I'd rather they not abuse them and would hope some might listen and seek the special relationship I've found with mine.

Maybe some others will kick in with their two cents.

Jere

To the origianal query by Mike, Jere described it about as well as I have seen in his first response.

Jere, I don't think there is any such thing as retriever training (to a reasonably high level of performance) without the use of force. The issue is the TYPE of force being used to create a conditioned response. Why anyone would think that the use of choke collar tugs...to a degree that the dog cares enough about to comply with, or the use of heeling sticks to condition a PROMPT response to sitting...just a couple of examples...is any less "invasive" into the dog's life than the PROPER use of an EC...is beyond me. Every top dog trainer on the planet states that we must use that certain amount of "jerk" on the choke collar that results in COMPLIANCE with the command...no more...and certainly no less. And for sure, the dog DOES NOT LIKE that degree of force applied to his neck. Doesn't like it AT ALL. One thing's for sure...ECs do NOT cause trachea damage! (choke collar pressure shouldn't either but talk to any vet and they will tell you they see it all the time). As another poster stated, the use of ECs in a structured, building block manner, merely provides a method of correction that A) the dog understands and will RESPOND TO and B) that works at a distance and therefore cannot possibly be duplicated by any other means. I reject the notion that those FEW dogs who seem to be wired up to obey most commands "naturally" are ANY smarter or ANY better potential hunters than dogs who are somewhat more difficult to obtain compliance from. Why? Because often...the somewhat more difficult dogs (to train) HAVE MINDS OF THEIR OWN. They "cheat the bank" BECAUSE DOING SO IS THE FASTEST AND BEST WAY TO GET THE DAMN DUCK IN THEIR MOUTH and they are smart enough to know that!!! (-: But the original topic was the logic of Back-nick-back and others have already responded adequately to that. But to restate, it is not to teach getting to the pile...it is to teach a COMPULSION to do so. And the KEY to helping that compulsion to come out is NOT the nick...it is the ABSENCE of the nick...i.e. (from the dog's point of view) "If I haul ass to the pile I DON'T get nicked." But to create the possibility of that thought you first have to NICK...or the dog will never think there might be one. Also, any reasonable reading/viewing of Lardy's work provides the information that FTP drills DO NOT have to last very long. Hey, if the dog HAS the compulsion without the b-n-b sequence...then fine...use it a couple of times and then move on. So, to the question "Why FTP when the dog already hauls ass?" RIGHT...do it a couple of times on various days (dogs behave differently on different days just like humans do)just to CONFIRM the compulsion exists...and then QUIT IT and go on to something else. But the LAST thing you want to do is to use b-n-b out of the blue without having FIRST CONDITIONED the dog to the EC form of pressure and THAT is why a "structured" process is necessary. Regards, Jim

Good points. EC is only one form of pressure. Dogs react to pressure differently some not showing much on a high collar correction and on the other end of the spectrum some may shut down due to pressure if you call them back in and have them run something again (attrition). Heeling stick is pressure, leash is pressure, collar is pressure, attrition is pressure, repetition is pressure, commanding the dog to do something when they dont want to (or in the way they want to) is pressure whether you are using an EC or not.

All these things may be used to the detriment of to the dog or to teach the dog to be an amazing companion. That depends on understanding the dog and teaching the dog to understand how to learn.

"Every top dog trainer on the planet states that we must use that certain amount of "jerk" on the choke collar that results in COMPLIANCE with the command.."

So every dog trainer on the planet who does not agree with this statement can not be a top dog trainer." Forgive me if a don't believe this. Please don't suppose I am ignorant of the various methods of using aversive stimuli in dog training. Personally, because there are several quite disparate ways of using aversive, I really prefer the language of OC (which the OP mentioned familiarity with) to the blanketing of the whole with the generic term "pressure." I'm not gonna win that battle either, but in the present instance, I felt OC terminology might resonant with the OP.

I assume a "reasonably high level of performance" would include winning AKC FC title but not go so far as to require NFC? There have been dogs in relatively recent years which have held FC titles which accomplished the achievement w/o any force.

The dog BRED to retrieve "thinks," "If I haul ass I'll get that bird in my mouth;" and does so willingly, every time, because the extreme motivation is built into the animal! Fear of "pressure" is a sorry excuse for lack of the natural emotional makeup of the WELL BRED dog! Any dog can be trained to do anything (with a few exceptions, of course) but the dog BRED to do them will outperform the dog needing the training to do them for sure.

For a hunting dog, discouraging "bank cheating" is, to me, STUPID and you said enough to convince me if I hadn't already formed that position long ago by spending hours in the field and by studying trial rules/protocols and listening to proponents talking. Trial rules might be different if the tests included, e.g., retrieves from rapidly flowing water and some other more challenging scenarios from real world hunting. Absolute straight lines to marks through impenetrable. maybe even dangerous, brush comes to mind as being equally STUPID. It takes a special dog to work out the problems posed by such scenarios - especially after being "forced" into doing it the wrong way.

I repeat: Nowhere have I argued against a structured development process!

Sigh, it is really insane to try and convince anyone whose mind is already conditioned by dogma to think differently (just look at the behavior of the goons in Congress!), but fun from time to time anyway!

First snowfall today, I wonder whether I'll make it through the winter w/o a visit to API.

Jere

It doesn't make sense to me either Zeke....

On the old forum I talked until I was blue in the face about force and e-collars. I’m not going there again, I like to take my time and train brick by brick….force is not how you build team work with your hunting partner.

I never have or never would even consider back nick back, not my idea of teamwork. You know you’ve reached the pyramid when your bird dog starts pulling the cockle burrs off you waders and coat at the end of a hunt.
 
"If you train for total compliance your program will ultimately fail, if you train for total confidence your plan will ultimately succeed" ...Mike Gould, The Labrador Shooting Dog.

I think you have something there Randy!

The more i train dogs the more i work with there wellingness to please,

I did Hold and Fetch with a guys dog and was done in 2 and a half weeks, with alot of teaching and alot of good dog, and very minimal pressure, and i cannot believe how fast the dog learned it, IMO the dog wanted to!! The dog had fun and she fetches the same as a high pressure FF dog,, I think i learned something from her, I  was always positive she had fun and made fantastic gains every day,

I never used Back nick back with Dusty, when i say back she halls a##, IMO it is because she is enjoying the training and not in fear of what might happen, Yea we may have some problems at the Master level, but nothing that cant be taught with attrition,

You (Randy and Kevin) two are onto something it took years of near daily constant contact with three dogs - not to mention the counsel of a couple or three very experienced long term dogmen - to have creep into my thick skull.

I thought someone (Paco?) had mentioned the importance of socialization somewhere, but I can't find it to quote..

It really goes deeper than what is generally termed 'socialization.' It goes to the very deep bond that develops over time between two friends doing something together each loves to do as equals and trusted partners. I know, that may sound all "wishy washy" what with one being a human and the other 'only' a dog and I am sure no one who has never experienced that sort of partnership with a dog will readily understand what I'm talking about. Maybe that relationship can be achieved with judicious use of a complex force program such as Carr originated - maybe not. My suspicion is the results will be different in a way I can't describe yet - dogs are very adaptable critters when it comes to living around humans. One can not tell with a single dog because there is no control subject.

I wish Tucker and Storm were here to tell y'all about it (Grin).

Jere