 |
|
|
 Thursday, May 17, 2012
|
 | | |
|
|
Pointing Lab Forums
|
 |
|
Back - Nick - Back
Last Post 02 Dec 2011 12:04 AM by . 54 Replies. |
Sort:
|
|
 Prev Next |
You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Jere
Advanced Member
Posts:648
 |
| 12 Nov 2011 02:30 PM |
|
Posted By Paco on 10 Nov 2011 06:03 PM
No thanks Jere, it's not really escape, but avoidance.
I'm more of a common sense/simple kinda guy (with limited common sense )....
Overthinking hurts my brain.
Sorry, Frank. My mistake. Jere |
|
| Owned by: Alma Bottom Smokin' Storm - 'Storm' - avatar and Shadow's Tucker - 'Tuck' |
|
|
Paco
Advanced Member
Posts:856
On a trout stream in NW, MI.
|
| 12 Nov 2011 05:13 PM |
|
|
|
________________________________________
Founding member- Michigan Mafia (aka MM ;)
4X GMPR HRCH Fraquelli's Sauble River "GATOR"
GMPR HRCH HRKs Liberators Outlaw "RONDO" SH
GMPR VeraGators Smokin' Diablo of G'Force "SMOKEY"
Trust your dogs - Let 'em Roll
www.gforceretrievers.com
Outlaw Upland~Waterfowl Labs
|
|
|
bsmiley
Veteran Member
Posts:1063
Fishers Indiana
|
| 12 Nov 2011 06:28 PM |
|
?????? I find some of the comments about force fetch very interesting. Especially the ones indicating whether a dog "needs" force fetch. Any retriever worth a half a bag of Old Roy does not need force fetch to go pick up birds.
The concept of force fetch is NOT about getting a dog to pick up birds. It is the foundation block in a learning process that USES what the dog naturally does (retrieve) to teach a number of working concepts. Funny thing is that it does not even have to involve a lot of "force" and should be a learning process in, essentially, compliance under any circumstances that is built upon in advanced training.
Does the dog "need" this? Well hopefully the dog does not need this to go pic up birds, but I think going through the process [if you have expectations to take the dog into advanced work] is a benefit to the dog in helping them understand the learning process in doing things that may not be natural traits but really come down to compliance issues (turn off your nose, bird selection out of order, honor...).
I agree, why ff a dog just for the sake of doing it if their expectation is to be a nice gun dog. AND Yes why would you ever breed a dog that does not have the work ethic and drive to be a good gun dog without FF?
|
|
Cruz, 4XGMPR HRCH MH ("CAT 6")
Yeager, MPR HR (Master Pointing Lap Dog)
Cody, 2XGMPR, MH (BAMF,RIP Friend)
Runnin',Gunnin' & Pickin' Up the Chickens!
www.browngundogs.com
|
|
|
Jere
Advanced Member
Posts:648
|
| 13 Nov 2011 01:51 AM |
|
Posted By bsmiley on 12 Nov 2011 06:28 PM
... Yes why would you ever breed a dog that does not have the work ethic and drive to be a good gun dog without FF?
Or doesn't naturally pick up and carry stuff, even carry it to the guy that tossed it (well, might cut a youngster some slack on that, but probably shouldn't (grin) ) These action patterns are not a foregone conclusion though the lack of them should be a rarity.
Wind (in excess of 50 mph), rain, snow, sleet, hail, and falling trees here today. Man, I'm not sure I'm happy with the emerging new climate even if it is a little warmer!
Jere |
|
| Owned by: Alma Bottom Smokin' Storm - 'Storm' - avatar and Shadow's Tucker - 'Tuck' |
|
|
Jim
Basic Member
Posts:144
|
| 14 Nov 2011 11:37 AM |
|
For Jere
Posted By Jere on 31 Oct 2011 07:44 PM
JIM...."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.."
JERE...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.
I'm not sure you read the essence of my post correctly.
My POINT was that dogs do not understand the English language. They cannot learn what "shout" means simply by watching Sesame Street.
They do not SIT just because we tell them to...or heel...or stay...and certainly not "come/here."
Do you suggest that a dog sits because it wants to please us? You are "forgiven" for not believing my post but you are wrong.
"Force" and "pressure" are the same thing...check your Thesaurus. (-:
My comment about "every top trainer on the planet..." might have been too comprehensive so let me substitute the word "nearly" for "every" but I just didn't see the need to defend the comment from hair-splitting.
But I am always a sponge for new knowledge and techniques...so specifically...how do you go about teaching a dog to SIT and HEEL without the use of any form of pressure whatsoever?
(-:
Jim |
|
| |
|
|
Jere
Advanced Member
Posts:648
|
| 14 Nov 2011 10:27 PM |
|
Posted By av84fun on 14 Nov 2011 11:37 AM
For Jere
Posted By Jere on 31 Oct 2011 07:44 PM
JIM...."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.."
JERE...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.
1. I'm not sure you read the essence of my post correctly.
My POINT was that dogs do not understand the English language. They cannot learn what "shout" means simply by watching Sesame Street.
They do not SIT just because we tell them to...or heel...or stay...and certainly not "come/here."
Do you suggest that a dog sits because it wants to please us? You are "forgiven" for not believing my post but you are wrong.
2. "Force" and "pressure" are the same thing...check your Thesaurus. (-:
3. My comment about "every top trainer on the planet..." might have been too comprehensive so let me substitute the word "nearly" for "every" but I just didn't see the need to defend the comment from hair-splitting.
4. But I am always a sponge for new knowledge and techniques...so specifically...how do you go about teaching a dog to SIT and HEEL without the use of any form of pressure whatsoever?
(-:
Jim
1. If I had intended to comment upon your entire post, I would have quoted the entire post.
Some dogs may comply with the "sit" command correctly for that reason, all do not. Probably none do w/o some conditioning.
2. A thesaurus is a very poor reference for definition of technical or pseudo technical terms.
IMO, attempting to use dictionary definitions of technical terms is folly and only gets one into a deeper and deeper hole unless s/he is extremely careful I've not read anyone's work where such care is evident. If you had read my entire post you would have read I prefer the language of OC over the vernacular for discussion (in particular) of the use of aversives (creation of situations or application of inputs the dog finds unpleasant at one level or another) in dog training.
3. I'm not sure I'd accept the substitution either.
4. First let me get this straight. I am not a "total positive" trainer and I don't think I have posted anything which should have led anyone to believe I am. I even use direct punishment (P+) from time to time. I really use a lot of P- and have yet to encounter a dog where negative fallout came with it. (Don't try it with sea mammals though - they are said to go into deep depression, pout and even die if denied expected food for "disobedience.) I'm not a big fan of R- but will use it sometimes. If you really want to know about TP techniques I'd refer you to works on the subject - some clicker training books and internet sites might be a good place to start. If I remember correctly, the RTF thread paco referred us to had some references. Google 'clicker' and 'positive gundog' for a start. Believe me, there have been gundogs trained to very high levels (I know of one AFC retriever and a FC or two pointing dog.) by (purportedly) totally positive methods.
Teaching "sit" is quite easy using only positive, so-called R+, methods - at least with a food oriented dog. Simply hold some food tid-bit in front of the dog's face, slowly raise your hand above and back over its head, being careful not to let it get the food out of your hand. If you do this carefully and well the dog's attention will follow as you move and its butt will go down. As it hits the ground, say "sit" and give it the tid-bit. "In no time at all" the dog will respond to the verbal "sit" by planting its butt on the ground. If you object, saying preventing the dog from snatching the tid-bit from your moving hand is aversive, start by simply watching the dog as it goes about its business. Sooner or later it will begin to sit - at which point rush to say "sit" and give it a treat as its butt hits the ground or very soon after. I much prefer this sort of approach over the traditional upward lead input for a pointing dog because upward lead input is so often used in the training of pointing dog manners on birds and the last thing most of us want is a dog "sitting his birds." Now carrying a total positive approach through, with clicker etc, as Mike has talked about to culminate in a near 100% correct response under all conditions may well be more tedious than many folks want to attempt, but the initial teaching is childlike in its simplicity. The process is similar to the work of folks in Pavlov's lab. during the first part of the last century though there they were concerned only with creating relationships between initially foreign stimuli and REFLEX responses. (The effect was discovered when someone in the lab noted that the dogs began to salivate when the person responsible for feeding came into the kennel. It turned out they were responding to seeing someone in a white coat just as they responded naturally to food in the mouth.) Pavlov called these situations where some reflex behavior is elicited by a stimulus not naturally associated with that behavior "conditional reflexes." This was changed by a translator to "conditioned reflexes," IMO to the detriment of conveying the full depth of Pavlov's term. Pavlov was truly a genius and his physiological approach to understanding animal behavior very superior to the machinations of the "psychology" oriented folks who seem to have dominate the field after him - IMO. You'll find TP approaches to teaching and training heel readily if you search. Jere |
|
| Owned by: Alma Bottom Smokin' Storm - 'Storm' - avatar and Shadow's Tucker - 'Tuck' |
|
|
Zeke
Advanced Member
Posts:669
Northern Michigan
|
| 15 Nov 2011 02:10 AM |
|
Let me be clear, my approach which uses markers & rewards, also uses pressure & correction. I even use markers with certain types of corrections. I'm NOT a positive only, I just prefer to get it with positive, if I can. But, my bigger objectives is not to have training holes. Pressure add reliability to the outcomes.
Zeke |
|
MPR Zeke the Wonder Dog HRCH
www.teamwonderdogs.com
www.freewebs.com/zekethewonderdog
PR Director of the Michigan Mafia
MM Run-N-Gun Asssociation |
|
|
Jere
Advanced Member
Posts:648
|
| 15 Nov 2011 04:44 PM |
|
Posted By Zeke on 15 Nov 2011 02:10 AM
Let me be clear, my approach which uses markers & rewards, also uses pressure & correction. I even use markers with certain types of corrections. I'm NOT a positive only, I just prefer to get it with positive, if I can. But, my bigger objectives is not to have training holes. Pressure add reliability to the outcomes.
Zeke
Thanks, Mike - I see where someone might take what I wrote to imply you were a TP type of guy. I didn't mean what I said that way.
Jere |
|
| Owned by: Alma Bottom Smokin' Storm - 'Storm' - avatar and Shadow's Tucker - 'Tuck' |
|
|
Jim
Basic Member
Posts:144
|
| 17 Nov 2011 05:34 PM |
|
First...a genuine THANKS for your scholarly reply...although probably too scholarly to maximize your benefit to a general public site such as this wherein not all of us have the time and/or inclination to delve so deeply into the science of dog training as you have.
You mentioned dogs you are aware of that have top competition honors to their credit that SUPPOSEDLY were trained with TP methods.
The word "supposedly" places a very large hole in the middle of your assertions and must therefore, be disregarded.
I am glad to hear that your efforts do include some level of aversive methods. IN MY EXPERIENCE AND OBSERVATION, doing so would place you in the ranks of AT LEAST 90% of the most noted trainers of the past and present.
One aspect of any "TP" methodology would be the issue of TIME vs. ACHIEVEMENT vs. "general happiness" of the dog. In other words...fine, possibly TP WORKS but...
A. How long does it take for the student dog to reach any given level of performance and
B. Do aversive methods...APPLIED CONSISTENTLY AND HUMANELY...result in a dog that it any less "happy" than dogs trained with some aversive methods?
Are you aware of any research on those issues and if so, can you point me to them.
Having said the above...IN MY OWN PERSONAL OBSERVATION...which has spanned 50 years but is admittedly not a "scientific sample"...I have worked with and in the presence of dogs trained with aversive methods which just CANNOT be suspected of being emotionally harmed by such methods but rather perform in the field with AMAZING enthusiasm and skill.
Regards,
Jim |
|
| |
|
|
Jere
Advanced Member
Posts:648
|
| 20 Nov 2011 04:04 AM |
|
Posted By av84fun on 17 Nov 2011 05:34 PM
1. First...a genuine THANKS for your scholarly reply...although probably too scholarly to maximize your benefit to a general public site such as this wherein not all of us have the time and/or inclination to delve so deeply into the science of dog training as you have.
2. You mentioned dogs you are aware of that have top competition honors to their credit that SUPPOSEDLY were trained with TP methods.
The word "supposedly" places a very large hole in the middle of your assertions and must therefore, be disregarded.
3. ...
One aspect of any "TP" methodology would be the issue of TIME vs. ACHIEVEMENT vs. "general happiness" of the dog. In other words...fine, possibly TP WORKS but...
A. How long does it take for the student dog to reach any given level of performance and
B. Do aversive methods...APPLIED CONSISTENTLY AND HUMANELY...result in a dog that it any less "happy" than dogs trained with some aversive methods?
Are you aware of any research on those issues and if so, can you point me to them.
4. Having said the above...IN MY OWN PERSONAL OBSERVATION...which has spanned 50 years but is admittedly not a "scientific sample"...I have worked with and in the presence of dogs trained with aversive methods which just CANNOT be suspected of being emotionally harmed by such methods but rather perform in the field with AMAZING enthusiasm and skill.
Regards,
Jim
1. So, its a dirty job but someone has to do it, maybe. I figure, if I expand a single reader's perspective, challenge a single one to find the time to delve deeper, encourage a single one to think and think more critically about what s/he's doing and seeing; I've made my day.
2. I'm glad you're willing to overlook the "supposedly" qualifier I used (though I don't think you wrote what you meant (Grin))
In any case I can only report what owners have conveyed - having not been there myself to observe.
3. No I'm not aware of any such research but I might comment anyway.
As to A: Apparently some dogs might take a LONG time. One writer mentioned taking months to train some lap dog to sit! IDIOCY. But those dogs might not be the dogs you and I would need to work with. Our dogs, usually, are pretty intelligent and easy learners, IME.
As to B: Did you mean what you wrote or is this what you meant?
"B. Do aversive methods...APPLIED CONSISTENTLY AND HUMANELY...result in a dog that is any less "happy" than dogs trained with TOTAL POSITIVE methods?"
I couldn't say for sure. I've wondered about that question too. I do expect the dogs will differ. I don't know of an objective (measureable) definition of "humanely applied aversive," do you? I consider it humane, but not positive, to prevent the dog from achieving a retrieve on a mark if it breaks. There are other situations where similar aversive (P-) situations are very effective, IME. I suspect these are rather natural to the dog and evolution has programmed it to deal with them positively. Will the dog subjected to strong ear pinch through conditioning of the escape response really ever forget it was me who applied that ear pinch? Will that dog really work with the same joy as the dog that came by its learning w/o ear pinch? What would it take to decide the question - is there any difference? Probably some brain imaging studies might reveal distinct differences which would surprise a bunch of folks!
4. But see comments on 3. Are they the same dog they'd be w/o experiencing those aversive moments, having some of their innate initiative warped by the need to avoid/escape , etc.??? I think I said elsewhere to the effect; I "get off" watching dogs develop naturally as wild bird hunting partners more than I do squeezing them into the contrived mold of tests/trials for instance. I'm much more interested in what they do than I am in what they can be made to do. Jere |
|
| Owned by: Alma Bottom Smokin' Storm - 'Storm' - avatar and Shadow's Tucker - 'Tuck' |
|
|
Jim
Basic Member
Posts:144
|
| 20 Nov 2011 11:10 PM |
|
Thanks for fixing my comments in "B"
I suspected you would say that you know of no research on whether dogs trained aversively to some extent but humanely are any more or less "happy" than dogs trained TP (absent any objective definition of "humanely applied aversive" or, for that matter "happiness."
Of course as you point out, some dogs might be happiER trained TP than otherwise but that is a circular argument absent, as I think we both would agree, on any objective "happiness" metric. But AFAIC.... HAPPY AS HELL by observation is plenty good enough and I for one, am not going to get into a tailspin worrying whether my dogs could be happier than HAPPY AS HELL!
Finally, I think it would be instructive to look to nature her/himself and observe that members of the Canidae family...and I assume almost all otherland mammals in the wild are taught VERY aversively by their parents and other such wild creatures.
You asked:
1. Will your dog ever forget it was you who applied the ear pinch? Probably not and hopefully not. Virtually all societies of the lower and higher vertebrates function within heirarchical levels of authority. It is vital that each member of any society know who, exactly, is in charge and what standards of behavior will be tolerated, rewarded or punished.
I have always chosen to perform only the "hold" portion of the FF process...not because I am worried that the dog will "hold it against me" but because I just am too much of a wimp and too impatient to pull it off successfully. But once the dog has been FFd I DO and MUST go to the ear and later the collar to occasionally reinforce the fetch command and to remind the dog who, exactly, is in charge.
2. Will the dog be just as happy after FF than a dog that came by its learning w/o FF? My above comments on degrees of happiness apply here word for word.
3. Will dogs have some of their innate initiative warped by the need to avoid/escape? Again, I refer to the way learning happens in the wild...and that analogy is especially apt given your use of the word "innate." I assume "training in the wild" is self-evident but just for example....who is boss....who gets the female...don't invade my space...you eat AFTER I eat....STOP BOTHERING ME....etc.etc.
Do the recipients of such "corrections"...which are often so SHARP AND SWIFT that they need not be repeated...remember who administered the aversive correction? YOU BET!
Regards,
Jim
(-:
|
|
| |
|
|
Jere
Advanced Member
Posts:648
|
| 21 Nov 2011 01:49 AM |
|
Posted By av84fun on 20 Nov 2011 11:10 PM
...I have always chosen to perform only the "hold" portion of the FF process... because I just am too much of a wimp and too impatient to pull it off successfully. ...
That's an interesting take on FF. There are some who insist a dog has not been FF'd until it is exhibiting the escape response to "fetch" when under what we'd both probably consider rather extreme "pressure," dog is 'screaming' in pain as it lunges for the buck. Still others insist the process is not done until 'walking fetch' is completed. And on and on. So you stop with 'hold?' I take it with little or no real aversive input? perhaps only what is necessary to achieve a true 'hold,' calm mouth and head manners etc?
When I see video of a dog dragging its butt close to the ground, tail way down - perhaps between its legs, ears down, eyes popping in reaction to its handler; I feel the line has been crossed and I don't care how "happy" that dog may seem some months later. Its relationship with that person and, perhaps all persons has been altered for the worse. It doesn't take much to put some dog's ears down and, IME, though the intensity of the reaction moderates with time there must be some essentially permanent change there. I don't generally think of dog training as a process of establishing control and some pack hierarchy (indeed the modern view of wolf pack dynamics has moved away from the model of a dominance hierarchy in recent years.) but rather a process whereby certain 'rituals' are created (Dogs love ritual, according to one amateur ethologist I knew.) and the dog learns 'proper' responses to the various situations expected to be encountered in the field so as to make the 'hunt' more productive. In connection with the later and bringing the subject of another recent thread in, one of these for a pointing dog, is stop to flush. This is the basis for essentially ALL manners on birds of a working pointing dog and one can not work on it too much, IMO. I'm rambling - time to quit. Jere |
|
| Owned by: Alma Bottom Smokin' Storm - 'Storm' - avatar and Shadow's Tucker - 'Tuck' |
|
|
Boeinguy
New Member
Posts:94
Boise, ID
|
| 23 Nov 2011 09:30 PM |
|
Interesting thread. I thought of it the other evening as we watched a movie titled "Buck". The movie was about a horse trainer...modern day horse whisperer. Very interesting and insightful. One of his statements that stood out to me most was: "Most people with a horse problem actually have a horse with a people problem". I substituted dog for horse and looked in the mirror!  |
|
| "The Best Meal A Man Can Eat Has Already Been In His Dog's Mouth" ..."Dad" |
|
|
Paco
Advanced Member
Posts:856
On a trout stream in NW, MI.
|
| 24 Nov 2011 08:45 AM |
|
Posted By Boeinguy on 23 Nov 2011 09:30 PM
Interesting thread. I thought of it the other evening as we watched a movie titled "Buck". The movie was about a horse trainer...modern day horse whisperer. Very interesting and insightful. One of his statements that stood out to me most was: "Most people with a horse problem actually have a horse with a people problem".
I substituted dog for horse and looked in the mirror! Brilliant, short sweet and to the point, I like that. |
|
________________________________________
Founding member- Michigan Mafia (aka MM ;)
4X GMPR HRCH Fraquelli's Sauble River "GATOR"
GMPR HRCH HRKs Liberators Outlaw "RONDO" SH
GMPR VeraGators Smokin' Diablo of G'Force "SMOKEY"
Trust your dogs - Let 'em Roll
www.gforceretrievers.com
Outlaw Upland~Waterfowl Labs
|
|
|
Jim
Basic Member
Posts:144
|
| 02 Dec 2011 12:04 AM |
|
Yes...I've always stopped (personally) with HOLD. I wouldn't say that process was essentially non-aversive though.
Clamping the dog's mouth so he can't spit it out and "bopping" his chin when he does are tactics that I think are both aversive and unavoidable.
But it is CRUCIAL imho...that once a proper hold is being demonstrated, to pat the head and speak kindly/gently to the dog so he finds real pleasure as a result of the act of a proper hold.
I also TOTALLY agree with you that it is awful to see dogs literally cowering in the presence of their trainers.
I have a DVD set from a male/female pair of trainers with a HUGE number of Trial and Test dogs to their "credit" (you all know who they are). And YES, the dogs HEEL and SIT instantly and take direct lines and all that stuff...but they absolutely COWER up to the trainer's sides.
I don't give a DAMN how many titles they have. If they had MY dog and he literally crawled up to their sides...however quickly...those trainers would have to take evasive action...FROM ME!!!!
)-: |
|
| |
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Active Forums 4.1
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|