British Labs / No Force????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Flint

It’s pretty easy to get a birdy dog to sit when he scents a bird using 2Q methods only, but as he get’s more experience at it, it will tend to slow his flush to the point (no pun intended) where he slows down on the way in rather than accelerating into the flush as is required in the Springer games that I play.

If a bold flush isn’t important to you however, it’s probably the more reliable method to use.

---

Dave, one of the things I like is a bold flush. I have hunted over several springers and that is exactly the kind of work I like to see.

There a difference between bribery and reward but your point Is well taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Flint

Good post Scott,

“Positive Only” is the preferred approach of many parents too these days but consider the case where a mother tells her young son that if he’ll clean up his room she’ll take him to the pool. When she checks on him later, she finds that he hasn’t done what he was told so she informs him that they’re not going. Don't you think the child (assuming that he really wants to go swimming) sees this as punishment?

If so, then isn't the only difference between what the modern mother does & what my mother would have done (P+) in how the modern mother feels about herself?

Author Alfie Kohn in his book, Punished by Rewards makes the case that
“Punishment and rewards are two sides of the same coin.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jennifer Henion

I've made no secret of the fact that I've only achieved a JH title. And that was on the dog described as heeling in the hotel. He is now 3 and too slow and showy for field work.
Jen

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun_Dog2002

Which is great if the dogs only drive in the world is a piece of fake bacon and the soothing sound of a piece of plastic clicking in their ear. I prefer to train high drive bird dogs with much more intense desires than that...

/Paul

---

Isnt this really the crux of the matter and why there is so much difference of opinion on the subject. Ultimately clicker training on its own has not proved itself to be suitably efffective in US FT training.
The proof is in the pudding. Everyone would have jumped on the bandwagon if it were effective. Its not a new science after all.

Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gdgnyc

Dave, one of the things I like is a bold flush. I have hunted over several springers and that is exactly the kind of work I like to see.

---

I just threw that out there as a warning because of the Springer in your Avatar.

Several years ago, I tried it on a very nice Springer pup because as you know, a “soft flush” is probably the #1 reason good dogs wash out of the Field Trial game. I made the assumption that the most common cause of it was inappropriate or excessive pressure during the steadying process so I thought I’d avoid that by using only P+. What I noticed is that as the dog learned that sitting at the flush meant that he’d get the reinforcement of a retrieve, he started to anticipate that he’d want to sit as soon as he made game.

Although the pup initially had a bold flush, it progressively slowed down until it looked “tentative”. This was clearly not a case of a soft dog blinking birds, in fact it was the opposite. The dog loved birds so much he was trying extra hard to make sure he got the retrieve.

From that experiment I learned that in order to develop & maintain the Bold flush required, I need to first encourage a dog by letting him catch clip winged pigeons often enough to keep him thinking that if he tries hard enough, he can snatch them from before they get away and to use aversives to keep him right on the “edge of control”. The 2Q approach, while effective in teaching the dog that “self-control brings a reward” is not appropriate for what I want in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jennifer Henion

This thread is like a cocktail party. Lots of different discussions going on at once. Now where did I put my cocktail?

---

Thats for sure!


I am new to the forum and I posted this thread to get a some opinions, I would have never imagined it would go this long or be this controversial. However, I have read some interesting points on this topic and appreciate everyone's input..

I would like to educate myself on some of these training methods. Whether or not I use them is to be seen. Knowledge has been an ongoing mission in my life and I am always learning from others, I don't see why these training methods should be any different.

Does anyone have references to these training methods? Books ,videos, websites....

I did order a copy of Robert Milners book and visited his website and watched some videos, I must say it's impressive!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonronamo

Thats for sure!


I am new to the forum and I posted this thread to get a some opinions, I would have never imagined it would go this long or be this controversial. However, I have read some interesting points on this topic and appreciate everyone's input..

I would like to educate myself on some of these training methods. Whether or not I use them is to be seen. Knowledge has been an ongoing mission in my life and I am always learning from others, I don't see why these training methods should be any different.

Does anyone have references to these training methods? Books ,videos, websites....

I did order a copy of Robert Milners book and visited his website and watched some videos, I must say it's impressive!

---

Why don't you just book some lessons with a 'Trainer'?...I imagine websites and videos would get you as much of a 'cocktail' as the thread?..Anyhow! At least you would be working with 'the dog in front of you'?...rather than some-one else's?..Just a thought!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sixpacklabs

Close but no cigar :p It's positive reinforcement and negative punishment. The example you gave of the rat getting his nose whacked would be positive punishment (positive because you added something, the nose whack) if in the future the rat was less likely to touch the lever because he got his nose whacked. Negative punishment involves removing something the animal desires or expects. For example, you toss a bumper, the puppy scoots forward and you go pick up the bumper. If the behavior of scooting forward decreases in the future, denying the retrieve was negative punishment.

The first post in the sticky "Simplifying Dog Learning Science" has definitions of these terms, gives some examples, and explains a bit about operant conditioning.

---

Honey, I studied B.F Skinner and Operant conditioning in college probably before you were born. My rat made it through all of his mazes in 3 weeks. what's your record? :D while the words may be different the principles are the same. People always re-package stuff and try to re-submit it as new. Kinda like Bell Bottoms...

Thanks Susan for your reply to +R and -P.....just wanted to make sure I understood the symbols.

Quote:

---

Now where did I put my cocktail?

---

Yeah, RTF has made me forget things and driven me to drink on a few occasions too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmilner

A compulsion trainer has to have a certain level of knowldege and certain level of skills to do a good job and produce a good product.

A positive trainer has to have a certain level of knowledge and certain level of skills to do a good job and produce a good product.

Being a good compulsion trainer does not make one a good positive trainer; being a good positive trainer does not make one a good compulsion trainer.

---

Now there is something from Mr. Milner that I can agree with!!!

But they are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, without a doubt, the most successful, expedient ... and the fairest TO THE DOG ... scenario is a trainer that is good at both AND has the skill and experience to read the dog he/she is training.

JS