RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

British Labs / No Force????

96K views 332 replies 84 participants last post by  Aussie 
#1 ·
Below is an article I found in Gun Dog magazine. I would like everyones thoughts on British Labs and British training methods that apparently "do not use force"?

Gun Dog Article:

There’s a new movement making British Style Field Trials popular again, along with the British strain of Labrador retriever. These Labs are largely born with the behavior of delivering retrieved objects to hand, making it unnecessary to force-fetch them. They are also bred to be calm companions as well as peak performers in the field, according to Robert Milner, who breeds British Labs at Duckhill Kennel. And from what I saw of his 5-week-old puppies to 5-year-old adults, it’s absolutely true.

The big attraction to these trials and British training methods, for me, was the lack of force training. No force to pile, force to water, force anything. For dogs bred to be highly trainable and good at hunting, like my golden, this philosophy says it’s not necessary to use force. It’s very believable after watching several British-trained dogs complete 175-yard blind retrieves through walls of 5-foot tall brush and woods, guided by whistle and hand signals, then stand at heel, steady as a rock, while they watch another dog work.
 
See less See more
#108 ·
Saw an ad for a new tv program. Amish Mafia. Made me think of the the chocolate dog guys without e-collars.
 
#113 ·
There hasn't been anything "new" about clicker training since Pavlov proved the theory. The "new" things are techniques for inducing the dog to perform the target behavior. Advancement's in "clicker training" could just as easily be applied to -r training. They are advances in training technique, not advances in learning theory.

Sorry folks but Karen Pryor and company didn't invent it. Pavlov and Skinner did. Well actually, mother nature did. Pavlov and Skinner just figured out the puzzle.
 
#114 ·
no force??

I am to lazy to read through and see if this was brought up.. I say no such thing as no force. When you push your puppies butt down and say sit - that is force. When you tell him to stay, heel or here and are using a lead to get compliance you are applying force. Force is more then FF and cc. it is incorporated into the most basic OB at a young age.
 
#120 ·
That is inevitably how everyone ends up feeling about these threads.

Evan
 
#122 ·
Can someone answer one, simple question?
What are you going to do? If and when a dog disobeys any command?

So far, all I have seen is...dog won't if properly taught. For me, that is no answer. After 30 some years of seeing differently.
 
#126 · (Edited)
Jennifer, I think you are taking stuff personally that is not directed at you. Those two earlier posts of mine that annoyed you were not directed at you. This topic comes up over and over again, it has for years. I doubt anyone has said anything in this thread that wasn't said in RTF threads like it 5 years ago. I have never disparged you or your training methods, you sound like you know a lot more about dogs than I do. I think you will be successful. But google something like "site:retrievertraining.net clicker " and you will find links to page after page of RTF threads on the topic, hence the dead horse feeling.
(Edit: I am new at this, I have hardly any opinions on anything about dog training, except that I do not want to hurt my dog!)

Here is a great video on the topic, maybe you remember it, I believe Milner brought it to our attention last year (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?78538-Clicker-Training):

 
#127 ·
I don't believe anyone wants to hurt their dogs and Renee you are more astute then you think.

These threads always go this way, because most folks on here that have trained to upper levels themselves, evolved over the years and continue to play the American Field Games are skeptical when a "newbie" for lack of a better term comes along without ever having trained a dog to those upper levels and says that there is a "new" way, without any proven consistant successes in those Tests/Trials. When in reality most people who really know how to train dogs, know that you train the dog at the end of your leash-there is no cookie cutter approach. A well balanced approach to dog training is just that~~well balanced. The insinuation of some that their dog is "happier" because you don't use a collar or do any force is just asking for a 'fight'. Don't know why we insist on having these American vs British threads.

I always hear people say they are "training for Hunt Tests and Field Trials". When in reality they may have had one dog run a few juniors~~so the "old timers" are skeptical and ask tough questions. Well we used to have the old timers ask tough questions, now-a-days that bluntness if frowned upon, because it might be "mean". It is easy to say you are training for something, the hard (AND HUMBLING) part is doing it, really doing it to where your dog can compete. You find out really quickly to surround yourself with people who are successful in your chosen game.

It seems lately that there is a lot of "last word-itis" and its not even winter yet!!!
 
#129 ·
Exactly. And instead of "training for hunt tests and field trials" it would be better put, "training AND COMPETING in hunt tests and field trials"......

I can train for the Olympics but its unlikely I will get much farther than buying the souvenir T-Shirt.

WRL
 
#131 · (Edited)
I didn't get around to this yesterday, except for filming it. Only had 30 min of daylight after work so we got straight out of the truck and ran these two poison birds. She has a controlled break on the first - my fault for not warming her up and giving her a cold right off the bat. This was our first time in the field since duck season started.

If I can be my own critic, I am obviously in a big hurry bc of the light situation. I didn't have a good place to do this on water, so I had to run it down the shore. It is not ideal, and you can tell she really didn't want to be handled back toward the shore.

Anyway, never been FF... Don't use a collar... Both sire and dam are imported from Ireland. I realize this thread went to clicker training, but this is referring back to top of the thread. I'm not trying to convince anyone the pup is amazing and can do absolutely everything, just that at a young age she can do what was questioned earlier in post # 17


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDyqSKZCbPg
 
#134 ·
Yep, I know this against the women's code to say in mixed company, but it's true I'm a little hormonal this week. And hubby has a cold, which means snoring which means no sleep for me.

Anyway, I posted the Dave Mason song to lighten the mood. Now I see WRL and Hunt em up have done that better than me!

Pom Pom Kum ba yah regards,
Jen
 
#142 ·
Yep, I know this against the women's code to say in mixed company, but it's true I'm a little hormonal this week. And hubby has a cold, which means snoring which means no sleep for me.

Jen
WHAT???!! You just single handedly set the women's movement back 100 years!

Do like the rest of us and put the phone down, move away from the computer keyboard and EAT A SNICKERS BAR!

Now repeat after me....."There's no crying in baseball!"

WRL
 
#147 · (Edited)
Darrin, see my quoted post above. I asked the same question in post 55 and no one has bothered to respond yet.... Perhaps it's more fun to take shots at each other than to have a real discussion... :sad:
I dropped out of this thread thinking it had not only gone on far too long, but it had strayed off what was already a pretty well worn path anyway. However since you ask ..

I can't and don't speak for Bob Milner or anyone else, this is just my own experience.

Within UK there is a continuing drift towards more reward based training and away from some of the old aversive methods. I grew up in an era when giving a Spaniel a bloody good hiding before even before taking it out was quite unremarkable; several people who were considered to be good dog men (and IMO were) published works which included advice on the best way to use a fan belt and /or administer a thrashing. One of these was Peter Moxon whose book has gone past nineteen editions. The move away from such stuff obviously proceeds at different speeds and in varying ways.

You may have seen the video of the working dog display at Crufts ... that trainer is a big advocate of wholly positive training. I've posted a few videos with Edward Martin in action ... wholly reward based trainer and very successful. Most of the well known retriever trainers don't go that far but their has been a revolution in both thinking and training. As Bartona says the only thing a N American trainer might view as force, punishment, whatever, is in administering a rebuke for an infraction of known standards, force as used in the the sense of Force Fetch or Carr based training is quite unknown and was never in vogue anyway.

Again, for me, I don't believe dogs deliberately choose to disobey a known and understood command, so I rarely if ever punish. When I do the maximum I go to is a scruff shake.

I'm off out picking right now, so must close.

Eug
 
#148 ·
I've also stayed away from this, as there didn't seem much point, when many on here don't want to look at how so-called 'British' training methods may actually work or have some value vs e-collar/ff/ear pinch etc. I don't know why people post things like "I wish this thread would go away"? Why don't they just not look at it, if they are not interested? Weird.

Anyway, to answer the question about aversives, for those that are interested, as Eug says, yes British trainers use aversives, some more so than others. And these come in the form of vocally correcting the dog "no!" or "oy!" (some times followed by the odd expletive!), and also by taking the dog back out to the spot of infringement and restarting or giving it a bit of a shake.

But as Eugene has said, there does seem to be much more of a move by some of the newer/more modern trainers (in line with other canine disciplines) to use positive methods of reinforcement (such as using a clicker in early stages of obedience training, and markers for good work). I would count myself in this group of kinder/modern/positive trainers...

I guess we teach positively, and then if something does go wrong we either 'correct' or use attrition or back track and try and get it engrained again.

So, at this point I would comment on the video posted by Barton (hope he doesn't mind). In that exercise, which to us is a straight forward blind retrieve with a marked distraction at an angle. I would line the dog for the blind and send it on that line with my cue word for a blind, rather than a mark, giving the dog a clue it is going for a blind rather than the mark it has just seen. I expect the dog to take my line that I am giving it. Other trainers here would indicate the 'poison bird' and command 'leave that' and then turn the dog onto the blind. I don't like doing this as I just simply want the dog to go where I am sending it - horses for courses. If the dog takes, and holds, my line it is going to fall over the bird on the stubble. And, to me, this excercise is about taking and holding a line (not whether a dog will handle/re-cast - I would practise that separately). So, in Barton's case the dog went only so far, and then was off line and required not one but 2-3 stops and re-casts.... To me, that wouldn't be acceptable (but to many handlers over here it is, if they are just picking up with their dogs, or doing the odd test). As, I say, I want the dog to take the line and hold that line until told otherwise (fairly simple on a flat field, but later will have to do this over fences, through cover, across ditches etc). So, I send the dog off and if it doesn't hold the line I will either (depending on the sensitivity of the dog) give it a vocal correction 'ah ah' once it has come way off line, recall and start again, or simply recall it and start again without a correction.

With a young dog, if it didn't manage this within a couple of go's I would then either simplify (walk out and show it the dummy and walk back) or walk further forwards to the dummy, shortening the distance of outrun (but keeping the exercise the same 'take my line and hold my line and you will find a dummy').

Until I had got this concept of blinds with distraction totally right, with the dog not sucking towards the 'poison bird', or as we would say 'challenging my line' then I certainly would not be setting the same exercise up on water!!! From the clip you see the dog challenged 3 times on land, and then on water this was a whole lot worse, around 8-9 commands to get the dummy. So, I would get rock solid on land, before going onto water.

Also, I would not always send for the 'poison bird' but sometimes go and hand pick it.

Not saying any of this is right or wrong. More than one way to skin a cat... but just giving an example on how I would train for something like this, here, with 'Brit methods'. For those that are interested. And for those that aren't, I can't believe they are still dipping into this thread?!!!.... :)
 
#157 ·
I've also stayed away from this, as there didn't seem much point, when many on here don't want to look at how so-called 'British' training methods may actually work or have some value vs e-collar/ff/ear pinch etc. I don't know why people post things like "I wish this thread would go away"? Why don't they just not look at it, if they are not interested? Weird.

Anyway, to answer the question about aversives, for those that are interested, as Eug says, yes British trainers use aversives, some more so than others. And these come in the form of vocally correcting the dog "no!" or "oy!" (some times followed by the odd expletive!), and also by taking the dog back out to the spot of infringement and restarting or giving it a bit of a shake.

But as Eugene has said, there does seem to be much more of a move by some of the newer/more modern trainers (in line with other canine disciplines) to use positive methods of reinforcement (such as using a clicker in early stages of obedience training, and markers for good work). I would count myself in this group of kinder/modern/positive trainers...

I guess we teach positively, and then if something does go wrong we either 'correct' or use attrition or back track and try and get it engrained again.

So, at this point I would comment on the video posted by Barton (hope he doesn't mind). In that exercise, which to us is a straight forward blind retrieve with a marked distraction at an angle. I would line the dog for the blind and send it on that line with my cue word for a blind, rather than a mark, giving the dog a clue it is going for a blind rather than the mark it has just seen. I expect the dog to take my line that I am giving it. Other trainers here would indicate the 'poison bird' and command 'leave that' and then turn the dog onto the blind. I don't like doing this as I just simply want the dog to go where I am sending it - horses for courses. If the dog takes, and holds, my line it is going to fall over the bird on the stubble. And, to me, this excercise is about taking and holding a line (not whether a dog will handle/re-cast - I would practise that separately). So, in Barton's case the dog went only so far, and then was off line and required not one but 2-3 stops and re-casts.... To me, that wouldn't be acceptable (but to many handlers over here it is, if they are just picking up with their dogs, or doing the odd test). As, I say, I want the dog to take the line and hold that line until told otherwise (fairly simple on a flat field, but later will have to do this over fences, through cover, across ditches etc). So, I send the dog off and if it doesn't hold the line I will either (depending on the sensitivity of the dog) give it a vocal correction 'ah ah' once it has come way off line, recall and start again, or simply recall it and start again without a correction.

With a young dog, if it didn't manage this within a couple of go's I would then either simplify (walk out and show it the dummy and walk back) or walk further forwards to the dummy, shortening the distance of outrun (but keeping the exercise the same 'take my line and hold my line and you will find a dummy').

Until I had got this concept of blinds with distraction totally right, with the dog not sucking towards the 'poison bird', or as we would say 'challenging my line' then I certainly would not be setting the same exercise up on water!!! From the clip you see the dog challenged 3 times on land, and then on water this was a whole lot worse, around 8-9 commands to get the dummy. So, I would get rock solid on land, before going onto water.

Also, I would not always send for the 'poison bird' but sometimes go and hand pick it.

Not saying any of this is right or wrong. More than one way to skin a cat... but just giving an example on how I would train for something like this, here, with 'Brit methods'. For those that are interested. And for those that aren't, I can't believe they are still dipping into this thread?!!!.... : may actually work or have some value vs e-collar/ff/ear pinch etc. I don't know why people post things like "I wish this thread would go away"? Why don't they just not look at it, if they are not interested? Weird.)

Not sure why folks are not open to other people’s training methods!or ideas or suggestions??

KM Yes I use words to convey what I am expecting and use “good” “yes” for praise.

Attrition is probably the way I would go to correct first or simplify. If we have an issue (loopy sit) I return to pile work no force! And practice whistle sits on the way out to the pile to decrease the momentum and get the quick sits. Just my way of doing things IMHO. I am really looking to make sure he understands what I am asking. May have to reteach. Again use positive comments for praise.

You are correct KM to have the dog well versed on land before attempting water. I practice lining drills and through attrition and simplifying get the dog to look out himself , then I put my hand down tweak and say "dead bird" "good" or "yes that is it" to cue him.

I am guilty of saying "no leave it". I run the mark on one side and it is a poison bird I say "leave it" and heel him to the other side and run the blind. Works well for me IMHO

And again like you I would stress doing land work first. Not saying any of this the only way but it works for me IMHO

KM really enjoyed your response. Hope you continue to comment We could all learn something. Thank you.
 
#149 ·
Eug, you and I are on the same page. I do not think that dogs disobey. It is not in their nature. They have spent the last 15,000 years evolving from a wild wolf in the forest to a valued companion living in the house. That move from forest to the fringe of the village fire to the yard and then into the house came about through breeding selection as dogs became more useful and more pleasing to humans.
Dogs do not disobey. They do fail to grasp the task to be performed when it is not adequately communicated, and they do fail to perform a task for which they have not been adequately prepared. Both of those instances are the trainer’s responsibility.
 
#152 · (Edited)
I agree with you guys here and preach this to pet dog clients on an almost daily basis. I tend to say that if a dog isn't performing a known task reliably, they aren't fully conditioned yet, which is pretty much the same as Robert saying they "haven't been adequately prepared". I happens that I have no issue whatsoever with using aversives to condition certain behaviors, especially at a distance, when the e-collar vastly improves my timing. Even in heeling, the pinch collar and lead approach in conjunction with rewards produces a reliable result much quicker and easier than using rewards alone, particularly when the dog is a lower drive critter.

I have definitely learned to balance back in the direction of rewards, adding more and more of them as I go along in my evolution as a trainer. I doubt I'll ever exclude the use of aversives in my training though and believe pretty strongly that those who claim to be +r only are simply ignoring the punishments they do employ. I think you'd have to never even put a collar on a dog to be purely +r, and I don't see that happening very often.

I've asked many people to allow me to put a harness or collar and leash on them to see how they liked it. Haven't had a taker yet.
 
#150 ·
Devil's advocate here....
My dog, an intact male, is very well trained in obedience. He knows what "leave it" means. I am 100% certain that he knows what that command means.
Now suppose we are quite near a bitch in standing heat. He is whining and chattering. He attempts to mount the bitch, and I tell him "leave it". He looks at me, then ignores me and continues to try to mount her.
Has he just disobeyed a command which I am certain he understands? I believe he has.
 
This post has been deleted
#153 ·
Hotel4dogs - or is it merely about one 'reward' outweighing another? ie. the 'reward' (positive reinforcement? forgive me if my tech terms aren't completely right) of having sex with the bitch is outweighing your reward of "good boy" or here's a treat, or I withhold punishment... So, the dog is doing the more rewarding behaviour, and you need to find a way of motivating him to do what you want instead, with a greater reward!!! LOL :D
 
#156 ·
You crack me up!
But that is why I did specify that, in my hypothetical ($5 word?) example, he looked right at me and went back to trying to mount her.
 
#165 · (Edited)
and while I'm chuckling at my own hypothetical example, it does still make me raise the question....is a dog capable of willfull disobedience if his instinct level is high enough?
I believe yes. I believe there are times when a dog's instincts or desires will over-ride all training, he will look right at you, and disobey a command. The expected reward is greater than the expected "other reward" that you are offering (or punishment if that's the training method).
I know my dog is certainly not unique in that he will refuse all food in the presence of an attractive female...or a bird. That piece of sausage could be as big as he is and he wouldn't even contemplate it.
edit to add...I am being deliberately obtuse just because I don't think you can say a dog will "NEVER" deliberately disobey. I do think that almost all of the time they disobey because they didn't understand something, or didn't truly know the command. But I also think that there are times when they just get that look in their eye and flip you the middle toe.
 
#167 ·
and while I'm chuckling at my own hypothetical example, it does still make me raise the question....is a dog capable of willfull disobedience if his instinct level is high enough?
I believe yes. I believe there are times when a dog's instincts or desires will over-ride all training, he will look right at you, and disobey a command. The expected reward is greater than the expected "other reward" that you are offering (or punishment if that's the training method).
I know my dog is certainly not unique in that he will refuse all food in the presence of an attractive female...or a bird. That piece of sausage could be as big as he is and he wouldn't even contemplate it.
They'll run right through a very hot underground fence in that case as well, but then many a man has made a dumb decision in the face of similar value rewards.
 
#170 ·
Willful disobedience is required of dogs that lead a blind individual. I believe they look for that in the dog to disobey a command.
 
#171 ·
As far as the leave it command, if the poison birds were as far off line as in the video there's not much need for a leave it command and I too would train the dog without that command. However in American AA stakes the line to the blind is down wind and only off line a few yards. I hear the command used often in the field trial world. I like to teach the leave it command while I'm force fetching/hold. I use "leave it" when I take the dummy. This does translate over to the poison bird blind or secondary selection over time if done properly. So Bon, rest assured the command is still alive and well!

On a second note, the water portion of that video, if the handler were to use NO VERBAL BACKS, just silent angle backs, do you all think he would get better direction change and possibly do that blind with half the whistles? Or not?
 
#172 · (Edited)
My answer: Use "voice" to drive back, silent cast to get change in direction.

Do they have water blinds like that in AKC tests and field trials? On the one hand you have the suction to land, on the other you have the suction to the poisson bird in the water. The dog is swimming under the arc, between the land and poison bird. Do the two factors cancel each other? I "heard" that, in a water blind, the poison bird is usually placed on land.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top