[wetdog]

I trained my first hunt test dog without a collar. I am guessing water work especially wouldn't be as technical. God, I hated wading/swimming out to correct a dog in the water!

 

[P T Brown]

Jim asked what dog trials (tests) would be like without the E-collar. This has sparked numerous comments relevant to training now and training past. I ran field trials in the 70’s and 80’s. As an amateur, doing all my own training, I had some success (Q win, AAA placings, and numerous JAMs). I never titled a dog. I left field trialing for numerous reasons, none related to training methods. I will say for the record that many of those things mentioned and now deemed totally inappropriate were more common place than the exception in that era. I can say (with regret) that I prodded, choked and shot dogs during that time. As unthinkable as that might seem to modern dog people, most all of those I trained with did the same. This conduct was not reserved to just hard butt Pro’s

The advent and evolution of the E collar has forever changed the above. Certainly to the better, for the sport, the trainers, and most of all the dogs. Although I remained out of the competitive dog world for over 30 years I none the less have always had a couple of gun dogs in my kennel. I kept up a training regime and attempted to stay current. I started to run hunt tests a couple of years ago and am again observing field trials. The learning curve has been steep.

To answer Jim’s question and only consider the E collar is difficult. I feel that the E collar is the single most significant thing to ever happen to retriever training. Other factors are also very significant; dogs are now bred to a standard of trainability rather than toughness. The market is full of videos and learning materials for the trainer. Technical grounds are numerous. ATV’s and radios are a factor.

As I think about current all age stakes with poison birds, extreme water entries, and picking up blinds before fliers and other factors of difficulty. I wonder how we would have possibly trained these things pre collar. The answer might not be pretty

 

[BonMallari]

Before this discussion goes any further people need to realize there were many trainers in yesteryear that trained without a collar and also did not use the brutal methods that have been described earlier...people like Jim Weitzel Sr (pro), Roy McFall,George Wilson,John Luther, and my brother...Did they use choke collars (yes) did they use cattle prods (no) slingshots (no) whip/leather strap (yes) ear pinch(yes) shotgun (hell no)....did they brutalize their dogs , NOPE..they were very firm in their corrections, and no they didn't all go running after the dog in tennis shoes, but they did go out and confront their dogs out in the field...

But the BIGGEST difference in their philosophy of training vs what is now considered normal, is that they didn't use a stimulus to make the dog GO/Retrieve, as opposed to an E collar trainer who uses a NICK when they send...Now I did witness quite a few non collar trainers that would whip a dog or prod a dog to go, but the gentleman listed above did not adhere to those methods...

So the obvious question from the casual observer is how did they make the dog go and how did they make the dog stop...The short answer is they used the lure of the retrieve to pull the dog to the bird to make them go...To make the dog stop they used different methods but the consensus was that they enforced the short beep/sit on the whistle in very tight quarters and in yard work that when the whistle was applied at distance the dogs knew what it meant..Now a whistle refusal at distance usually meant a visit from the handler which got them the nickname of tennis shoe trainer..

Later in life I do know Mr McFall used a collar because of his failing eyesight and health, but he used the collar as a long range whip.. My brother spent a considerable amount of time with Jim Hobbs to learn how to use the variable frequency collar and even purchased one but never opted to use it for personal reasons...

George Wilson switched to a collar when he started training with Lardy but later admitted that it was a poor choice on his part, because he didn't like what it did to his dogs that he started without one...I do know he used one when he switched over to running GSP's but he used them in a different way and ended up winning a couple of National Championships

the other reason I mentioned the gentleman above is that my brother trained with all of them, John was his early teacher and mentor, Roy then became his mentor, father figure and friend, Jim Sr became his friend while on the circuit and they trained together, and my brother helped teach George who in turn helped teach me for a short time...There were other non collar trainers but I won't testify to their methods since I didn't watch them except for the occasional visit

 

[jd6400]

Before this discussion goes any further people need to realize there were many trainers in yesteryear that trained without a collar and also did not use the brutal methods that have been described earlier...people like Jim Weitzel Sr (pro), Roy McFall,George Wilson,John Luther, and my brother...Did they use choke collars (yes) did they use cattle prods (no) slingshots (no) whip/leather strap (yes) ear pinch(yes) shotgun (hell no)....did they brutalize their dogs , NOPE..they were very firm in their corrections, and no they didn't all go running after the dog in tennis shoes, but they did go out and confront their dogs out in the field...

But the BIGGEST difference in their philosophy of training vs what is now considered normal, is that they didn't use a stimulus to make the dog GO/Retrieve, as opposed to an E collar trainer who uses a NICK when they send...Now I did witness quite a few non collar trainers that would whip a dog or prod a dog to go, but the gentleman listed above did not adhere to those methods...

So the obvious question from the casual observer is how did they make the dog go and how did they make the dog stop...The short answer is they used the lure of the retrieve to pull the dog to the bird to make them go...To make the dog stop they used different methods but the consensus was that they enforced the short beep/sit on the whistle in very tight quarters and in yard work that when the whistle was applied at distance the dogs knew what it meant..Now a whistle refusal at distance usually meant a visit from the handler which got them the nickname of tennis shoe trainer..

Later in life I do know Mr McFall used a collar because of his failing eyesight and health, but he used the collar as a long range whip.. My brother spent a considerable amount of time with Jim Hobbs to learn how to use the variable frequency collar and even purchased one but never opted to use it for personal reasons...

George Wilson switched to a collar when he started training with Lardy but later admitted that it was a poor choice on his part, because he didn't like what it did to his dogs that he started without one...I do know he used one when he switched over to running GSP's but he used them in a different way and ended up winning a couple of National Championships

the other reason I mentioned the gentleman above is that my brother trained with all of them, John was his early teacher and mentor, Roy then became his mentor, father figure and friend, Jim Sr became his friend while on the circuit and they trained together, and my brother helped teach George who in turn helped teach me for a short time...There were other non collar trainers but I won't testify to their methods since I didn't watch them except for the occasional visit

People,read this over and over...It is very well stated and I consider very much the truth.The whole point of this thread was to respond to the golden post below.

Here it goes.It was stated in more than one post that without the collar trials, would be less technical.Trials and breeding have evolved thru the e collar.
Maybe the Golden and the chessy for that matter could not evolve as quickly (or maybe never).Just a thought and enjoyed the chat. Jim

 

[Mark Couch]

One major factor in selective breeding (evolution) is the size of the gene pool. There are more Labs breeding should be able to progress more rapidly.

 

[Marvin S]

My 1st dog was 1963, my 1st placing in a FT was 1964. Over the years the number of placings my dogs
have received in competition are equal in Open, Amateur & Derby, I have no idea of how many dogs got
washed after winning 2 Q's & proving they were not ready for prime time ever! I have had the good
fortune of training with top Am's like Bob Sparks (Butte's Blue Moon), Mike Greene (Jalva's Sweet Charmain)
& others of lesser accomplishments who I also learned from. I was allowed to day train with one of our
local pro's so have seen many of the dogs talked about on these threads. I've also shared conversations with
some folks I consider top dog people like Max Darling, that guy named Lanse Brown & watched a ton of product
from different folks training regimen's perform, showing their wares.

As Dr. Ed described I've seen some fairly brutal stuff & my memory of John Luther is different than Bon's.
When my 1st dog went to the vet for OFA @ 6 years of age he commented that the dog's X-rays were much
different than what he was used to seeing. I have never rat shot a dog & found it unnecessary to steady a
dog. I have dusted a dog with a shotgun as I was taught by one of the local pro's.

I equate collar training with farming, when I grew up everything was organic, we called it food as there were
no chemicals. Today we ingest chemicals just to grow food faster & more of it. Not much different than
trying to hurry the process along with the collar.

I never force broke a dog until 1986, they all got done by hand after that. My 1st collar dog was 1990 & was
used sparingly & I'm certainly no expert on the subject either in use or outcome. But I have seen many pro's,
considered experts in the use with talented strings of dogs who have none with the coveted N in front of their
name.

I enjoyed the process of training a dog, like an artist painting a picture. I also found that you can train a dog on
many of the what are considered technical aspects of the sport without pressure. As the pro I worked with said
"Your collar is 5 years old but nearly new by use." I guess this came from watching dogs in my early years do some
really hard stuff, even by today's standards, & do it well, even by today's standards.

The equipment available today really helps the longer tests used. I've also seen some judges who did not need a
half a section to run a mark, there are still a few today but they are not asked to judge often! . IMO, the collar is
no different than any other tool one has available to train & while helpful in some instances, it is only helpful when
in the right hands. A person with a 4 wheeler, A couple of Bumper Boys, a winger & a bird thrower on occasion &
who utilizes the opportunity to day train with a quality pro can put a pretty nice product on the line at a FT.

As for gene pools, in the old days everyone bred to the best local stud. When I came to the West Coast I brought a
dog with me out of a good MT FC-AFC & a bitch out of Paha Sapa Chief. this was a significant upgrade over the locals
though this area was well known for the number of dogs that had N's in front of their name. I believe that significant
use of limited studs has degraded the Labrador gene pool. IMO, Honcho is the only dog who deserved to be bred as
much as he was & he was not without fault. Were I to get back in I believe I could find a dog without a press agent
that would be competitive in AA stakes.

The limitation on grounds available is a great hindrance on what a dog can be trained to do. I can remember judging
with Gus Rathert & his complaining of the long distances necessary to achieve a good training setup & even longer
distances required for competition. Even with the Interstate system, 500 miles is a long way!

That's my :2c: worth, remember if you haven't lived it, it's hard to comprehend!

One other - the sheer number of people participating or attempting to because they have disposable income is also
a positive in the ascendance of Labradors. IMO, fluffy dogs are too convenient to turn into house pets & it hurt their
evolution as FT dogs!

 

[Tim Carrion]

Maybe the Golden and the chessy for that matter could not evolve as quickly (or maybe never).Just a thought and enjoyed the chat. Jim

Or maybe as a breed they learn differently.

Retriever Journal 1997 John and Amy Dahl
"Labs also have the nature of being good students, readily accepting the job of solving problems in order to make retrieves. Most good Labradors are highly adaptable and readily adjust to a new environment, a new trainer, and new requirements being made upon them. "

"This adaptability is more typical of Labradors than other breeds. While Goldens, though energetic, have great stamina and Chesapeakes often learn to pace themselves, Labradors are apt to run themselves to death. Of course handlers need to be aware that hard work in hot weather is hazardous to any dog, but a Labrador is particularly disposed to require intervention for his own good."

"Labradors may have an edge in the ease of learning blinds. Goldens have a strong tendency to quarter and can change direction with amazing quickness, requiring patience and work in teaching of lining. Chesapeakes are apt to resent use of electric shock in training, and without the well-timed corrections made possible by the electric collar, progress is slower."

Tim

 

[Marvin S]

Or maybe as a breed they learn differently.

Retriever Journal 1997 John and Amy Dahl
"Labs also have the nature of being good students, readily accepting the job of solving problems in order to make retrieves. Most good Labradors are highly adaptable and readily adjust to a new environment, a new trainer, and new requirements being made upon them. "

"This adaptability is more typical of Labradors than other breeds. While Goldens, though energetic, have great stamina and Chesapeakes often learn to pace themselves, Labradors are apt to run themselves to death. Of course handlers need to be aware that hard work in hot weather is hazardous to any dog, but a Labrador is particularly disposed to require intervention for his own good."

"Labradors may have an edge in the ease of learning blinds. Goldens have a strong tendency to quarter and can change direction with amazing quickness, requiring patience and work in teaching of lining. Chesapeakes are apt to resent use of electric shock in training, and without the well-timed corrections made possible by the electric collar, progress is slower."

Tim

Limited gene pool - no one promoting them as Eloise did!

 

[CrackerJack]

I think they would be a lot less technical. Same for hunt tests.

First post here, and I see a lot of people saying tests/trials would be less technical. Did you run trials back in the 80s? For those who did, would you agree that trials are more technical now?

 

[Nick Toti]

This is not intended to answer the OP's question, but I think it is something of interest and is related to E collars History.

I remember reading a Retriever News article in the "Retrievers of the Past" section that was on a HOF dog named Lucky that Carl Ruffalo owned. He mentioned that he sent the dog off to be Collar Conditioned at 4 years old. During the CC training he pulled the dog to go run a trial that weekend(against the Pro Trainer's advice). Carl and Lucky WON a Double header that weekend! Pretty interesting event!'