[rmilner]

Kind of Ironic I just went to the mail box and there was the NOV. Issue of American Waterfowler with a check for one of my pictures that had been used in the magazine, turns out it is a photo of Cooper ( the puppy in my avitar) retrieving a bumper this fall. The photo is part of an article written by Mr. Milner " Delivery to Hand "

Lots of good advise in the article for young puppys, starting them out right getting them to deliver to hand from the begining, and what not to do possibly creating a delivery problem. Traditional FF is mentioned as the "Hard Way" And then to the "Tennis Ball Game" the tennis ball game does make sence and no doubt it works. MY question is do you feel the TBG accomplishes the same results as a true FF program or is it the SAFE way to go for inexperienced trainers not wanting to put pressure on there dogs thinking they may scew something up?

And like Denise Stated lets keep this civel please.

Todd,
I think that the ball game accomplishes both long term delivery to hand behavior, and it is by far the safest way to go for a novice handler. I try to write for and advise the "typical hunter'.
This hunter is by definition a novice trainer. He might train 4 or 5 dogs in his lifetime.
He needs the highest probability training methods.
With force fetch, as with any other force, a higher degree of training skill is needed on the part of the trainer. You can't call back the force after it is applied.
The force fetch process also "programs" a novice trainer to try to use force first to solve problems that arise.

I compared both methods while training a group of search and rescue dog handlers for several years. The positive training path proved to be 3 times faster in training the dog handler team than force based training was. The reason lies in all the extra problems that are created with misapplication of force. That is why I refer to traditional force fetch as the hard way to go in achieving delivery to hand.

 

[Todd Caswell]

Todd,
I think that the ball game accomplishes both long term delivery to hand behavior, and it is by far the safest way to go for a novice handler. I try to write for and advise the "typical hunter'.
This hunter is by definition a novice trainer. He might train 4 or 5 dogs in his lifetime.
He needs the highest probability training methods.
With force fetch, as with any other force, a higher degree of training skill is needed on the part of the trainer. You can't call back the force after it is applied.
The force fetch process also "programs" a novice trainer to try to use force first to solve problems that arise.

I compared both methods while training a group of search and rescue dog handlers for several years. The positive training path proved to be 3 times faster in training the dog handler team than force based training was. Ther reason lies in all the extra problems that are created with misapplication of force. That is why I refer to traditional force fetch as the hard way to go in achieving delivery to hand.

Fair enough and it makes sence, it's the safe way to go for some people, glad my picture could be part of your piece.

 

[Evan]

I have found that momentum is built by the dog's success at finding a bird at the end of a line or cast or series of casts.

That depends on the definition of momentum you subscribe to. I realize many people say "momentum" and mean "style" or speed. They aren't the same. In fact speed is not a criteria for momentum.

Momentum vs. Style​

Our common goal is to establish the relatively peaceful coexistence of both of these attributes. Before setting out to do that I would like to clear the air regarding my use of these terms.

The definitions of these terms are contained in the “Glossary of Terms” in the back of this book (Smartwork for Retrievers volume one). For the sake of current discourse I am offering them here.


ü Style: One of the Webster’s dictionary definitions of style is “showiness”. This is a term used to describe the speed, spirit, or enthusiasm with which a dog moves (going out and back) during a retrieve.
ü Momentum: 1) the force possessed by a moving body 2) Gain against resistance. In a retriever, this is a term that describes the force (via frame of mind) that maintains compulsion from the dogs’ point of origin (point of ‘send’, point of cast, etc.).

So that we are clear about this, the salient point here is that these qualities contrast, but can coexist – SHOULD coexist, and in my dogs, must coexist.

Think about it this way:

1) Style is a quality that is evidenced in a going-to mentality.
2) Momentum is an attribute produced by a going-from mentality.

Clearly, these traits may exist independently. Just as clearly, it is very desirable that they coexist.

Evan

 

[KwickLabs]

The original question was......

What is the difference between pointing dog FF and retriever FF?

........and we got several opposite sides over the adjacents. However, they were interesting.

 

[Todd Caswell]

Sort of got off track like most things here, but it's all good.......

 

[Snicklefritz]

That depends on the definition of momentum you subscribe to. I realize many people say "momentum" and mean "style" or speed. They aren't the same. In fact speed is not a criteria for momentum.

Momentum vs. Style​

Our common goal is to establish the relatively peaceful coexistence of both of these attributes. Before setting out to do that I would like to clear the air regarding my use of these terms.

The definitions of these terms are contained in the “Glossary of Terms” in the back of this book (Smartwork for Retrievers volume one). For the sake of current discourse I am offering them here.


ü Style: One of the Webster’s dictionary definitions of style is “showiness”. This is a term used to describe the speed, spirit, or enthusiasm with which a dog moves (going out and back) during a retrieve.
ü Momentum: 1) the force possessed by a moving body 2) Gain against resistance. In a retriever, this is a term that describes the force (via frame of mind) that maintains compulsion from the dogs’ point of origin (point of ‘send’, point of cast, etc.).

So that we are clear about this, the salient point here is that these qualities contrast, but can coexist – SHOULD coexist, and in my dogs, must coexist.

Think about it this way:

1) Style is a quality that is evidenced in a going-to mentality.
2) Momentum is an attribute produced by a going-from mentality.

Clearly, these traits may exist independently. Just as clearly, it is very desirable that they coexist.

Evan

With all due respect...you've taken your definitions from two different areas of understanding. Your definition of 'style' comes from the percieved appearance of the dog's behavior ...and is very subjective. Your definition of 'mometum' comes from physics and is objectively measureable in some way. '...going to' and '...going from' is a bit confusing.

To help clarify, could you describe the concrete behavior of a dog that has 'style', but not 'momentum'? And also, please describe the concrete behavior of a dog that has 'momentum', but not style?

Would be much appreciated - Snick

 

[RetrieversONLINE]

That depends on the definition of momentum you subscribe to. I realize many people say "momentum" and mean "style" or speed. They aren't the same. In fact speed is not a criteria for momentum.

Momentum vs. Style​

Our common goal is to establish the relatively peaceful coexistence of both of these attributes. Before setting out to do that I would like to clear the air regarding my use of these terms.

The definitions of these terms are contained in the “Glossary of Terms” in the back of this book (Smartwork for Retrievers volume one). For the sake of current discourse I am offering them here.


ü Style: One of the Webster’s dictionary definitions of style is “showiness”. This is a term used to describe the speed, spirit, or enthusiasm with which a dog moves (going out and back) during a retrieve.
ü Momentum: 1) the force possessed by a moving body 2) Gain against resistance. In a retriever, this is a term that describes the force (via frame of mind) that maintains compulsion from the dogs’ point of origin (point of ‘send’, point of cast, etc.).

So that we are clear about this, the salient point here is that these qualities contrast, but can coexist – SHOULD coexist, and in my dogs, must coexist.

Think about it this way:

1) Style is a quality that is evidenced in a going-to mentality.
2) Momentum is an attribute produced by a going-from mentality.

Clearly, these traits may exist independently. Just as clearly, it is very desirable that they coexist.

Evan

I can accept your definitions above with two caveats.

First, I don't think a dog needs speed to exhibit style.

Second. re Momentum. If it is a "force possessed by a body", it does not mean that force has to come from an external source like us, the trainer. I believe that the most desireable momentum comes from within the dog as their own "force" (desire) to get the bird. I think that programs that try to force momentum and make the dog run away rather than to are not necessarily the best. I do not want a dog that is running away from me. Having said that I do want the capability of being able to make my dog go when he thinks he should not. This is where I challenge the fun fetchers.

But my primary goal in all training is to develop a dog that exhibits style while displaying his own momentum in all situations.

Are we on the same page or is this a different philosophy among so-called "force" programs?

 

[Snicklefritz]

Dennis said:

Having said that I do want the capability of being able to make my dog go when he thinks he should not. This is where I challenge the fun fetchers.

I agree with almost everything you've said. However, 'Go' is, according to OC a 'conditioned response'. If we haven't conditioned a dog to 'Go', (read as teaching and generalization) the dog may not 'Go' under varying circumstances. How we get to 'Go' is irrelevant in OC terms...if the dog is thorougly conditioned to 'Go', he/she will 'Go' when cued to do so, whether it's fun or not. And, there is more than one way to arrive at the required conditioning.

Now, all of this pre-supposes that the handler is not asking too much of the dog and risking it's safety. And, I'm sure that's not what you meant.

Snick

 

[Todd Caswell]

Dennis said:



I agree with almost everything you've said. However, 'Go' is, according to OC a 'conditioned response'. If we haven't conditioned a dog to 'Go', (read as teaching and generalization) the dog may not 'Go' under varying circumstances. How we get to 'Go' is irrelevant in OC terms...if the dog is thorougly conditioned to 'Go', he/she will 'Go' when cued to do so, whether it's fun or not. And, there is more than one way to arrive at the required conditioning.

Now, all of this pre-supposes that the handler is not asking too much of the dog and risking it's safety. And, I'm sure that's not what you meant.

Snick

Snick What i think this all boils down to is if you have a dog that has above and beyond desire there almost always likely to go whether you have conditioned your dog to go using a force program or a "Positive only" program, but you take that dog that has middle of the road or below desire and at some point he;s going to flip you the bird. How do you being the non force guy approach that ?

Do you continue teaching a dog that already knows he has to go, or do you MAKE him do it and if so howe do you do it without pressure?

 

[Snicklefritz]

Snick What i think this all boils down to is if you have a dog that has above and beyond desire there almost always likely to go whether you have conditioned your dog to go using a force program or a "Positive only" program, but you take that dog that has middle of the road or below desire and at some point he;s going to flip you the bird. How do you being the non force guy approach that ?

Do you continue teaching a dog that already knows he has to go, or do you MAKE him do it and if so howe do you do it without pressure?

Fair question, Todd. There's an old US Air Force addage that you can make a brick fly...if you put a big enough engine on it.

But, somewhere along the line I thought the whole point was to identify the best dogs for breeding. If you have to force a dog to do what he is naturally inclinded to do, is that dog really, naturally inclinded to do so, and is that the best dog for breeding, or are we just kidding ourselves about that?

Respectful, inquiring minds want to know...

Snick

 

[RetrieversONLINE]

Dennis said: . . .

I agree with almost everything you've said. However, 'Go' is, according to OC a 'conditioned response'. If we haven't conditioned a dog to 'Go', (read as teaching and generalization) the dog may not 'Go' under varying circumstances. How we get to 'Go' is irrelevant in OC terms...if the dog is thorougly conditioned to 'Go', he/she will 'Go' when cued to do so, whether it's fun or not. And, there is more than one way to arrive at the required conditioning.
Snick

I accept that being able to make a dog "go" under all circumstances requires a conditioned response ( a la OC). Can you describe a method to do this without using an aversive/pressure/force of some kind?

 

[Todd Caswell]

Fair question, Todd

May have been a fair question but you didn't answer it..

 

[Snicklefritz]

I accept that being able to make a dog "go" under all circumstances requires a conditioned response ( a la OC). Can you describe a method to do this without using an aversive/pressure/force of some kind?

No! There is no method that will make a dog 'Go!' under all circumstances, whether it involves an 'aversive/pressure/force' method or not! So, now that we're in agreement on that...?

Snick

 

[Todd Caswell]

Fair question, Todd. There's an old US Air Force addage that you can make a brick fly...if you put a big enough engine on it.

But, somewhere along the line I thought the whole point was to identify the best dogs for breeding. If you have to force a dog to do what he is naturally inclinded to do, is that dog really, naturally inclinded to do so, and is that the best dog for breeding, or are we just kidding ourselves about that?

Respectful, inquiring minds want to know...

Snick

I know your a knowlable enough man and been on here long enough to know FF isn't about forcing a well breed retriever to retriever.

 

[RetrieversONLINE]

No! There is no method that will make a dog 'Go!' under all circumstances, whether it involves an 'aversive/pressure/force' method or not! So, now that we're in agreement on that...?

Snick

The only reason I asked the questions was that you just said

"...if the dog is thorougly conditioned to 'Go', he/she will 'Go' when cued to do so, whether it's fun or not. And, there is more than one way to arrive at the required conditioning."

This certainly implied "most" if not all circumstances. How about a method for "most" circumstances when it's "not fun!"

In all seriousness, I would really like to discover such methods! I would embrace them.

 

[Snicklefritz]

How do you being the non force guy approach that ?

Do you continue teaching a dog that already knows he has to go, or do you MAKE him do it and if so howe do you do it without pressure?

I don't force the dog. I do not assume the dog 'already knows'. I do not make it a test of wills. I do not make it an contest of egos. In fact, I believe the dog, being well bred, really wants to go. I give the dog the benefit of the doubt and back up and teach, I simplfy. I use attrition. And, in some circumstances I ask 'why?' a dog that loves to 'Go' doesn't want to 'Go' in this situation. Maybe I have missed something important to the dog?

Is there pressure involved. Well, yes! Learning something foreign to the dog is probably stressful for the dog. We all can probably agree that all stress is not necessarily evil. And, I use indirect pressure from time to time if the dog is distracted, but I do not use force. Unless of course you want to make all force and pressure equivalent.

Snick

 

[Todd Caswell]

And, I use indirect pressure from time to time

In what form??

 

[Snicklefritz]

Snick
if you would be kind enough to explain how you do this ,,then I will be kind enough to explain why it is not a truely conditioned response. behaviorally speaking that is.

Pete

Pete

Happy to provide (couldn't remember how to spell 'oblagde' or whatever )

On the table the dog reaches for the bumper, and that behavior was reinforced with a really great treat and lots of praise. Positively reinforcing the 'fetch' behavior'.

I moved to the ground and repeat. Again, positively reinforcing the 'fetch' behavior.

I moved to 'walking fetch'. This is where the 'fetch' is put on cue. i.e. the dog is reinforced when he 'fetches' on cue, and is not reinforced if he tries to retrieve without the cue.

I moved to very short retrieves. Again, the dog was positively reinforced for the behavior.

I lengthened the retrieves. Then I went through the following:

Easy to get to , easy to find.
Easy to get to, hard to find.
Hard to get to, easy to find.
Hard to get to, hard to find.

Each step is positively reinforced for the desired behavior.

On water, same same on marks. At this point there has not been a single case to 'correct' the dog.

When we got to blinds it was more challenging, but it was always a question of confidence, and not of 'wills'. In every case, so far at least, when I've taken time to build the dog's confidence and reinforced the proper behavior with a reward, it has resolved the problem.

Now, Pete, since you weren't there... please feel free to disect what I've done.

Snick

 

[Snicklefritz]

The only reason I asked the questions was that you just said

"...if the dog is thorougly conditioned to 'Go', he/she will 'Go' when cued to do so, whether it's fun or not. And, there is more than one way to arrive at the required conditioning."

This certainly implied "most" if not all circumstances. How about a method for "most" circumstances when it's "not fun!"

In all seriousness, I would really like to discover such methods! I would embrace them.

Under what circumstances would most circumstances NOT be fun for the dog?

If you're looking for continuing situations where there's nothing in it for the dog, i.e, the dog's natural ability via breeding and evolution, then
we truly are on a different planet.


Snick

 

[Snicklefritz]

In what form??

Two forms primarily, and for example:

The dog is just not focused - walk quietly out to the dog, or call them in (it doesn't seem to matter) and go through a rapid series of 'sit, down, up, down, sit, up, down'). The sequence does not matter as long as it's random. It's done in a no-nonsense manner with no equivocation on the standard..

If the dog has refused a cast, say a right angle back followed by the dog taking a left of some sort, call the dog back in toward you until he is back on line and recast. (This assumes, and is true for my dog, that he knows a cast when I give it.) The fact that you've called the dog back in the opposite direction he thinks he should go, and the fact that you are now closer to the dog, act as indirect pressure on the dog. Learned it from Steve Durrence (apologies to Steve if I mispelled his name).

Just a couple of effective examples.

Snick