I'd heard of ear pinch, but toe pinch?

[Kat09Tails]

Do you seriously know anyone who would go hungry if their dog failed to retrieve? And even if such a person existed, could they afford or have access to an ecollar?

Actually I do know people who indeed at points in their life hunted to sustain their families. Nope - they didn't use and e collar although some do use an ecollar now and yes they used and still use the forced retrieve. I was speaking of the foundations of this kind of work - people use what they know - especially if what they know works.

Just because not many hunt to survive doesn't mean the forced retrieve is wrong. Is it right for every trainer in every field? Probably not but there is a reason it has stayed as long as it has with the tradition in the fields that it survives in and it's not just that it is tradition - it's because it does work.

What does better mean after all? Better for whom? The dog? The handler? The aesthetics of the casual observer?

 

[Danefied]

What does better mean after all? Better for whom? The dog? The handler? The aesthetics of the casual observer?

Yes
I think the first priority should be the wellbeing of the dog, then absolutely, cater to the strengths of the handler, and sure, put aesthetics in there too.

 

[smeagle]

I disagree with your example. You can't train drive OUT of a dog with any method. My dogs have on and off buttons - trained. There are times that I want them to be calm and other times I want them to be driven, but with focus. Just because I have taught them a settle command doesn't mean I can't turn them back on again.

I wasn't talking about training drive out of a dog (IMO that's near impossible to do). I like my dogs to have off switches too.

This seriously makes zero sense to me, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying?
To me it sounds like you're saying you have to sacrifice manners for drive which is completely not true. Yeah, drivey dogs are annoying as heck, but you absolutely can teach and reinforce manners without diminishing drive.

Not at all. I'm saying that if someone has always taught and rewarded the dog for being out of drive by rewarding calm and well mannered behaviour around the handler then it is often hard work to get the dog to then go into drive and do the opposite of what they've been rewarded to do i.e. chase food, grab and tug a toy. The number of dogs I have seen that have gone 'but I've always been rewarded for sitting calmly and not grabbing things out of your hand?' when encouraged to chase something and let their inhibitions go is huge!

I'm not at all saying you can't teach manners, I am simply saying that dogs who have always been rewarded for calm behaviour and never encouraged to go into drive around the handler can and do struggle with drive work. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it is certainly one example of how strong R+ can be and how difficult it can be to undo.

 

[Emily]

Ok, I'm only saying this once more.

The example I offered of poor PR training was an example of poor application of a strong method. It was, as Smeagle said, that "bad training is bad training." Not an example of why PR training doesn't work. As I use PR training almost exclusively, that would be a silly point to try and make, would it not? I made that abundantly clear in my original post, and in subsequent posts. I would sincerely appreciate it if anyone considering replying would read it thoroughly, and not skim. Thank you.

As for my character, well, those who know me in person and have competed against me know that I'm an excellent sport. As for people on the internet... not my priority, lol.

I'm saying that if someone has always taught and rewarded the dog for being out of drive by rewarding calm and well mannered behaviour around the handler then it is often hard work to get the dog to then go into drive and do the opposite of what they've been rewarded to do i.e. chase food, grab and tug a toy.

Agreed.

 

[Emily]

This isn't about who loves their dogs more, frankly I find the suggestion that there is somehow a link between the two rather disgusting. It is about training and using what works. If it doesn't gel well with you - great! don't use it with my blessing. I don't want anyone to use any technique they're not 100% comfortable with - to be honest I don't use the forced retrieve either - but it doesn't mean I can't acknowledge it works - it works well for those who choose it - the dogs don't seem worse for it.

This! Well said!

The bold I added is a strong personal belief I hold. It is the reason I allow head halters in my OB class as well. I don't like them, I don't think they're "dog friendly", and I think that for most dogs, there are better alternatives out there. However, every dog and handler team has needs as individuals, and there are times when those needs will be met with a head halter. I don't want the owner using a tool they feel weird about using, so if a head halter is what they're comfie with and if they use it properly, cool. It is why I demoed how to fit and use one at our first session as well.

Beyond my personal beliefs, what's far more important is that handlers make progress with their dogs, so dogs lead better lives, go more places, get more exercise, etc. That's really what it comes down to, in the end. Not what I prefer, but what works.

 

[Aleron]

I don't know that it is "easier", but it is what people know. It works for them, it has worked for them, they see no reason to change it. People rationalize whatever they believe in not only in training, but everything.

I'd say this is it in a nutshell.

For me "play training" a retrieve is super easy because that is what I have always done. I know people who use ear pinch and who have trained every dog they've had over many years using an ear pinch including soft dogs and very non-traditional obedience breeds. For them, when they are training an obedience dog they already know the dog will be taught to retrieve using an ear pinch. I supposed they feel it's the "easiest" and "most reliable" way, since it's most familiar to them, it's what has been proven to them to work in the past.

Oh, I don't know... R+ training is *really* forgiving. If you screw up, just change the criteria. Easy to fix. Yeah, you can still get sloppy behaviors with R+, but its a heck of a lot easier to "undo the damage" so-to-speak. (I would know from personal experience with teaching sloppy behaviors )

Poor training still shows with reliability and precision (or really lack of those things) though, regardless of method.

I'm not at all saying you can't teach manners, I am simply saying that dogs who have always been rewarded for calm behaviour and never encouraged to go into drive around the handler can and do struggle with drive work. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it is certainly one example of how strong R+ can be and how difficult it can be to undo.

This has been my experience too. A lot of dogs tend to "lose" drive if it isn't properly developed and maintained. I have seen dogs start off as puppies who love to tug and chase and grab stuff grow into adults who find such things only mildly interesting because their people outwardly discouraged such behaviors and/or strongly reinforced against them.

Beyond my personal beliefs, what's far more important is that handlers make progress with their dogs, so dogs lead better lives, go more places, get more exercise, etc. That's really what it comes down to, in the end. Not what I prefer, but what works..

I agree. Nothing alienates newbies to training quicker than telling them they can't use the tool they are comfortable with because you don't like it. I take this approach to people I get who don't want to use food too. That's fine, I'll be explaining exercises based on the methods I use but I'm not going to try to make you use those methods. And guess what? In the end, most end up being more open to using food because they see that my dogs are well trained and see it working well for others. If I had made it a big deal the first night of class though, those people would have probably not come back.

 

[*blackrose]

Beyond my personal beliefs, what's far more important is that handlers make progress with their dogs, so dogs lead better lives, go more places, get more exercise, etc. That's really what it comes down to, in the end. Not what I prefer, but what works.

Hear hear!

 

[Danefied]

Beyond my personal beliefs, what's far more important is that handlers make progress with their dogs, so dogs lead better lives, go more places, get more exercise, etc. That's really what it comes down to, in the end. Not what I prefer, but what works.

Except we're talking retrieves here, not walking on a loose leash . Maybe I'm not being very imaginative, but I don't see a retrieve improving a dog's life. So to say "hey, whatever works" for something that offers no benefit to the dog whatsoever seems a bit callous to me. Especially when "whatever works" includes causing the dog pretty significant pain. JMO.

 

[Kat09Tails]

Clearly this dog's life has not been enhanced with the forced retrieve... not at all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-_9bl_ui_g

 

[Danefied]

Clearly this dog's life has not been enhanced with the forced retrieve... not at all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-_9bl_ui_g

I watched the whole video and I don't get your point. So he gets to run after dummies and swim? So he gets to interact with his owner? Can a dog not do these things without a retrieve?

The guy on the video says "this is a house dog except in the winter when he spends his nights outside so he stays climatized to the cold." (I guess he means acclimated.) Not the best example if you're trying to convince someone that retrieves enhance dogs' lives.

 

[release the hounds]

and really what is your point? Other than to talk down about things you have no concept of, though you claim to, no experience with, no nothing but words, again.

You put up videos of your retrieve video like you've accomplished something noteworthy. Sorry, picking up an item 2 feet away with loaded body language, multiple commands, a mouth full of food and a dog with a hovering butt, no speed, not much of anything other than he perks up for some food at the end and then poo pooing on this guys video like it shows NOTHING???

WTF is your deal? when you can train something even close to the same level as this, even close, then get back to us with your expertise.

I don't normally comment on any training vids, as long as people are having fun with their dogs, I don't really care what they're doing. But to get on here and pass off everything anybody puts up with a viewpoint you don't agree with as, "oh wow, the dog gets to swim and chase some stuff, BFD" type attitude, and then put up the level of training you've shown and act like it's something we should all be excited about????

you say you're just here to learn and understand??? yeah, have you really convicned yourself that is why??? Because I think the rest of us can see right thru that.

I think the point of the video of the retriever shows a dog doing something that would have some real world application and doing it well. i'm sure a dog can have a life without ever learning a retrieve, so why did you even bring up the thread in the first place?? they could probably go thru life just fine without having food taken from your mouth and put into theirs because they put their mouth on a container lid.

They could probably get thru life without having to heel around a silly ring all the time, or put their butts down when you raise you hand in front of you, or learn to laydown in a crate, or stop jumping on a door or any of the other things we make them do to live with us.

It's been said over and over by quite a few people on here, there are many ways to train behaviors and when training is done well, you can tell, and when it's not, you can tell. That goes for every method on the face of the earth.

oh, and climatize is a perfectly acceptable word to use in the context he used it in.

 

[Dekka]

Totally off topic lol.

This! Well said!

The bold I added is a strong personal belief I hold. It is the reason I allow head halters in my OB class as well. I don't like them, I don't think they're "dog friendly", and I think that for most dogs, there are better alternatives out there. However, every dog and handler team has needs as individuals, and there are times when those needs will be met with a head halter. I don't want the owner using a tool they feel weird about using, so if a head halter is what they're comfie with and if they use it properly, cool. It is why I demoed how to fit and use one at our first session as well.

This to me is very strange. Not the not liking head halters bit. I am not a fan either (though Dekka has one we used for a while when competing in very crowded indoor trials as a management tool for her snarky little face. She hasn't needed it in ages)

If people come to your class, they come to be taught by you. Why would you let them use a tool you think isn't in their best interest? They are paying for your expertise, your training and your opinion. If I went off to a lesson with someone I was interested in learning from I would actually be annoyed if they let me use something just because I was familiar with, that they thought was hindering my dog and I as a team.

 

[Taqroy]

Clearly this dog's life has not been enhanced with the forced retrieve... not at all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-_9bl_ui_g

I don't get it either?? And I hate it when this type of argument comes up (as it inevitably does in these threads). "Well look how happy this dog is! Clearly *punishmentmethod* wasn't so bad for him!" How do you know? Dog's don't communicate how happy they are with something because they can't talk. Can we assume they're happy because they're wagging their tail? Maybe, but that's like assuming that a human is happy just because they have a smile on their face.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM with how other people train their dogs, as long as it's not abusive. I have a problem with people using methods that they have no idea how to properly implement that can cause serious harm (psychically and psychologically) to their animals.

EDIT

I think the point of the video of the retriever shows a dog doing something that would have some real world application and doing it well.

If that is the point of the video then just ignore my entire post. Lol. BUT, I'm still not sure how that enhances the dog's life - isn't training a retrieve more to enhance the life of humans? That way we don't have to go get our own ducks.

 

[Aleron]

If I went off to a lesson with someone I was interested in learning from I would actually be annoyed if they let me use something just because I was familiar with, that they thought was hindering my dog and I as a team.

I suspect Emily's students are largely pet owners looking to teach their pet manners. They likely have their reasons for taking Emily's class, which probably varies a lot from person to person. Some may be taking the class because the mtheods in general mesh with what they want. But others are taking the class because it's the closest or their friend/neighbor/family member took it or their vet/groomer suggested it. I don't say this as anything against Emily, I say it because I taught pet obeidence classes for years and that was the case. Often students become enthusiastic about their instructor andtraining once they start seeing results but many don't go into it with that mindset. It is quite a different scenerio from a competitive student taking classes from a specific person because they want to know everything there is to know about how that person trains.

IMO in pet classes it is totally appropriate to let owners use a GL even if it isn't your preference, as long as it's working for them. If it isn't working for them or they voice concerns over it, that is the time to say "well that isn't always my first choice for pulling because that is a common issue, you could consider X,YZ instead". Making your classes all about students doing everything exactly as you say will tend to lose you a lot of students. When teaching classes, you have to be flexible. Before anyone says something about that...obviously, you aren't going to allow someone to beat on their dog in class or any such extreme scenerios. And obviously, if the tool is falt out not working the instructor will want to suggest something else. But a difference in opinion over a GL vs. a prong vs. a harness vs. a choke collar vs. a martingale if the owner is comfortable and the tool isn't causing problems is not a big deal in the long run.

 

[Emily]

Totally off topic lol.



This to me is very strange. Not the not liking head halters bit. I am not a fan either (though Dekka has one we used for a while when competing in very crowded indoor trials as a management tool for her snarky little face. She hasn't needed it in ages)

If people come to your class, they come to be taught by you. Why would you let them use a tool you think isn't in their best interest? They are paying for your expertise, your training and your opinion. If I went off to a lesson with someone I was interested in learning from I would actually be annoyed if they let me use something just because I was familiar with, that they thought was hindering my dog and I as a team.

It is totally off topic and all I will do is repeat myself. "However, every dog and handler team has needs as individuals, and there are times when those needs will be met with a head halter." It's really that simple.

Don't like it, don't take my class.

 

[Emily]

I suspect Emily's students are largely pet owners looking to teach their pet manners. They likely have their reasons for taking Emily's class, which probably varies a lot from person to person. Some may be taking the class because the mtheods in general mesh with what they want. But others are taking the class because it's the closest or their friend/neighbor/family member took it or their vet/groomer suggested it. I don't say this as anything against Emily, I say it because I taught pet obeidence classes for years and that was the case. Often students become enthusiastic about their instructor andtraining once they start seeing results but many don't go into it with that mindset. It is quite a different scenerio from a competitive student taking classes from a specific person because they want to know everything there is to know about how that person trains.

IMO in pet classes it is totally appropriate to let owners use a GL even if it isn't your preference, as long as it's working for them. If it isn't working for them or they voice concerns over it, that is the time to say "well that isn't always my first choice for pulling because that is a common issue, you could consider X,YZ instead". Making your classes all about students doing everything exactly as you say will tend to lose you a lot of students. When teaching classes, you have to be flexible. Before anyone says something about that...obviously, you aren't going to allow someone to beat on their dog in class or any such extreme scenerios. And obviously, if the tool is falt out not working the instructor will want to suggest something else. But a difference in opinion over a GL vs. a prong vs. a harness vs. a choke collar vs. a martingale if the owner is comfortable and the tool isn't causing problems is not a big deal in the long run.

This. All of it.

I have one student who's (I guess) doing the bolded. She saw Macky and I do a demo, I showed her some Rally stuff in the lobby one, etc. She called the office and asked for my class specifically. She wants to do Rally and maybe OB, and already shows her young Bullmastiff in the breed ring. I am "tougher" on her when we're doing exercises where it's going to affect her later in the ring, and I'm much less flexible and often say, "Do this because eventually she needs to do this," etc.

 

[Dizzy]

There is no right and wrong answer in morals and ethics.

There are those who argue torture gets results, and it's only done to 'bad' people. We could have a philosophical debate about that, but what's the point?

People will continue to do things which they can justify to themselves. If that's nothing, using electric shock treatment or beating an animal with a stick, if they can justify it, they'll say it's right. And really, right and wrong come down to your own moral upbringing and ability to reflect.

Never presume your way is the ONLY way though, it's only YOUR way.

Personally, my way is the right way

 

[Emily]

Never presume your way is the ONLY way though, it's only YOUR way.

I feel like I've said this 900 times in this thread.

 

[Dizzy]

I feel like I've said this 900 times in this thread.

I will still maintain there are other BETTER ways though. That's the point of debating ethical practices

Is it ethical to beat a dog to collect a duck?

Is it ethical to beat a dog to save a human?

Should guide dogs be trained using ecollars?

Etc.

*replace beat with whatever you like - tickle, treat, poke, slap, lick.

 

[Emily]

I will still maintain there are other BETTER ways though. That's the point of debating ethical practices

Is it ethical to beat a dog to collect a duck?

Is it ethical to beat a dog to save a human?

Should guide dogs be trained using ecollars?

Etc.

*replace beat with whatever you like - tickle, treat, poke, slap, lick.

Well, maybe there's somebody else on here who wants to debate. I don't.