This dog is being trained using positive reinforcement methods.
From LindsayandLumi. This user has a wikibook on this type of training for retrievers.
This dog is being trained using an e-collar and positive reinforcement. BTW, e-collars are no worse than the invisible fence collars.
From jwp1002
The former method is still in its experimental stages. The latter is the more common method used and the one that most trainers use.
The dogs are in different stages of training, so don’t let that confuse you.
It is easier to train a retriever to English trial methods using the former method. The Brits believe retrievers are bred and then honed through training. Americans believe that retrievers are bred but then conditioned to retrieve. The Brits believe that the dogs should find every dropped bird on their own with some direction. Americans believe that directed retrieves are the best way. And that’s why our trials are so different. Goldens tend to do better in British trials than their American counterparts do. A golden won the International Gundog League’s retriever trial in 2006. The last one to do so was in 1982. The last National Field Champion golden in America was in the 1950’s.
Goldens and flat-coats evolved in the English system. That’s one reason why they often show setter-type quartering on their own. That’s very useful if you want a dog to find birds and do casts on its own. The golden is a very under-utilized upland game dog, and contrary to the advice often given, this breed is useful in retrieving form heavy cover. You just have to pluck the thorns, burrs, and beggar ticks out of their coat. But that’s a small sacrifice for using a dog with superior air scenting abilities. During English trials, in which hares, partridges, and pheasants are the game, a dog like this is of some use.
American trials are designed for waterfowl retrievers that sometimes have to retrieve the odd pheasant. The dogs take direction and are handled to their marks to a much larger extent than the British trial dogs are. The goal of the American trial is to test handling skills; the goal of the British trial is to test natural instincts that are honed through training. It’s a very different philosophy.
If we had a separate British trial system in North America, it is likely we would have a few goldens and other minority breeds do well in those. But for the American trial, the Labrador, which has been bred for generation after generation for trials, is the retriever of all retrievers. They are like maze-bright rats that have been bred for generations to run through mazes faster than the others. It is a breed that largely developed for the trials.
For regular gundog work, a dog trained the English way is more than suitable for the task at hand.
I’ve seen positive reinforcement create superb assistance dogs. I don’t see why the methods can’t eventually evolve to suit gundog trainers. It’s just going to take time to develop a system.
Either training method works well for junior dogs, some senior dogs. As I’ve stated before, positive reinforcement, clicker training, and other non-pressure techniques are wonderful tools. I would much rather train my dog with the cookie/clicker method. I use those techniques exclusively in obedience, agility and conformation. But there are times when I do rely on e-collars as one tool of many in my toolbox.
I rarely see a dog competing in the highest levels of competition in US field trials or Master-level hunt tests that haven’t had some form of collar conditioning.
It usually isn’t about encouraging the dog to retrieve. They should want to do that already. But look at the dog in the first video. He’s developing horrible bird habits. I realize he’s younger, with less training. Watch how he handles the birds when he retrieves them. Watch his “shake to kill” head movements. Watch him go wide when he returns to his handler. Those things can quickly turn into crushed birds and victory laps, or failure to return at all. He doesn’t do that with bumpers. Can those tendencies be corrected through positive methods? Sometimes, absolutely. Sometimes those tendencies will worsen over time.
How do you use positive reinforcement with a dog that is grabbing the bird, shaking it, turning it over in his mouth, dropping it and then repeating when you’re 85 yards away? That’s a reward, and a pretty strong one. For many dogs that are turned on by birds, a click and treat just don’t compete with the taste of feathers.
Listen to the handler at 5:54. “Poor Bird.” I think that means that the duck is no longer fit for the table aka crushed or pierced. The trainer may be able to convince the dog to be more purposeful, careful & businesslike when handling birds with positive methods. Or, the dog may interpret the handler’s praise as permission to be rougher, circle wider, delay his return even more.
As a hunter, I might not mind a long, circling return. As a hut test competitor or field trialer, that’s the difference between being thanked for my entry fee donation and having a shot at a rosette. A properly executed force-fetch program deals with bird handling and recall in a few short weeks, and rarely has to be revisited. A useful tool.
I’ll address your comments regarding English vs. USA trials in another post.
He’s just a yearling.
This is him just a few months ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqi5Wy2wpC4&feature=channel_page
This fellow is the one developing the system.
The British trial dogs are trained using these sorts of methods, but then their trials are entirely different.
I think that gundog training is light-years behind other training.
I’ve seen dogs do far more complex things than working retrievers using positive reinforcement methods. These were golden retriever that were being trained to do assistance work. These were 7 and 8 month old puppies that were responding 97 to 105 commands often from several hundred yards. And only one was a performance bred dog.
How do you break a dog of that sort of shaking behavior? This is how I do it: say, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Like a buzzer. That’s my correction word.
Certainly almost any training technique can work; some techniques are more suited to some breeds/ some individual dogs. And of course the interests/skills of the trainer.
But when you come right down to it, it just seems to me that TRADITION has more to do with with why some sports/activities use correction -based training and some use positive reinforcement methods. Complexity can’t be the reason: SAR, detection, therapy, agility trainers are all primarily positive-reinforcement oriented. There’s probably no reason dogs can’t be successfully taught using correction techniques. And no reason field/traditional obedience can’t be taught using positive techniques. Peer pressure can limit the way people are willing to think about how the train.
If I’m seeing things right, these dogs are working on very different skill sets.
The top video, the dog is working on line manners (being “steady” and sitting politely and correctly to go as sent), mouth manners and delivery (holding the bird, delivering to hand), and marking (watching the bird fall, going to the area of the fall and finding it–not much finding here, but that’s good for a young dog learning to mark with enthusiasm).
The bottom video, the dog is being lined to a blind (a bird that he has NOT seen fall). Clearly a more advanced dog; line manners and delivery are a given. The dogs I’ve seen trained with e-collars (including my own), the process used in the above video is used as well with a young dog (followed by force fetch to solidify mouth manners, but that’s not really “taught” with the e-collar).
While I understand British and American trials are very different, handling is of primary importance in American Field Trials and Hunt Tests, too. These are not the handling robots your synopsis implies!
You can’t handle and win a field trial (field trials are competitive championships); you MIGHT earn a judges award of merit (no points awarded) if you handle once. In the “derby” for young dogs, you are dropped from running and contention if you must handle. Dogs in the “big dog” stakes will see anywhere from 5-9 (if I’m remembering right) marks, and will have two blinds. There’s a general understanding–dogs can “lose” by failing a blind; but they WIN by marking. Marks and blinds may be as long as 300 or more yards.
In Hunt Tests (which are titles, not championships– pass or fail against a standard rather than competition against a field), the junior “allows” one handle on four marks (two land, two water), but a dog shouldn’t count on qualifying if it handles on a mark and isn’t dead-on on the others. The senior level allows a handling on marks (a double on land, a double on water), but no smart handler “blows” a handle unless he has to, as two handles is the kiss of death (except in a very rare scenario–almost unheard of); don’t count on a pass if you have a handle, but usually you’re okay if your other marking was good. There is a land blind and a water blind, both fairly straightforward (more or less like in the e-collar dog example above). At the master level, there are three series–a land series (multiples of two, three, or four marks); a land-water series (multiples of two, three, or four marks); and a water series (multiples of two, three, or four marks). There must be a land blind and a water blind; sometimes there are three blinds. Expect at least 8 marks in a master; the “toughest” one I’ve been in had a land triple, a land-water quad, and a water quad. The unwritten rule is “you get one handle”–but the dog had better be in, close to, or on the way to the area of the fall when you do, and it had better be clean. I’ve seen dogs dropped for a single handle. Two handles? If you get a ribbon, consider yourself lucky. Usually you go home empty-handed. Marks and blinds are usually less than 100 yards.
You can’t title if you can’t mark. And if I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a thousand times: “Marking is the responsibility of the dog.” All the clever cues and lining practice (which is a powerful tool box) can’t make that statement untrue.
You’re absolutely right–the Lab is king. Here are the stats–hope this table comes through:
Field Trial and Hunting Test Titles Completed by Breed
Junior Senior Master Field CH Amateur Field CH
Retrievers (Chesapeake Bay)
94 37 21 1 1
Retrievers (Curly-Coated)
5 3
Retrievers (Flat-Coated)
67 23 11
Retrievers (Golden)
237 110 59 1 1
Retrievers (Labrador)
1,365 658 411 78 56
Retrievers (Nova Scotia Duck Tolling)
20 6 1
The positive dog is just learning to handle– he’s much better now.
The other dog is relatively polished.
I agree with Patti re. the mouth manners on the younger dog, although he seems to improve on some things by the end. At short distances like that, with the right dog and experience and patience, I’m sure you can usually shape the mouth manners and delivery. But with a dog that’s any more birdy, heaven help that trainer.
I think the tough thing about retriever training is that it is a real balancing act between instinct and training.
Herding–prey drive, a little seeking behavior, but shaped at the stalking stage–very little chase. Pointing–prey drive, seeking behavior, but stopped at the stalking stage–no chase. Retrieving–prey drive, seeking behavior, chase behavior big time, then put your mouth on the prey, DON’T EAT THE PREY, and then RELINQUISH THE PREY.
I’m told pointer and spaniel people think retriever people are crazy control freaks.
Guilty as charged. ;)
By “handle,” do you mean take direction to retrieve in general?
Or do you mean, “Take a line and hand signals to a bird where the dog has not seen the fall”?
Steadiness and retrieve to hand at a heel.
The “table” above was for the year 2007.
Gotcha.
I think of “handle” as hand signals. (dog no. 2–running a blind, so “handling,” though he didn’t need “a handle”, and Laddie video no. 2).
Absolutely, flattie-n-Labbie! In a junior test, the “handler” really doesn’t need to do much except bring the dog to the line under control, line the dog up for their first mark, signal to the judges that they’re ready, hold the collar of the dog for the first MARK (the dog sees the bird thrown, hears a shot, watches the bird fall), then releases the dog by a verbal once the judge says the dog’s number.
If the dog is well trained, and marks well, and conditions are right, the dog runs to the area of the fall, finds the bird, and returns promptly to heel, delivering a bird that is fit for the table.
They do the same thing four times. Two times on land, two time in the water.
The handler can HANDLE the dog for one mark in junior. HANDLE means guiding the dog using whistles, verbal commands and hand signals to the fall. Since junior is a marking test, any handle is not a good thing, since the dog should have seen each fall, and gone to the area of the fall when directed to do so.
Senior is a big step forward. That’s when the dog and handler prove that they are a team, and the handler is the team leader. I’ve seen lots of junior dogs that have passed junior tests while working for themselves. In senior, the dog still has to rely on his own marking abilities for the land and the water double marks (two birds fall, one after the other, and the dog has to watch both falls and remember them.) But the blinds are proof of teamwork. The dog has no clue where the bird is. He must rely on his handler to send him on a straight line, and accept corrections to that line by whistle sits & hand signals when he starts to drift from that original line.
That is my definition of handling.
Looks like video no. 2 is not a blind–it says “Rusty–land mark” at the top (duh). Must be part of a multiple mark. The handler sends on “back,” so I assumed it was a blind. I kept thinking, “I would’ve put a whistle in there towards the end,” so it makes sense it’s a mark–the dog hunts once he gets to the area of the fall.
I don’t know who that handler is, but he’s freaking his dog out by putting his hand down a million times like that–The dog was locked on like five times! I only notice it because I do the same darn thing…
Senior was HARD. My Lab is pretty independent when there are birds out there, and I thought I’d never get into his head. (Plus, I didn’t know what I was doing!) We blew through junior, because I just sat him down, held on as tight as the rules allow, and let him go when my number was called. It was really, really hard to get him to work with me to do senior work.
The flat-coat and I are at about that same place. “Go left”–“But I think it’s right”–“No, go left”–“I’m gonna check out the right…”
That’s the problem. You spend the first several months/years training the dog to trust their own eyes and nose, and soon enough, they get their junior.
Then you try to convince them that even though their common sense says that there should be a bird in that stand of bushes or that ditch, they should instead listen to you.
You’re in that part of the learning curve where Raven will have to check out enough places where she doesn’t get rewarded with a bird that she’ll figure out that you’re the only one who has the info to guide her to the reward.
“You’re in that part of the learning curve where Raven will have to check out enough places where she doesn’t get rewarded with a bird that she’ll figure out that you’re the only one who has the info to guide her to the reward.”
That’s so funny you said that–I did that just today on a complete whim.
I wonder if this is something only flat-coat people do?! I’ve NEVER seen a Lab guy do this. If I did, I wouldn’t believe my eyes.
But every once in a (very, very great) while (I could probably count on one hand), Mitch will let a young/senior dog go check out where it’s not and then have a little conversation: “Yeah, I told you it wasn’t there. Satisfied? You gotta listen to me. Now get in here and do it right.”
Guess you have to do things a little different when you’ve got a dog with a chimp’s IQ…
Chimp’s IQ???!!!?? Noooooo!!!
She’s a thinking gal’s dog. It’s just that she’s thinking that she can handle every problem without human assistance.
That’s the real transition period for flatcoats.
“Oh! I get it, now! You may serve some purpose, after all. The bird gods told you where the blind is.
“If I only had thumbs, I could call the bird god, plant my own blinds, drive to the tests, and you could sleep in.”
While I rely 90%+ on positive reinforcement, I’ve never figured out how to overcome two limitations, both stemming from the fundamental tenet of behavior theory that dogs perform behaviors that are rewarding:
1 – The ONLY thing I can offer my dog that is more rewarding than the bird he is flushing / chasing / retrieving is a ‘more live’ bird, and it just ain’t practical to carry around live birds everywhere to reward my dogs. If my pup is running down a pheasant and gets out of gun range, I’m SOL whistling her back in unless I can consistently offer her a live pheasant as a reward for coming back.
2 – It’s near impossible to reward dogs at the distances required for field work and hunting. Picking up a poison bird 50 yards out is much more rewarding than hearing me yell ‘good dog’ for taking sit-whistle and cast away from it.
I’m sure you can build a lot of these more advanced concept behaviors through positive reinforcement by breaking them down and conditioning them to the point of something nearing a muscle memory type reaction, but it would require a much better trainer than I’ll ever be.
English commercial pheasant hunts are also rather interesting – typically terriers are paired with ‘beaters’ who all move in a line to push the birds towards awaiting gunners and then bust them up when they hit the end of the natural cover. The retrievers sit patiently in a line and watch the falls, waiting to be released for their retrieves (think group honor with pheasants falling from the sky in hail of gunfire).
One hint that experienced field trainers in Finland have given me is simply not letting the dog retrieve again if undesired behavior is noticed – and make them watch another dog work and get the praise…
I’ve heard many success stories on using that method. Finnish trainers seem to think that the best possible reward a retriever can get is be allowed to retrieve again.
Your trick is what I use, but I mark it with an “AAAAAAA” (my voice sounding like a buzzer). That’s my mark for correction.
(I was kidding about the chimp IQ… but she’s too smart for her own good sometimes!)
“One hint that experienced field trainers in Finland have given me is simply not letting the dog retrieve again if undesired behavior is noticed – and make them watch another dog work and get the praise…”
Ramin, trainers who use an e-collar use this all the time for all sorts of things–usually “impulse control” and manners problems. It works. Really well.
From a behavior theory point of view, giving the dog a marker word for an incorrect behavior is still correction (in the form of positive punishment), just different than the collar. Actually, I have one dog who is much more sensitive to verbal correction than she is to the less-personal collar correction, so I use verbals if she’s really blowing me off.
I do use the jealousy trick to teach and reinforce behaviors – it is negative punishment (withholding of anticipated reward). My issue with it from a behavior theory perspective is the latency of the punishment – how do the dogs know what, specifically, is being punished, especially if they’ve already been rewarded with a bird for an incorrect behavior. It does work well for fixing general nonsense behaviors (ie – blowing me off the entire way to the retrieve and back, rather than just slipping a whistle or refusing a cast). The other tricky part in using it is that I don’t want my dogs to perceive honors as punishment – if they have to watch another dog work as a form of punishment, it is from a crate or tie-down (totally different context than an honor). I also make my youngsters watch my older dogs retrieve before they work to build their ‘want.’
On an interesting side-note, I am working a youngster with more of an English-bred working sensibility (eager to please, pliable, methodical). I actually love her working temperament, but am having to rework a lot of my training techniques. She is very careful about what she does until she has 100 percent understanding of what I’m asking, and then the lightbulb turns on and she’s all-out, with much more speed and enthusiasm than my older dogs. I only correct her when she starts thinking a little bit too independently. Naturally, I’m trying to incorporate more of the European training methods with her. Trouble is, it can be hard to find info on these techniques.
It’s not just correction; it is “positive punishment,” as is a shock from an e-collar. Negative reinforcement is when the force-fetch procedure is done and the dog bites the object and the stimulus is released.
Punishment does exist in these positive methods.
Ramin – do you know of any good resources for Finnish retriever training techniques that are English-translated? I’d be interested to learn more about the different training methods.
Here are a few resources, Xan. These are from a private note I sent to Scottie several weeks back —
Here’s one positive reinforcement book — http://www.positivegundogs.com/
Here are a couple of field trainers in the US that use minimal pressure —
Mike Stewart of Wildrose Kennels — http://www.uklabs.com/index2.html
and Robert Milner — http://www.fetchpup.com/
Milner uses very little pressure in his fetch program, and holds positive reinforcement seminars for gundog owners. Read his thoughts on force fetch here — http://www.fetchpup.com/training/forcefetch.php
There is at least one email list that focuses on positive gundog training — http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/PositiveGunDogs/
You ought to think about subscribing to the PositiveGunDogs group, and look through previous messages. Alice Woodyard has some great stuff there, as do a few other trainers.
I should have posted those on there.
Thank for putting them up here.
@Xan: I wish there was. Most of my knowledge is from talking with the trainers at tests etc. I should attend a seminar at some point. Alas, we don’t even have any good material in Finnish available.
ramin–nice web site–haven’t looked at it all, though. Do your dogs participate in trials and tests? I’m wondering what they are like?
@flattie-n-Labbie: thanks. Our dogs participate in tests, trials in Finland are available only to the top dogs. Some description of the tests we have can be found at: http://randomfire.fierymill.net/archives/2008/05/24/testing-the-abilities-of-finnish-retrievers-part-1/ and pictures that show typical hunting / testing terrain at http://dev.fierymill.net/photography/events3/naisten-haku-2008/
THANK YOU!!