These come from Robert Milner’s retriever training videos from the 1980’s.
Part I
Part II
From thrasher123.
Force-breaking or training the “conditioned” retrieve is an example of negative reinforcement training. The dog receives pressure in terms of the light toe pinch, which is relieved by the dog grabbing the dowel.
It has become commonplace to train retrievers for this way. Part of the reason for the rise of this method is that breeding for dogs that naturally retrieve is quite hard to do. If your main interest is producing dogs that line well and run hard, you may have to neglect some of the mouthing behavior in the dogs. And that’s why the conditioned retrieve is so much a part of retriever training.
Milner argues in this article that breeding for trials has somewhat resulted in dogs that have retrieving issues. In this country, we have replaced breeding for a natural soft mouth and good delivery to training for it.
That’s why he uses British working line Labs which have been bred for the proper temperament, instinct, and mouth. They aren’t the fastest, hard-charging dogs that you associate with American working-line Labs. But they have a moderate working temperament.
Also, in British working lines, the “fox-red” color of yellows is somewhat more common. This color is quite uncommon in most American field and show lines. I think it is a lovely color. It is the color we associate with golden retrievers in this country, and the fact that Labradors carry the genes to produce this color merely adds more evidence to show that goldens and Labs once shared a gene pool.
I find Milner’s philosophy about breeding and testing retrievers very similar to my own. He is very correct that American field line Labs are often too much dog for the average person to handle. They are often wild and hyper dogs that are really hard to focus and train. However, once trained, they are really stylish performers.
However, I don’t think that this is the same problem that exists in goldens. Goldens are being bred for the other extreme. They’re becoming too sedate, and they are losing their instincts entirely.
So I just thought I’d show you how conditioned retrieves are done, and what the relative discomfort that most dogs feel when they are trained. This discomfort could be avoided if we bred for better retrieving instinct and for greater biddability in the dogs. However, that’s a systematic change that has to take place over the gene pools of all of these breeds.
Also, please do not tell me that natural retrievers that are easily taught to retrieve to hand don’t exist. I know they exist. The Brits rely upon them. My first dog was one of these dogs.
And I erroneously believed that all retrievers were like her. And then I got my second dog that was half English show golden, and, well, I learned my lesson.
I’m pretty-sure it’s been said before on here, but just in case…
Force-fetch is about more than mouth habits. Those nice straight lines? A lot of the training for those lines, both on marks and on blinds, is based on force fetch and the basic work that follows.
Again, I don’t think every dog needs to be force-fetched–it’s a matter of what works for the owner and what the dog needs.
I do think there’s a genetic component to mouth habits. I also don’t think force-fetch can fix it all by itself. And I think done incorrectly, it makes it worse or makes it show up in other behaviors.
My two (maybe 4) cents.
This fellow has a strong criticism of lining, too:
http://www.fetchpup.com/about/usfield.php (skip down to “triple mark with honor.”)
He trains for a well-lined dog, but he sees the limit in them.
I don’t really disagree. Field trials are a game, and artificial. I think some field-trialers get a pretty big ego workout pretending trials are somehow real, and some not-field-trialers make a good business off of arguing trials are irrelevant contests. I personally think the truth lies somewhere in between.
I’ve seen enough dog work to believe that, although they aren’t the be-all, end-all, taking good lines is generally important to marking well in difficult circumstances, and crucial to being able to play in the retriever games, which I happen to enjoy.
Most people I know who compete in the hunt test end of things will adjust their training and standards for tests versus hunting, and the dogs understand which is which. I’m told, and have seen some evidence that, there are field trialers who do this as well.
If being able to take straight lines and run long blinds factors into how you’d like to see your dog work, force-fetch is usually part of the training program, and it’s more than just mouth issues at work.
I guess it just depends on what makes a person happy with their dog; and the more happy working dogs and handlers, the better, in my book. I’m pretty easy.
I do think that there’s a genetic component to some mouth problems, and I wish it were a bigger factor in breeding.
Some of the “said before” that Flattie-n-Labbie is referring to can be found here —
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/another-look-at-performance-bred-golden-puppies/
The reason why I posted those videos is to show exactly how this works. That Lab isn’t acting scared at all. The toe-pinch is almost like part of a game for him.
“The reason why I posted those videos is to show exactly how this works. That Lab isn’t acting scared at all. The toe-pinch is almost like part of a game for him.”
I really appreciate that you chose an example where the dog is having a positive response, understands what’s going on, and is working to figure things out well.
I force-fetch all my dogs. ‘Course, I’ve never had a retiever – just a pointer, an AmStaff and several shepherd and molossor dogs. That said, a program of fair and balanced pressure makes sense to dogs, and if it’s done reasonably well, it does not cause them any more than mild stress.
Several of my dogs had no fetch drive at all until after I ff’d them. After they were ff’d all of them loved to play fetch games and they were also cheerful and convenient fetchers around the house.
Negative reinforcment (or pressure and release) is the basis of most natural learning. Animals use the pressures of gaze, agonistic signals and sometimes aggression to teach each other boundaries. Most “environmental training” also consists of negative reinforcement.
Unfortunately, in today’s world the word “negative” has acquired an almost criminal connotation in training circles. As a species we also seem to have become neurotically afraid of all kinds of stress.
I’m a positive reinforcement trainer; however, I’m not going to go McCarthyite on anyone. I, as a person, responded terribly to this sort of training in law school. Had I been able to withstand that, I’d be a lawyer today. I deal with a breed that is largely too highly strung and sensitive to be handled in that fashion. This breed is union– they do go on strike. I find using these methods on extremely sensitive dogs highly inappropriate. That’s just my personal view.
I’m of the generation that grew up with Patricia McConnell and Ian Dunbar as our instructors. We read Koehler only as a “what not to do” book.
I have tried some of the more correction and pack based training. My golden quit working. I cannot train using those methods at all. But I can using the more Skinnerized methods.
There is a hidden pitfall in force-breaking for retrievers in that it is becoming a way of avoiding breeding for the proper instinct. You never know whether a dog is a retriever that can pass those genes onto the next generation.
Of course, the whole thing was developed by owners of setters and pointers who wanted their dogs to pick up shot birds. The old line retriever people, like James Lamb Free, would just foam at the mouth if you suggested doing this to a retriever. His view was that if a retriever didn’t live to retrieve, then he didn’t want the dog. And that’s how I view retrievers.
Force breaking……is rarely used……to build the drive to retrieve.
That’s a pretty simple statement, and one I’ve made several times in comment sections in your various posts.
From a previous comment, from one of your previous posts –
“It’s more about teaching the dog to fetch whatever he’s sent for, to hold that thing through whatever terrain or cover or water he encounters on the way back, and to deliver promptly to hand.
Some dogs prefer pheasants over ducks. Or mallards over teal. Or birds over bumpers. Or plastic over feathers. The dog needs to know that if he is sent after an object, he doesn’t get to choose whether to fetch and retrieve that object. I’ve seen dogs that haven’t been force-fetched blink (refuse to pick up) a bumper if they’ve already picked up a duck during a training series – “No, mom, I’ll just wait until someone throws another bird!” The properly force-fetched dog is unlikely to do that.
Some dogs naturally drop a bird when exiting the water. Some like to do a victory circle or two before returning to the handler. Some don’t want to come back with their prize at all.
There are other ways to solve those problems, but a well-designed force fetch program is commonly used.
Yes, a retriever should want to retrieve naturally, and should retrieve birds that are fit for the table when delivered to their handler. Many dogs can get through junior without being forced. Some can get through senior. But by the time they get to master or are running in field trials, it’s rare to see a successful dog that hasn’t had some sort of force-fetch program.”
Until you start training for higher level hunt tests or field trials, you may never see a need to use a force fetch program. There are other methods that can be used to achieve the same results. But when faced with a triple fall, bird scent all over the area because thirty three dogs have run before yours, and your dog decides that they should make the call whether to pick up the long bird, ignoring the live flyer, a force-fetch program demonstrates its usefulness.
But if you are competing at the highest level of field trials or master hunt tests in the U.S., nearly all of your competitors will have used some form of force fetch.
That’s all true. But in the British trial system, they’ve almost never heard of it.
I have to say I agree with Milner on this point.
Here’s an article you might find interesting –
http://www.wildfowlmag.com/tips_strategies/jsforcebreaking/
Pay special attention to the first part of page two.
If I were trialing in the U.K., I wouldn’t find force fetching necessary (actually, I don’t do field trials, although we have done derbys with pups, and one dog that I bred is entered in Quals in a few weeks.) But the test we would be running there is very different than a field trial in the U.S.
Look at the number of dogs that compete in a British field trial. I think Milner said twelve or twenty four. They perform as working dogs in a beaten hunt, where the birds (& rabbits, etc.) are driven toward gunners and retrievers, shot, and the dogs retrieve specific falls when their number is called. Every dog’s task is different. In many cases, the retrieved game is then sold by the landowner to local restaurants.
Entries for the most recent field trial close to me? 181 (four separate events.) Every dog faces the same set of marks, the same terrain, the same challenges. Birds can’t be sold, the cost of the birds, gunners, judges, and property are all covered by entry fees.
The economic model is completely different. So are the testing methods.
And neither trial is anything close to the hunting you did with your first golden. No stroll into the fields or woods, looking for quail or partridge.
Come to the line. Sit at the line. Watch the fall. Retrieve the fall. Hardly similar to an upland hunting day with your hunting companion.
What is the best method to test a retriever? I don’t know. But I do know that retrievers can perform well in many different hunting and testing venues. Duck blinds. Upland pheasant hunts. Chucker in the hills. A driven hunt. A hunt test. A field trial.
Different goals and different dogs may require different training methods. I prefer to use the appropriate tool for the appropriate task for my individual dog.
I actually prefer a more British type in a working dog. I wonder if anyone has tried to create a British trial system here– associating itself with pheasant preserves. I have a book on running a hunting preserve for pheasant shoots, and one thing it suggests is setting up British driven shoots for clients in conjunction with the local retriever club. I’ve kept the ring-necked birds before, and they aren’t that hard to take care of and wild up. (Bobwhite quail are terrible. They become tamer than chickens and you get attached to them!)
There have been a few British-type trials, mostly associated with the Wildrose folks–check out their web site.
I’ve always thought it would be fun to try.
I knew I’d read about something coming up, took me a minute to find it:
A Milner-sponsored British event: http://www.duckhillkennels.com/about/seminars.php
More explanation from Milner about the event:
http://retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38025
Personally, I’d rather check out a Milner British-style event than a Wildrose/Mike Stewart British-style event.
Retrieverman wrote:
“I actually prefer a more British type in a working dog.”
Like what Milner describes?
“A great model already exists for field trials that drive a breeding selection process that produces calm tractable dogs that are good family dogs and that excel in the field. I have had extensive experience with British Field Trials and with British Labradors. I will state without reservation that a puppy from British Field Trial breeding has a 95% probability of being a calm tractable gun dog that the average hunter can train and keep under control. This British dog will also better his hot American cousin at perseverance and game finding.”
About Labradors, he’s correct.
About goldens, well, it’s a bit different.
The European show version of the golden is on the other extreme, and I’d say the same thing for the Bentley-type English show Lab. They are too mellow to really get motivated.
An American field Labrador is really different kind of dog than I’m accustomed to. They are not active and slightly neurotic about their retrieving. Some of them are a wee bit scatty and too much for the average person to handle.
Now, I’d take a British field-type Lab in a heartbeat, because that’s basically a Lab with a working-type golden’s temperament.
I like a dog that is an obsessive retriever, one for which retrieving is an important drive that be used shape behavior. And I like a really active dog, but a really active dog that isn’t so active that it becomes scatty.
Working-type goldens haven’t diverged as much in Europe and America as the show version have or as have the working versions of Labradors. And in most European countries, the goldens that are worked are as competitive with the working Labs. That’s because goldens are better equipped to deal with an estate shoot trial than a American field trial.
The American field trial has produced a type of Labrador– I call them Labrawhippets– that are really fast and hard charging. This type of Lab has been produced to compete at the highest level of field competition in our style of trial. After the generations of breeding for that, they’ve produced a very distinct subtype within the breed that really isn’t for everyone.
There are three types of golden: working strain, American show, and European show. There are five different types of Lab: British working strain, American working strain, British show strain, American show strain, and giant American pet Lab. The British working strain is probably the best for regular gun dog work.
“An American field Labrador is really different kind of dog than I’m accustomed to. They are not [sic???] active and slightly neurotic about their retrieving. Some of them are a wee bit scatty and too much for the average person to handle.
Now, I’d take a British field-type Lab in a heartbeat, because that’s basically a Lab with a working-type golden’s temperament.”
and
“The American field trial has produced a type of Labrador– I call them Labrawhippets– that are really fast and hard charging. This type of Lab has been produced to compete at the highest level of field competition in our style of trial. After the generations of breeding for that, they’ve produced a very distinct subtype within the breed that really isn’t for everyone.”
I certainly wouldn’t argue that there are some nutty-highstrung-overthetop-crazy field trial Labs, and some of them are awfully ugly and whippet-y too… but I think this is a generalization.
On any given weekend, I think the field trial dogs that win, place, show and JAM are far more likely to look like the photos of both show and field Labs from 30, 40, 50 years ago, and maybe even have a similar temperament. The same I think is true of the Labs at hunt tests that participate in both venues or come from field trial breedings (and that’s a LOT of them).
I personally suspect that it’s the sedentary nature of modern life that has hurt the field Lab’s reputation for ease, than the actual “jacking-up” of the personality overall.
I can’t say much about British Labs. The few I’ve met in person seemed like Labs to me. :)
What I meant was about the sterotypical “Labrawhippet” dog being not active and being neutoric retrievers.
There are some that are normal.
I’m just giving stereotypes for which there are many nuances.
I like a dog that is active and neurotic about retrieving. I don’t like a crazy dog that just wants run. I like biddability and activity with lots of neurotic retrieving instinct. That’s what I prefer.
I’m not so into hard-charging dogs that run for the hell of it.
“giant American pet Lab…”
HAHAHAHAHA. He he he. I just read that. That’s funny, and SO true.
I’m going to do a post on the giant Labs. For some reason, in the mid-90’s, people started bragging about the size of their Labs. If you buy a Lab from a newspaper today, you’ll very likely get a 30 pound 8 week old puppy that matures into a 115 pound monster. Not exactly the fastest dog in the water or the one that can run all day, because big dogs are often slower in the water and they overheat much more easily.
I wonder why these people didn’t just get a Newfoundland and shave it.
“I’m going to do a post on the giant Labs. For some reason, in the mid-90’s, people started bragging about the size of their Labs. If you buy a Lab from a newspaper today, you’ll very likely get a 30 pound 8 week old puppy that matures into a 115 pound monster.”
If you could figure out where it all started and who is catering to it and why, that would be a great thing.
I don’t get it. It’s very strange to me. My first Lab, which I got 19 years ago, was a BIG boy–85 pounds solid when young and skinny, 98 at his fattest when he was an old man and before I put him on his arthritis diet–and he would be positively dwarfed by some of the Labs walking the streets today.
It seems to have coincided with show dogs getting bulkier (but still short)–coincidence, or part of the same trend? What I wouldn’t give to have been a fly on the wall inside the change in Labs in the show ring in the last 30 years…
At 90 pounds, a retriever is still functional, provided it is built properly. Once you start going over 100 pounds, it’s very hard to have a proper build on a dog.
We are just now getting the “giant” golden retriever. I know one that is 125 pounds and 30 inches at the shoulder.
But the big Lab thing I think started with macho men bragging about the size of their dogs.
That’s where I think it comes from.
For me and my dogs, a force-fetch is 10% about the retrieving, mouth-manners, and delivery behavior, and 90% about a foundation. Since pressure is one of the many tools in my training toolbox, the force-fetch is essential in teaching my dogs how to deal with and respond to pressure in a relatively sterile environment where they can easily process the concept of pressure. I’ve watched people skip the force-fetch because their dog is such a natural retriever, and then need to apply pressure later on as complexity increases. More often than not, those dogs require a remedial force fetch because the training environment is ineffective for teaching the concept of pressure due to the added complexity. For me FF also helps to establish a work ethic . . . while retrievers will retrieve naturally, they might not do so with the understanding that it is their ‘job.’
But there are dogs– granted, very few of them these days– that retrieving isn’t a job or trained behavior at all.
My first golden was one of these dogs. Retrieving was something that she had to do, and because she had to retrieve, you could always use it as a reinforcer. In the 13 years I had her, she never ever refused a retrieve or dropped it.
Luckily she was bred and had 14 puppies. 8 of these had similar inclinations.
I think that this particular technique, while useful, is masking dogs that have inferior retrieving instinct and drive. If I see a force-broken dog work, how do I know that he can pass that onto his offspring? I’m no Lamarckian or Lysenkoist. I think you can actually breed in the superior retrieving behavior.
Now that might be harder to do in low population breeds, but I know that there were and are dogs in my breed that have such a strong retrieving instinct that you really don’t have to teach them
In fact, my first dog spoiled me so much on this behavior that I thought all goldens were hard-wired to retrieve. My second, half English show type dog taught me that this isn’t the case. She had no retrieving instinct at all, and I didn’t force her.
My first dog came at 7 weeks of age already retrieving. We thought it was cute, but then we realized that she had to retrieve. Retrieving things was like eating or drinking for her. No retrieving meant that she didn’t thrive. When you have a 7 week old puppy already retrieving to hand, you have something to show off to the neighbors.
She was also by far the most biddable dog I ever had.
That’s why I hate that goldens are going down this road that they’re on.
I know that we can breed dogs that really have the drive and instinct, and that’s why the current system of registries, tests, and trials bothers me a bit.
“But the big Lab thing I think started with macho men bragging about the size of their dogs.”
Reminds me of the ads you see for Pit or Rott kennels in the back of those dog fancy magazines that could just as easily be advertising a Monster Truck Extravaganza.
I have an 85 lb. male retriever and he is supremely balanced and athletic (though more in a bucking bull kind of way, than a graceful gazelle). He stays warm in the duck blind without my pampering and can tirelessly work an upland field for hours on end.
85 pounds isn’t what I’m talking about– I’m talking 100 plus pounds with a head like an anvil.
An 85 pound dog is still functional.
Once you get over 100 pounds, you begin to see why using a the big Newfoundlands as retrievers had its limits.
I guess I don’t encounter a lot of retrievers with no retrieve drive. FF for me isn’t much about retrieving at all; it’s about a foundation of self-control, understanding of pressure, and work ethic. All my dogs are natural retrievers (outsiders might call them obsessive), and all came to me that way . . . I never taught them to retrieve, they just do it, and retrieving serves as a valuable positive reinforcement for them. All have been naturally soft-mouthed. Yet I still FFed them because the value of the FF lies in it’s foundation for future pressure-based training. FF also gives me important information on how to approach an individual dog’s training – how they respond to pressure, what types of pressure they respond to, how responsive they are to praise, how pliable they are, what operates to relieve pressure for them, how well they bounce-back, what their attention span is, how much they loathe repetition, etc.
I understand what you’re saying about an FF making it difficult to select for dogs with a natural retrieve instincts and I agree that it can be bred for, but typically dogs lacking in retrieve drive are pretty easy to pick out. But, a natural delivery to hand is another thing . . . that would be very difficult to discern in an FFed retriever. I do see tons of FFed retrievers with mouth issues. I’ve never gotten a clear answer on how, exactly, FF teaches a soft-mouth.
I do share your concerns about the current system shifting focus towards a field dog that is no longer suitable for hunting. I’m also concerned about breeding for too much drive (to the extent that it can no longer be appropriately directed in an actual hunting scenario), and a resistance to pressure. There is a place for these types of dogs, so long as the hunting type is maintained.
I run into heaps of retrievers that have very poor drive or no instinct at all. They are retrievers in that their ancestors once retrieved, but they don’t.
Most of the Labs I know are what I call “giant pet Labs.” These dogs have been bred to be very good tempered and very large– much larger than you’d ever see in working lines. (We’re also seeing this type appear in goldens. The one of the biggest retrievers I know is a golden that weighs 125 pounds and is 30 inches at the shoulder!)
These dogs are kind of like slightly smaller Newfoundlands, except that a lot of Newfoundlands have retrieving instinct.
I for a suburban household they are exactly what people want. They don’t have that much energy. They are superb with kids. They are big enough to be some deterrent from burglars. But they aren’t really retrievers, except in their ancestry.
And no one really seems to notice that they live only 8 or 10 years, instead of the dozen or so that they should be getting out of a Lab.
I think the Giant Pet Labs are a darn shame, not because they’re bad dogs, but because no one knows what a Lab really is or looks like anymore, or what they behave like. They are ACTIVE SPORTING DOGS. Ideally, with an on-off switch.
I prefer a dog that is very active but under control– very high biddability (biddability and retrieving instinct are where I put my money in terms of behavior along with very low aggression to dogs and people).
The “off switch” comes after the dog has had its daily exercise and training.
There are too many goldens that just like to lie around, and not all of these have hip problems or thyroid issues.
I completely agree–on-off switch comes AFTER exercise, though it should be IMO more readily “activated” with maturity.
If a two-year-old retriever is bonkers and hasn’t had any exercise that day, well, it’s not a fault of temperament! It’s a fault of not exercising a young sporting dog!
A six year old, though, should understand there are days it might be on “couch duty” and will take it in stride, and then be ready and raring to go at the next best opportunity.