Training with force? - Page 2

Langhaar,

Excellent comments.

It is too bad there are so many in the sport who see the need for force or for starving dogs until they are emaciated as ways to accomplish an end. Food can be a powerful motivator, as can a proper correction. There is a difference between a proper correction and force.

It is too bad that people will question your accomplishments. I don't know what they are, or where you earned them, but great for you. The heart and soul of this sport, the ones who pay for it are not those who want to continue to change everything, make it harder and harder for normal people to participate. We are shooting ourselves in the foot and in 10 years, if we are not careful, there will be no concerns about who got a title or where one got it because there will be no sport. For some of these people it is ok to work a dog until it overheats and dies. For some it is ok to not feed it so that it became ill and emaciated, using the excuse that they needed to make the dog hungry enough to track. Bullshit.

There are times when a proper correction can be applied in training. But there is no reason for FORCE and most of the really excellent trainers in Germany come here and see how people here train and are saddened that they have not learned there are other ways. 

If one must force a dog to do something, really force it, perhaps it is not the right dog for the activity. It is sadly all to often only about the ego of some of these people.

Your comment " What most people consider as "disobedience" etc I usualy consider as "insufficient training" "insufficient knowledge" and/or "insufficient understanding" which then puts the onus on ME to make it simpler for the dog and provide sufficient reward." is right on in my opinion.

All too often it is a lack of understanding and skill by the handler who is responsible for the failure of the dog, in whatever phase. It is about their ego, not the joy of working the dog and helping the dog excel.

I use what I suppose could be called a "forced" retirieve- but there really isn't anything forceful about it. No toe stomping, no ear pinching, certainly no shock collar, I think that stuff is crap. I use my hands to guide, just like I teach anything else. I incorporate correction later when I am confident the dog understands, but I do not use it to teach.

I tell my clients all the time, "Our dogs will only do what we have taught them to do, the way we taught them to do it." 

Langhaar, I also second your comments.

This topic is very interesting and has the potential to contain very good information.  The problen in the USA is that the PC police turn on the squad car head lights when they see the word "Force".  WSCOTT explained very clearly that force is not used to teach.  They also explained that force can be verbal, which when well timed can have as much of an impact as compulsion.  The training to high sport is on a different level in many areas, from mind set, training schedule, motivations and intensity.  The high level trainer enters a competition KNOWING that their dog is ready.  Often the club trainer hopes to just squeak thru and have fun with their dog.  For high level trainers fun  is knowing your dog is prepared and ready to perform.  You can also see this in the tail of the high level trained dog.  The days of the dog working like a machine and not enjoying the routine are over and score lower.  The judge wants to see ears up and a bounce in the dogs step when performing.  The Jack Nicholson line comes to mind, "You can't handle the truth".  For the High level trainer the dog MUST bring the dumbell back,  there is no option.  The dog MUST track.  What's interesting about this is that you can't use too much pressure on the track especially in the beginning or the dog will shut down as opposed to working thru a problem.  During the C phase the dog MUST out,  MUST fuss.  So we must make these things black and white to the dog.  Thus, compulsion is used for willful disobedience of a KNOWN command or exercise.

I think the PC police would have been happier if the question used pressure as opposed to force.

Best Regards,

Kyle

hodie said

"it is too bad there are so many in the sport who see the need for force or for starving dogs until they are emaciated as ways to accomplish an end. "

question?  why do you take it to the Nth degree? it seems like your statement was made to inflame and outrage.  im interested in know why you assume dogs are starved half dead, and beaten w/ bats.

do you think it is possible to use pinch collar or e-collar w/ out turning it all the way up?

li am nont questionning anyones accomplishments.  i understand how much work it takes to earn a title.  my point was that there is a difference between wanting to pass your local  trial w/ a 83 (which good) and wanting to compete at a regional or national and score 95 or higher.  

it takes a lot of work to teach a dog to track and i applaud anyone who does it.  but the question was why do you use force.  and my answer was to demand accountability and constancy.  and im waiting for someone to step forward to consistatnly "V"' OB and tracking that has never used Force.  im not saying it hasnt happend but over several national or regional trials its unlikely.

lastly the reason i put so my emphasis on national and regional is the layers of stress.  IMO the more layers of stress there the more you will see bad training and nerve.  so when you load you dog up and drive 8hrs, the dog spends 70% of his time in a crate, the field is new, the smells are new, you only get 5 min on the field, and if your lucky you ge to do a practice track. these are all layers of stress.  so when you have to walk 1/4  mile to yur starting flag just to find out your scent pad is patch of dirt, the nerve and training will show up.  dogs that have had the correct amount of pressure and understand how to track will do fine.  those that face not repremand for disobedience will do the best they can. and if the stop tracking oh well.....  maybe the dog will track better next time when there are lots of hotdogs around.....

Ive come to learn that force is an option, but is usually a latter option if motivational training isnt getting reliable results. This is especially true with hunting dogs.  

The Brits have very reliable gun dogs & offer humane training.   Whereas The German & often Americans methods are more force compliance based (true especailly in force fetch).  Same results.. but vastly different methods. In softer dogs, there are sometimes consequences.

Steve, sorry havent called you. Been swamped & not getting much sleep (Sick baby).  Will call you later in week.

Best

Bill

This discussion has no base from which to develop without a definition of the terms. I equate "force" with "compulsion." One also must differentiate between "compulsion" and "correction."  Compulsion means that when a dog makes a mistake or disobedience in a training situation, it is forced into the correct position or behavior--forced out of the incorrect behavior and into the correct behavior.  The dog has not made a choice nor been given the opportunity to recognize that he has made a mistake and must make a new decision to do the required behavior.  He is simply forced into the right position/behavior.  This will produce a dog that is sullen in the work and will merely do the minimum that is required because he has been forced to do so without buying in to the work.

In another training system, when a dog is first taught motivationally what behavior is expected through repetition and reward, he learns what he must do to get the reward.  Later, when he makes a wrong decision or a mistake, and does not produce the required behavior, he is given a correction.  That means he is made uncomfortable for making a wrong choice, made uncomfortable by any one of a number of methods, depending on the temperament of the dog, the degree of disobedience and the experience of the handler.  When the dog then makes the right choice, the choice he already knows is safe and produces a reward, he is immediately rewarded and gets what he really wanted all along.  (It takes a very astute and experienced training director to know and teach the subtleties of this process.)  The correction does not /must not force the dog into the correct behavior/position, but is used to let the dog know he has made a bad decision and needs to think again.  This causes the dog to realize that he has a choice to make and if he makes the right one, he gets rewarded big time.  Thusly, the dog buys into the training and works with speed, enthusiasm and accuracy.  It also teaches the dog that he only gets what he wants by complying with the handler's command.  And all this by his own choosing.

It is much more complicated and involved that this simple explanation, but I've tried to differentiate between force/compulsion (no place in training) and correction.  Hope this helps.

wandere, very well put.. but i have to disagree that compulsion has no place in traning.

i dont really use force to teach the retrieve but will use a force retrieve type scenario to proof the hold.  i dont teach a dog to track using force.  but should my dog not track given a certian situation, i will recreate the situation then force track the dog.  for example i went to trial a few years ago and my dog didnt track.  flat didnt track.  and i noticed every now and then he would not track.  (note this is after he had tracked 100 sch1, 97sch2 & 95 sch3).  so i assumed he knew how to track but perhaps that he had to track. So i was prepared to force him down the track w/ lots of articles.  it took about 5 sessions before he dicided not to track. 

when he didnt track he was forced down the  track to each article.  Now this would have not worked if i just forced him down the track the very next session after the trial.  it had to be when he refuse to track.  he understands what tracking is, and his willful disobendience resulted in being foreced down the track.  Ive also corrected him for not being on the track or going past corners.  but if i correct too hard he'd shut down so i have to find the middle ground.  some times it a harder correction on the prong and other times its a soft NO.  From that day forward i was always ready to force him down the track if he refused. i thinkg i had to do it 1 other time.  but as a result he enjoys his work, but more importantly understands that he must work when told to do so.

its also important to note that i set a side 6 months to work thru the stress that comes along w/ the force track

wscott00:  My experience is limited and most fortunately, I am blessed with a little bitch that absolutely loves to track like a vaccuum cleaner and must be pulled off when she's done.  I know the future will produce training situations where I will need to make choices that are not comfortable for me, let alone the dog, and I'm happy to know that my fellow club members are always there to help and to guide. 

 i would have to say the response  "he understands what tracking is and his willful disobedience resulted  in being forced down the track" is pretty common in us humans, and usually not entirely acurate.  Unless your dog tells you that he understands what tracking is (either in language which is not likely, or by doing a track through distraction, distance, duration and difficulty 9 times out of 10) it is quite probable that he is up against a criterion that you have not considered.  As trainers we assume that if we "train" in our terms, that the dog knows what tracking is, and that he is being willfully disobedient.  I would imagine that most people here do not know what  truly willful disobedience is.  Not because they are not intelligent and not because they are not good trainers but because they do not deal with truely willfully disobedient dogs (by and large).  I teach "intelligent disobedience"  on purpose with service dogs and perhaps if you saw it in action you might regard your dogs "understanding" and "willful disobedience" somewhat differently.   I am not trying to be arrogant, nor am I telling you you are absolutely wrong.  I have not seen your dog and perhaps he is doing precisely that, however too many trainers view "training" as "I give a command ..... you do it.  period, end of discussion, no thought, no decision, automaton."  Dogs are thinking and reasoning and most, especially Shepherds, even high drive intense Shepherds, are not often beligerantly disobedient.  A dog that is tough and hard is not necessarily disobedient.  And we sometimes humanize canine reactions as such because we have not fully thought through our own training and interaction with them.

..