Positive Reinforcement Fetch Video

[Stoneface]

Just a clip of Cinna's progress in fetch work. A few months ago she would half a bird if she got ahold of it. Too many people saying you can't develop a good retrieve with positive reinforcement. A ways to go yet, but she's going to come through this to compete in tests and retrieving stakes with no problem.

Here's the link: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=73 ... =2&theater

[polmaise]

Thanks for sharing the ear pinch on hold.

[Nutmeg247]

Thanks for sharing the video. Great to see the process.

Let me apologize first for what follows, because I don't want to sound argumentative. I do think you relied predominantly on positive reinforcement in shaping take and hold. But, positive reinforcement as a term has often been co-opted by the "force-free" or R+ only crowd. I don't see this as having been force-free, and with the ear pinch I don't see much difference between what you've done and a normal "light" approach to force-fetch. That's not a criticism, just an observation. I use treats a lot in training myself and like seeing that.

Please show more of her work as she progresses!

[Ez4]

That looks like a happy dog! What kind of quail are you hunting?

[Stoneface]

Nut, no worries. I know what you mean about people using the term real loosely. I'm using it in the operant conditioning context, not because I'm keeping a positive attitude when I train her. I'm estimating I've done about 80 sessions with her and ear pinch was only used for three of them. She took it well and figured out holding a frozen bird wasn't the end of the world, so I quit the ear pinch. I didn't pinch her ear in the video at all.

As an example, step one was put two fingers in her mouth until she accepts it, then treat her. You could argue it's negative reinforcement, because I took my fingers out of her mouth when (the negative) when she complied, but I would still call it positive reinforcement. Maybe not completely positive, but more than 95% positive reinforcement.

[polmaise]

As an example, step one was put two fingers in her mouth until she accepts it, then treat her. You could argue it's negative reinforcement, because I took my fingers out of her mouth when (the negative) when she complied, but I would still call it positive reinforcement. Maybe not completely positive, but more than 95% positive reinforcement.

Any chance you could expand on this Hypothesis?

[Stoneface]

I started by essentially clicker training her to pick things up, but instead of a click I used the word Yes. I held out a dowel and when she went to smell it, I treated her. After so much of that I'd not give her a Yes and a treat when she nosed, so she'd get frustrated and put her mouth on it, then I would give her a Yes and a treat. We worked like that until she was retrieving the dowel for me, then went to other things like a screwdriver, roll of tape, ball, etc. She was still mouthing pretty good, but it gave a good foundation on the fetch command. Dogs won't bite your fingers and, if they try to, you're sure not going to let them, so fingers are good to get a dog to quit mouthing. I put my fingers in her mouth and when she accepted it, I treated her. From there I went back to the things she was used to mouthing - dowel, roll of tape, etc. - and had her hold them, except I laid my fingers across them. So, I'd put the dowel in her mouth, but had two fingers laid across it so she wouldn't mouth. When she held for a minute, she got a treat. When this was working well I did some fetching from the ground at my feet to make sure she wasn't going to try and mouth on me. She didn't. From there I went to a hold on a fresh-killed bird and live birds. Fresh birds were no problem. Live birds were a bit of a hassle, but after a couple sessions she was a champ (with my fingers over the bird so she wouldn't mouth). When we got to a frozen bird, she really didn't want to put it in her mouth. I really can't blame her... a frozen bird can't be too enjoyable to put in your mouth for the first time. So, we went to a light ear pinch. Once she had accepted it a time or two and realized she was only going to have to hold it for a second or two and get a treat after, she was gangbusters. We just stretched it out until she was fetching from across the room. I'm going to stay at this level and keep her fetching just frozen birds for awhile so she becomes very conditioned to not mouth on a retrieve and it becomes second nature to fetch things up. Next, we'll go back to a hold on fresh birds and stretch it out until she's fetching at good distances, then start introducing the gun to the whole thing.

With respect to positive reinforcement, everyone thinks it means training (reinforcing) behavior by using a lot of energy and happiness and such (positive). That's not right. You have positive and negative, and have reinforcement and punishment. This is all a part of operant conditioning. You have to detach yourself from what these words mean in everday life. Positive means you add something, negative means you take something away. Reinforcement means you are trying to get a behavior to be repeated, punishment means you're trying to stop a behavior. So, you can have negative reinforcement and positive punishment, just like you can have positive reinforcement and negative punishment.

For example, if you stand in front of a dog then he sits and you give him a treat because you want him to associate the treat with sitting so he'll sit again, you're doing positive reinforcement by adding (positive) the treat to get him to repeat the behavior (reinforcement). Force breaking is a classic example of negative reinforcement. You're teaching the dog that the pain will go away (this is the negative, because you're taking the pain away) if he takes the object in his mouth (reinforcing him taking the dowel). Sending a kid to his room without supper to teach him a lesson is negative punishment because you're trying to discourage him from doing whatever he did (punishment) by taking away his supper (negative). Whooping a kid for doing something bad is positive punishment. Whooping the kid (adding the belt to the equation is the positive) to get him to quit a behavior (punishment). Think of positive as adding and negative as deducting.

[Sharon]

or
http://bcotb.com/the-difference-between ... unishment/


All I want to know is , what are you going to do when that dog is out in the field 75+ - yards and ignores your command to retrieve, stay staunch etc..?

[gonehuntin']

or
http://bcotb.com/the-difference-between ... unishment/


All I want to know is , what are you going to do when that dog is out in the field 75+ - yards and ignores your command to retrieve, stay staunch etc..?

Not to mention, running out of treats!

[Stoneface]

All this is just conditioning. It's teaching. When all this is done and she knows what I want, if she refuses to retrieve I could stimulate her with the collar and she will retrieve. This is where everyone gets the wrong idea about positive reinforcement. My dogs listen to me and know if they don't follow a command they're in trouble. But, not all training has to be military style. You make positive reinforcement style training into a game. It's not a have-to kind of thing, you make it something they want to do and arrange the setup so the dog enjoys it and is eager to play because the more you play and the more engaged he is, the more he learns. Once you've finished training, he's got the command down pat and you can turn it from a game to a serious command. Positive reinforcement is a way of teaching... the "teaching" is done by the time we're doing 75-yard retrieves. On the flip side, I don't think her shucking a 75-yard retrieve will be a problem, anyhow. There are plenty of dogs brought on to retrieve this way that never shuck a command.

[Sharon]

IT's really just an argument of words. I know what you are saying and I support it. You've explained your philosophy well. (You hadn't mentioned before using an e collar for distance command enforcements, so you had me a little worried. )
I use clicker training for in house training for pups.

That doesn't mean I don't think the FF way isn't useful and productive too and = less use over the long run of an e collar imo/

IN the old days , Skinner 's theory, ( 1948 Skinner's box), wasn't well known by dog trainers , let alone parents, and no e collars. We still got the job done - without buckshot.

If it's working for you and you're happy then ++

PS
"I don't think her shucking a 75-yard retrieve will be a problem, anyhow. There are plenty of dogs brought on to retrieve this way that never shuck a command." quote Stoneface

How old is your dog? Every dog shucks a command occasionally over its lifetime. Some more than others.

Your avatar shows a hind end e collar . That would make me think that you have some concern about a dog "shucking" a command.
( Just kidding you.)

[Nutmeg247]

As a technical matter, if you're going to use the e-collar to enforce a retrieve, wouldn't it make more sense to first overlay the collar in a controlled environment?

For upland hunting, as a practical matter I don't see a bomber retrieve as being that important in many cases, so long as the dog can and will at least find the bird.

As for Gonehuntin's point about running out of treats, for most dogs hunting itself and also birds are powerful rewards. So, the rewards don't have to be food-based. One example from my own experience where that gets difficult, though: I haven't ff'd my pointer, but he loves to do bumper retrieves, at this point even out of fairly cold water. But, this summer at a mountain lake the wind kicked up a LOT right when I threw a bumper, so he was snarfing water from oncoming windcaps and decided to back off a retrieve. I can live with that, and I only hunt upland anyway. But if he'd been ff'd, I have no doubt he'd have done the retrieve.

[kninebirddog]

Pavlov's Dog

[Ms. Cage]

Stoneface, I enjoyed your video. We basically use the same method before we begin FF. The retrieve is there and the delivery to hand. We use very little treats. praise is mostly the reward.