To sit or not to sit?

[Casper]

Hope some of the pros could answer this or just their take on it. After visiting a friend I was paying attention to the comands he used and one that sparked a question with me was Sit. I have heard rumor that a pointing dog should not be taught to sit as it might cause pup to crouch, laydown or Sit while on point. Is this true or an ol wives tale?

[dhondtm]

Been discussed before...
http://www.gundogforum.com/forum/viewto ... hlight=sit

[Casper]

Thank you

[Greg Jennings]

Hope some of the pros could answer this or just their take on it. After visiting a friend I was paying attention to the comands he used and one that sparked a question with me was Sit. I have heard rumor that a pointing dog should not be taught to sit as it might cause pup to crouch, laydown or Sit while on point. Is this true or an ol wives tale?

Just to summarize, the reason behind not teaching a pointing dog to sit till AFTER they are finished is that during the finishing process, some dogs will sit to escape the pressure to do what you're asking them to do.

It's a "why take a chance if you don't have to" type of thing.

Best,

[Ayres]

Also to summarize, the folks that have experienced problems with teaching the sit command too early usually no longer teach it until after the dog is finished or largely through field training.

The folks that have inadvertantly taught it and have experienced no problems continue to inadvertantly teach it.

Basically, it's just about the easiest command a dog can learn and if your dog gets stressed and confused about a future command, they'll revert to sitting down. This can cause havoc when teaching things such as woah, because you have to teach the command at a slower pace to not over-stress the dog into sitting down.

I taught Justus to sit, and can't remember having many problems with him wanting to sit in lieu of other commands. I think once or twice he sat down beside me in the field, but I just grabbed his butt and lifted him back on all-fours. He quickly learned that sitting doesn't fly outdoors in the field. In my opinion, the hardest 'revert-command' to break is "here" or "come." When teaching a stressing or confusing command now, Justus usually wants to come to me because he knows that command best. From what my trainer has told me, though, that sort of behavior is not unusual.

[Colleen]

The folks that have inadvertantly taught it and have experienced no problems continue to inadvertantly teach it.

Three cheers for the ignorant newbies like Ayres and me!

To open up a whole new can of worms, could another possible solution to this quagmire be not to put so much pressure on your dog that he just gives up completely in an attempt to pacify you? Not trying to be a smarta--, really, it just seems to me it's not so much the sit command as it is an overbearing handler. Or am I mistaken?

[Greg Jennings]

Well, if you want a dog that isn't finished, you can avoid putting any pressure on them.

OTOH, if you want a dog that is finished, you're going to ask it to do some things that "jus' ain't nachrul". That's where the pressure comes in.

Here is how I look at it....I know several trainers that are big-time winners. They've told me that there are some dogs that it causes problems with.

Now, who am *I* to try to second-guess all their experience?

Nope, I'll just shut up and color between the lines that they've already drawn by paying their dues for decades.

YMMV,

[Colleen]

I'm not trying to second-guess anyone either. I'm just looking at the same issue through a different lens. I agree with you also that you have to put some pressure on the dog. It just seems logical that there'd be a medium somewhere in between no pressure at all and so much pressure the dog just gives up. Does the problem lie in teaching 'sit' or in teaching 'sit' as the be-all, end-all, cure-all of commands? (Before the "you wouldn't know your dog from a lightpole, you stupid idiot" answers come back, I am asking, not stating anything)

[ezzy333]

If a dog is confused or feels pressure or disapproval from you he may come since he knows that makes you happy. The same is true with sit. He has grown up knowing either of those acts brings praise. So all the trainers are saying why teach it first when there is no real need to. No one is saying you can't teach it and get around it later but why when there is an easier way. And that way is don't teach it till later. Its not a big deal with most dogs but why make your job harder for no good reason.

Ezzy

[Greg Jennings]

I'm not trying to second-guess anyone either. I'm just looking at the same issue through a different lens. I agree with you also that you have to put some pressure on the dog. It just seems logical that there'd be a medium somewhere in between no pressure at all and so much pressure the dog just gives up. Does the problem lie in teaching 'sit' or in teaching 'sit' as the be-all, end-all, cure-all of commands? (Before the "you wouldn't know your dog from a lightpole, you stupid idiot" answers come back, I am asking, not stating anything)

Here is how I frame the issue for myself.

Every unnatural thing that we ask a dog to perform for us has a non-zero probability of lowering their potential in the field or creating training issues to overcome.

Lowering their potential in the field, in a competitive dog is unacceptable.

Overcoming training issues requires pressure that is perhaps like treating illnesses with surgery or drugs...there are ofttimes side-effects that are issues in themselves.

If one buys that, then given enough dogs, one *will* eventually have problems from any unnatural behavior.

Therefore, one should ask oneself if the behavior is something that is a desireable behavior as an end-product or is a valuable stepping stone to some other desireable behavior.

If the answer is "No" or "I can put it off till later", then, my conclusion is "Why take the risk?".

---

I guess you can summarize all that by saying that my philosophy is...take it for what it's worth...that I don't want to teach a dog a single thing more than is required for him to do the job I'm asking of him. Everything above that is just taking an unnecessary risk.

YMMV,

[Ryan]

Just started Reading wing and shot and Robert said he uses sit and he made his own line of pointers. Cant be that bad i guess. More ore less personal preferance.

[Ayres]

Therefore, one should ask oneself if the behavior is something that is a desireable behavior as an end-product or is a valuable stepping stone to some other desireable behavior.

If the answer is "No" or "I can put it off till later", then, my conclusion is "Why take the risk?"

I guess I did weigh the costs and benefits. I decided that since my dog was an inside family pet as well as my hunting partner, he needed to have good house manners immediately. Having him sit on command and come to me on command* were essential steps in teaching him those house manners, and how to play gentle with VERY young nieces and other neighborhood kids.

Not everyone is in that same situation however. Probably more are not in that situation than are in that situation. And, as a generalization, I'd bet that almost none of the trainers that have drawn the lines for the rest of us to color within use any, let alone a majority, of the dogs they campaign with as house dogs and family pets.

So, in essence, I do agree with Greg that you have to ask yourself the question and come up with the answer that suits your situation. If you need the sit command, teach it. If you don't, then forego it. But, by all means, don't go walking around paranoid that teaching an easy command will ruin a dog. I think that's the feeling a lot of people get even though nobody really advocates that position.

(*Nobody really debates the necessity of the "come" command, but it has the same effect as the "sit" command when the dog is put under too much pressure.)

[Ryan]

I guess I did weigh the costs and benefits. I decided that since my dog was an inside family pet as well as my hunting partner, he needed to have good house manners immediately. Having him sit on command and come to me on command* were essential steps in teaching him those house manners, and how to play gentle with VERY young nieces and other neighborhood kids.

Not everyone is in that same situation however. Probably more are not in that situation than are in that situation. And, as a generalization, I'd bet that almost none of the trainers that have drawn the lines for the rest of us to color within use any, let alone a majority, of the dogs they campaign with as house dogs and family pets.

Same with me here. Family dog before hunting dog. I found out just now that she sits when I whoa her in the house but when she is on point in the feild she is like a brick she wont move. I am glad for this and hope she continues.

[Casper]

Ryan-
In what part did Bob Wele talk about using the command sit I have loaned my copy out cause I dont recall him mentioning it. I was just curios and wanted to review it.
I had no Idea this would become such a debate I wanted to just clarify some hearsay but glad that It turned out this way. I have been successful In training labs so I am biting my lip teaching my gsp the down command without using sit cause I was told that it is a good alternative to sit for a pointing dog.
Maybe I should just forget it altogether for now till he his is more reliable with here, whoa, backing, retreiving, etc.

[snips]

I have a 13 yr old 10 x Ch that lives in the house and has never been taught to sit. He will down if I point down and tell him. Usually only used when we are eating. The only command I teach dogs is Come and Whoa. I train many dogs that have been trained to sit, and have only had a couple that will sit in the field, usually only if I set them back on a correction in the field. I don`t worry about it, it does not make then Sit on point, only on a correction. I just feel like it does`nt hurt to wait a bit before teaching it, the more sensitive dogs with a high desire to please are usually the ones that will sit because they aim to please.

[Ryan]

Umm it was on page 5 here is the sentence. "As for yard training and manners, he should be house ant carbroken and be obedient at all times. He should respond promptly to such commands as, "heel", "Stay", "COme in", "Up", "Down", "Sit", "In", "Whoa" and "Quiet.

[Small Munsterlander]

Ryan: You have taken that quote out of context (which is always a danger when quoting).

Bob started that paragraph off with "There seems to be quite a difference of opinion as to how completely trained a shooting dog should be. If he accomplishes all the basic requirements as stated above and does it in a fashion requiring little effort on your part, I feel this constitutes 90 per cent of his training. As for yard training and manners, he should be house and car-broken and be obedient at all times. He should respond promptly to such commands as, Heel,Stay, Come in, Up, Down, Sit, In, Whoa, and Quiet".

The way I read this that doesn't put a timetable on when "Sit" should be taught. So for those who are suggesting it not be done until after steadiness training that could well fit in with what Bob wrote.

Personally because I also hunt waterfowl it is usefull to have my dogs know "sit" (I'm not sure there is anything unnatural about that position. They certainly did it in the whelping box). I have not had any issues with sit while pointing nor have any of my hundred + clients. But then I don't talk to my dogs while their on birds and create the pressure that might cause the dog to default to a sit. Unless their are extreme issues with the dog or a very overbearing trainer the problem is simply solved. To each their own. Bill

[SteveB]

I have a question about this also. I am looking at getting a DK pup in the fall that will be a house dog, an all-around hunting dog, and I would like to run some of the German-style trials.
I don't want the dog to ever sit in an upland trial situation but in the duck blind it is a must that the dog sits.
How do you guys that use the same dog on quail and ducks handle this?
Thanks,
Steve

[Small Munsterlander]

As I stated above I teach my dogs to sit. I also hunt Turkeys and ungulats with my dogs so I need them under control and I expect my dogs to sit beside one of my falcons on game. They learn what is expected in the various situations. They are taught to sit as puppies but they are also taught to stand as ouppies at the food bowl. This helps teach them patients before the reward. Bill

[Greg Jennings]

because I also hunt waterfowl it is usefull to have my dogs know "sit" (I'm not sure there is anything unnatural about that position. They certainly did it in the whelping box). I have not had any issues with sit while pointing nor have any of my hundred + clients.

My use of the term "unnatural" meant anything that the dog in the wild would not do. Under that definition, doing anything *on command*, verbal or otherwise, is unnatural.

E.g., Finding birds is natural. Pointing is natural (or, it should be).

However, even teaching the dog to go with you non-verbally is somewhat unnatural and, if mis-used, can decrease the dog's independence and thereby decrease his performance.

Does that matter in a weekend hunting companion dog...no.

Does it matter to the serious weekend trailer...my opinion is that it does. But, as I said, Your Milage May Vary.

Cheers,

[Kurzhaar]

All my dogs are taught "sit" and must comply with the command before they are allowed to consume their meals, before they can enter a door, before they are loaded into the vehicle, before they are allowed to leave their kennel. before they are allowed to consume a treat. I have had no problems with a dog wanting to sit on point.

If someone says you will ruin a dog simply because you teach it to sit they are full of it. With that said, I am sure that many professional "Burd Dawg" trainers have had to fix many dogs that had problems and sit may have been their way of coping with their stress.

Jim

[Ayres]

Greg, I do see the logic in your thinking there, but I don't quite believe it all. Here's my immediate thoughts after reading your post, take 'em for what they're worth (not much ):

Actually, holding a point is unnatural, and we sure do teach our dogs that. We teach our dogs an enormous number of commands, all of which may be deemed "unnatural." In fact, for a dog to eat processed kibble from a bowl, when compared to a dog in the wild, is very unnatural. Point being, these dogs are not wild, they're domesticated. I have no belief that a domesticated, well-trained dog will hunt any less hard or have any less desire than a similar dog that is kept away from "unnatural" things.

And, a step further, I also believe that by learning a command a dog does not decrease its independance. On the contrary, learning and obeying commands actually provides a dog with more opportunity to flex that independance because the handler is more assured of the proper performance.

I agree with Brenda's contention that a dog that has been taught to sit and ends up sitting on point is only doing so because of a combination of the eagerness to please and the pressure of a correction. It's not bad performance, it's just the wrong performance at the wrong time... and it can be corrected quite easily. One simply needs to weigh the costs and benefits of taking the extra time to fix that problem should it arise vs. having an easy gateway command to use to teach other commands and end training sessions on a postive note.

Some believe the costs aren't worth it, and that's a valid opinion. I'd actually agree in some of those cases too. But it, in no way, hurts a dog's available performance any more than any other easy command we teach.

[Greg Jennings]

And, a step further, I also believe that by learning a command a dog does not decrease its independance. On the contrary, learning and obeying commands actually provides a dog with more opportunity to flex that independance because the handler is more assured of the proper performance..

Well, I'll tell you what....when you have your first dog STW&S, come back and tell us whether or not it shortened the dog. Most that I've seen staunched that far have shortened up. Some irreparably.

That is why most trial folks say they have to put in the run before putting in the manners. I.e., firmly establish independence and drive before putting on the controls. And, again, I'm speaking in the context of a serious weekend trailer. Not hunting, not NAVHDA, not DK work.

The next time you're down training with Rick and Brenda, ask them about Baron and the effects of him running in MH.

TTFN,

[Duane M]

Most that I've seen staunched that far have shortened up. Many irreparably.

WOW Greg I have finished between 70 and 100 to W&S and have yet to see one shorten up, ever. In the trials I run in, NBHA/AFTCA, walking a dog must be W&S to win AND especially in NBHA must run big. If W&S shortens them I would HATE to see what the CHs I have seen run from walking to AA would run like. Youd need a dang helicopter to keep track with a dog like HTA or Elvis for sure. Both those dogs are as staunch as a dog can get and sure as hey run big.

Far as sit I teach mine but it's later in life after field work is finished. I have seen more than a few sit when any pressure was given. A young Britt last year would do at at the beginning just when being CCed and thats not much pressure at all, I asked the owner and sure enough sit was the first command the pup learned. It's not tough to work past but as was said why have the problem when it's avoidable and just as easy to teach later in life as it is young.

.Bill I dont know if you have the West video from Mos place but in it he has a couple of dogs sit when he is working them on stand, no voice causing that.

[Small Munsterlander]

Duane: I haven't got that tape (nor the new DVDs yet). I do believe some dogs are just predisposed to doing it (genetically) when pressure (could be confusion or body language or voice or softness). I think most dogs teach themselves to sit and find "comfort" from that position. I'm not saying the robot handler doesn't also aid in creating the situation BUT I also like at the "prey drive" of the dog. I think the time of this being a BIG issue has passed with better (less pressure) training methods and less pressure corrections that it shouldn't be a taboo. Too many people are needing "sit" in hunt tests and hunting situations before a dog is finished that a "new era" may be happening. I wonder what percent of even trial dogs do it once they have been corrected and moved on in their preperation for trialing.

I fully appreciate concern for a competitor. but I just can't take it to the phobia level. For me the jury is still out.

On the range issue I have not experienced any "shortening" as a result of advanced steadiness. Bill

[Greg Jennings]

Hi Duane, long time, no exchange of bytes. How is that Tex dog doing?

Duane, here is a mental experiment to try to convey where I'm coming from...

God reaches down and in one moment takes away all your current dogs (FDSB pointers?) and gives you a Vizsla pup. You have to maximize your chances to win in retrieving stakes. You have unlimited time and unlimited resources, but you only have that one Vizsla pup.

How would you approach training the pup? How would it be different in content and timing than what you do today with your current lines? Why?

Here are some specifics that have come up for me....

1. The breeder of the pup tells you to take the pup to an obedience club puppy kindergarten. Would you do it? Why?

2. You're in the process of staunching the dog to derby or equivalent manners. Someone invites you to go on a wild pheasant hunt right just after trailing season starts. What do you do and why?

3. The pup ages out of derby or similar in the middle of the trailing season. Where do you go from there and why? Would you immediately start trying to enter retrieving stakes at the next higher level? Would you run him in non-retrieving stakes first even though they aren't your primary goal?


What I'm trying to convey is twofold:

1. That in dogs, especially contential dogs, intended for field trails, an excess of manners early on imposes risk.

2. The idea of avoiding unnecessary risk.


Best regards,

[Duane M]

Bill if you would like a copy of the tape PM me and I will burn a DVD for you. It's two tapes and the sound quality aint the best but it covers all the bases and the old man himself is the one doing it.

[Ayres]

Well, I'll tell you what....when you have your first dog STW&S, come back and tell us whether or not it shortened the dog. Most that I've seen staunched that far have shortened up. Some irreparably.

First, Justus is already steady to flush. Haven't tried shot yet because we're doing FF first, but he has yet to break woah from a point until I release him.

Secondly, you're right in that Justus is my first dog. But, do I have to train 100 dogs in order to have a valid opinion? All I've said is that ANY easy command can cause a dog to perform a desirable behavior at an undesirable time if too much pressure is put on it. Do you not agree with that?

Finally, if anything, my experience has been that Justus is becomming more independant with more training. Just last night he was ranging in excess of 75 yards ahead of me, something he never did as a pup, and he does that now because a) I trust his performance and b) he knows I trust his performance.

Heck, maybe my dog is the exception to the rule or something. I'm sure not seeing a decrease in performance just because I taught him to sit though.

What I'm trying to convey is twofold:

1. That in dogs, especially contential dogs, intended for field trails, an excess of manners early on imposes risk.

2. The idea of avoiding unnecessary risk.

I'd agree with both contentions, just not the application. I don't think teaching the sit command is an excess of manners, and I sure don't think it's an unneccessary risk. For some I'm sure they feel that it is, and I would agree in some cases, but I put no weight in an argument that contends that any and every dog taught to sit at an early age will have a harmed performance, let alone irreparably harmed.

"Your milage may vary"

[Duane M]

Hey there Greg, Tex is doin great matter of fact I am W&S him this summer for the fall season. He had a great year last year on the wild birds, big shock , heck of a retriever for being Spirit and Snakefoot bred. Now as to this:

God reaches down and in one moment takes away all your current dogs (FDSB pointers?) and gives you a Vizsla pup.

He couldnt be that cruel could he??? LOL

1. No I would not take the pup to an OB class at all. I do OB work myself for folks but a dog I plan to run in FTs I want to have all the independence he can have and I have found that too much OB at an early age can really diminish that and gain little to nothing afield.

2. I dont take the dog plain and simple. My own trial dogs I dont even hunt with others dogs that are not finished after having to rebreak a couple it's not worth the hassle. I would and do hunt them with each other or other full broke dogs though any day. They are bird dogs first and foremost afterall.

3. I had this situation the past year. One of my top prospects, Rebel, due to the breeder being honest and not redshirting would have had to gun SD as a 2 1/2 year old and I was not going to waste my money and his energy. Instead I hunted him this past season with my other broke dogs only and he did great as I expected he would. The plus is his already very good retrieving drive was polished further by working with more experienced dogs and having to do blind searches.


I can agree that some breeds, Weims in my expereince for one, are slower to mature and the last thing I would do is rush one I planned to campaign. I dont agree though, as I already mentioned, that excess OB can cause drive and independence problems in versatiles only, I have seen it out of EPs and ES as well. But admittedly I allow much, MUCH more independence than lots of folks do even in my just hunting dogs. Long as they go with me and come to me and find birds that first year I am happy as a lark.

I know I am in a minority that I dont even think of officially breaking a dog till he/she is dang ready for it. Shoot I have a 3 year old I am just truly breaking this year due to his being a pup at heart and a softer dog to boot. Time I figure is always on my side with my own dogs. That goes right in with the unecesary risk factor IMHO.

[Ayres]

Later thoughts (don't want my previous post to sound so harsh, wasn't the intent) -

Greg, I do think that your contention is absolutely correct in theory. In practical applicability, though, the rules get broken. Everyone trains their gun dogs by teaching them commands. What gets a lot of people stirred up is whether "sit" should be one of those commands. To me, it is. I use sit all the time for house obedience. To some, it won't be necessary, and that's fine.

For those who deem it unnecessary and claim it will harm a dog.. I just don't see it.

1. From an "any command will decrease performance" perspective, the sit command is barely a drop in the bucket to the rest of the commands and actions a dog is trained to do. If a dog is shortened up 20 yards by learning unnatural commands and actions, sit only accounts for 1 foot.

2. From the perspective that it could be a risk that the dog will sit on point, I do see merit in that. However, like I mentioned previously and like Brenda pointed out as well, the reason a dog would sit on point after being taught sit stems from the desire to please coupled with the stress of a correction. If the dog is never taught sit, it likely won’t sit on point under those conditions... but it will likely perform some other easy command, such as come. So, in that respect, it’s the stress of correction and not the actual command that causes the problem.

Maybe my experiences have been the exception to the rule, and maybe I’m just brickheaded on the subject. I’ll admit to that if it’s the case. I just don’t see it as a huge problem if a dog is taught to sit down on command as a primary command.

[QCBirddogs]

Good thread here folks......

BUT its hard to compare training and performance in dogs and trial formats......This is what the big controversy over NSTRA and Trial dogs is over too. NSTRA dogs dont have to do what a trial dog has to.

As far as sit and returning to you in the field.....well suite yourself.....a Dog will do what he is comfortable doing and gets praise for....especially when confronted will "STRESS".......PERIOD.

My point here is why is stress or even pressure for that matter included in training?

If you never allow your dog to develop bad habits.....you will never have to break them in the future!

I have broke many dogs as well.....The ones that have not been allowed to get away with chasing are by far a better looking dog on point and are more reliable......Dogs that have been allowed to chase for a season or two...require a bit iof pressure to break and are more apt to break at times.

Sit gets a bad rap too.......I do think they should be taught to in certain circumstances. Definetly not early in life if your training regement has alot of pressure in it. Then again not early if the dog goes to a traininer.....especially one that carries many dogs and has to get all the work done himself.

I feel anyone can break a dog........its the aftermath that makes a difference......My favorite saying is...."The Tail Tells The Tale!!!!"

I judge several different formats......have watched thousands of dogs run.....It is more often you see dogs burry their tail and hunch down after a bird flies, than see a dog stand tall and watch that bird land with a grin!

Phil
REO

[Small Munsterlander]

Phil: This thread sure has taken some twists and turns but I still think their is enough commonality with each post to address some of yours.

I would definitely have to disagree with the thought that dog that are allowed to chase are going to suffer style wise. I would be concerned about a dog that chased for several years BUT most (and that's a lot of most) that have got some good genes are going to stop chasing of their own choice way before a year. Once this happens there is normally way less pressure needed to get that dog steady.

I'm not saying you can't do all this by never allowing chase, however that reaction is so natural that any human created method to stop it will carry with it more pressure than the dog that self regulates itself after a lack of success at catching. To me tables, boards, half hitches are all tools for the convenience of the trainer not the dog and I don't see the need unless the dog/pup does not learn from the birds.

Now I'm not a feid trialer but others that do have given the chase opportunities a great deal of support and apparently their dogs has shown well enough for them to be quite successful. To the best of my knowledge the rate of failure per capita is not less than the no chase supporters.

Again this does not say both methods can't and don't have successes but to claim the nonchasers are more stylish would get some serious arguments. Bill

[Ayres]

Great posts Phil and Bill. I can see both perspectives. Glad to have some more weigh-ins!

[QCBirddogs]

Bill,

Let me restate a few things.....I am guilty of talking to fast in training seminars as well. Thats why I need someone there with me to slow me down and be more exact in what I say.

First off......I am a trialer at heart....but now that I live in an area that affords me many wild birds of mutiple species....I am a hunter first and foremost. I trial & Test my hunting dogs and vice versa.

Some breeds are better birds dogs, thats just fact, no argument there. THen there are some that are bred for specifics other than hunting, that have to be taught what a bird is. Also fact.

That said.....if you have a well bred bird dog.....there is not much you have to do to make them bird nuts. We dont let our dogs chase many at all. What I meant about breaking a dog that has gained bad habits is taking the dog hunting for a season or two. Letting that dog get away with mistakes and retriving!

Most "Joe hunters" take their one and only dog out and dont care about the things I do. You cant blame them for wanting to get out with the pup. I am not saying they will be worse than one that hasnt all I am saying is they will take longer to make an equivalent dog. This comes from persaonal experience, working with multiple trainers, training multiple breeds myself, and 20 years of trialing.

Also, I said the style of a dog after the point will be less on a dog that was not allowed to chase after a shot and misssed or wounded bird. MAny judges at trials do not pay attention to what happens when that Handler YELLS WHOA! In my humble opinion one slight whisper is all that is needed on a truley broke dog!

Phil
REO

[Small Munsterlander]

Now after that clarification I do agree with you much more.

I'll even go to the point of agreeing that a soft spoken whoa should be more than enough and further add with certain training "whoa" (on birds) need never even be spoken or taught.

I think most of us realize the standards of Joe Hunter are less than many of ours. Although I think that is often a shame it is their dog and that will always be the case. Different strokes for different folks. Now for them to reverse the missed opportunities will indeed take a greater degree of pressure and risk of "failure". I also agree that after the very young pup's introduction to birds and a few retrieving opportunities any opportunities to retrieve poorly worked and then downed birds is only creating a mountain of work to achieve a well mannered dog if that goal is ever persued.

One of my constant goals as part of the big picture when training a pup/dog is the avoidance of pressure when at all possible. This includes the use of physical corrections or harsh voice commands when another method will get the task accomplished. Some choose to use direct physical means to communicate I prefer that choice as a last or unnecessary path to travel. Again to reduce pressure.

Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding. Bill

[Dave Gowdey]

The short answer to the question is that yes, this is an old wives tale. Training sit has absolutely nothing to do with intensity on point in a well bred dog. In the hundreds of bird dogs I've seen over the decades that had been taught to sit early on, none of them have sat on point. The few dogs that I have seen that sat on point did so because they lacked interest in birds, either because of training errors that turned them into near blinkers, or because of poor breeding. Incidentally, none of them had been taught to sit.

I'd also note that Europeans laugh at the notion that our triallers have that teaching sit early on causes problems. They teach sit as one of the first commands, as most of us do, both for manners in the house and in the field. And as the folks who first developed our breeds, and who have been at it a lot longer than we have, I would tend to trust them over some of our homespun "experts." I'd also note that Delmar Smith falls into the teach them sit category as well as Bob Wehle.

As for the issue of sit and pressure, well Colleen was actually right. Dogs put under too much pressure during training will sit whether they are taught the command or not because that is a natural response to confusion and discomfort. Add more pressure and the dog will lay down in a submissive posture. They aren't doing that because you taught them to lay down - they are doing that because of the disconnect between their temperament and the stress you are placing them under. The solution is simply to put them under less stress and pressure -either by changing methods or changing pace. This cuts to the heart of training styles and the use of force.

A well bred, cooperative bird dog will generally require little more than repeated exposure to wild birds to become a fine hunting dog. Like many breeders, I've come to believe that 90% of what makes a bird dog is genetic -and recent scientific studies are bearing us out. Such a dog will have instincts to point naturally, retrieve naturally (depending upon the breed), often such dogs will back naturally, and work cooperatively with the trainer. Most dogs from such stock, if allowed to chase, will recognize that this unproductive and will revert to pointing. Such dogs usually point with more intensity rather than less in my experience. This is the way that most bird dogs were trained for most of the time we have had bird dogs. We are the only country that places an emphasis on teaching whoa in the course of training a bird dog - one that I have long since abandoned. The whoa command is simply unnecessary for most well bred bird dogs because the genetic instinct to point is something that is part of the dog, not something that needs to be taught.

The exception, as has been noted here, is field trial dogs. While the claim has been made that more force is required to train a field trial dog because the requirements are much higher - that is only partly true. The "unnatural" thing that a trial dog does that most hunting dogs don't have to do is to remain steady to wing and shot. This is not applicable to NSTRA, but it is for most other forums. All other behaviors related to a bird dog's occupation are genetically imprinted - pointing, retrieving, backing, range, biddability, etc. Steady to wing and shot is the only one that is completely unnatural - and would arguably require a greater degree of force to instill. Additionally, many, if not most, trials now use pen raised birds that are in every way inferior to their wild counterparts. In my experience, most dogs have less intensity on these types of birds - often reflected in flagging or busting in and simply grabbing the birds. I believe that this is because the dogs recognize by scent that these are weak, sickly birds - and their natural predatory instincts identify them as an easy meal. Whatever the reason, it generally takes more work to get the intensity and style you want on pen raised birds compared to wild birds -and so requires more work.

However, the most important factor in the higher use of force in training field trial dogs is the characteristics of the dog being bred for the horseback field trials. Such breedings tend to emphasize the characteristics that tend to win trials - run and range, independence, dash, etc. at the expense of cooperation, biddability, etc. This means that training in almost all areas becomes more difficult -and pros that have been involved with such dogs almost inevitably use more force in their methods. This is also why so many don't recommend straight horseback trial stock for first time owners -they are often too much of a challenge for an inexperienced trainer to handle.

The point being that high pressure, forceful, training methods, when transferred to cooperative dogs from well bred hunting stock, usually cause more problems than they solve. A good friend who is a noted trainer once told me that the majority of his work is actually correcting training mistakes that the owners made. Dogs that fold up and sit under such treatment are a sign that the methods being used are excessively forceful - not that teaching sit is bad.

I recognize that some will agree with this analysis, and others won't. It just seemed like this discussion was a bit one sided and could use some alternative view points.

[Ayres]

Dave -

I haven't seen you post here before, but after that informative post I sure do want to see more! Welcome to the forums.

[Duane M]

I'd also note that Delmar Smith falls into the teach them sit category as well as Bob Wehle.


Dave where did you get that one from???? Or are you taking it out of context as Bill pointed out was the case with the Wehle example already?? I sure know he never has mentioned it being a command he ever considered important in our talks over the past 20 years. I do agree with WP on this though which is my same thought on the issue:

"A good friend who is a noted trainer once told me that the majority of his work is actually correcting training mistakes that the owners made"

When you actually work with dogs that others have started off and actually have to deal with the problems you will see what I am talking about. But training only your own dogs does not mean you have seen even a small sample of the problems prior "training" can cause.

I dont recall anyone saying that teaching sit was a bad thing ever, just that it could be waited on. Far as it being pressure that causes it thats not the case I have seen anywhere, as my mention to Bill on the West tape was an example of, no pressure on the dogs in the video but they reverted right to sit when asked to do a new behavior. Like the Britt I mentioned earlier who did it just on a checkcord and a flat collar, it was the first thing he learned and the first ecape behavior he reverted to.

Not a thing wrong with teaching and I have taught some of mine to sit when I want them to, just that it can be waited on. Some folks need to learn that a differing viewpoint is not an attack on how they do things. :roll:

Far as breaking chase causing loss of style I cant buy it as I have seen far to many Ch dogs that were allowed to chase and are as classy as any dog you will see. To name a few I know for sure from dealing with the breeders or early trainers Texas Trailrider, Bayou Elvis, Honky Tonk Attitude, Hammer Down, True Spirit, White Powder, Lancelot. All according to thier owners, handlers or breeders were allowed to chase that first year, none suffered from loss of style. Just to throw in a couple I myself have had a hand in both these were allowed to chase the first year, see any loss??
[/list]

[Dave Gowdey]

[/quote]Far as it being pressure that causes it thats not the case I have seen anywhere, as my mention to Bill on the West tape was an example of, no pressure on the dogs in the video but they reverted right to sit when asked to do a new behavior. Like the Britt I mentioned earlier who did it just on a checkcord and a flat collar, it was the first thing he learned and the first ecape behavior he reverted to.[/quote]

Duane,

Delmar wrote that sit was one of the basic obedience commands that he taught that made a dog well mannered. He didn't mention that he waited to teach it - nor did he mention any problems in teaching it early. I'm also not sure that Bob Whele mentioned teaching it late either. I'm not sure it ever ocurred to them that teaching it was a problem.

As for your comment above - I guarantee you have seen it because it is ALWAYS a result of pressure/stress. In fact, I'd bet you've seen that behavior from dogs that were never taught to sit at all. I certainly have. Just as you've seen dogs roll over under training pressure when they were certainly not taught to do that.

I am certainly questioning the methods and logic of those trial folks that claim that training sit early causes problems - but I'm glad you realize this isn't an attack. It's more like pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

I don't know of any profession that is more choked with old wives tales, refusal to change, and hidebound tradition than pointing dog training. While we have adapted to new electronic technologies - when you compare pointing dog training with the sophistication of training herding, guard, or guide dogs - we are in the stone ages. Indeed, the word "break" itself is an indication of this - no other country uses that word in connection with training a pointing dog. Nor do you "break" a guide dog. They would no more "break" a dog then they would "break" a ming vase. Most hidebound trainers in this school think that the "bible" was written by Lytle, Davis, and more modernly interpreted by Delmar. Traditional trainers are using techniques rooted in the mentality used to train horses a century ago - we even use the same word - "break." The fundamental philosophical basis for this kind of training is that a dog has to be forced to obey, that limits have to be put on their natural behavior and instincts, and structure forcefully imposed. It is fundamentally adversarial in nature.

However, we have come to learn a lot more about animal behavior in the past half century -and we've come to realize that social animals have an instinctive need to conform to pack/herd norms and actively cooperate with each other - which means that if they are well bred and socialized they will WANT to do those things that we establish as norms. This kind of cooperative training will not cause the kind of problems that you and WP are talking about - those almost inevitably come from the inappropriate application of force/pressure during training or socialization. In fact, WP also told me that when you have a dog screwed up this way, where the solution also has to be fairly drastic, you almost always create another problem in solving the original that you then have to deal with, and so on.

I have worked with others who have screwed up their dogs, but I also thank my stars that I don't have to do it every day as you and WP do. You couldn't pay me to do that -which of course, is why I'm not a pro.


For folks that argue that if the old fashioned cooperative training methods were so effective, why aren't they used more commonly. The problem is that at a year of age you can "break" a pointing dog using standard methods in about six weeks. To teach a dog cooperatively to do the same things requires working with a dog on a regular basis over six months - from puppyhood to adolescence. Even though such work is more pleasurable for both you and the dog - and has payoffs in other areas. In our instant gratification society - slower isn't better.

However, if this post gets some folks to think about the methods they are using and examine some of their beliefs, and spurs some dialogue, well that is the point.

I should also note that I agree with you that chasing does not cause any problems in intensity on point or anything else for a well bred dog - as long as they don't catch. It seems from your post that you believed that I was disagreeing on that point.

[Duane M]

Dave where the issue of pressure comes in , as you know, is the individual dog. I have had some that were taught sit that had absolutely no problem and never sat while in training, of course the reverse is dogs like the Britt I keep mentioning . For some dogs just the experience of a checkcord is traumatic for others a whoa post using a Kohler pinch collar is nothing at all. The Britt I had to approach with kids gloves plain and simple to get him where his owner wanted him. For some dogs a simple half hitch causes gator rolls, for others just the chain gang is enough to send them in fits of panic. I reckon you could say that pressure is in the eye of the beholder.

As to modern training methods they are much gentler than they used to be you have to admit, I dont know anyone that uses slingshots and vitamin 9s anymore. There are many though without question, and not at all just trial trainers, that are heavy handed as a gorilla, I get to deal with those dogs every year. I am sure WP could fill you in on some of his fun with "name" trainers "trained dogs" even better than I could. But this one line alone says why many do use a heavy hand:
In our instant gratification society - slower isn't better

[TAK]

Very good posts. I enjoy reading!
My take on the sit to not sit training is this.... Some or most people can train a dog to sit and never have a problem with the further education of finish work. Then there are the people that have the problems with the animal wanting to sit when there is even the slightest presure given. Key is, can the problem be corrected by this person or does one need a Pro trainer?
I might add I am not a fan of teaching a dog to sit at anypoint in training, not saying you can't and won't have a polished finished dog just I don't do it. Reading the posts I have to say that my take on it is it would be best to teach the sit command after the dog is finished.
Alot goes into this with reading the dog. If the dog is going to use this as a way to escape then I would not add more fuel for the fire. Less problems you have to fix makes for a happer dog and owner/trainer.

[icefire]

here is a thought for you...

the dogs that are most likely to sit when pressure is applied (and pressure is whoa or anything that you use to stop a dog from chasing at the flush) are the softer dogs. if a dog starts to sit in these situations it will require MORE pressure to correct that fault. these are specifically the dogs that we want to train using as little pressure as we can. since most pups that are taught sit are done so very early, i think that it is to early to tell how soft a dog will be. therefor I am of the thinking that waiting until a dog is totally broke and confident in the field before teaching sit is the way to go. I don't ever teach any of mine to do this, even the ones in the house but that is just me.

and yes, to me a broke dog is one that will stand a bird through flush, shot, fall, bracemate busting in, sky falling and the wrath of god falling upon us.

ice

[Casper]

I thank everyone for their input, insight, and knowledge. I started this thread not knowing how people felt about this subject. Though none of it was bad I now have a new look on certian applications in training a successfull gun dog (less is more). Without the last few posts I might have never gotten a full field of view when giving a new prospect a new command.
I started out to be one of those hard handed trainers that thought the only way to get a dog to do what you wanted was to instill force but when I got my first dog I began reading all I could on training. I quikly learned that encouragment rather than force worked to get a dog to respond to a command faster and with more enthusiasm. I am now on dog number 3 and with each one I have slowly worked away from all the little quirks that caused so many mistakes.
Without all of you and this site I may have set myself back so far that my puppy would never make a great gun dog.
Thank You Again

[Wagonmaster]

I have to say, this was a little bit of a frustrating thread to read, because lots of people were confusing when to teach sit with whether to teach sit. Not smart to teach a pointing dog to sit early, before whoa. Yes, you can many times get away with it. But if you train enough dogs you will run into some that sit when you try to teach whoa. Have one right now. She is a terrific hunting dog, but was taught sit by the kids as a pup. When we began to do drills to teach whoa, she would stand as long as I was at her side, but the minute I walked away, she would sit and look blithely at me. We had to spend a few weeks working on that. Making a suitcase handle out of the lead to lift her up, and using a variety of other tricks.

Also kind of frustrating to hear the "why do you use that kind of pressure/stress" comments. There does not have to be any pressure to produce this. My current dog with the issue, was under no pressure except being on a lead and walking. She was perfectly happy. She just thought the right reaction was to sit. When there is pressure, which you must inevitably apply in some way to train a dog, they are even more likely to sit as an escape route, when they are confused or not sure.

Teach sit if you want, but teach it later, after whoa and after the dog is pointing and has had birds killed over it.

Smith and Wehle both agree with this. Smith says, p. 101, "Field-trialers won't want Pup to sit. If Pup accidentally sits in a trial he's eliminated. You do with Pup as your needs require." Wehle has two separate chapters on yard training. In the first one, called "Preliminary Yard Training," he says to teach "Whoa," "Come In," and "All Right." In a later chapter, called Final Yard Training, he says to teach "Heel," "Sit," "Up," "Down," and "In." The chapter Field Training, comes right after Preliminary Yard Training and before Final Yard Training, and the opening line of Field Training is "The next step in his training [after learning whoa and before learning to sit] is to combine what he has learned in the yard trainig lessons with his field work." In Final Yard Training in which he talks about Sit, the opening line, to paraphrase, says now that the dog can produce a "pleasant day of hunting," we can teach other things.

In my experience, it is not absolutely necessary to wait until you have fully broken a dog to teach sit. If you have taught it whoa and it clearly understands, if the dog is pointing and has had birds killed over it, if you have built up its bird drive, it is less likely to sit during whoa breaking. That said, I have seen dogs that sit during whoa breaking, not on point, but on the flush of the bird. The problem is that when bird flushes and dog breaks, the restraining action with a lead or check cord is back and up, same action used to train sit. So down their butt goes and now you have a problem to correct. However, IMO it is always necessary to wait until after you have taught whoa, and until the dog is pointing and standing his birds, to teach sit. Less likely to cause problems at that stage. The European system, in which sit is taught early, is completely different from field trials and American bird dog training. The Germans are great engineers, but not great artists.

QC pretty much was right on.

Also, I have to respectfully say that those who think breaking does not change a dog's range, at least temporarily, are likely not trialers. The good trial pros will all tell you that you work on range and birds first. Preferable is to give a dog some wild bird experience. That is why they take big strings to the prairies in the summer or TX in the winter. Dogs are allowed to go through a development period where they learn to run, find birds, stand and point, break and chase. Breaking is done after that, and with least pressure to keep from affecting their race. You expect to see their race come back as they gain confidence with the new rules of engagement (be broke), as long as excess pressure has not been used.

Not teaching sit is definitely not an old wives tale. The problem just does not occur every time, but would rather not have to backstep in training to correct the problem when it does occur. Breaking affecting range, at least temporarily, is a truth.