Lab training without eCollar

[hannajb]

The wife is ADAMANTLY opposed to the use of an eCollar in training our new rescue dogs. I don't even want to battle her on this - after all, she let me keep the two stray labs that found us, so I am already ahead.

My question is: Are there any good books/DVDs that discuss retriever training without collar? I am not super concerned with a hunt-test or field-trial caliber dog, I want a buddy to take out in the blind, retrieve birds, and return them (preferably to hand) without any mangling...

Thanks,
Josh

[luke0927]

Can i ask why she is so sound against it?

[hannajb]

The short answer - lack of education. She feels that it is tantamount to abuse. I have explained to her that the dog has a thickly muscled neck with hairy coat, etc. and that the "nick" only travels an inch or so between the probe points. I also explained that it mimics the bite on the neck that a mother dog would use to train her kids... But to no avail...

[bean1031]

Pretty much every training method on the markett uses e-collars. Dont go with richard wolters what ever you do.

It sounds like your wife needs to learn a bit about e-collars, I have used my on my self several times and it doesnt hurt a bit it kind of tingles. They actually to less harm to a dog that pulling on a choke collar or regular collar and pulling can harm there trikea. E-collars are very humane. I trained my dog on everything through obedence to Force Fetch to triple marks without one, but if you want to get into advanced work like handling than it is a must. IMHO

[gonehuntin']

One of the first retriever books written was by James Lamb Free. It's so old that I don't believe the collar is even mentioned in there. It is very sound and basic training information.

[Lab Man]

Marsh's and Meadows by James Spencer is a good book. I have it in stock if you need one. Good luck

[mudhunter]

Basically any method will work. An E collar doesn't teach a dog, it reinforces already learned commands. Training will take a lot longer and the dog will most likely never be as solid with commands as he would if you could reinforce with an ecollar.

Good luck, Personally I would try to explain that the ecollar is a whole lot more humane than many of the older training methods used, plus knowing you can call a dog back anytime, even when chasing a bird towards a busy road, is a life saver!

[Rick Hall]

Butch Goodwin's "Retriever Training from the Inside Out" isn't e-dependent, nor is any of the British Stuff. You can also find some free on-line training articles in the newletter section of http://www.uklabs.com.

[Trekmoor]

I have trained ALL of my labs without the use of an e- collar. That is commonplace in the U.K. As I understand it the main use of the E- collar in Lab training in U.S. is to keep the dog going straight in trials during water retrieves ??? If these dogs are never to be trialled and have a "kind" enough nature , they may not need an e- collar.
I don't know of a single U.K. book that depends on e-collar use to train for anything, I don't think any of them even mention it ....... e- collars is a bit of a swear word over here !
Did the post mention whether these labs are work bred or are they from "suitable for pet and show " breeding ?

Bill T.

[Rick Hall]

Bill, e-collars have been incorporated into virtually all phases of training here, in one manner or another, and many of us seem to have forgotten there are other means of accomplishing the same goals. (Much like our force-fetch dependency.) But if one looks to the very top of the retriever training world, he'll find those guys and gals less e-dependent than our current rank and file pros and amateurs.

But, to continue this thread-jacking, my study of your UK methods has led me to boards like this, where I've read concern that the US training mainstream's use of e-collars (and force-fetch) produces dogs that cannot be made serviceable by other means. And this non-mainstreamer has not found that fear to be fact, at least not yet. I'm on my fourth Chesapeake pup of trial blood that's been e-trained (and FFed) for many generations, and have found it no trick at all to make dependable, good handling retrievers of them without either.

[Trekmoor]

Hi Rick, I'm not anti e-collar, one of the reasons I joined this forum was to learn more about how to use them sensibly/correctly. On any U.K. forum just the mention of E- collar use attracts comments, sometimes rather nasty ones, from the antis among the gundog training communities. A few of these folk even believe in training with no use of aversives of any kind. I'm not nearly good enough to do that and despite all they say I very much doubt if the e- collars enemies over here are good enough to train gundogs with no aversives either ! It would be nice to be wrong about this but I think these folk are living in cloud cuckoo land !!!

Your country seems, in print if not in practice, to adopt an opposite stance. If someone is having a retrieve problem the advice I read again and again is to F.F. it etc. That may not be the way it is but it is the way it comes over. Over here we have bred many generations of gundogs of all sorts of breeds for all sorts of purposes without finding much need for the e-collar or any need for F.F.

I think the e-collar can be a very useful tool or I wouldn't have spent about $400 on one just a short time ago. If I have a training problem it is still the last tool I reach for though.

I'm honestly not trying to get at anyone with what are only my observations and opinions. I don't think our methods are better than yours just , so often, so very different.

The original post specifically stated no "force" training. If these two dogs are of working strain I can see no reason why the instincts they should have could not be switched on. This would allow them to be trained by mainly working on improving their willingness to retrieve etc. as requested by the man who posted this .

Bill T.

[wems2371]

As a newcomer, I find it comforting to know that there are still some people not F Fetching or E-Collar. Not saying I'm against it for everyone, it's just not something I want to do. Maybe I will change my mind down the road. And when somebody says they're not into it, some posters act like that's insane not to do it. It has given me some anxiety , thinking I don't know what I'm doing because I'm not doing those methods. I'm not familiar with the other breeds. Is fetching/retrieving not natural to some breeds? When this thread started, I was curious to ask what training was used prior to FF and e-collar, but was afraid to lose my head. At 9 months, I feel my dog is doing very well in her training, and feel a little better to know I'm not alone. Denise

[ezzy333]

I think you will find two veery dominant reasons for the FF training. No.1 is the trial people who need to win and htey feel they can get a faster more dependable result if the dog has been FF trained. No. 2 are the people who have to be in control. Any thing that might happen that they can't control really upsets them. They are the people who have to have a dog that performs better than yours.

I have no quarrel with how people want their dogs trained. But it does bother me greatly that if our dogs need FF to be adequate gundogs we have strayed off of the beaten path. And once off, the future looks bleak. How do any of us know what a dog we might want to breed to can do naturally? I see the retrieving abilities of our dogs goig rapidly down hill as we no longer can include retrieving ability as a genetic ability. I have raised and trained Brittanys for many years and have never had a dog that didn't retrieve naturally. I wonder today how long any of us will be able to say that in the future.

This is something that really bothers me!

Ezzy

[gonehuntin']

Training a retriever without an ecollar or ff is relatively simple, it's just harder and more time consuming. Nearly everything that can be done with an ecollar, can be done with one or two men with ropes. Before ecollars, there were ropes. If you watch the older, and maybe some of the younger ecollar trainer's train, you will see them use ropes in conjunction with ecollars.

Instead of pinching the dog's ear, teach it to hold.

To stop to the whistle, use a rope or double rope.

In the days before I could afford an ecollar (the 60's), I trained with tennis shoes and ropes. To much work and too old now. Love the collar.

[gonehuntin']

But if one looks to the very top of the retriever training world, he'll find those guys and gals less e-dependent than our current rank and file pros and amateurs.

Really? Who would that be? Mike Lardy, the greatest of them all is, and always has been, an ecollar trainer. Just who is it that is training and winning trials without using an ecollar?

But, to continue this thread-jacking, my study of your UK methods has led me to boards like this, where I've read concern that the US training mainstream's use of e-collars (and force-fetch) produces dogs that cannot be made serviceable by other means.

What a bunch of bull. It's not that dog's can't be trained by other means, it's that it's more efficent and more humane to do it by force and ecollar. Your methods of training were largely abandoned by the early 90's because dog's trained by them could not be competetive in our trials. If you think your non pressure methods are so good, I'd suggest you start competing in trials and prove everyone else wrong instead of making your unsubstantiated claims here. Never in the history of retriever training, has there been a more tested and more endorsed method of traiing than we have now. Since the 60's the ecollar and force have ruled the field trial game and precious few dogs can compete that are not electric dogs. When Peter Lane was running his great female "Cannon Ball Kate", he even broke her to the collar and that was after she had won a National.

And this non-mainstreamer has not found that fear to be fact, at least not yet. I'm on my fourth Chesapeake pup of trial blood that's been e-trained (and FFed) for many generations, and have found it no trick at all to make dependable, good handling retrievers of them without either.

But not competetive. There's a big difference between a dependable hunting dog and a field trial dog. Due to your business, you can spend time with a dog that no other person can. They will also retrieve more birds than most other dogs. Your situation, being a waterfowl guide, is very different than the average persons. The biggest difference is the amount of time you can put in to a dog.

Physical condition also becomes a problem. I'm in my mid sixties now and no way in heck I'm going to run down a dog or let them jerk me around on ropes. Nope. Think it's rediculous. Ecollar devotee here.

[Rick Hall]

But if one looks to the very top of the retriever training world, he'll find those guys and gals less e-dependent than our current rank and file pros and amateurs.

Really? Who would that be? Mike Lardy, the greatest of them all is, and always has been, an ecollar trainer. Just who is it that is training and winning trials without using an ecollar?

Gone - Try reading what I wrote before you fly off half cocked.

I said "But if one looks to the very top of the retriever training world, he'll find those guys and gals less e-dependent than our current rank and file pros and amateurs." and actually had Danny Farmer and Judy Aycock in mind. The methods in their DVDs make most retriever club training days look like remote control boat races by comparison. In old fashioned terms those top pros know more ways to skin the cat - and use 'em.

Sounds like you're more "rank and file"...

But, to continue this thread-jacking, my study of your UK methods has led me to boards like this, where I've read concern that the US training mainstream's use of e-collars (and force-fetch) produces dogs that cannot be made serviceable by other means.

What a bunch of bull. It's not that dog's can't be trained by other means, it's that it's more efficent and more humane to do it by force and ecollar. Your methods of training were largely abandoned by the early 90's because dog's trained by them could not be competetive in our trials. If you think your non pressure methods are so good, I'd suggest you start competing in trials and prove everyone else wrong instead of making your unsubstantiated claims here. Never in the history of retriever training, has there been a more tested and more endorsed method of traiing than we have now. Since the 60's the ecollar and force have ruled the field trial game and precious few dogs can compete that are not electric dogs. When Peter Lane was running his great female "Cannon Ball Kate", he even broke her to the collar and that was after she had won a National.

This section of your tirade is particularly out of context with what it portends to reference. Sounds like US trialing is important to you. That's nice.

And this non-mainstreamer has not found that fear to be fact, at least not yet. I'm on my fourth Chesapeake pup of trial blood that's been e-trained (and FFed) for many generations, and have found it no trick at all to make dependable, good handling retrievers of them without either.

But not competetive. There's a big difference between a dependable hunting dog and a field trial dog. Due to your business, you can spend time with a dog that no other person can. They will also retrieve more birds than most other dogs. Your situation, being a waterfowl guide, is very different than the average persons. The biggest difference is the amount of time you can put in to a dog.

So the heck what if I don't compete? What's that have to do with my finding trial bred dogs that have generations of ff and e- training behind them still easy to make gun dogs of without?

Physical condition also becomes a problem. I'm in my mid sixties now and no way in heck I'm going to run down a dog or let them jerk me around on ropes. Nope. Think it's rediculous. Ecollar devotee here.

One might think a half clever feller with all that professional dog training under his belt really ought to be able to figure out how not to get jerked around or have to run dogs down without an e-collar. Many younger, less experinced souls have managed.

But you seem to be so intent on jumping me that you're having a ball inventing reasons to do so. So have another round, and have at it.

Cheers!

[wems2371]

Ezzy, I was thinking about those same genetic questions, but was afraid to put my head on the chopping block. I do not have experience breeding dogs, but grew up on a horse breeding farm, bred other animals for show and profit, and showed obedience dogs for several years................so I'm not a complete nimrod. I also subscribe to breeding for desired traits and spay/neuter the rest. If I see someone's dog who has used FF/e-collar for retriever training--how would I know what the dog's natural abilities are? If 3 exc. trainers of similar capabilities followed the same training method for retrieving, using FF/e-collar through to the desired same end results, but used dogs with varying degrees of natural ability from very little to excellent............ how would I be able to discern which really had the greatest ability? Is the dog with the least ability going to get neutered? After all he's going to compete well (probably better than my non-Electronic/non-FF very natural retrieving dog), but yet the trainer knows he didn't have near the ability of the other 2? I am not saying FF/e-collar are bad aides--or rule out ever using it (and I also realize how helpful the e-collar can be for safety reasons), but I wonder how they effect the breed, breeding choices, buyer's choices, etc. These are honest questions I have. I feel I got lucky my first time, but will be looking for another pup in a couple years. Most likely I will try to get a pup out of the same lines, since I have some experience there.

Never in the history of retriever training, has there been a more tested and more endorsed method of traiing than we have now. Since the 60's the ecollar and force have ruled the field trial game and precious few dogs can compete that are not electric dogs.

Isn't this the problem? if most non-electric/non-FF dogs can't compete with an electric/FF trained dog? And why isn't everone breeding off of those precious few that can. I'm not saying all FF/electric dogs are junk--cause I know that's not true at all--but how am I to tell which is which. And let's say I develop a new FF. Going to pinch inner thigh skin and make new e-collar for genitals (maybe someone's already tried this ). My new technique makes my dog retrieve 2x faster & reliable than your dog trained with ear pinch and neck e-collar. So now everyone goes out and buys my new ideas. Your older method is now obsolete..............and your dog (and that method) is no longer able to compete with mine. I don't know what the answer is, but these are just my thoughts. Maybe I've put my head on the chopping-block now. Think I'll go hide! Just kidding. I'm addicted to GDF, and enjoy reading different peoples perspectives.

[Trekmoor]

I can understand the need for F.F. and e- collar trained dogs if winning in an American style retriever trial is the main aim of having a gundog. The spillage resulting from this worries me a little. Far too many folk seem to think "Right I've just bought a pup now what else do I need ? Oh yes - an e-collar !!!"

British trials and U.S. trials are very different. In a British trial the emphasis is, or should be , on the dogs natural game finding abilities not the handlers. Our labs have to walk in line with other dogs , see the birds and rabbits shot, see the other dogs sent for them run right across their fronts and still remain steady and utterly silent with no commands of any kind from their handlers. The same things are expected of them in a driven game situation . The dog must be totally controlled without any command from the handler for long periods of time during which many birds will be shot. When sent to retrieve they must still be under control but "the straight line" is not as important as in your trials. The dogs are given some leeway to use their initiative.

All of this is done without e- collar usage. Only seldom are ropes needed in training - I have never used a rope or even a check cord on my labs or on my Hunt - point- retrievers yet I have won trials with them , even had awards in the championships and this was before I had an e- collar. I have never F.F. 'd any gundog breed , if their instincts are good there is no need to.
It is very unlikely a British trained dog would even begin to do well in a U.S. trial but equally an American lab would be unlikely to do well in our trials - our trials are more "natural."

I have a lot of sympathy for Gonehuntins' predicament - I'm over 60 too !!! Yes , I will use the e- collar but I like to try other things first.

Bill T.

[Rick Hall]

For the record: I'm not anti-e-collar. Though many jump to that conclusion when they learn I don't use one in retriever training. Fact is, I've been using an e-collar to what I think good pointing dog purpose for a bit over ten years. (Much of which has to do with being in direct supervisory range of most retrieving work and out of it with for much, if not most, pointing dog work.)

Now, let me ask one and all this: were you ever physically capable of running an adult dog down? Not of having imposed your will on the dog in a manner that made him let you catch him, but of literally running a dog trying to escape your will down for correction?

I'm a mere lad 58, and I've ran 4-7 miles for exercise most off-season mornings of my adult life, but I've never seriously considered the notion of running an adult dog down. Would have looked ridiculous attempting it on the fastest day of my life. But I darn sure didn't tell my dogs that or offer them means to learn it. To the contrary, I taught them as wee, catch-able, pups that there was no escaping me, and then never for the rest of their lives gave them grounds to question that physical form of my authority. And all the while I built the even more powerful authority of conditioned response and used careful voice control to associate tone of voice with corrections. The outcome of which has been mindful dogs and the ability to use my voice effectively for the overwhelming majority of remote corrections.

Perhaps others here have done something similar, but, in any event, not all have been limited to electronic enforcement of their will upon dogs. Which is a roundabout way of saying that we have always had other means of doing the things e-collars (and force-fetch) can do - to include the fear some are expressing of masking genetic shortcomings.

So to those who fret over training technology's influence on genetics, I'd suggest that it has always been there. And who's to say that the need for repeated strong electronic correction to break a long held bad habit is a more powerful masking force than a single well-timed verbal correction (or a mild e- correction?) that prevented that habit from developing in the first place?

"Just a thot" while killing time before this morning's hunting retriever test. Wish us luck, as likely being the only non e- and FF team there, we may need it...

(That's supposed to be a joke. If the pup fails, it will likely be for one of my other training shortcomings.)

[gonehuntin']

Let me try to respond to all here. Weims; you can always tell a dog that's traits have been masked by use of an ecollar. Really, that is rarely done. If we remember that an ecollar only enforces and already known command, we can then see that the dog has all ready been trained without the collar. The collar today, does not fry a dog into submission. It remotely enforces known commands at greater distances.

As Rick has said, he's on his fourth dog now that is right out of electric and trial breeding and having no trouble at all training it without force or the collar. That should tell everyone two things: The collar is NOT producing dog's impossible to train without it. Collar dog's are as tractable to train as any other dog.

Force really became prevalent for field trial use, for creating the "Non Slip" retriever. Virtually every retriever running in field trials anywhere in the U.S. has been forced since the mid to late 30's.

Use of the collar is different. It wasn't until the mid-late 90's that the collar became accepted nation wide. It has been a standard tool of training since the 60's on the West Coast.

My stance is this: Every dog should be force broken. Not every dog should be collar trained. That's up to the individual owner. All of my dogs have always been collar dog's and always will be, not because I can't train them without the ecollar, but because it makes it easier for me and safer for the dog.

[wems2371]

Thanks for the responses--and not biting my head off! On one of the FF dvds I watched, where young dog was trained from beginning to near completion--still a young dog), it looked to me like the dog was a machine. It started with FF only, and then combined ear pinch with e-collar, then later on checkcord retrieves went with just e-collar. I'm sure dog had natural retrieving ability, but it was obvious that the pain stimuli was turning him into a retreiving machine. I know, I know--everyone's thinking, you dullard--what's wrong with that. Guess I would like to see a really good dvd, done without those aides to see what's possible. Does anyone know if there is a good one like that?

At this point, I'm going to opt out on both and see how far I can get and continue to get positive results. I have loads of time to train, and spend an hour+ broken up throughout the day on different skills. I am aware that when I start having problems, I need to find a fix of some sort.........and not let it continue. I've worked with horses and dog obedience most of my life, so I know I've got to outsmart the animal.........and hopefully make them think all the training is their idea and totally fun. I'm not doing field trials, and I honestly don't even know what some of those trial acronyms stand for or what they are about. My goals are to see how far I can go with NAVHDA and the AKC hunt tests........................and get out in the fields a lot. Thanks for everyones input. Denise

[gonehuntin']

All of this is done without e- collar usage. Only seldom are ropes needed in training - I have never used a rope or even a check cord on my labs or on my Hunt - point- retrievers yet I have won trials with them , even had awards in the championships and this was before I had an e- collar. I have never F.F. 'd any gundog breed , if their instincts are good there is no need to.
It is very unlikely a British trained dog would even begin to do well in a U.S. trial but equally an American lab would be unlikely to do well in our trials - our trials are more "natural."

I have a lot of sympathy for Gonehuntins' predicament - I'm over 60 too !!! Yes , I will use the e- collar but I like to try other things first.

Bill T.

Here's the thing that drives me crazy about some people. This is not against you Trek, but against any that say they don't use the ecollar and don't need ropes. Most of us old guys used ropes to make it easier for the dog to understand and for no other reason. I am interested to find out from Rick or anyone else, how you bank break a dog, get him sitting, handling, and casting in the water without ropes, and just generally train them for trials without using a rope or an ecollar. I would honestly like to know becaues I have never trained with any trainer from any section of the country that didn't use either ropes or a collar. So someone please, enlighten me.

I know that your trials are so different from ours that there is absolutely no comparison at all. Our dogs could never with their present training, compete over there, and you can never successfully compete here. Two different worlds in both training formats and trial requirements.

[Trekmoor]

Good luck Denise, with any decent dog what you are trying for is 100% achievable - with or without F.F and /or collars. Try a google search for John Halstead training vids from U.K. , no collars and no F.F.

Bill T.

[Trekmoor]

Gonehuntin' , I don't think were that different really, our methods may differ but we both love watching dogs work.

Bill T.

[Rick Hall]

Here's the thing that drives me crazy about some people. This is not against you Trek, but against any that say they don't use the ecollar and don't need ropes. Most of us old guys used ropes to make it easier for the dog to understand and for no other reason. I am interested to find out from Rick or anyone else, how you bank break a dog, get him sitting, handling, and casting in the water without ropes, and just generally train them for trials without using a rope or an ecollar. I would honestly like to know becaues I have never trained with any trainer from any section of the country that didn't use either ropes or a collar. So someone please, enlighten me.

Your post reminded me of a now gone trainer friend (a fellow I otherwise liked but wouldn't have sent a dog to for anything), who had a fairly elaborate pulley system spanning his home "technical pond". Same fellow probably didn't own any other than a red plug for his TT and was fond of cattle prodding dogs off points. Man cranked out some mighty obedient pigs, and turned at least one jam-up Chesapeake prospect totally against water. (A guy who apprenticed under him brought that wasted dog up in conversation just this morning when he saw my Chessie pup.) But his was the only such rope system I've seen. Guess I was out of touch with retrieverdom if and when that sort of thing was common.

I don't use ropes or checkchords with my retrievers. Nothing longer than a short lead for around town and where required at hunt tests.

I just teach and condition lines and handling on land, then move them into the water and reinforce by what I believe you'd call attrition, just as on land. Starting with minimal factors and increasing their potential influence over time. Never really occured to me that such might seem much of a trick. What I do seems pretty similar to what my collar and whip friends do, just less formal than swim-by and with an "Ut!," instead of an e-nick, and an "over" when one swings toward land, instead of a brandished whip.

[gonehuntin']

What do you do Rick when you get one that just won't stop in the water, or flat out makes for a bank and beaches?

Or one that won't bloat n' float when you blow the whistle?

Or one that won't go into a narrow channel?

Or one that goes out of control on land 300 yards out from you?

Or one that refuses to handle off a posion bird or hot flyer?

[Rick Hall]

How 'bout I cut the "twenty questions" game short with a short, though certainly not complete, answer: revisit our foundational steps.

Seems to me that most training problems come from lack of sound foundation and/or trying to take too big of a step.

[gonehuntin']

Funny, I understand with all the animosity to whips, prod's, etc these days, but the rope thing kind of baffles me. I, and most trainers, have always looked at a training rope at the kindest and easiest way to guide a dog to the task you want performed. I have never looked at it as a cruel piece of training equipment. To each their own I guess.

[ezzy333]

I haven't heard anyone say a rope was cruel. All I heard was some say they don't use them. That seems fair enough to me. There has always been and always will be two ways to skin a cat. When someone says everyone does it one way, I start wondering how much experiece they really have. But it has become evident that good trainers do not all do it alike. And that is something I think we all knew or should know.

Ezzy

[Rick Hall]

You have to excuse poor Gone, if someone does something differently than he, he thinks that's because they believe it cruel. Or maybe it just suits the argument he'd like to make.

Gone, you'll be tickled to know we/I blew out of this morning's test. The coyote essentially one whistled the blind, though I also stopped him at the stick to show he would. Walk-up was solid as can be, and he stepped on his marks without any hunt.

Then he blew past the diversion and was in the blind's drag-back scent before I stopped him, and like the dunderhead I am, I gave him a "hunt back to me" release (instead of a straight in "come"), and he proceeded to hunt out the drag-back and area of the blind. Then I removed all doubt of my ineptitude by stopping him and repeating a "hunt-in," not once but twice more, which he twice more interpreted as "hunt-it-up". So I told the judges I was picking him up, sat him and went to meet him to show my displeasure - whereupon it finally occured to me that I should have just called him straight in in the first place. Pro'lly should have offered him an ear to bite!

But we did manage to pass a test yesterday that most didn't, and, more importantly for our purpose, preparing to test has moved us just that much closer to our end goal of a finished gundog.

(That was the last test we'll see 'til Fall, so there's nothing much for the dog to gain or lose by it, but I believe we'll drive back over and run the water portion. I could use the experience.)

[gonehuntin']

I think it was on another board Rick where someone asked "how much was the dog and how much the handler". Sounds like a good case where you had prepared the dog well, but committed a handler error. Just because we disagree radically on training methodology, doesn't mean I'd ever be happy to see someone that treats his dogs as well asyou do and puts as much time and thought into their dog's as you do do badly. Unless of course we were competing against each other.

I'm also curious as to why you felt the dogs were piggish? Good grief, I thought those days ended with the "Escalon Shuffle"!!

Don't tell me they had them "galumping" on both marks and blinds? Both pro and amateur dogs?

[Rick Hall]

I'm afraid you've lost me with both the "Escalon Shuffle" and "galumping," but the former sounds like what I have in mind. "Tentative," "fearful" and/or "confused" might be layman's descriptions for what I meant by "pig". Pig was actually a poor choice on my part, as it's probably unfair to the dogs or, at least, most of them.

Also think we've crossed boards on this one, and have lost folks here, as well. So I'll first explain that I'd elsewhere mentioned seeing a surprising number of "pigs" at yesterday's test. It was a Hunting Retriever Club "Seasoned" event, which is their intermediate level and usually, or at least often, made up in large part by young dogs wired to the max by the test day atmosphere, as well as their handlers' own nervousness. Theirs are usually sins of commission, rather than omission. And one expects to see Seasoned dogs breaking from the line too soon and hunting the field with wild abandon, rather than slithering off the line like they'd really rather not have to do so. Joyless "robots" (to borrow a word I feel grossly mis- and over-used with regard to trained dogs), afraid of making a misstep.

Even on marks, Gone, and they were mostly pro handled. I have a theory, based on totally unscientific observation and conjecture, that while amateurs can royally screw up a dog, it takes life with a pro to screw one down so tight test day can't loosen it back up. The pros dogs are accustomed to long waits in the truck while anxious dogs are yipping and yapping and guns keep going off nearby. That and the veteran pro shouldn't be as nervous on test day as most amateur handlers, so test day just doesn't have as much electricity for the pro's dogs as for the amateurs. Seems like the hard-handed amateur's dog is generally apt to come to the line (or holding blind) with his tail half-tucked, catch a figurative breath of air free of collar and whip, and go airborne. (And never mind what's going to happen to him back at the truck.)

When an amateur dog slithers off the line, my first thought is most often weak genetics.

None of which should be interpreted as "bleep" of all pros, or even most pros, or their tools. As it happened, my pick of the dogs I saw was trained by a very serious amateur, who no doubt employs e-collars and "force-" methodologies, but my next two "top three" choices were pro trained and handled.

(I'd like to think that the percentage of pro trained and handled dogs at the Seasoned level of a "hunting retriever" test was an anomaly, rather than a trend, but have to wonder if folks aren't taking one look at the "necessary" training "programs" and deciding training and even handling are too complicated to take on themselves...)

[gonehuntin']

You can not possibly imagine how sad I am to hear that. My dogs were always considered to be some of the most stylish dog's on the circuit. That someone, pro or amateur, would do that to a dog for a hunt test is to me, unexcusable. Good Lord, I thought those days had passed 20 years ago.

[Rick Hall]

Hey, at least it's been quite a while since I've seen a dog with plier-scarred ears - which was pretty common twenty years back. Still way too many unhappy dog campers, though.

My advice to folks asking about trainers has long been to watch the pro's dogs and see what they think of him.