Alternative to Force Fetch and Clicker training?

[Thornapple]

I am going to make an attempt here to bring up a subject that might require some thought, and I am sure some conversation! Does anyone know a proven technique that teaches a dog obedience that does not included Force Fetch or clicker training?

First I should state I am an ardent Force Fetch trainer and am very disciplined at it. So my discussion here is not about the attributes, or not, of force fetch training. What it involves is an alternative.

I write this because there are lots (more than there are bird hunters) of folks out there that have hunting dogs that would like to train their hunting dogs to hunt, even if they do not hunt themselves, or some might given the exposure. It in fact is the largest population of owners of hunting dogs in the United States and Canada! Getting a hunting dog that is an agility, confirmation, or pet out to learn to hunt serves a lot of good for those us that do hunt. It keeps the gene pool of good hunting dogs strong, and with you are aware of it or not, this is a growing and a very serious problem for we bird hunters; no matter what breed of dog you own! The majority of these hunting dog owners do not want to force fetch their dogs. I am not like many not caring about this group, willing to just write them off, or consider them "not worthy of time or effort". They have expressed to me and many the fact they have a serious problem with Force Fetch, and even clicker training. Let me go further.

The biggest impediment for those that do not hunt to training their dogs to hunt is the method commonly used to teach obedience. Notice i did not say, " FORCE FETCH." Force fetch for you folks that think it is a method to teach a dog to retrieve and bring to hand your shot bird is not correct. it is one of the bye products, not the sole purpose. Force fetch was developed and is practiced by all experienced and professional trainers for one thing and one thing only, to teach obedience in the field or water. Also do not confuse whoa, come, etc. with what I just wrote. I write this because there is a lot of misunderstanding as to what Force fetch is for in training a retriever, pointer, or versatile dog.

Ok, that being said, have any of you practiced successfully or know of a technique that gets the dog to perform in the field or water without hesitation your commands? This requires obedience. yes, it may require a longer more involved training. So let's deal with that, but do you know of any? I am not referring to introduction to feathers and dead birds, I am speaking of a dog learning that if a command is given it will perform under all safe conditions. I realize there are some of you who do not want or do not wish to be as disciplined in training your dogs, that is fine. I am addressing those that study and or have practiced a lot of bird dog training.
Any suggestions of alternative methods?
Thornapple

[RoostersMom]

Thornapple - I am very interested in the response to this question. I don't have the experience NOT using FF - I have used it on all of our dogs. I do, however, see the utility in other strategies for dog training. I'll give an example. I was able to participate in a flushing dog clinic two weekends ago - it was a great experience. Short of one other lady who had a field bred springer, the rest of the dogs were bench bred (plus one cocker bought for agility that was field bred). The owners were not experienced with shooting or hunting. They were, however, very dedicated to getting their dogs out there and getting them some exposure to what the original breed was bred to do. I'll admit, at first I was a bit snarky (only inside my head - not out loud) about the lack of drive the dogs had. After some serious discussions with folks there - I realized that these folks just wanted to do "more" of the "right things" with their dogs. Yes, the dogs lacked drive - but the owners were trying, were open to discussions about hunting and even killing birds as a byproduct of training. It ended up being a good experience for me because I have always prided myself in my ability to help newbies into the field (whether that be conservation, hunting, or dog training) - it turns out that I had a bias against show dog folks who don't know the ropes when it comes to hunting/working your dogs in the field. All this long paragraph to say.....most of those folks I met there wouldn't be interested (nor capable - at least not early on) of using an e-collar or interested in traditional FF methods. But almost everyone there wants to do another field day with their dogs and birds - and I'm going to host it!

[DonF]

Sure. How do you think we taught retrieving before force training? We play trained with the pup from early on. You might notice that a lot of these people your talking about, have dogs that will fetch a stick, just not a bird. For the purpose of training to retrieve, a bird is not required. Consider where what you start force work with, it ain't a bird dead live frozen or anything else. Normally it's some kind of stick! And until the dog get's the stick down, you don't move on to another object. A lot of people have the dog retrieve weight's to get it used to carrying heavy birds. Believe it or not, there's a difference between a 10# sack of potatoes and a dead goose. I'have seen people throw all kinds of things for the dog to retrieve for no other reason than to proof their dog, whats that about? The dog has birds bred into it. I'm quite sure a dog will pick up a dead bird long before a bowling ball. I suspect that a dog that never retrieved a dead goose before will try dragging it before simply walking away with no effort.

So how do you get there without forcing? been mentioned dozen's of time's on the inter net, use the hallway! Start when the pup is really a pup and is dumb enough to chase "things". Get it wound up and play with it tossing stuff the pup will chase down the hall. A small rubber ball works great. Really pay attention to a bunch of puppies sometime, they love to chase things that move; 99% will chase a ball if they see it rolling or bouncing away, it's what puppies do. Your job is to turn that game into a useful training method! When the pup does go get the ball, it's gonna do one of two things. It will either stop and chew on the ball or will try to go back past you with it's prize. make no mistake, the pup at that point thinks it's his. Never knew about a check cord until I'd had a good number of dogs retrieving. I put about a 10' check cord on a pup the day I pick it up and it wears a check cord of some kind until it's well along with training. Think about this, you throw the ball down the hall and the pup goes and get's it and want's to start chewing on it. Before the cc you had no choice but to go get the pup but suddenly the cc makes your arm 10' long, nudge the pup back to you! I don't have a decent hallway in this house but I can go outside and play fetch with the pup because I never throw the ball or stick or whatever, so far away the pup can't get to it without me having to let go of the cc. So your outside and the pup can run all over, up to 10' away, whats the choice here for you? Ease it back in!

You just might have a problem with the pup not wanting to give you it's prize. This ie where most people create the hard mouth dog. Do not fight with the pup to get the object back. You can blow in it's nose, blow in it's ear or lift it by the loose skin at the flank. loose skin on the flank doesn't always work well with puppies. Whatever it is, don't fight with the pup, simply take away the object gently. You can even grab it's lower jaw gently and hold the mouth above in place and pull the lower jaw down,,,gently!
It's really not rocket science, just remember it's a puppy. keep it fun, expect and accept a set back now and then and always quit before the pup is ready.

Getting a pup in the water isn't much harder than taking it for walks around a shallow lake and letting the pup discover the water. We happy time a pup to get it used to the cover. Happy time to get the pup used to water! As it goes along, throw something for the pup to retrieve in very shallow water as as the pup bolds up, start out a little at a time.

I don't really like to start a pup until it's about a year old but, I do do a lot of these things with a puppy, can't be to young to start them at this. I do not throw bird parts, dead birds ot wing clipped birds for the pup to maul. I do not want the pup to do that down the road and can find not reason to do it when their young. They were bred to birds, it's in their blood. Just what do you think you'd accomplish by throwing those things for a three month old pup? I'll tell you, if it runs out and mauls the bird you'll get just what you expected. If it doesn't, it's most likely just a bit to young yet. if the pup does maul it you will be letting the pup do exactly what you don't want to do soon down the road. What's the point? Do you really thing you can do a better job of getting a pup birdy than mother nature? I don't think so. Puppies started young just get play training with everything geared toward doing those things you will want to do later. Like the pup wanting to keep it's ball you tossed, it's a small problem to over some down to road if you continue the training with the future in mind while still allowing the pup to be a pup.

[Carolina Gundogs]

I hope not to derail this thread but I really do not believe you will find an alternative as successful as good retriever training (FFing). I have been around many professional guides and guided through the years myself at various places, ran in hunt tests and a few trials. Many guides do not FF as they were never themselves trained to do so. Out of these, some will work hard at making a good consistent retriever out of their guide dogs with praise and retrieving games. I have seen some dogs that were descent natural retrievers but never to the level of a good FF dog. With the better natural retrievers, they may have had 5,000 or more birds shot over them to get them to the retriever that they were. I have seen dogs fail hunt tests based off of the sloppy retrieve from the dog never being properly FFed and the same in Field Trials. Unless this is done, the dog never really understands retrieving as a command IMO. I have had the discussion several times with a guide and FFing. He says he prefers his dogs do it naturally because they "want to". My response back is why do you bother to teach the dogs whoa and to come to you when called then? It is no different, basic obedience.

As far as alternative to a clicker, just pat the dog on the head and say good boy. Clicker training IMO, was created by a very good marketer.

[Trekmoor]

Taken from the British point of view of gundog training it is the Force Fetch and the clicker training that are alternatives to our "normal" way of training. I haven't F.F.'d a dog for more than 40 years. I have never had to, I have gundogs. Their breeders did 90% of the work when they chose the sires and dams to mate together. Being a lazy sod that suits me fine !
.
I do use corrections when training , I am by no means a tree hugger but for the great majority of gundog work I, along with most other trainers here, do not train using F.F. or clickers or e-collars. We manage fine without these things just as our grandfathers did and yours too.

I suggest you buy a British book on gundog training or perhaps a couple of British videos. You will almost certainly see some corrections being given but it is very unlikely that you will see any F.F. and it is even more unlikely that you will see e-collars. I am not anti e-collar , I joined this forum with the idea that I could learn more about using them sensibly but I still only use mine for stopping sheep-chasers. For every day training they just aren't needed .

I suspect the modern American ways of gundog training are faster than our ways ....or your grandfathers ways but those ways do still work.
I have been told and I believe that F.F. and e-collars are pretty much essential if you want to win in American trials, especially retriever trials but if the folk you say are interested in gundog work are not wanting to trial then I don't think they need to learn those training methods.

Bill T.

[4dabirds]

I am really confused on this post. To me dog training a field dog for obedience is simple. . Train the dog to perform a behavior, once the dog is performing the behavior eighty percent of the time overlay the e-collar. If the dog knows the behavior and has been properly conditioned the the e-collar the collar guarantees the dog will perform the behavior. The e-collar if properly done will have been introduced to the dog in a way so the dog controls the stimulation. The dog controls the stimulation by positively responding to the command and the trainer turns the stimulation off. This is no different in design then force retrieve training. The thing with force retrieve training is it is a behavior chain that is very complex for the dog to understand as a single concept. This is why it is broken down into stages. Either way it is avoidance training. So if you are trying to get at a program that guarantees compliance in the field with only positive reinforcement you will always be limited by the desire of the dog. What's more positively reinforcing chasing the game it was bred for or some sort of treat? Look at the Higgins method , he uses positive reinforcement in a natural way that trains the dog for expected field manners. But this does not give you a way to guarantee the dog will whoa or come to you under distraction. It is always about what is most rewarding to the dog.

[4dabirds]

Teaching a dog to be steady to wing shot and fall and retrieve to hand is different then teaching a dog to be steady til commanded to flush. I think this is the big difference between us and uk so the methods are going to be vastly different. Correct me if I'm wrong bill t.

[Carolina Gundogs]

Bill T and 4dabirds, great posts.
I believe their can also be different objectives sought or at least prioritized when comparing field trials or testing between various countries. With the few UK events I have watched, I got the impression of this. However, I could be wrong.

[EvanG]

I'm a little flummoxed. Why are you searching for an alternative to what works so well? :roll:

EvanG

[Ms. Cage]

Teaching a dog to be steady to wing shot and fall and retrieve to hand is different then teaching a dog to be steady til commanded to flush. I think this is the big difference between us and uk so the methods are going to be vastly different. Correct me if I'm wrong bill t.

I don't think there is a vast differance outside of the flush command. I believe the Uk dog is expected to flush and then steady. Both want a retrieve to hand. When hunting grouse and pheasant we use the flush command on running birds after a few failed relocation attempts.

[Sharon]

I'm a little flummoxed. Why are you searching for an alternative to what works so well? :roll:

EvanG

Oh no! Not flummoxed.

[polmaise]

I'm a little flummoxed. Why are you searching for an alternative to what works so well? :roll:

EvanG

Hmmm! ?

[EvanG]

I'm a little flummoxed. Why are you searching for an alternative to what works so well? :roll:

EvanG

Hmmm! ?

We have a saying her in the states. Perhaps you've heard it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

EvanG

[aulrich]

Like with kids there is a general belief that you can do it all with purely positive motivation. So things like ear pinching, e-collars, heeling sticks are out of most folks comfort zones, especially the non-hunting dog crowed. There are puppy classes now where they don't want you to use leash corrections.

But I though the clicker was the rallying call of the positive only crowed, so that bit has me confused

[polmaise]

We have another in the world of evolution.
Just because something has been done for so many years,doesn't mean it's right.
The 'smart ones' make it 'work smart' no matter who or where,or for what, in any place or time.( In my very humble insight to the thread of ''Alternative'')

[EvanG]

Just because something has been done for so many years,doesn't mean it's right.

Ah, we've switched from behaviorist theory to philosophy? :roll:

EvanG

[Winchey]

I am not sure I understand your question. I don't want to get into another clicker training thread, but you don't need a clicker to teach anything. You can get pretty good results using positive reinforcement and shaping, depending on the dog, the trainers skill at implementing these techniques, just like any other method. Teaching "take from hand" "take from the ground" "reach or move/fetch" "hold" "heel while holding" "come" chaining and back chaining the behaviours etc... can all be accomplished with little to no force, not saying it is better or worse. I teach that way and add some force later if I want better or quicker results. I could probably train 90% of the duck dogs around here better then they are now with next to no force, but if I was competing with people that take training seriously and are good at it I wouldn't attempt to compete with one hand tied behind my back.

[polmaise]

Just because something has been done for so many years,doesn't mean it's right.

Ah, we've switched from behaviorist theory to philosophy? :roll:

EvanG

I thought I would follow your 'lead'?

[crackerd]

The biggest impediment for those that do not hunt to training their dogs to hunt is the method commonly used to teach obedience. Notice i did not say, " FORCE FETCH."

So, to extrapolate, though you did not SAY force fetch, are you implying that force fetch "is the method commonly used to teach obedience?"

If so, that's a new one on me with gundogs. And you may also know that retrievers already have obedience in them before force fetch or collar conditioning begins, since both those endeavors - from a retriever training angle - hinge on obedience.

MG

[4dabirds]

Teaching a dog to be steady to wing shot and fall and retrieve to hand is different then teaching a dog to be steady til commanded to flush. I think this is the big difference between us and uk so the methods are going to be vastly different. Correct me if I'm wrong bill t.

I don't think there is a vast differance outside of the flush command. I believe the Uk dog is expected to flush and then steady. Both want a retrieve to hand. When hunting grouse and pheasant we use the flush command on running birds after a few failed relocation attempts.

Where I see the difference is that training a dog to be steady through the command for retrieve is a little harder as far as the steady part goes. Teaching the dog to sit to the flush is more difficult in its own way. What I am getting at is the dog is confronted with cues throughout the entire process. Each cue will have a pre-cue that the dog will start to anticipate and tend to move on. If the dog has more cues there is more reasons for the dog to pre-cue on something and move. The hunter moving forward, the raising of the gun, the bird flying , the shot the bird hitting the ground are all things the dog will see . As the dog sees them it will anticipate the release command to retrieve. The pre-cue becomes the cue to move. If the dog is flushing the bird none of this comes into play. The cue to flush is the hunter moving into range. The dog knows it is going to be released so its anticipation is not so important. Teaching the dog to sit to flush is a whole other endeavor that we do not have to deal with at all. Im assuming that in the UK they teach the dog to sit to flush. Either way I see a big difference in the two.

[Thornapple]

All, thank you for taking the time to write.

I think it important to restate my reason for writing the question. It is a question for hopefully a considered response or some experience that can add positively to the conversation. I do not have the answer(s). In my short 71 years, experience, education, and business leadership I have found less is more. Meaning I know less now than before, but I do have insight. Or, it is what we learn after we think we know it all that really counts.

Let me address several questions and statements, and then ask some more questions regarding the topic to see if we can move this forward.

First, regarding why try something new if it works? I agree force fetch does work for me and many others. That is not the point; it does not work for everyone! The same is true with clicker training methods. Clicker training by the way is used by George Hickox; I do not think he is considered part of “The positive only crowd!”

Whether one agrees with the idea of attracting a larger group of individuals that are interested in dog training but are not willing to force fetch or use clickers is a waste of time, fine. We all respect your opinion. Certainly there are a number of individuals that agree with you. However not me and not people like George Hickox, Bob West, Bill Tarrant, Chuck Johnson, Rick Smith, as are most of the senior members of NAVHDA, the German Short Hair Club of America, and almost every other hunting dog breed club. It is not that they are going to change their methods of training. They understand very clearly a larger audience needs to be brought into the fold, whether you agree with it or not. They are very interested in this subject and they too agree with what I wrote earlier. It is critical to hunters, dog breeding, other trainers, and the sport of dog training that we grow the sport. I do not know if you know how many people are buying hunting licenses (here, in the UK, or Canada), are current members of the Ruffed Grouse Society, NAVHDA but it is not good! In many states and for the RGS and other groups are having problems with growth and memberships. In some cases it is declining. Even DU membership is having problems growing at the level they used to. We all are trying our best to grow and improve the sport. Hopefully you might have an interest in helping that is why I ask the question.

Trekmoor, I am not familiar with the British method. I will do as you suggested, purchase some books on English training techniques. However my experience bird hunting in Scotland and in England suggests that the objectives and style of hunting might be different. I would be curious if you would be kind enough to write and briefly elaborate specifically what they are.

Winchey and 4dabirds, you use the same techniques taught before force fetch and the use of the clicker. These methods were the ones practiced in my youth on dogs, and it may very well be the answer, or a possible solution. I do not know. However it is worth looking at.

I need to stop here as I have to go out and yes, force fetch my puppy making the transition to dead chucker from bumpers, etc. Until tomorrow.
Thornapple

[Winchey]

I would teach it the exactly the same way? I think it would be more difficult to have a finished dog trained to flush on command, stop to the flush then retrieve on command, it is more complex and there are more chances to screw up, why in thw world would that be easier or require different techniques?

[Winchey]

All, thank you for taking the time to write.

I think it important to restate my reason for writing the question. It is a question for hopefully a considered response or some experience that can add positively to the conversation. I do not have the answer(s). In my short 71 years, experience, education, and business leadership I have found less is more. Meaning I know less now than before, but I do have insight. Or, it is what we learn after we think we know it all that really counts.

Let me address several questions and statements, and then ask some more questions regarding the topic to see if we can move this forward.

First, regarding why try something new if it works? I agree force fetch does work for me and many others. That is not the point; it does not work for everyone! The same is true with clicker training methods. Clicker training by the way is used by George Hickox; I do not think he is considered part of “The positive only crowd!”

Whether one agrees with the idea of attracting a larger group of individuals that are interested in dog training but are not willing to force fetch or use clickers is a waste of time, fine. We all respect your opinion. Certainly there are a number of individuals that agree with you. However not me and not people like George Hickox, Bob West, Bill Tarrant, Chuck Johnson, Rick Smith, as are most of the senior members of NAVHDA, the German Short Hair Club of America, and almost every other hunting dog breed club. It is not that they are going to change their methods of training. They understand very clearly a larger audience needs to be brought into the fold, whether you agree with it or not. They are very interested in this subject and they too agree with what I wrote earlier. It is critical to hunters, dog breeding, other trainers, and the sport of dog training that we grow the sport. I do not know if you know how many people are buying hunting licenses (here, in the UK, or Canada), are current members of the Ruffed Grouse Society, NAVHDA but it is not good! In many states and for the RGS and other groups are having problems with growth and memberships. In some cases it is declining. Even DU membership is having problems growing at the level they used to. We all are trying our best to grow and improve the sport. Hopefully you might have an interest in helping that is why I ask the question.

Trekmoor, I am not familiar with the British method. I will do as you suggested, purchase some books on English training techniques. However my experience bird hunting in Scotland and in England suggests that the objectives and style of hunting might be different. I would be curious if you would be kind enough to write and briefly elaborate specifically what they are.

Winchey and 4dabirds, you use the same techniques taught before force fetch and the use of the clicker. These methods were the ones practiced in my youth on dogs, and it may very well be the answer, or a possible solution. I do not know. However it is worth looking at.

I need to stop here as I have to go out and yes, force fetch my puppy making the transition to dead chucker from bumpers, etc. Until tomorrow.
Thornapple

Thronapple, PR works best when you mark the behaviour, as it works best when the dog knows why it was rewarded, just as positive punishment works best when it knows why it was corrected. Whether you use a clicker or not to mark that behaviour is not really relevant to this discussion.

You can go ahead and train a dog with PR without a marker or a release command if you want, it just isn't as efficient if you choose not to.

[Trekmoor]

Trekmoor, I am not familiar with the British method. I will do as you suggested, purchase some books on English training techniques. However my experience bird hunting in Scotland and in England suggests that the objectives and style of hunting might be different. I would be curious if you would be kind enough to write and briefly elaborate specifically what they are.

Thornapple

I will try to answer but a decent answer would need about a books worth of writing ! I cannot do as you request and "briefly elaborate specifically what they are." First I would say that very few British trainers follow any definite "programme." Reading on this forum that there were such things as "programmes" came as a bit of a surprise to me ! Along with most others I make up my own programmes as I go along to deal with the individual dog. I follow nobody else's individual ideas in their entirety for I am an individual too and so is every dog I try to train.

The main difference between spaniel work and pointing dog work is that spaniels miss out the point prior to the flush. This means that the training that would be needed to have a dog hold it's point prior to being commanded to flush is not required for a spaniel. Almost every pointing dog in Britain and on the Continent is required to flush on command. It is easy enough to teach and we think it has advantages over the U.S. system...... the dog knows where the bird it is pointing is and the dog can do all the battering through cover to put the bird into the air while the hunter only has to stand there ready to shoot ......and to control the likelihood that the dog will try to run-in following the flush and shot and fall of the bird.

I control this in several ways. [a] I train my dogs to sit to flush when training with no gun. The dogs are trained to sit to whistle as the bird flushes until the dog begins to anticipate that whistle being blown and sits because a bird just got up in front of it. The dog is trained to sit to shot as a completely separate exercise and then the shot is fired when a bird is flushed. [c] The dog is taught to sit to the sight of a buck or dummy falling from the air as it runs about hunting or just out enjoying itself.

Properly taught this means that the dog has had a total of 3 sit commands every time a bird is shot with each "command" backing up the previous one. Both the whistle and the handlers voice become completely superfluous but could be held in reserve should anything go wrong.

To all this I add "breaking up the sequence." By that I mean that when the dog has flushed a bird and the bird has been shot I do not always send the dog for it, not right away anyway. I take out and light a cigar and have a good few puffs on it before I send the dog which will have, by now, relaxed a bit from it's tensed up muscles sit/stay pose. Or I pick up the bird myself or I have someone elses dog pick the bird or I send another of my own dogs for the bird while ensuring the dog that flushed the bird remains sitting.
Sometimes I break up the sequence the dog expects by moving to it and then commanding it to walk to heel away from the fallen bird.

These steadiness training things following a flush work equally well for spaniels or even for a lab that has seen a bird flush while being walked to heel. I can only speak for myself about these things. Other British trainers train in different ways. "My way"....I won't call it a "programme" has worked well for me and not once has any dog of mines, either Labrador or HPR (Versatile) ever ran-in during a trial. It works for me so I keep on doing it.

Bill T.

[Carolina Gundogs]

Bill T, I truly enjoy reading your posts.

[birddog1968]

I think you find the word program here because millions of people here own dogs or buy their first dog (for hunting) and want to train them themselves.....having no back round or mentor to fall back on it is good to follow someone elses method (program). Once one has trained a few dogs it then can become a process that evolves for each person. Most folks don't really want to ruin a few dogs to learn the ropes


In some recent facebook debates, it seems alot of Europeans (British) also don't understand big running dogs. It came to some light when the compared to the size of the landscape here, where one prairie state is bigger than the whole of England

[Higgins]

I believe one of the main reasons that those in the States don't allow the pointing dog to flush is that in many of the tests and trials, the pen raised birds can be caught by the dogs. Hard to keep a dog steady when he learns he doesn't need you to be successful. With wild birds or good quality pre-released birds, training your pointing dog to flush on command does not create a problem (catching birds). In fact, I think it's a great way to maintain steadiness and cooperation in a trained dog.

Brad Higgins
http://www.HigginsGundogs.com

[Trekmoor]

I think you find the word program here because millions of people here own dogs or buy their first dog (for hunting) and want to train them themselves.....having no back round or mentor to fall back on it is good to follow someone elses method (program). Once one has trained a few dogs it then can become a process that evolves for each person. Most folks don't really want to ruin a few dogs to learn the ropes


In some recent facebook debates, it seems alot of Europeans (British) also don't understand big running dogs. It came to some light when the compared to the size of the landscape here, where one prairie state is bigger than the whole of England

Thanks Birddog, Not knowing how to train certainly is a good reason to follow a programme.
I also agree that the British idea of a "big running dog" can be a good bit different from yours. I am happy if my versatiles range at no more than 2-300 yards on open ground such as our grouse moors . I could and did win field trials with dogs that ranged grouse moors out to "just" 1 - 200 yards. We also differ in that big running American dogs seem to be expected to "run to objectives." In our trials if a dog were to do that it would be likely to be eliminated or at least be heavily downmarked for missing ground. We expect our dogs to quarter the ground to the wind preferably in a "flat" and fairly regular pattern.

25 -30 years ago one or two of our HPR [versatile] judges were not very knowledgeable. I had one of the biggest arguments I have ever had with a judge when he told me my Brittany bitch was hunting too wide. We were hunting a stubble field and my bitch was hitting off the boundary fences at each side of the field. I was really pleased with her performance. The judge stopped our run and told me a HPR should never range to more than about 60 yards. I asked him why and my jaw dropped when he gave his answer. He said that since shotgun range was only about 40 yards a dog should not be hunting at much more than that range ! :roll: ........ I blew my top !

I had the same argument at the very first training class I ever went to . The two "trainers" both told me my Brittany hunted far too wide and for the same reason.... too far out of gunshot range. I told them it wasn't a bloomin spaniel out there, it was a pointing dog. That ended up in an argument too one of the results of which was that I became the class trainer for the next 22 years !

My own way of learning how to train the HPR breeds was not learned from HPR training books. I decided back then that the best way to go was to train to as high a standard of work as possible for hunting and pointing by following the advice of very good pointer/setter trailers, to train complete steadiness to flush ,shot and fall of game by following the advice of top spaniel trailers and to train to as near to Retriever field trial standards as possible for the rest of the work.

Britain has a very long history of training good pointers and setters, good spaniels and good retrievers. We have a very short history of training the HPR breeds which showed up as a lack of knowledge in a couple of our trial judges back then.

Bill T.

[birddog1968]

I think the people who don't understand our big running dogs also don't understand that those dogs are smart enough to close in when hunted from foot. A dog that runs to the horizon or over the hill off horseback will hunt under 300 yards on foot and even closer in heavier cover that holds birds. They truely are smart enough to understand what they are doing and what we need them to do at any given time. I also think some don't understand or have ever seen a dog run at long range but that still "goes with you" , showing to the front and looking for the handler to take a direction. A cooperative rangey dog that stands his birds honestly even if out of sight for a period of time is a what everyone who likes big running dogs wants. its hard for some to imagine a dog hunting for the gun at long range.

As far as FF goes its something I do because I like the purpose it gives them in retrieving for me and the polished delivery to hand.....I do have a 3 year old now that retrieves everything just as my FF'd dogs did before they were FF trained. She just doesn't deliver as well as the FF'd dogs. Retrieving
is something I instill from very early on and all my pointers have done it from a young age with exuberance, Delivery and being sent to unseen falls is why I FF, I also like the frame of mind it puts them in as to how they view working for me. Going when sent with purpose, not just seen falls....

[Thornapple]

Forgive me but I do not have time to get on the forum this morning. I spent the evening with a very sick dog, overslept, and need to get to the office. I promise Higgins, Birddog 1968, Winchey, Brad, and Bill to get back to this later.
As much as this is an open forum I would like to stick to the subject as much as possible, so I can learn from you. That is the purpose of my joining all of you on this forum.
That being said, Bill you just drove a Mack Truck, or Lorry, as if I were standing in the middle of MI headed toward Northampton from London with my initial question. I try to be clear but again my question was very open ended. I should have said, "Are there alternatives to Force Fetch and or Clicker training for pointing dogs?" While i do not mean to exclude flushing breeds, I know nothing about them (again, my loss!). I am interested in helping those folks who have pointing dogs (actually versatile) who are interested in learning how to train their dogs to hunt that are not necessarily hunters, but would like to learn how to train their dogs nevertheless. If nothing other than the enjoyment of training a dog. Which many want to do and I consider more than laudable for the reasons I have stated.
Later, Thornapple

[Winchey]

Your question is more like is there any way people who have no interest in learning how to train a dog can train a dog. The answer is sort of, lots of people don't train there dogs and just take them hunting and are completely satisfied.

[Thornapple]

Your question is more like is there any way people who have no interest in learning how to train a dog can train a dog. The answer is sort of, lots of people don't train there dogs and just take them hunting and are completely satisfied.

I stole some time here so I can respond.

Winchey, the folks that have expressed interest and are showing desire already are training their dogs in other venues, i.e. confirmation, agility, etc. They are putting in the effort, otherwise I would not wast my time on this. It is that they have a reluctance to force fetch and use of clickers for some is the main problem.
Yes, you are right they are more like I am becoming. I get as much satisfaction now being on a Maine mountain meadow, in thicket of aspen working a flight of timberdoodles near Fredericton, NB, or in a South Dakota CRP draw watching my dog work as I do shooting birds. I shoot plenty of clays and have had my bag full of birds in my lifetime. Now it is the challenge of getting a puppy to perform to the best of its ability, then watch it work, helping others to enjoy the sport, and promoting it further.
Later, Thornapple

[Trekmoor]

That being said, Bill you just drove a Mack Truck, or Lorry, as if I were standing in the middle of MI headed toward Northampton from London with my initial question. I try to be clear but again my question was very open ended. I should have said, "Are there alternatives to Force Fetch and or Clicker training for pointing dogs?" While i do not mean to exclude flushing breeds, I know nothing about them (again, my loss!). I am interested in helping those folks who have pointing dogs (actually versatile)
Later, Thornapple

O.K. ....I will have another bash at answering the underlined question you posed.....Yes, there are alternatives and there are a number of them. The fact that you say you know nothing about the flushing breeds troubles me a little since most dogs ,gundog or otherwise are by nature flushers not pointers. They are all dogs and as such can be trained by any of just about any methods .... or by a judicious blending of the methods. Much as I like the pointing breeds, to me a dog, is a dog, is a dog.

To avoid any more confusion would you tell us if you want to know if the versatile breeds can be trained as agility or obedience dogs using alternatives to force fetch or clicker training or whether what you want to know is can they be trained as gun dogs without using those methods ? The answer is still "Yes" to both purposes.
I think your trainees might do well to go to a trainer with considerable experience of training the gundog breeds until they know which end is up. Sorry if this seems a bit harsh but your experience of gundogs in general sounds a bit limited over the internet.

I hesitated before posting this as giving what may seem like an insult is not something I want to do over the internet where well meant words can be construed as being insults. Sorry if I caused you offence.

Bill T.

[4dabirds]

I really am enjoying this thread . There is a lot of good points here.

[polmaise]

the folks that have expressed interest and are showing desire already are training their dogs in other venues, i.e. confirmation, agility, etc. They are putting in the effort, otherwise I would not wast my time on this. It is that they have a reluctance to force fetch and use of clickers for some is the main problem.
Yes, you are right they are more like I am becoming.
Now it is the challenge of getting a puppy to perform to the best of its ability, then watch it work, helping others to enjoy the sport, and promoting it further.
Later, Thornapple

Hi Thornapple,
Even over here there is a growing population of people who get a Gundog breed and naturally are drawn to that gundog breeds trait' and or purpose for what it was intended.
Unfortunately over here,what also comes into the various elements of these gundog activities is the ''Handler'' along with the dog.
It is admirable in my opinion that anyone would do any activity with any dog! and I have no prejudices or favourites because I just admire them all!

I do wish that many of the newcomers to any sport or activity within the gundog world would look at the sport or activity before obtaining the breed ?
Interesting thread for me personally, as I make much of my business helping and training the type of people that you describe!

With regard to an 'Alternative to Force Fetch and Clicker training'' ?...I think it was mentioned somewhere else ,that these 'alternatives' have always been used and are almost 99% of how gundogs are trained by reputable trainers and handlers here in the UK.
Personally speaking I as A trainer do not use a programme per se' ,but I do teach and train both dogs and dog owners a procedure that is a programme for them.
I understand where your initial question is coming from I think, and agree that it is so easy for some to change the tracks of the original theme especially if they don't fully understand the original concept.
I would love to hear more on what your plans are for this group or groups of new comers in your area.
atb

[Thornapple]

Bill,
You maybe correct that all hunting dogs are inherently flushing dogs, from a historical context. However it is my understanding that for the last one hundred plus years or so, the so-called Pointing breeds and Versitale breeds are considered just that, not a flushing dog whether in Italy, France, Germany Scotland, Wales, England, Canada or the States. Is that incorrect? Are the breeds coming from those country's to be sold in this Country (GSHPs, Spinone, Eng. Setters, Griffons, etc., etc.) not pointers or versatile dogs? Or am i missing your point, which I maybe. Also If I phrased the initial question incorrectly I apologize. However I also agree my knowledge is limited compared to many. I am still learning. Hopefully you will find some charity in those of us who know less and not take umbrage with my gaffe.

Those of us in the States and Canada consider a distinction with pointers and flushing dogs. To the degree that they are trained and tested differently with the CKC, the AKC, and groups like NAVHDA. The Canadian Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club, NAVHDA, etc. have separate testing for these breeds and in the case of NAVHDA a separate training program as well; thus the distinction. Let me get back to my question however before I really get side tracked.

Polmaise, Winchey, and others maybe if I understand them correctly, may have come up with a solution. However I am not clear as to exactly how you would execute the training. Let me explain what I hope to achieve.

Those of us that train Force Fetch train so the dog clearly understands obedience, as i mentioned earlier. This must be unequivocally established before we go to the field to practice. It is what we term, "Yard" work as distinguished from "Field" work. They are never to be confused for our type of training. This is so the versatile dog in this case (as this is what I currently own and train) will on command retrieve a shot bird to hand , enter water to retrieve multiple shot ducks or birds on command, and or seek out across open water and search for a duck (or bird) that maybe wounded hiding in the marsh. For the average dog to obey a command to search for a bird without sighting it first is very difficult at first without establishing obedience. They either refuse to enter the water, go out ten yards and come back or do what I call the shore line tango, back and forth. Competent Retrievers, Pointers, and Versatile dogs are expected here in the States and Canada to achieve this result (pointers not to swim but still accomplish the same result on land). The same is true for tracking a live bird; on command a dog must track without hesitation once scent is provided. All of this occurs of course without finding the bird, trying to bury it, eat it, urinate on it, or whatever a dog desires to do. As George Hickox says over and over again, "A dog has only one basic desire, that is to please itself, not the handler. It is up to the handler to shift this so the dog understands through obedience that it is to listen and follow the handler, unequivocally. At least that is the objective. I am not familiar with training methods in Europe or England or Scotland to achieve the same result. I know techniques are used that do not include force fetch, what are they and can someone provide a source to read, look at, or explain?
Thornapple
Thornapple

[Winchey]

I have only FF'd one of my dogs and did a half "bleep" job doing it, and probably should do it over, but all my dogs were taught to take a line or at least when I say fetch they know theres something out there to find. Start on small successes and expand. I just sort of did my own thing and things could probably be done more efficiently, but if you use a word every time a bumper is thrown, the dog will figure out there is something to retrieve if you use that word. Just as a puppy that was gun broke properly will run amuck looking for a bird at the sound of a gun, whether they seen a bird or not.

Dogs well bred for the retrieve should want to naturally chase down thrown objects, some even like to bring them back, even many dogs that were not selectively bred for this trait at all like to do it. You just have to develop it.

And if the dog does not want to bring it back, surely you lnow of ways to teach come short of FF.

I am not really up to date on the American retriever trial world, but I am sure those dogs can go retrieve marks to hand or shot ducks to hand and do simple blinds before they are FF'd. Or at least those trainers would find it an easy task to accomplish if they wished to do it before FF.

We are also talking about bird dogs. I am not sure I know any bird dog guys personally that use a clicker or FF there bird dogs.

[Trekmoor]

Thornapple, you are correct, some breeds of gundog have been developed into the various pointing breeds we have today. It seems your post has little to do with their pointing inheritance however and a lot to do with their inheritance of retrieve instincts.
No dog that is a "natural" retriever needs to be F.F.'d or clicker trained provided those instincts have not been interfered with in the wrong ways. That is why I and thousands just like me do not use F.F. or a clicker .

I know only a little about F.F. training and I never train it and I use a clicker only when something has gone quite badly wrong with a pups training as a retriever . The part of the retrieve that most often seems to go wrong with "traditional" type training is the delivery. The delivery is, therefor, just about all I use a clicker for and that happens just once in a blue moon. I'd much rather train in the more traditional ways and they work fine on just about every retrieving breed including the versatiles, the spaniels the labs etc. They even work well with many of the pointers and setters here in Britain and these dogs were not even bred with retrieving ability in mind.
There is no reason why you and your class could not train using the traditional methods .....unless the retrieve has already been badly mucked up in the dog's mind.

It looks like you need a couple of books about training retrievers written , maybe, by British authors. It has been years since I last read a book about retrieving but there are plenty on sale. Look for books on the specialist subject of training retrievers and then train the versatiles as you would Labradors or Goldies or Chessies. Most of them will take to it like ducks take to water especially the pups.

There is no need to buy a book or a video about how to train a versatile if all you want to know about is the retrieving part of their work. The many books and videos on the specialist subject of retrieving cover all you need to know in considerable detail.

Bill T.

[Thornapple]

Bill,
The problem I have found is that many of the techniques used by bird hunters for upland dogs here in the States prior to Force Fetch may have worked, but they were helter skelter; never consistent, never reliable, took a long time to develop, and were always ad hoc. Meaning a lot of individual interpretation was provided up until the mid to late 1950s. Also, as is typical with an impatient society we wanted quicker results. Additionally professional trainers seeing a better return for their investment of time and therefore results sought out and use techniques that work quicker. Thus Force Fetch has become the norm for many of us.

In my youth everyone use methods of what I term "barn yard" or "backyard" training systems. That was until Force Fetch was adapted and is now the single most popular obedient training technique for the reasons mentioned.

Getting back to my question I think that in fact you, Winchey, and Polmaise may have hit on the answer. Neither of you used some of the more formalized training techniques now popular here. I do not know if the reason Force Fetch has not been used in the UK and Scotland is because Force Fetch is considered "inappropriate," or some other justification. Or is it in fact used? In fact some of my Spinone training peers in England seem through their email comments to be achieving great results with their dogs using the same or similar training as you and Polmaise. Yes, I will pick up some of the books. Not knowing where to start do you have authors and titles that you might recommend? I will still use the FF method, but I am always looking at new or old techniques to retry that might help myself and a whole group of others wanting to pick up the sport. Many thanks and good shooting over your no doubt wonderful upland dogs!
Thornapple

[crackerd]

Those of us that train Force Fetch train so the dog clearly understands obedience, as i mentioned earlier. This must be unequivocally established before we go to the field to practice. It is what we term, "Yard" work as distinguished from "Field" work. They are never to be confused for our type of training. This is so the versatile dog in this case (as this is what I currently own and train) will on command retrieve a shot bird to hand , enter water to retrieve multiple shot ducks or birds on command, and or seek out across open water and search for a duck (or bird) that maybe wounded hiding in the marsh. For the average dog to obey a command to search for a bird without sighting it first is very difficult at first without establishing obedience.

Thorn, sorry, my good man, but this is a very (very) skewed perspective on both force fetching and, as I noted earlier, the rationale for "establishing obedience."

Let's cut to the chase - from this and the other thread about a "bold dog underfoot," it seems you got a spinone and strapped an e-collar onto it, and proceeded pell-mell with what's called direct pressure application. Not a good thing for a sensitive breed like a spinone - and alas as the old saw goes, you don't get a second chance to make a first impression with the e-collar. The corollary to that is, as retriever trainers (and maybe pointer trainers too) are apt to say: You can always take it out of them, you can almost never put it back in them." Which is why retriever trainers (and some enlightened HPR trainers) collar condition very slowly and safely to obedience, as in to known (and already trained) obedience commands.

I've trained spinoni and I've trained them this way, can tell you that they are a lovely breed when they come out of it, for work both afield and in the water. Top NAVHDA scores and the best retriever I've had - over Boykins with several thousand goose retrieves and the field trial Labs I run now. So, if I may revert to the other thread, seems you're wanting to find a way of training (perhaps for others as well as for yourself) that could enliven the dog afield, bold it up. Well, that's going to be difficult without a lot of birds, the dog's love of birds which engenders intensity and drive, and a love of retrieving those birds by the dog, again land or, particularly, water. A spinone, lest we forget. Bill T. over there in Scotland tells me he's never seen a decent spin - I've known a number of them, but they've also had, to become decent, trainers who made a commitment to bringing them along, force fetch sometimes included, but exposure to birds (and more birds...and more waterfowl) a necessity. And proper e-collar training, which is not used to put obedience in the dog, same as force fetch is not imparted for putting obedience in the dog either.

You need a rethink, and you need to make that rethink on behalf of the breed you've got. What you and the e-collar may have taken away in terms of boldness is going to be tough enough to regain with the best, and most dedicated of training efforts, but I wish you luck.

MG

[Trekmoor]

Bill,


Getting back to my question I think that in fact you, Winchey, and Polmaise may have hit on the answer. Neither of you used some of the more formalized training techniques now popular here. I do not know if the reason Force Fetch has not been used in the UK and Scotland is because Force Fetch is considered "inappropriate," or some other justification. Or is it in fact used? In fact some of my Spinone training peers in England seem through their email comments to be achieving great results with their dogs using the same or similar training as you and Polmaise. Yes, I will pick up some of the books. Not knowing where to start do you have authors and titles that you might recommend?
Thornapple

I cannot speak for Winchey but Polmaise and myself plus all the other British trainers I know of do not use F.F. because we do not find a need to. Not one British gundog trainer that I know of teaches F.F. to dogs or to the owners of dogs. We take a lot of time and a lot of care to gradually build upon whatever level of retrieve instinct the pups already have. That is continued right through all of the pups retrieve training making F.F. unnecessary.....but it probably is faster to achieve the finished product if F.F. is used. I cannot say that this is true for certain for I have never trained F.F. to gundogs in order to find out. The only dogs I ever trained using F.F. were dogs with little retrieve instinct in them meant for the obedience ring.

The "culture" of gundog training is different between America and Britain. You seem to need F.F. in order to win in your gundog trials. British trials are sufficiently different not to need F.F. ---- If we did need it then I am pretty sure F.F. would catch on here too.

I am not the best person to ask about British Gundog training books...... It has been many years since I last read one ! I had already formed most of my ideas about gundog training before I read any books on the subject, with one exception. That book was written by Keith Erlandson and I think it was simply called "Gundog Training ?" The book was mainly about spaniel training but some of it applied to any gundog. Keith was mainly known for his success in spaniel trials but he also had considerable success in retriever and pointer/setter trials. His book is a bit dated now but it did help me a heck of a lot about 40 years ago......or more ! It is a book I have returned to many times because of what was written between the lines ......it is definitely not everyone's cup of tea !

Bill T

[Thornapple]

Bill,
Thank you for the advice on the Spinone. Yes they are timid, yes the e-collar application was used, and yes birds are now on the itinerary. Fortunately I know how to use an e-collar well enough to understand its limits and application. The e-collar however was not the only cause of feckless searching in the field. I saw the same thing in my other Spinone and it required what you and many others suggested; lots and lots of birds. This puppy shows signs of boldness in other ways so it will require a lot of work and unfortunately a large expense on chucker, setting up a homing coop, homers etc. All of which I enjoy doing, as that is the price!
After having bigger and more bold dogs (Pointer's, English Setter's, Brittany's) I was sort of taken aback by the reticence of the breed in general and stubbornness. These do require tremendous patience and care in the yard and field I have found. Back to the subject.

I will attempt to find out how you train and see if that is the solution. You are absolutely correct about why we use FF. It does bring a dog along quickly if applied properly. Even with that however it varies from dog to dog as you no doubt know. I will write and let you know how it is coming along.
Thornapple

[birddog1968]

Lot of good stuff here.....but you guys must sure love to type and read

Training a pointing dog is not that tough, and i personally start pointers and setters the same way I'd start very soft/lower drive pointing breeds and lines........

GENTLY

If you've had bad experience with American pointing dog trainers and methods it's because maybe you haven't yet seen the right trainers using the right methods .....Gentle Gentle Gentle is the key with all pointing dogs no matter how high the drive. Build the love of birds then gently begin to train whats needed, including or not including FF. I still maintain that more tact can be used FF'ing with the toe on a table than the ear on the table or the ground. Not that the ear doesn't work but the toe and table lend themselves to progressing gently enough for just about any dog.

That's just my honest opinion.

[Thornapple]

Birddog1968,
What i had hoped to achieve here with my initial question is an opening to new ideas, new techniques, alternatives to current training that might attract and bring in more to working with and developing our hunting breeds. I expected resistance, "it worked in the past why change it?" And, naysayers, doubters, and challengers of change. However, even with these new ideas emerge.

Your observation about how you train your dogs is important Not everyone needs NAVHDA as laudable as it is. Not everyone requires a Filed Trial, Virtual Champion, or Master Hunter title. However I think in general we all would like to see our dogs perform the best they can be irrespective of the process to get there.

Notice Birddog1968 how this subject appears on several of the columns under training! It is of concern and interest to a lot of folks. Alternatives to some current training techniques I believe are important and candidly lie in these pages, this forum. Fellows such as yourself and others irrespective of their passionate beliefs bring new ideas new concepts. Whether they train in Scotland, England, Arizona, Minnesota, or New Brunswick each has done something that works. They have figured out not just works for them but most importantly for their dogs.

So the most important question has not been asked, So What? All this talk, as you aptly pointed out, all this typing, what does it mean, where does it go? What good is all this conversation these questions, these thoughtful responses, if not some sense made of it? Maybe a some thought, a little more research as Bill uaT suggests, and a summary is created at least as a starting point. I have committed myself to this Birddog1968 to help give back as much as possible. I sense my greatest contribution can be to get more folks involved in that which we all love in this Forum. Let's see what I come up with in the next several weeks and send it out for comment. Knowing of course that the folks on this forum are a shy and retiring bunch and I might have trouble getting some feed back!

[DonF]

Thornapple, no dog needs force fetched, none. Go around 8 to 12 week old puppy's and toss a ball where they can see it. Likely every one that see's it will go for it, instinct! Even in breeds the retrieving has been down played, Pointer's and Setter's as pups they will chase the ball. But for what ever reason, retrieving has been put on the back burner in this country and developed much later in the dog's life than it should be. So at some point, often before the dog is finished we go back to what we could have developed early and this time we force it for whatever reason. My shorthairs were naturals at it. None of them needed FF but some of them got it anyway because I assumed they would be better retriever's. At this point in my life I have to admit that was wrong. Two of my best retriever's were two that never got forced, not supposed to work that way. So, you can start out with play to teach retrieving or you can put it off to a later date and force a dog that didn't and doesn't need it in the first place! We like to win, that's what American's always like to do. So for the sake of field trialing where retrieving is needed, American's developed force fetch and used it even if it wasn't need to make them think that that the loose ends were all tied up. Look at the Amer Field trial dogs, many don't retrieve. Reason for that, retrieving is not required so it's easier to avoid it all together but, we still have pointer's and setter's that do retrieve naturally. I have reach a point where I think we've gone over board with it. everyone seem's to think it's best and if there's a problem to solve, it's just the medicine. Force fetch is greatly over played, million's of people in this country and overseas prove it every year.

[krakadawn]

Have to disagree with the above post.

Here's why....the term FF was coined from retriever training and is one of the essential skills required to develop a learning principle which sets the stage for the acquisition of other relevant and sequential skills. It does not nor is it intended to be a stand alone skill. This sets the stage for further skill development relevant to teaching the generally agreed skills for a retriever. I understand that those with continental breeds find this skill to perhaps not fit in the spectrum of skills that their dog requires.

They however, are not going to follow up with skills/drills like FTP(force to pile) or swim-by or double T or poison bird training etc. This is where we differ and why retriever folks are so adamant about teaching FF and getting it right. It is not just about completing a retrieve properly although that too is important....it is a foundation development which supports further advanced training if one was a field trailer or serious hunter.

Any discussion regarding FF has to be put within a context of the type of dogs one is training and how committed one is to approach the sequential nature of training.

Regards,

[gonehuntin']

I'll disagree with Don heatedly on his view of ff. I do think that each and every dog should be ff'd, even though there there is seemingly no need for it. Problem is, just because a dog retrieves as a pup or young dog doesn't mean that some day he'll give you the "paw" and not retrieve. If he was ff'd as a youngster or as part of an organizes program, you have the tool to rattle his cage and show him the error of his ways. Without ff you have nothing and have to start from scratch. If retrieving is not important to you, God Bless you, don't bother to ff him. But if you want a well rounded gun dog with a solid foundation and no crumbling foundation, force him and train him in an organized program.

The ff we use today is a far gentler ff than when I was a trainer. With today's method of force, with the many fine dvd's available, and with today's variable intensity collars, there is no reason for any dog not to go through ff, and most do it reasonably happily.

As far as why we train the way we do today, it's simply easier, faster, more humane and more thorough. Leaves mw more time to fly fish these days.

[polmaise]

I thought the topic was ''alternative to Force Fetch and clicker training''?, rather than a defence or recommendation of either?
Doh!..stupid me!
Thought this good thread was going somewhere?....obviously not.

[Chukar12]

They have expressed to me and many the fact they have a serious problem with Force Fetch, and even clicker training. Let me go further.

What is the serious problem expressed? I am not sure that I can offer an alternative until I grasp the weaknesses.
In fact, I have been a practitioner of both and can cite force fetch mistakes I have made in the past, they are going too fast and not finishing. However, I would be interested in what an actual, educated practitioner of clicker training has found to be detrimental in the development of their dog?
I speak not of the detractors that have not tried it, nor am I hoping to change any minds, but I am wondering what a proficient and competent trainer that has tried it finds detrimental.

[gonehuntin']

I thought the topic was ''alternative to Force Fetch and clicker training''?, rather than a defence or recommendation of either?
Doh!..stupid me!
Thought this good thread was going somewhere?....obviously not.

I'm an old guy and I've trained them about every way you can. Before ff, you simply taught them a force hold. For a couple of years you simply shoved whatever it was the dog dropped back in it's mouth and made him hold it a while. That is a very slow and frustrating way to get a dog to retrieve and it still left us without an organized way to make the pooch go.

I still don't train with a clicker but I sure do tell the dog "good dog" a lot. I like positive reinforcement to come from me and not an impersonal mechanical aid.

Thank God no one asked what we did before the ecollar.