Training Past and Present

Post questions about training here to draw on the collective knowledge of the bulletin board members!

Moderator: Peter Butterfield

Training Past and Present

Postby Robert Tawton » Thu 04 Mar 2004 1:20 pm

Hi Peter,
Under the Thread entitled “Foundations for Handling for Novice and Restricted” and in a Post dated 1 March 2004 you wrote:
“I sense that much of the modern training techniques are a bit daunting to new triallers and I was wondering if you would share with us the process with which you trained Homah and Chasa. I understand that you have progressed as a trainer since those days but they were both successful dogs in their time.”

You also wrote:
“What are the biggest differences between the way you trained in 1990 and the way you train today?”

Peter let me take this opportunity to thank you for your kind works, they are appreciated. As I wrestled with the manner in which I was going to respond to your question, I was reminded by something Mike Lardy once said and as you know, Mike Lardy is without question, the most successful US Professional Retriever Trainer of all time. In essence, he said that there is nothing he does that is original; it has all been copied or adapted from work undertaken by such people as Rex Carr, D.L. Walters et al. A dichotomy exists in the education of a successful retriever; on one hand you need to foster independent thinking and a free spirit necessary for excellent marking and on the other the complete control necessary for complex and challenging blinds. The key to success therefore lies in achieving this balance.

Homah and Chasa’s training was underpinned by information contained in the following books:

The Water Dog by Richard A Walters, published circa 1964
Training Retrievers to Handle by D.L. Walters, published circa 1979
Training the Retriever by J.A. Kersley, published circa 1970, and
Retriever Training Tests by James B. Spencer, published circa 1983

Collectively these books provide a map detailing how a handler may take a puppy at 49 days of age all the way to being a competitive dog in State and/or National Championships. From the first reading of “Water Dog” I became wedded to the concept of commencing the training process on the 49th day and as I have gained further experience, this conviction has become even more firmly entrenched.

The internet and the wealth of information that is readily available may lead people into thinking that all the various Drills are new and the greatest thing since sliced bread! This is simply not the case!
For example, D.L. Walters has chapters entitled:
Training Yourself as a Handler;
The 3 Leg Lining Pattern;
Introduction to the Whistle;
Simple Baseball;
Walking Baseball;
The 3 Leg Pattern with Casts;
Water Patterns;
The 5 Leg Pattern and Introduction to Diversions.
Under General Training Guidelines there are sub-headings entitled;
Make your training just that;
Plan your training ahead;
Be prepared to change your plan;
Be sure your dog will get the bird;
Decide what is right for your dog;
Picking up the blind first;
Don’t nag and don’t forget praise.
Does this not all sound very familiar and it was written in 1979!!!

In summary and in an overall sense, there is very little difference between how I went about training Homah and Chasa and what I do today. Mainly the differences are; I train more frequently; I try to train smarter rather than harder and by that I mean there is considerably more thought put into the teaching of concepts and towards maintaining the appropriate balance between land and water work, marks and blinds.
I now have a better appreciation of the need to maintain standards at all times and in all aspects. If a difficulty is encountered, it is better to simplify the task than to lower the standard expected from the dog. At all times I am increasingly mindful of the need to maintain momentum and advancement in the dog. The sequence of teaching various concepts and the testing of the dog’s understanding is a major factor in both areas. I have always considered that I was fairly analytical in my approach to teaching dogs, but for me, Bill Eckett (a US Pro) certainly put new dimensions into the words “being thorough”. Thank you Julie for organising his last trip and I can hardly wait until his second visit, scheduled for July next!
As I write I do recall two differences between the past and the present and they relate to the Trained Retrieve (also known as Force Fetch) and Swim-by. Homah, Chasa, Mac and King were all amusement trained as I did not fully grasp the underlying principles behind Force Fetch and this was despite what I had read on the subject and the comprehensive demonstration put on by Jim Swan (a US Pro) who visited in 1992. I believe I now understand and it is unlikely that I will ever own another dog that has not been through the FF program. Jim Swan also demonstrated Swim-by and again the wider ramifications were not fully understood. Mac and King have been educated in this area, but in hindsight, not to the degree that I now know is required.


Peter you also wrote:

“My experience is that soft dogs with only moderate drive get burned out in the yard, and it takes a very skilful trainer to get them through.”

My experience and observations are quite the opposite, soft dogs with moderate drive can become quite comfortable with and even enjoy pattern work. Their difficulty is more likely to surface during the transition phase when they have to think for themselves and apply previously taught concepts to real life situations.

If you have any further queries I am more than happy to field questions.

Kindest regards, RWT
Robert Tawton
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon 17 Nov 2003 9:51 am
Location: Canberra,ACT,Australia

Postby Peter Betteridge » Thu 04 Mar 2004 9:33 pm

Bob
thankyou for shareing with us your journey as a trainer.It seems to me that your level of application has moved on or am I reading what you said wrongly?.Was Homer FF 'ed to any degree? and if so was it more difficult than FF ing the lab's.I presume you have FF Tank alot more throughly than your previous dogs. Have you dug in deeper or just had a clearer insight into where you wonted to go with the process.I too have watched Jim Swan FF a lab and a golden and found it a real eye opener.Is there someone who helped you define the parameters of getting enough on the dog to make a serious impression and when to realize that you have hit an empasse and need to live with it and move on?
Are you an advocate for the dennis Voight method of swimbye and its ramifications or have you adapted dennis's and other peoples swimbye techniques or methodologys to suit australian conditions. It seems to me that the sequenceing is very important
My impressions of the swimbye is that there is very little carry over from the runbye for most dogs and that there is great need to be meticuluous.
Most inexperienced trainers tend to go to fast which can have dire consequences and most australian trainers have trouble finding the right sized pond.I have seen some video of Jim Swan teaching a good dog to do the swimbye( in the closing stages) and the level of control was awesome.Do the books you mentioned from the 1970's include swimbye?You obviously trained much differently from the other great trainers in the early 1980's and the 1970's.Do you think that the degree of technicality in the runs has increased enough in the last 25 years that there is more of an advantage now for dogs that have been schooled using american methods?
Sorry to hit you with so many questions at once
regards peter
Peter Betteridge
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri 20 Sep 2002 2:36 pm
Location: east lindfield sydney

Postby Gareth Tawton » Fri 05 Mar 2004 7:28 am

Peter,

As a matter of interest I the first dog I FF was my GSP in the mid 1990's it was a year or so before Jim Swan came out for his seminar. I have FF every dog I have had since then. I don't believe the breed of dog has mcuh to do with how they accept the FF. It has more to do with the dogs personal disposition. I do note that most of the books suggest to be very wary of FF a Chesapeake. I gather from reading they are a bit more prone to fear biting. I've never tried a Chessy so don't know from first hand experiance.

Back in those days I followed a 30 day FF step by step program. I took it straight from a book which I think was written by Robert Milner. I don't believe the end result was any different from what I achieve today. Experiance has made it a lot quicker and easier. Monty took about 7 or 8 days to FF.

I think one of the things to remember is that often by the time a dog in Australia is ready to be FF (they must have full adult teeth) most handlers have already well and truly started their training program. Therefore the dog often already understand what the command fetch means. So you are already part way down the track. A dog taken by a pro trainer at 7 months or so may not have had any training whatsoever. Therefore the FF starts from the very begining of learning the fetch command and then they learn that following the command will relieve the pressure.

A general observation. All this so called American training is well and good. The principles are the same for any retriever or any breed. However, you must be able to alter some of the drills and introduce some new concepts for Australian conditions. Our trials are very different from the American trials and I for one would HATE to see our trials to go the "american" way.

Gareth Tawton
Gareth Tawton
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Thu 06 Mar 2003 8:24 pm
Location: Bendigo

Postby Robert Tawton » Fri 05 Mar 2004 10:36 am

Hi Peter,

I will try to answer your questions in turn and to the best of my ability;

1. Homah, Chasa, Mac and King have NEVER been Force Fetched in any shape or form. These dogs were all amusement trained and by that I mean they were taught to retrieve through play, fun bumpers, praise and food rewards. The reason why they were not FF is not because I didn’t understand how to carry out the process but rather I didn’t see the need, since my dogs retrieved “naturally and reliably”. Over the years I have been party to FF several dogs, but always in connection to fixing hard mouth problems and in relation to FF, I have not observed any difference between Labradors or any other breeds. Certainly there were occasions when I have had to resort to using a toe pinch rather than an ear pinch.

2. Tank was FF soon after his adult teeth were in place. It should be remembered that by this stage and on the local school oval, he was doing simple triple marks, two-birds and double falls, lining and casting drills. It took me just three days to put Tank through the FF process.

• On Day 1 went through the “sit and hold” part of the exercise, teaching him to hold the dummy even when I was tapping on the end of it with my finger. I then moved to ear pinch and teaching the dog how to “turn off” the discomfort by grabbing the dummy. By the end of Day 1 I could see he was well on the way to making the connection between the ear pinches and “fetching” dummies.

• On Day 2 I revisited the hold procedure and Day 1’s ear pinch exercises. By the end of Day 2 Tank was picking the dummy up off the ground and moving both left and right to “fetch” a dummy on the ground. It was quite clear to me that by the end of Day 2, Tank understood exactly what the appropriate response was anytime your ear is being pinched.

• Day 3 was a recap of Days 1 & 2 with more repetitions and extended movements up and down the table. For Tank, FF was now complete and he has not been back on the table since. Again in my view, FF is undertaken primarily to provide a tool which may be used if you encounter a No Go situation, droppinng dummies to shake, a lack of effort in a particular retrieve, or reluctance to enter water at the designated point etc. It adds some “bite” to your ability to teach the dog the way out of its current predicament.

3. Swim-by is not mentioned in the books listed in my earlier post.

4. While I personally know Dennis Voight, I am not familiar with “his version of swim-by and its ramifications”, please explain? Details of how I went about teaching swim-by can be found under the Water Blind thread. Both King and Tank have been through the process and it took four days. That said I believe it is a drill that must be revisited every so often in order to maintain this learned skill.

• Day 1 was used to establish the back pile, line the back pile, stop in route and take either left or right hand backs.

• Day 2 was used to recap Day 1, establish the right hand over pile by lining it from the opposite end of the dam, right hand over with a left hand exit.


• Day 3 was used to recap Days 1 & 2, to establish the left hand over pile by lining it from the right hand end of the pool, left hand over with right hand exit.

• Day 4 was used to recap Days 1, 2 & 3 and progressively increasing the distance from the send point the water’s edge.

5. The size of dams suitable for teaching swim-by appears to be an area of misconception. They can be square, oval, round or triangular in shape. In my view, the ideal size is about 30m wide and 60m long. In other words, the swim to the back pile is about the same length as the left or right hand cast swim. The other advantage of this size is that if you have to resort to using a rope to enforce the stop whistle it will not so long as to become unmanageable. If you are forced to use bigger dams you will soon realise that the time taken to complete each swim becomes a limiting factor in its own right.

6. Gareth has already provided you with a response on the question relating to the “American way” and I support his views. Trainers like Charlie Ball, Bill Loftus and Jake Christensen had dogs that excelled in their ability to be handled and perhaps you should ask them how they went about achieving their successes.

BFN, RWT
Robert Tawton
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon 17 Nov 2003 9:51 am
Location: Canberra,ACT,Australia


Return to Training Q&A

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests