Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36
  1. #31
    Senior Dog IRISHWISTLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,598
    Thanked: 3967
    Quote Originally Posted by Labradorks View Post
    Gee, thanks for clarifying that. I thought you were curious about how a non-FF actually dog did do so you could stop making insulting and incorrect assumptions. My bad.
    In actuality, that was your assumption. I never stated that I was interested in knowing how one specific dog (as in your non-FF / non-CC retriever) did on a few small samplings of HT's. I did simply state that it would be interesting to do a comparative blind study of the "style" scores of dogs that were FF and CC vs. dogs that were not. That said, I would be interested in those resulting statistics as they relate to a large sampling, not to your dog as you assumed. No insult intended and hardly an "incorrect assumption" unlike your "insulting and incorrect assumption" that dogs that are FF and CC are stylistically - robots, that is simply a false generalization. My bad? NOT. Congrats on all of your 9's and 10's, quite impressive scores.

    Irishwhistler
    TEAM TRAD PRO STAFF
    DUBLIN DUCK DYNASTY

    Joanie Madden, Mary Bergin, Adrea Coor, and Nuala Kennedy, each an Irish whistle goddess in her own right.

  2. #32
    Senior Dog Labradorks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,947
    Thanked: 2421
    Quote Originally Posted by IRISHWISTLER View Post
    In actuality, that was your assumption. I never stated that I was interested in knowing how one specific dog (as in your non-FF / non-CC retriever) did on a few small samplings of HT's. I did simply state that it would be interesting to do a comparative blind study of the "style" scores of dogs that were FF and CC vs. dogs that were not. That said, I would be interested in those resulting statistics as they relate to a large sampling, not to your dog as you assumed. No insult intended and hardly an "incorrect assumption" unlike your "insulting and incorrect assumption" that dogs that are FF and CC are stylistically - robots, that is simply a false generalization. My bad? NOT. Congrats on all of your 9's and 10's, quite impressive scores.

    Irishwhistler
    I never assumed you were asking about MY dog, but my dog happened to be one of those dogs which are not traditionally trained as you insulted and alluded to in your post that would not do as well as a traditionally trained dog. Obviously, if I am directly being insulted on a message board -- and yes, I was directly insulted as per your "spitting cookies" comments that you pulled directly from my post -- I am going to speak up for myself. I was commenting and agreeing on aspects of the article, in which the author referenced many a dog in the HT world as "robotic". I did not make up the term or pull it out of this air. Is that NOT what the thread was about -- discussing the article? The thread was not about discussing the training techniques of specific people on this board.

  3. #33
    Senior Dog IRISHWISTLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,598
    Thanked: 3967
    Quote Originally Posted by Labradorks View Post
    I never assumed you were asking about MY dog, but my dog happened to be one of those dogs which are not traditionally trained as you insulted and alluded to in your post that would not do as well as a traditionally trained dog. Obviously, if I am directly being insulted on a message board -- and yes, I was directly insulted as per your "spitting cookies" comments that you pulled directly from my post -- I am going to speak up for myself. I was commenting and agreeing on aspects of the article, in which the author referenced many a dog in the HT world as "robotic". I did not make up the term or pull it out of this air. Is that NOT what the thread was about -- discussing the article? The thread was not about discussing the training techniques of specific people on this board.
    LABRADORKS,
    YOU were the one that interjected your own dog as a response to my assertion that a comparative study of FF / CC retrievers vs. dogs not trained using those methods of conditioning would be of interest. I responded that a sampling of one dog was far from scientific (not really an insult, a fact of scientific methods). I did state within this thread that I did not in fact read the article as I was not able to reference it as formatted. As for the comment regarding "spitting of cookies" a referenced technique, I simply illustrated that I did not perceive the "spitting of cookies" to be any more or less in alignment with training for the the natural ability of dogs than is the use of Force Fetch and e-collar conditioning, that being my own personal opinion. I did in fact state that if folks wanted to train by use of the cookie spitting technique that I could care less and that if it got them the results they were happy with, then all was well and good. So far, I am not seeing that I was highly insulting to you or anybody else. As for the term "robotic" that you referenced from the author - that was neither cited as such nor put in quotation marks so it was interpreted as being your assertion. It is clear that you are not the only cookie spitter out there and as stated, my interest in the comparison of the "style" scores of FF / CC dogs vs those conditioned by other methods was clearly one that would consider a large sampling - not just your dog. It is also clear that the techniques inferred would be inclusive of the entire spectrum of training techniques, not aimed at those of "specific people on this board". And in the reference to "traditional" training technique(s), those could include methods vastly more obtrusive than the use of an e-collar.

    I don't believe you have editorial privilege specific to my writings, or opinions so I have a right to express them as per the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and will continue to do so freely or will die to maintain said right, as I would for your right to express your opinion freely and to spit cookies at your retriever.


    (see this as I originally posted);
    I did not read this article because I could not open it as formatted. Given the responses of other posts in this thread and some from folks I respect, it sounds as though the article was slanted and far from scientific (again I did not read it so I admit that is an assumption on my part). That said, it is well known that I make use of e-collar conditioning as an integral part of my training program / strategies. I see virtually zero difference in labeling the use of an e-collar nor the use of edible reinforcement ( i.e., spitting "cookies) as having more or less to do with "natural ability". I would challenge anyone that sees any dog that I have trained to say that the dog runs in a robot like manner as the dogs I train are known to run with high drive, wonderful style, and an obvious joy for working. Most of the dogs I have trained are from amazing pedigrees that are deep in field performance bloodlines and a natural retrieve is demonstrated by the far majority of them as is a soft mouthed carriage of game birds. Myself and many, many of those like me elect to "FORCE FETCH" for a conditioned retrieve by compulsion as we depend on our dogs to recover wild birds and crippled birds under actual field conditions while hunting - not exclusively in dog games. Retrievers are an important factor in not losing precious game birds and I would suggest that a retriever that has been properly force fetch conditioned is far less likely to blink birds be it in dog games or in the field where it actually counts toward the recovery of precious wildlife resources. As for having to "force a dog to fetch, hold, or go in the water", I have never had to do so, I do however once such behaviors are exhibited regularly, condition those behaviors to be dependable on my command and not at the whim of the K9. I can't wait 5 years for a dog to make JH because I have to negotiate with the dog to perhaps perform rather than to hit the ground running with a joyful drive for working cooperatively with me or it's handler as a team player. I could really care less about folks that choose to train absent e-collar and prefer to spit cookies at their dogs to motivate them. If such methods work for them and fills their needs - then good for them. I do however get annoyed by their continual shots at those of us that elect to e-collar condition.

    IRISHWHISTLER
    Last edited by IRISHWISTLER; 05-05-2017 at 08:21 AM.
    TEAM TRAD PRO STAFF
    DUBLIN DUCK DYNASTY

    Joanie Madden, Mary Bergin, Adrea Coor, and Nuala Kennedy, each an Irish whistle goddess in her own right.

  4. #34
    Senior Dog
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    714
    Thanked: 304
    I guess "robotic" must be in the eye of the beholder. I have been training and running HT and FT for about 25 yrs and I can say that I really have only seen on dog that I would say was "robotic" in her style. I threw for a FT and this dog never put a foot wrong the entire weekend. Her marking and blinds were almost letter perfect. She was a NFCH. I am sure that had I observed her at the next trial she would not have performed in the same manner. They are dogs and some days are better than others.
    To my jaded and jealous eye those dogs performing in the obedience ring and aiming for that perfect 200 score are much more "robotic". Some of the toy breeds remind me of little pull toys.
    The methods used these days in both venues are producing superior performances. I use an e-collar for field training but use treats for obedience work. The retrieve is the reward in field, obedience is tedious and boring so an added incentive is needed.

  5. #35
    Senior Dog
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanked: 2277
    Quote Originally Posted by Anna Scott View Post
    To my jaded and jealous eye those dogs performing in the obedience ring and aiming for that perfect 200 score are much more "robotic".
    Hey now! ;-) I think the word you are looking for is “precise”. Seriously though, I think that the “robotic” Obedience dogs are much fewer than they used to be, now that more people are following people like Bridget Carlson who aim for very “up”, happy dogs in the ring.

    I don’t think anyone has accused Chloe of being “robotic” ... but on the other hand she hasn’t gotten a 200 - a few 198.5’s, and blew a 199.5 in Open B recently by going down on the sit-stay, but no 200’s, LOL.
    Annette

    Cookie (HIT HC Jamrah's Legally Blonde, UDX, OM2, BN) 6/4/2015
    Sassy (HIT Jamrah's Blonde Ambition, UDX, OM2, BN) 6/4/2015

    Chloe (HIT HC OTCH Windsong's Femme Fatale, UDX4, OM6, RE) 6/7/2009

    And remembering:

    Scully (HC Coventry's Truth Is Out There, UD, TD, RN) 4/14/1996 - 6/30/2011
    Mulder (Coventry's I Want To Believe, UD, RN, WC) 5/26/1999 - 4/22/2015

    And our foster Jolie (Windsong's Genuine Risk, CDX) 5/26/1999 - 3/16/2014

    Hidden Content

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Annette47 For This Useful Post:

    Maxx&Emma (05-05-2017)

  7. #36
    Senior Dog Labradorks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,947
    Thanked: 2421
    Quote Originally Posted by Anna Scott View Post
    I guess "robotic" must be in the eye of the beholder. I have been training and running HT and FT for about 25 yrs and I can say that I really have only seen on dog that I would say was "robotic" in her style. I threw for a FT and this dog never put a foot wrong the entire weekend. Her marking and blinds were almost letter perfect. She was a NFCH. I am sure that had I observed her at the next trial she would not have performed in the same manner. They are dogs and some days are better than others.
    To my jaded and jealous eye those dogs performing in the obedience ring and aiming for that perfect 200 score are much more "robotic". Some of the toy breeds remind me of little pull toys.
    The methods used these days in both venues are producing superior performances. I use an e-collar for field training but use treats for obedience work. The retrieve is the reward in field, obedience is tedious and boring so an added incentive is needed.
    I don't think all HT/CC/FF dogs are robotic, but it is not uncommon at all to see it at events, training days, etc. At least not in this part of the world. It was the robotic, tedious, miserable obedience runs that I saw, and experienced for myself, that made me almost quit obedience. I was so impressed by the woman who became my trainer because her dogs were clearly having a blast in the ring -- and winning her classes -- and so were her students. It's opened up a whole new world for us and my dog loves obedience and I do, too.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Labradorks For This Useful Post:

    Maxx&Emma (05-05-2017)

 



Not a Member of the Labrador Retriever Chat Forums Yet?
Register for Free and Share Your Labrador Retriever Photos

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •