Just curious what your opinion is on entering directly into "Fetch" without "Hold" in place? IMO it can be done as an all inclusive command. Much like "Sit means Sit" equals "Stay" Fetch could mean Fetch can be taught to reach, grab and hold until told to release. Movement at Heel can be subtly intro'd after dog is scooping up from the floor. This is just a topic for discussion and this has not been started on any particular dog.
Dave B.
PS If I'm not mistaken this is "basically" how F-F was approached before modern methods (ala Hell Week) and perhaps still done with pointing breeds??

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dave Bray,

My opinion I don't think there is a problem. Just makes life harder and FF longer to learn. Because now you have to also correct the dog when he spits it out.

I've offten thought about using the command "back" in stead of "fetch", I think it might make the transition to pile work and forcing on back easier. The only problem I thought that might come up is if the dog would drop a bird near the line.

The two problems I see arewhat command do you give when the dog is giving you a sloppy hold. And how do you teach that propper hold without going through that process?

And on the back = fetch. Back is a command that means move away from me. Fetch mean pick that up now. I don't want to have a dog standing over a bird refusing to pick it up and be giving a moving command.

why try to walk before learning to crawl? Why not just go straight to force to pile if you want to skip steps?

FF builds on the hold. Hold is done close up with very structured and disciplined technique. This would be hard to duplicate for FF especially at a distance. Further when teaching FF you do not have the hold command available to reinforce the actual fetch command if needed.

Are you having problems with teaching the hold command? If so these troubles will only magnify as you try to go forward without the hold in place. And while you might think that (to you) fetch means hold, I doubt that the dog has that same understanding. Fetch means to get the bumper/bird and return with it while hold means to hold it until directed to give it up. Two very different and distinct actions as perceived by the dog. Please go to a hunt test and watch junior dogs run. Too many who have not been properly FF'd to include hold will fail because they do not deliver to hand. But will come part way in and then spit out the bird while the handler does the fetch it up dance. Sad really as all this could be cured with a solid hold command. And a solid hold command is usually trained in about a week.

Leaving holes in your training will always come back to bite you at the most inopertune times.

T. Mac

quote:

Originally posted by Craig:
I've offten thought about using the command "back" in stead of "fetch", I think it might make the transition to pile work and forcing on back easier. The only problem I thought that might come up is if the dog would drop a bird near the line.

JTM if you read my post that's what I was worried about. I do feel with voice inflection and body language they would know the difference. Is it better then the current system I don't know, I may try it someday and find out.


I personally have never tried FF before teaching hold, I think it would cause alot more stress on the dog. That being said I'm sure it could be done, just not sure why someone would want to do it that way.

quote:

Originally posted by Tom M:
why try to walk before learning to crawl? Why not just go straight to force to pile if you want to skip steps?

Are you having problems with teaching the hold command? If so these troubles will only magnify as you try to go forward without the hold in place. And while you might think that (to you) fetch means hold, I doubt that the dog has that same understanding.

Leaving holes in your training will always come back to bite you at the most inopertune times.

T. Mac

Thanks for the cheery opinion on the hypothetical topic T Mac (see no actual dog in first post). Having F-F a dozen+ dogs 9 being CBR's I have never skipped the "Hold" step but was just pondering on how smoothly the process would go and the end results. Thanks again for your views on the random topic.
Dave B.

Just my opinion. By not teaching hold first you intensify FF. Because now you are ear pinching more because if he drops it you have to FF back to bumper. It is less traumatic and goes much faster by teaching hold.

The method I use and just my opinion is I teach hold with a gloved hand. Put hand in his mouth hold bottom jaw at first I say drop and pull my hand out. Then I hold hand in and not till he calms down do i say drop. You can begin to feel pressure on your hand that he is really holding and say drop he releases. At the beginning dog does shack head tries to spit out but as soon as you see just a little calmnes take hand out with command drop. He will learn holding get hand out of mouth. Just my opinion and it can mean nothing. It works for me and I find it to be a gentler way of moving into FF.

I'm sure it is possible but I can not think of a situation where it would be beneficial.
For anyone who has done it: What was the indication?

Tim

Tim,
What put the question in my mind was when I read the old Charles Morgan Training book he described his early method of F-F where it pretty much went directly into a crash course on Fetch. Now I understand methods have come light years since then but still for Morgan to have gotten the NFC results he did would still require reliable retrieving basics. I guess the only way to find out would be to find a tractable student with a strong natural desire to hold/carry and try?
jmho,
Dave

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dave Bray,

Dave, guess I'm dating myself, but if you're talking about introducing hold with the force-first pressure of an ear pinch, toe hitch or e-collar vs what I guess would be called attrition before moving into FF, I can remember when most retrieverites in my area argued loudly that the later defeated much of FF's purpose: creating a dominance battle the handler would win. FF wasn't complete without a serious butting of heads, which force-first hold helped set up. (Recall James Spencer being roundly criticised for suggesting a less jolting course in his column.)

Still some, and perhaps many, such trainers here.

Then, too, not being a FF practitioner who's followed its evolution closely, I may have totally misread your question...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rick Hall,

Not meaning to be contentious in anyway, but just thought it might be interesting to bring to the forum that in the UK hardly any trainers use the force retrieve at all. The concensus of UK opinion being that the dogs are natural retrievers any way, and that force fetching is unneccesary at best and makes dogs hard mouthed at worst. NOTE : I'm not throwing this in as my opinion per se just as a "UK" attitude. I don't see UK dogs making sloppy deliveries or losing marks in competition for delivery. Don't all lynch me........ I'm just interested in the 2 points of view

quote:

Originally posted by chessieuk:
.. in the UK hardly any trainers use the force retrieve at all. The concensus of UK opinion being that the dogs are natural retrievers any way, and that force fetching is unneccesary at best and makes dogs hard mouthed at worst... I don't see UK dogs making sloppy deliveries or losing marks in competition for delivery. Don't all lynch me........ I'm just interested in the 2 points of view

IMHO "force fetching"(FF) is one of the most misunderstood exercises. It has little or nothing to do with retrieving or delivery. It is establishing a mindset. It would be better named " pressure command performance".(PCP,I'm that old).
I agree that many of these dogs are natural retrievers but many of the task we expect are unnatural. There is nothing natural about a dog swimming down a narrow channel for something it never saw fall. A dog needs to perform tasks out of obedience. FF is merely advanced obedience. The dog performs/retrieves ALWAYS and ONLY when commanded. The dog learns that to avoid pressure an immediate and correct response is required.

JMO

Tim

Been my experience that FF only has "little or nothing to do with retrieving or delivery" when someone who doesn't FF implies that's its purpose. Then it's all about OB and dealing with pressure.

But let a retrieving or delivery problem show itself in a dog that hasn't been FFed, and the response in this country is almost invariably, "You need to FF". And if said problem occures in a dog that has been FFed, "You need to revisit FF."

Having studied UK type training a bit (via Scales, Barlow, Deeley, Milner and Stewart), it's been my casual, and perhaps hair-brained, observation that they train like amateurs, while most folks in the US want to train like our professionals, who've developed their methods, including FF, in response to facing quite different situations than most amateurs do. In a nutshell, our mainstream training was developed by people needing to work as expediently as possible with whatever habits older puppies and dogs carried thriugh their gates. While the amateur gets to start with a clean slate of a puppy and mold its habits through their daily interactions.

Sun's coming up, and I've got to run, literally, before it gets hot, but let me also throw out the notion that there's probably nothing FF can mask that the Brit's careful, patient nurturing of retrieve and delivery can't also mask.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rick Hall,

Cheers for that Rick. Guess if you are a pro the pressure is on to put pressure on the dog to get results. I've trained obedience and always trained FF......... never dreamt of doing it with a retriever.Just haven't seen the need.

So many differences between US and here. E collars very rarely used here either.

No FF - no e collar!!

Looking forward to coming over to specialties in September to see your dogs working and talk some shop.

None of my dogs have been FFed, and none of the retrievers have worn an e-collar. (Though I do have one I've used a bit to good effect with my current old Brittany.) But folks on your side of the Atlantic think I'm as nuts for some of my other training ways as most Americans do for eshewing FF and collar.

Yours is, btw, the absolutely best avatar I've seen.

quote:

Originally posted by chessieuk:

So many differences between US and here. E collars very rarely used here either.

No FF - no e collar!!

FF and e-collars are not absolute requirements for dog to perform to many standards. I have ribbons from dogs that were not FFed and were never nicked or burned.
FFing and "e" training does make life easier for both dog and handler. Having a background in dogs not forced or conditioned is an advantage when you first try these methods. You know the goal and you have "read" dogs.
I would suggest that if you decided to try it start with a new dog 6-9 months old. Don't try to convert an older dog. It makes for long frustrating sessions.

Tim

Yours is, btw, the absolutely best avatar I've seen.[/QUOTE]

That made me smile. Yep those dogs look soooo good, particularly when they are all out working together. Scares the crap out of the lab handlers on our formal shoots!!

re. being nuts for your training methods.... whatever works for you and your dogs. The best trainers are the most capable of being the lateral thinkers!