# Forced Go-Out



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

A friend and I were having a discussion the other day about the forced go-out. Any opinions?


----------



## Kayos and Havoc (Oct 17, 2002)

I use a target I don't do forced go outs or retrieves. 

But let me ask what you consider a forced go out? I will take the dog by the collar and run to the target with the dog to help them get it right.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

That is not unusual Kathy; but why or why not?


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

A forced go out, as defined by me, (you may have a different definition) is that the dog learns that he MUST run AWAY from the handler. It does not matter so much how it is taught whether electric, with the pinch, a foot or whatever. The dog knows that he MUST run away and is not just running towards something.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc (Oct 17, 2002)

Ah you are doing SchH too, I am an AKC'er. I don't use punsihment to train a dog, I will use mild corrections to proof a dog. But the go out in AKC is probably different than in SchH.


----------



## alaman (May 3, 2006)

No reason to have to do a forced send out. Just train it correctly using drive and reward


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

And where is such thing as a "go-out" in Schutzhund?


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Lican,
The "go-out" is the last obedience exercise; the "vorous".

Alaman,
That is the way it is usually trained, but what happens when you are on a strange field and the dog has no reason to expect a ball to be waiting at the end?


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

In the voraus you don't need to teach the dog to go away from the handler, it works good teaching him to run straight forward to an imaginary target.

I used Sheila Booth method, the target is behind the spot where you did the recall. As in everything else, I don't see a reason to teach any forced exercise, nor to use force at all, at least not until you are polishing or correcting and even there I'd call it more "pressure" than force.

I may be naive, but I can't conceive how electric, pinch or foot can be used to teach a send-out... But I can't conceive a forced retrieve either and thanks gods I've never seen it done yet. So I bet there is people with more imagination than me that can do such a thing.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

I've never heard of training the send out by force. How can you get the dog to run with focus and energy and verve if you train with compulsion and fear? 

As for trialing on a strange field, you train for it. You go to as many new places that you can, show your dog the ball on the stick, and send him. Then he has no reason to NOT think that there isnt' a ball out there if he just keeps running gung-ho straight and fast.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Lican,
Yes, there are people who are more imaginative. 

Castle, 
Compulsion MAKES drive, focus, energy and "verve". (I see someone has a thesaurus.) As for a strange field, can you tell me that if you take your dog to a field that he has never seen before and you tell him to "go-out", without showing him a ball, that he will with 100% certainty? I don't mean go half way, turn and look at you, then lope ahead, I mean "GO-OUT!"


----------



## Northern GSDs (Oct 30, 2008)

I've heard of some various compulsion methods used to train the send out and in my opinion, if you want a fast, straight exercise, it is best accomplished through high motivation training. Complusion used in this exercise will most likely result in much more hesitancy and therefore a sluggish appearance, not to mention more risk of not completing the exercise properly/to its full potential if the dog is possibly anticipating a correction. To me, it's like a dog that has been taught the down in motion through correction - I don't like how the dogs looks when executing this exercise and more often than not, you sure can tell how it was trained to do it.

I say the send out is best taught through high drive and motivation - lots of interesting ways to do it including touch pads, distance markers, and/or the ever famous sned out post - aka the "toy tree"

My 2 cents.


----------



## Northern GSDs (Oct 30, 2008)

> Quote:As for a strange field, can you tell me that if you take your dog to a field that he has never seen before and you tell him to "go-out", without showing him a ball, that he will with 100% certainty?


You are welcome to take a trip up here to watch my gal do it...to her, the send out is the send out no matter where (my basement, a strange field, a parking lot etc). If time is taken to train it properly, the dog should be clear that the arm up with the command means go straight out and run. 

Compulsion creates drive to a degree....on that note, it also has the potential to create conflict and potential anticipation of correction within the dog (which can easily be seen in a dog's body language). Not to say it has no use in training, but it is not the method I use when teaching a new element. I personally don't like the look of a dog on the field who has been trained primarily through compulsion - it doesn't paint a picture of a dog who is highly motivated to work with or for it's handler and to me, dog and handler should look fluid together like a true team. 

What method of compulsion are you speaking of for the send out? E collar? Forward correction? Tie out pulley line?


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Or you can take a trip way down here too, and my girl doesn't even have her SchH1 yet.









To me it consist in: if you need 50 meters, train for 300. The dog won't use his brain, less have a doubt, those first 50.


----------



## Northern GSDs (Oct 30, 2008)

> Quote: To me it consist in: if you need 50 meters, train for 300. The dog won't use his brain, less have a doubt, those first 50.


I love that analogy - so true!


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

This is good. It seems topics on this board take forever to garner any responses. It is nice to see some training debates take place!

Nicole, 
I agree that the go-out is best TAUGHT through drive and motivation, but to me, it is important that the dog knows that he MUST do this. It can be fun, BUT he MUST do it. Same as retrieves. The dog can, and should, enjoy it, but it MUST be done. I will disagree that compulsion makes a dog less likely to complete the exercise or that it makes the dog appear sluggish. I believe that quite the opposite is true. 
Compulsion does, without doubt, make drive and enthusiasm. However, you are correct that, when poorly done, it paints a poor picture. 
As I said previously, the method itself is not really important, whether the e-coller, correction on the pinch etc. 
Lican,
Better yet, if you ever venture to Maryland, let me know and I will make sure that I watch your girl do a go-out.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

Never seen one trained (forced go out) or had to train one.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

I have seen it done in AKC. I have read about it being done in SchH with the e-collar. I have never found the need. It is through training that the dog always suspects the reward is out there. No need for force.


----------



## Lynn_P (Mar 17, 2004)

I also have seen this done in AKC for the sent out, but usually the compulsion or force comes into play after the dog understands the command and decides not to comply, not during the "learning curve" of training a dog a new exercise. I also truly believe it will actually come down to the individual dog. Like the force retrieve vs. motivational retrieve debate, there are dogs out there that have a very reliable retrieve and they were trained 100% motivationally. Sure there are consequences for a motivationally trained dog when they don't comply with a command (that you know they understand) given. Are you saying that the forced go-out technique is taught from the very begin of a dog's training?


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

I'm curious - how would you use force in training a send out?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I've started it with my dog and use a target. For us I don't see any practical application for teaching my dog to understand it as always going away from me, so I'm fine with him running toward an imaginary object. I've got no issues using corrections and aversives but in this case my dog sprints like a fire lit under his butt if he even *thinks* that his b-a-l-l might be at the end of the field.


----------



## Deejays_Owner (Oct 5, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: Jason LinI'm curious - how would you use force in training a send out?


I have seen it done on a recall (National Level SchH 3 dog) that appear sluggish at a National Event.
TD held the dog's leash from behind a fence, Hander called the dog.
Dog was fried with an e-collar, when crying in pain the leash was let go.
This was done to improve his speed, if you don't go fast, you are going to get your ear wax melted.
Same thing could be applied to the send out.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Lynn_P Sure there are consequences for a motivationally trained dog when they don't comply with a command (that you know they understand) given. Are you saying that the forced go-out technique is taught from the very begin of a dog's training?


That first I understand, I'm not an enemy of corrections nor compulsion given they are done in the right moment and with the right intensity, but I'm a believer that if you need to force teach something from the begginning you need a new dog or a new hobby.


----------



## Branca's Mom (Mar 26, 2003)

I have no problem with deserved corrections. But <u>training</u> the send out thru force? Yes, it works, I don't deny that but still.... I'm sorry I opened this thread. It makes me very sad.









I'm think I am going to go back to the pics and chat room now.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

While I can figure out the methods that would be used to do a forced send out (electric would seem the easiest) I've never seen the need.

I have always taught it the usual way of using drive and the dog's expectation that there is a ball. Once the behavior is met, I globalize the dog's understanding to other locations and directions. In training there is *always* a ball, and the dog comes to expect that no matter if it's a new field or not, if the dog saw me put the ball out there or not, there will be a ball, so go.

I also use a cue phrase in training right before we do a send out and the dog comes to understand this means next exercise is a send out, and the phrase alone gets the dog loading into drive to do the send out. Classic Pavlovian conditioning. And since there is down time in a trial after you finish the retrieves and wait for the dog on the long down to be picked up before you do your send out, I whisper that phrase to my dog during that down time. This prevents the dog from accidentally doing a send out, or expecting a send out, during other parts of the routine (seen that happen more than once in trial) and clearly communicates to the dog when we are going to do the send out, and preps the dog mentally (gets the dog into drive) for the send out.





> Originally Posted By: Zahnburg As for a strange field, can you tell me that if you take your dog to a field that he has never seen before and you tell him to "go-out", without showing him a ball, that he will with 100% certainty? I don't mean go half way, turn and look at you, then lope ahead, I mean "GO-OUT!"


100% certainty? No. But I don't believe there is such a thing as 100% certainty in any way, shape or form with a living creature such as a dog.

99.9% certainty, yes. And that's good enough for me. 









As I don't belong to an official club that hosts trials, all my dogs' titles are earned on strange fields. Sometimes we have had the opportunity to do a send out or two on that field before trial, sometimes not. Only once have I had a dog not go out with afterburners on full blast, and this was a dog that I knew wasn't solid in the send out in the first place but I decided to trial anyway. And she did go out after a second command. Had she been fully trained on the exercise before hand and we weren't winging it for trial, there is no doubt in my mind she'd have gone out. 

Even at the big trials where there is more money and ego involved and thus incentive to be perfect, competitors are allowed practice time on the field beforehand. If doing a send out or two on the field with a ball at the end in practice isn't enough prep for the dog to do it in the trial, IMO either the dog doesn't understand the exercise completely and hasn't had the behavior globalized enough in training, or he just had a brain fart as dogs do sometimes.


----------



## Lynn_P (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: LicanAntai
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: Lynn_P Sure there are consequences for a motivationally trained dog when they don't comply with a command (that you know they understand) given. Are you saying that the forced go-out technique is taught from the very begin of a dog's training?
> ...


I 100% agree with this statement. If I have to go to force/compulsion training from the very beginning you have to question the dog's work ethic? 

I'm working a young male now that I've had to put some compulsion into his training, but once he realized that there's no choice I easily have been able to go right back to motivationally training with him. I think, like I said previously, it really depends upon the individual dog and I personally would not enjoy training a dog that I had to use compulsion/forced training all the time.


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

The way I understand it is... 

Once you've taught the dog what the exercise is with what ever target your using motivationally.. If the dog refuses to go at some point in the training, that's when the force will come into play.. ie, teaching the dog regardless of where he is, he must go away from you and go straight, until another command is given.. Not go a few feet and turn around or veer off towards the left or right or put your nose down searching the ground.. 

I will say that Zahnburg's dog does have a beautiful send out and a nice down.. At least in the trials that I've seen them in..


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

^^ To me that is not force training. That is adding a correction/proofing phase after the initial teaching phase is done motivationally.

For reliability, some form of correction/proofing is needed with any dog, regardless of the exercise. Though the better the initial motivational teaching is done, the less correction will be needed. But making it clear to a dog that what he already knows and understands is rewarding is also not optional is very different from force training. In force training, compulsion is a major component from the very start and the initial learning is done using force, not motivation. Big difference between the two.


----------



## Lynn_P (Mar 17, 2004)

> Quote:Are you saying that the forced go-out technique is taught from the very begin of a dog's training?


That's why I wanted clarification of this question for the sake of discussion. I view forced training as compulsion during the training of a new exercise for the dog.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Years ago I watched more than one attempt at forced send out training. Not really enjoyable to watch , that’s for sure. Usually , I would stop watching, that is how disturbing it was. 
Some exercises you can teach using corrections from the get go. I do this with heeling and all of my dogs prance, wag their tails and are very happy about heeling. Of course, what makes the difference is my attitude and the level of enthusiasm I put into the praise. However, I might not attempt to teach some of the other exercises the same way . I always look at who the dog is , meaning what his reactions to corrections etc are, before I decide how I am going to teach something. Some dogs respond really well to light corrections and praise and do come up in drive. Others take it more “personal” and that makes it a bit more difficult. Corrections, in my opinion, are used to block the dog from slipping into avoidance. Avoidance is a little uncomfortable vs. compliance which is a great deal of fun for the dog. So, what the handler is doing makes all the difference. 
Most of the time, as was already mentioned, people have seen the results of corrections/compulsion done badly. People…being human….have a tendency to get caught up in the violence of a correction and will many times get nervous, frustrated or angry. …mostly angry. When the dog sees this behavior in the handler , it frightens them and starts to whittle away at their trust in the handler and in that training situation. Other people get too worrried or distressed and all of this the dog can feel. That is when you see the body language that says, “ I am not sure what is about to happen here” in the dog. So, if you use compulsion of any kind, you need to be in control of yourself before you try it. You have to be a very disciplined person and only show POSITIVE emotions to your dog. I have a dog named Whoopie here who was taught the retrieve with force by a man in Holland. I was at a club the other day and watched another dog he trained doing the retrieve. Both dogs look almost identical in the way they retrieve. They are very, very fast, attack the dumbbell when they get to it ,are just as fast coming back to the handler and present it perfectly. When I trialed Whoopie, most of the judges would laugh when they watched her retrieve, it was so fun to see. That trainer in Holland can be very hard on his dogs using compulsion but the difference is HIM, how well he shows no negative emotion to the dogs which makes things very clear. Emotions in the handler clouds the picture for the dog.
Like I said already, this is something that can be quite difficult for many people to accomplish when using corrections, so, most of the time, it is best to use another method that is more motivational.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Chris,

Your logic is faulty. Following your line of thought, if one were to purchase a SchH 3 dog who had been trained entirely motivationally then it would be, following your logic, impossible to ever do a forced retrieve or forced tracking or whatever, since it was not taught this way initially. I had thought that we had established a clear definition of "forced go-out" early on. I believe it was post 4. You may want to reread that and see that it never says anything as to when pressure is applied; only that the dog learns that it MUST run AWAY from the handler. Teaching the dog to run TO the ball is not the exercise, only a first step. Thus you can not "proof the exercise" after teaching this because this is not the exercise. The dog still does not understand to run AWAY. 
Anne,
That was an excellent post. It is important for the dog to know that pressure from the handler is not "personal". You are also very correct that many people have a difficult time of "disconnecting" themselves from the pressure. It can not be personal.


----------



## Lynn_P (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgA forced go out, as defined by me, (you may have a different definition) is that the dog learns that he MUST run AWAY from the handler. It does not matter so much how it is taught whether electric, with the pinch, a foot or whatever. The dog knows that he MUST run away and is not just running towards something.


So you would take, let's say for the sake of discussion, a six month old puppy and teach it to run away from the handler? Or do you wait until after the first step of teaching the dog to run to a target.


----------



## Elaine (Sep 10, 2006)

Who says you can't proof this exercise without having force? What a crock! I do both AKC and SchH and understand the send out for both sports. I do not teach this exercise as running away from me, how stupid. You teach this as running toward his ball usually with a marker that gets smaller and smaller. When he doesn't go or doesn't go straight he doesn't get the ball and that about kills him. You do proof this by putting out distractions like more people standing around and do this in different places. 

If you can't train your dog this way, you blew your foundation work and need to start over.

For dogs that don't have high ball drive, this can be taught with force and I have done it and would rather not ever do it again. I have moved on to a high drive dog and it's much more fun and reliable with him.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgChris,
> 
> Your logic is faulty. Following your line of thought, if one were to purchase a SchH 3 dog who had been trained entirely motivationally then it would be, following your logic, impossible to ever do a forced retrieve or forced tracking or whatever, since it was not taught this way initially.


I don't follow. No where did I say one can't go back and retrain an exercise a different way. That is a totally different topic.

You asked how people trained the send out and if people did or did not use or advocate a forced send out.

The very concept of force training is compulsion from the start. Maybe there is a vocabulary conflict here, but this is my understanding of forced training and the one shared by pretty much everyone I've ever talked to. It is different from using force/corrections/compulsion/whatever later on when polishing an exercise.

If you think my logic is faulty, so be it. I merely answered your question. If you don't agree, that's fine. I am far from the most experienced SchH person out there. I've only titled 5 HOT dogs. What I posted is what has worked for me. I have gotten reliable send outs using no force, 99.9% motivation, lots of globalization, and very minimal correction/proofing. It's worked for me thus far and unless I come upon a dog where it doesn't work, I'll just keep training the send out this way.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Zahnburg the dog learns that it MUST run AWAY from the handler. Teaching the dog to run TO the ball is not the exercise, only a first step. Thus you can not "proof the exercise" after teaching this because this is not the exercise. The dog still does not understand to run AWAY.


I'm a total noob, training my first dog to do his send out (have just dabbled with it at club and a few other spacious areas) and I am wondering if it's really necessary for the dog to understand he is going away from the handler rather than to the target? There are some things I train my dog on the field that also have some practical application at home or in some other context, so I want the dog to really understand what it is we are doing and not just do a behavior in a flashy way to get points for being "correct", but this exercise always has me wondering....why would I ever send my dog away from me without sending him to something else?


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

> Quote:I have seen it done on a recall (National Level SchH 3 dog) that appear sluggish at a National Event.
> TD held the dog's leash from behind a fence, Hander called the dog.
> Dog was fried with an e-collar, when crying in pain the leash was let go.
> This was done to improve his speed, if you don't go fast, you are going to get your ear wax melted.
> Same thing could be applied to the send out.


All for the sake of bragging rights for a HUMAN.

Makes me want to vomit.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgThe dog knows that he MUST run away and is not just running towards something.


And why would you teach it THAT way instead of the 'run TOWARDS something' way?

What does forcing the dog to avoid you (with SPEED) get you that the other doesn't?




> Quote:Any opinions?


Yeah, it's a stupid way to teach a simple exercise.


----------



## Elaine (Sep 10, 2006)

Is there a point to this discussion? Is the OP trying to justify a forced retrieve by saying it gets better results than by teaching it motivationally? It doesn't even sound like the OP even understands what a motivational send out is, much less ever trained one.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The Gang
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: ZahnburgThe dog knows that he MUST run away and is not just running towards something.
> ...


This is what I don't understand.

While I understand the basic philosophical difference between teaching it to go toward something (that isn't there sometimes) vs go away from the handler (which is always there), I don't understand why it makes one ounce of difference in terms of performance on a SchH field.

I also agree with Lies that there are many practical applications to other exercises where having the dog understand such a difference in semantics may be important. But I've not yet come up with a practical application for the send out or any other situation where the dog understanding the difference between away and towards is of any importance.

Now, maybe if I were a dog handler back in WW2 using my GSDs to run communication wire, the dog running straight away from me, not to a target, and continuing to run until something stops him might be handy. But I'm not, so running towards something works just fine for my purposes.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

For me the platz has the most practical application of ANY exercise in ANY venue I've done, but that is almost a separate exercise. My dog is just starting his send out but will already platz from a distance when I say so, so the sending out part of the exercise is where I don't see the practical use.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Heel, sit, down, long down, auto sit at halt, recall, out of motions, scaling obstacles, retrieving (if the dog is taught to retrieve things other than just DBs)... all have practical uses in everyday life. The send out is really the only obedience exercise where I personally see no practical use. The down at the end, akin to an emergency down, absolutely. But I've not found one for the go out portion, thus see no reason to care how the dog views the exercise so long as he does it reliably come trial day. I'd be curious if anyone has any examples of practical use for that exercise.


----------



## Elaine (Sep 10, 2006)

I suspect it started as a form of directional blind retrieve.


----------



## Deejays_Owner (Oct 5, 2005)

My thinking was it's roots came from the the call off of a long bite, like in the French Ring.








Now in the AKC it's just a control exercise, send the dog between 2 jumps and have him sit on Command beyond.
Then recall over the jump that the Judge orders.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I was told by an old German that the idea of the send out was based in training of military dogs in the World Wars, sending them to run communication wire (as I mentioned above) and also sending them out to look for wounded soldiers.

So no one really even knows where the exercise came about. Though in all the ideas hypothesized thus far, in every case the dog would be going towards some target, not just away from the handler.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

It could have also been associated with herding. There are commands in herding where the dog must move away from the flock and also move out and go around the flock. 
Who cares?.... just not something I would use compulsion to teach....a little too difficult...for me anyway.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Chris,
Retraining an exercise is basically what we are talking about. The same way you can retrain a dog that you have bought. This is a scheduled and planned retraining. It is not "polishing" the exercise just because it is done later on; you are fundementally changing the nature of the exercise for the dog. 
Can 100% (or nearly 100%) motivational work acheive excellent results in this exercise? Absolutely! However, there is something to be said for being able to step onto any field, tell the dog "Voraus" and know that he will run away from you in any direction you point with no expectation of finding a ball. 

Elaine,
The point of this discussion was to spark a lively exchange of ideas regarding training. I must say that I do believe I have accomplished that quite well. I will not suggest that a forced anything (retrieve, go-out, track) is fundementally superior to one acheived purely motivationally. However, I think that this discussion has, hopefully, shown that there are MANY ways to train an exercise. Additionally, to put your worried mind at ease, I have trained dogs motivationally for this exercise.


----------



## Lynn_P (Mar 17, 2004)

And a good discussion it was. I love discussing the different opinions and technqiues in training. There's no ONE right way, that's for sure.


----------



## jesusica (Jan 13, 2006)

Ooooh force is a buzz word. This will be a FUN read when I get home!


----------



## Deejays_Owner (Oct 5, 2005)

You did GOOD Mr. Taliban


----------



## Lynn_P (Mar 17, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: Deejays_OwnerYou did GOOD Mr. Taliban


LOL...


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

There is so much important information in Anne's first post about the dog trained in Holland. Training and trust are foundational, training and emotions are disaster. To me it is abusive to make a dog ride a persons emtional changes in training. There are many different ways to train a dog. They all work when in competent hands. They all have messed up dogs when in incompetent hands. I have seen people use motivational methods that I would consider abusive to the dog because they are not effective, repetitive to point of boring and dog not focusing, they don't convey clearly to dog what is desired of dog, and many other reasons. These sessions aren't fun for dogs just because the method is motivational. I have seen stronger methods used by good trainers, dogs become good in short time, and the handler and dog have a long lasting satisfying bond when doing these tasks because the dog does them well the trainer is pleased and the bond gets stronger. What I am saying is that the method isn't as important as the "person" implementing the method, and the appropriateness of the method to the dog. JMO


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Upon first reading Lauri's post I did not pay much attention to it, however, after thinking about it I believe it is an excellent post that warrents closer examination and discussion.
In her post Lauri opines that a forced go-out is "a stupid way to train a simple exercise." She then goes on to question what kind of advantage a forced go-out would have over a motivational one. 
First I must question the simplicity of this exercise. I have seen, on myriad occasions, routines that were excellent with the exception of a poor or incorrect go-out, even at the highest levels. 
There are several common problems in this exercise. The first is the dog who requires extra commands to down, this is also the dog that will begin searching for the ball at the end of the field. The second is the dog that goes out a short distance then downs before the command is given. The third is the dog who goes out slowly, perhaps stops at some point, but in either case shows a lack of enthusiasm.
I believe that upon examination of each of these scenarios individually and collectively, we can begin to answer Lauri's question. 
Let's take a look at the first scenario, the dog who requires extra commands to down and perhaps searches at the end of the field. This is a dog that almost surely has a motivational send-out, and a good one. He is certain that his ball is at the end of the field, this is the reason he will search when he gets to the end. Now why will he not down immediately? I believe the answer to that is two-fold. To begin with, to this dog the down equates the end of the fun; he is after something and enjoys chasing it. You might compare it to the difficulty one may have in calling a dog off from chasing a prey animal. Secondly, in a dog showing a strong, fast motivational send-away it is nearly certain that the trainer does very few downs in training. Why is that? Because if a trainer makes a great deal of pressure to make quick, reliable downs, the dog is less prone to run out fast.
This brings us to the second scenario, the dog that runs out a short distance and then downs without command. This is a motivationaly trained (for this exercise anyhow) dog who has recieved pressure to make the down command quick and reliable. He is much more concerned with the pressure of the down than he is with any reward he believes will be waiting for him at the end of the field. 
The third is the slow, or unenthusiatic dog. Now there are two likely reasons for this. Either this dog is concerned about the pressure from the down as well or he is not completly convinced that his ball is waiting at the end of the field. Either way produces the same picture. 
Now we can look at a dog that has a forced go-out. Let us see how he compares to the dog in scenario 1. A dog with a forced go-out is more likely to down immediately for several reasons. First the dog does not equate the down with an end to the fun, but rather as an end to pressure and stress. Secondly, the forced dog has no dillusions of finding a ball at the end, thus he will not continue to run/search for something that he knows is not there. Third, a forced go-out allows a trainer to practice a down at the end of the exercise on a regular basis as the trainer is not relying solely on the dog wanting to run out quickly, the dog knows he must run out quickly. 
Now we can compare the forced dog to the dog in the second scenario, the one that downs prematurely because he is concerned with pressure from the down command. With a forced dog the down represents the end of stress, thus he is much more concerned with running out than he is with what will happen at the end of the field. After all, there are only two possibilities at the end of the field, either he is downed, and the pressure ends or there is a ball, and the pressure ends. 
And the final scenario, the dog that shows a lack of speed and enthusiasm. If the lack of speed is due to pressure from the down then the same principles as scenario 2 apply, the down represents the end of stress, not the beginning. If the lack of speed is caused by the dog not believing that the ball is at the end of the field, then we can expect the forced dog not to have this problem either, as he is not running to the ball, but rather away from his handler who certainly is there and still has two feet!
I am always thinking about training and ways to train better, please show the flaws in my thinking. I am not opposed to any method of training so long as it results in the correct behavior.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Zahnburg I am not opposed to any method of training so long as it results in the correct behavior.


I am.
If the method involves unnecessary pain and/or stress to the animal for something that is, after all only a sport, then I'm opposed.

If the same method is used in a SAR dog to preserve the safety and life of the dog or the victim, I'm open to discuss the idea only if there are no better methods at hand.

But in SchH I don't risk the trust my dog has on me nor my relationship with him for a point or two. Probably I'll never be as good as you.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

I guess I could argue that if the dog is showing the correct behavior, the training, no matter what the method, did not apply too much stress or pain. If it did, you would not see the correct behavior.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

.....and......I will add this. I have seen people who train with all "motivation" stress their dogs way more than I would using a pinch collar and corrections. It goes back to what I said earlier and what Cliff said. 
I'm sorry people view SchH as "only a sport" nowadays. That is just sad...to me anyway.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Anne,

You are not arguing with me, I agree.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

No I am talking to ...I mean Catu. Got my names mixed up. lol. I'm arguing with anyone with a different opinion, how's that? hehehe


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

I'm not opposed to corrections, I'm not opposed to use pressure and everybody knows I'm not a "positive only" trainer. I agree with most of Art post and wouldn't doubt in using pressure to correct an exercise, voraus included. I only do not agree with the last phrase I quoted, to me, the end doesn't justify the means.

But you are very, very right and I had not seen it that way... if the dog is showing the correct behavior, with the correct attitude, then the stress was according to what that particular dog could stand in that situation.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: VandalI have seen people who train with all "motivation" stress their dogs way more than I would using a pinch collar and corrections.


I've seen this too, some of the most "checked out", stressed, confused looking dogs I've seen in competition were trained this way. I see it all the time since I do so many other events where "positive only" is so often being championed. Usually the problems are that the dog was not ready, the owner is nervous/anxious and was giving the dog totally different signals during competition, and/or the owner never really found out what motivated the dog in the first place (like they used food and the dog learned the commands but not with any sort of enthusiasm or desire to push the owner).


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

I am just curious if Lauri sees a different perspective now or if she still believes it is a stupid methodology. Believe me, I have no problems with people calling me or my methods stupid, so long as they can tell me why. I have been called much worse by some very good trainers. One of whom, I guess you could say I apprenticed under, called me stupid or some derivitive there of, just about everytime I trained with him. It just made those rare occassions when he said "Good job" that much more meaningful.








So if you still believe it is a stupid methodology please tell me why, and this applies to anybody else who was/is of the same opinion. I have thick skin.


----------



## Lynn_P (Mar 17, 2004)

> Quote: I have thick skin.


_*LOL.. I'm not going there Art.. I've had too many rum and diet cokes this evening.. Hugs... see you on Sunday!*_


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

See you Sunday. Behave yourself!


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgI am just curious if Lauri sees a different perspective now or if she still believes it is a stupid methodology. Believe me, I have no problems with people calling me or my methods stupid, so long as they can tell me why. I have been called much worse by some very good trainers. One of whom, I guess you could say I apprenticed under, called me stupid or some derivitive there of, just about everytime I trained with him. It just made those rare occassions when he said "Good job" that much more meaningful.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you mean using compulsion in general, or using it as the *only* means of training the send out?


----------



## Northern GSDs (Oct 30, 2008)

So how about a dog that has been trained motivationally but one who learns that when the down command is given that means that the reward is coming from the handler rather than from the end of the field somewhere or maybe the release is given for the down to continue to end to find a reward and therefore the exercise is actually not quite over just yet but maybe it will continue







Takes care of many of the possible problem scenarios that could occur in a motivationally trained send out. There are so many ways to train any one element but I also think that one must try to think like a dog (cause and effect; black and white). 

I'm now, however very very curious as to how you train your send out as a forced exercise...care to share your technique and share with me some of the specific steps? 

I'm always open to hearing new methods - not only can we perhaps modify them to best suit a particular dog (as we all know one method may not work well for one dog or handler but it may work great for another). Perhaps what I am imaging as the forced technique that you use is not what you actually do, so I would be very interested to hear of some of the specifics of your method broken down into training steps. 

Cheers!


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

That post referred to the use of compulsion for the go-out. Not that it is the "only" way to train it but a way that has merit and deserves consideration when training this exercise.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

@ Nicole,
Yes, that is a correct way of thinking. Down=reward from handler. But still you must worry about the dog running away quickly if he starts thinking "well maybe my handler has the reward." This, to me, depends on a very big game of balance, where the dog needs to think equally that the reward is at the end and the reward is with my handler. If the balance tips a little too far either way you run into problems. When balanced correctly it works very well. When it is not you run into problems. 
I do not like giving training specifics over the internet because it is very difficult to explain to the extent required, and there is too much room for assumptions on the part of all parties. But the important idea that the dog needs to learn is that when given the command to "go-out" it is dangerous to be next to the handler and safety is at the end of the field (straight down the field). It is also important when starting that the dog understands pressure. This makes it much easier for both dog and trainer. For me, the dog understands pressure from the retrieves and so the go-out is a natural extension.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

@ Nicole,
Also, I vehemently dislike the dog being released from the down at a distance. If the dog is downed the handler must go to the dog make "sit" then reward. Trust me.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote:This makes it much easier for both dog and trainer. For me, the dog understands pressure from the retrieves and so the go-out is a natural extension.


That's why training them both in the same session can be very effective, where the send out becomes a "release".


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: [email protected] Nicole,
> Yes, that is a correct way of thinking. Down=reward from handler. But still you must worry about the dog running away quickly if he starts thinking "well maybe my handler has the reward."


What I've seen done (but not done myself) is to theach the senf out very much as a blind. The dog learn that there is a target, but the eward is for running towards the target, around it, and then come back to the handler. That way the dog learns "if I run fast, I can be back fast and get my ball". 

I liked the result when I saw it taught that way, and would like to give it a try with my next dog.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Anne,
You know exactly where I am coming from. This is the beauty of the schutzhund routine. Pressure is made for the retrieves, so already the dog is happy to be going away from you. You make additional pressure for the go-out, and the only thought in the dog's head is the faster and farther I go the faster and farther I leave the pressure behind. Then the dog gets a ball at the end of the go-out and gets to play with his handler and thinks "wow, I got a ball, let's do this again tomorrow." Somehow they seem to forget very quickly everything involved in getting to the ball.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

@ Lican,

I have also seen this done. I do not like it though, I do not want my dog ever thinking about coming back to me in this exercise, it is only away from me. Not that it can not be done this way, I just do not like it.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote:Somehow they seem to forget very quickly everything involved in getting to the ball.


I hate picking out a sentence because I think you don't mean that exactly like you said it. Anyway, IMO, when you teach a dog using a bit of pressure or stress, you open the dog up. Meaning, all of his senses wake up and start recording, for the lack of a better term. The beauty of teaching things this way is how well they REMEMBER it. Not remember like most people think of memory but how well they retain the attitude. I am having a real hard time putting what I mean in words here but I think you might know what I am saying. Once I push send, I will think of a better way to say it. So.........


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

> Quote:The first is the dog who requires extra commands to down, this is also the dog that will begin searching for the ball at the end of the field.


The send out and down are two separate "exercises". Just like the down in motion with recall consists of heeling, down, recall, front, and finish. They may be put together to make the one part of the performance, but they are not taught together (at least not by me). I have taught a fast send out with down never downing the dog until trial day and received full points. So for this scenario a forced go-out still would serve no purpose, IMO.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Just to clarify, I am not talking about teaching a dog the send out starting with force. I am not that talented of a trainer to be able to do that.....I would not even know how actually and I have not given it lots of thought. I am talking teaching the dog the send out is a release from stress or pressure and that pressure is not from the training of the send out. It is from the FR.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Anne,
I think I do know what you are saying, and the way I worded it is not exactly correct. I do not mean "forget" so much as I mean "relieve" the pressure, where they are willing to do it again. Still not exactly what I mean, but I think it is closer. And what you are saying is exactly why I like to use compulsion to teach certain exercises, because what they learn by compulsion is what they always revert back to.


----------



## Sarah'sSita (Oct 27, 2001)

Thats kind a what schH is: Pressure on: Pressure off. Pack drive: fight drive: to pack drive, etc. I watched a Helmut Raiser video on describing the different drives and how they are developed and challenged in schutzhund- this is the true purpose of SCH in my opinion is testing the character of the dogs in all those drive states and under pressure.

I see the send out as prey drive (driving for the toy capped of by "pack drive" of the YOU MUST PLATZ. 
So far I have taught the "platz" separately and only once in while add to the Voraus. My guess with any form of training the message has to be CLEAR for the dog based on your working relationship with your dog. If I were to embark on such a method (I doubt I really would) I would have to really have a plan and there seems to be great room for horrific error for the novice (I am a novice). It seems with compulsion a dog must know how to turn off the pressure. I wouldn't know how to show the dog that he has control of the pressure in the send-out - by having go to the target and then feel the release of pressure would be my guess as Zahnburg stated. However, I can't imagine what the dog's frame of mind is except avoiding the painful stimulus versus the frame of mind of "I am gonna bust my [censored] for my toy". Heck if my dog didn't have toy/ball drive I may have to try food. No motivation beyond that its either compulsion or the couch.

I have also seen people have their dog set up for the voraus and the dog has been given a verbal cue so he knows what coming. The handler would the sit the dog and have someone grasp the collar from behind (straddled). The handler would go out about 20-30 paces toward the target and on command "voraus" the dog gets held back momentarily then rockets while the handler also sprints to the toy; as if competing with the dog to get their first. To build drive for toy and speed. Interesting. 

If I, as my dog's handler and trainer are inconsistent and not clear by whatever method I use, an inconsistent exercise will result. If I use tremndous pressure (based on my relationship with my dog) on an exercise as in the retrieves in the case of my dog, the REWARD needs to balance it out. I often see people give their dogs skimpy rewards for a terrific effort. I can see that the go out can definitely be that release from stress. I am getting to a point with my dog that he will build in drive from the pressure during obedience. The retrieves, due to my training error, have become a source of great stress for him: the release of the voraus is evident, He goes out kinda crooked though but fast. Ain't training fun! 

PS I am a novice. The more I know the more I don't know. Wait I don't know a thing but I love this discussion!


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

The send-out can be started with force, but it does not make sense to do so. Not like a retrieve where the dog has no idea why he is being choked but quickly learns that he needs to hold the dumbell (or pipe, dowel, etc.) I think that for the send-out the dog needs some idea of what he is doing which is taught early on with the conventional "target" method. After he has an idea of what he should do, pressure can be added rather quickly as it is simply a continuation of pressure from the retrieve. As the dog begins to better understand a forced retrieve he also begins to better understand the send-out. It is kind of complicated to put into words.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

@ Lisa,

"I have taught a fast send out with down never downing the dog until trial day and received full points." Lisa

Congrats. What happened for the 2? the 3? the 10th 3? It worked once, but I can not envision it lasting through a dog's career where he is never downed in training yet does so flawlessly at trial. Dogs show what we train them at trials, if you do not train the dog to down, sooner or later he WILL show it.


----------



## Sarah'sSita (Oct 27, 2001)

Oh I forgot to add - this exercise is probably the most difficult of all the exercises. 10 friggin points!!! Knock a team right down. I don't know if it has any utilitarian purpose except to see a dog functioning in several drive states in one exercise. The second reason for the exercise is to keep the handler humble.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote: I watched a Helmut Raiser video on describing the different drives and how they are developed and challenged in schutzhund- this is the true purpose of SCH in my opinion is testing the character of the dogs in all those drive states and under pressure


Years ago, the two people I trained with went over and trained with Helmut. When they came back, my friend told me about how Helmut talked about pressure and release in obedience where the recalls etc were the release from pressure . I still remember sitting there thinking...Huh?







lol. 
Took a while for the idea to sink in but by now, I understand it pretty well and not just for obedience. Still, it all goes back to who it is that is trying to train this way. You have to be a cool customer to pull off this kind of training. 
Also, it seems that compulsion puts a really negative picture in many people's heads. It really is not what most people envision.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

I think there was a discussion earlier on this thread of how the go-out originated. I believe Sarah has the correct answer: "To keep the handlers humble". Wait I thought that was the purpose of the entire routine??


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Anne,
I trained with a guy, (fairly well known National/International competitor) who would use recalls to relieve the stress from tracking.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Back @ Lisa,

Sorry, I don't know how to edit my previous post yet. Anyhow, I would be interested in knowing the reason WHY you never downed your dog in training. If it was out of concern of slowing the dog down, or even stopping the dog, I believe you have proven my point. 
It just seems somewhat odd to me to go to trial without ever having trained your dog to do a 10 point exercise.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgThe send-out can be started with force, but it does not make sense to do so. Not like a retrieve where the dog has no idea why he is being choked but quickly learns that he needs to hold the dumbell (or pipe, dowel, etc.) I think that for the send-out the dog needs some idea of what he is doing which is taught early on with the conventional "target" method. After he has an idea of what he should do, pressure can be added rather quickly as it is simply a continuation of pressure from the retrieve. As the dog begins to better understand a forced retrieve he also begins to better understand the send-out. It is kind of complicated to put into words.


If you had said this, you'd had avoided a lot of random discussion of why somebody wants to TEACH the send-out with force.









But no discussion is pointless.


----------



## Branca's Mom (Mar 26, 2003)

When you speak of pressure you mean pain? or perhaps you would rather say uncomfortableness? And a relieving of the pressure means release from the pain? 

When I was young and competing in sports, I pushed myself, yes, pushed myself thru the pain. And often there was pain. The difference in my mind is I pushed myself. I had the choice of quitting at anytime. Perhaps you will say that the dog can quit. I don't know many trainers who have spent a great deal of time putting in the training then be willing to give up if the dog wants to quit. 

I also don't know many trainers, actually I don't know if I ever met one who is a machine and doesn't bring their emotions to training. I've not met many (any?) trainers who have not EVER lost their temper, at least just a little, during training. Once pain is introduced into training, I don't like what door that leaves opens. 

Yes, dogs trained motivationally can be confused and stressed animals. But they don't have to be. Just like I compulsion trained animals don't have to slink around the field in fear of their handlers. 

The problem, other than my general dislike of any human having the power to inflict intentional pain on another being, is that most trainers are simply not skilled enough or calm and cool enough, to inflict the absolute minimum amount of pain necessary to get the job done.

Perhaps I am a hypocrite







as I will do physical corrections. But this is what I am comfortable with. I just can not "teach" with pain, no matter how slight, that is the line in my own mind that I can't get past. 

Everyone comes to the table with life experiences. Mine include having to witness some things no human being should have to witness. I won't describe it but whatever you could imagine, I assure you it is worse. It changed me somehow, killed off a piece of my soul. Now the thought of someone purposely causing pain to someone for the sake of sport, or any reason at all really, since some don't think of SchH as a sport, turns my stomach into knots. This is my personal feelings and no one will ever be able to change that. For some people, this is not their life experience and perhaps they can look at this more objectively.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

> Originally Posted By: [email protected] Lisa,
> 
> Congrats. What happened for the 2? the 3? the 10th 3? It worked once, but I can not envision it lasting through a dog's career where he is never downed in training yet does so flawlessly at trial. Dogs show what we train them at trials, if you do not train the dog to down, sooner or later he WILL show it.


With this dog she did it twice. The second time after not even training OB for over a year. She knew down meant down no matter what. Yes, dogs show what we train them to do. The fast send out and then a down. Two pieces that can be taught separately and then put together for a trial. That was my point. 

I have read about teaching send outs entirely with compulsion using an e-collar. In both methods, though, the dog is running to something and NOT running away from their handler. I can not see why anyone would want to teach their dog to run away from them. 

BTW, like Anne, I have no issues with using compulsion in training, but this is not a place where I see any purpose.

The reason why the above mentioned dog didn't trial more was because we had issues in protection, but that is a whole other discussion.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

> Quote:Anyhow, I would be interested in knowing the reason WHY you never downed your dog in training.


To answer your other question first, no, I have never worried about slowing the dog down by doing the down during the send out. That can happen during the training process, but not in the finished product.

I had an extremely reliable random down on this dog. She was young at the time and I decided to do her 1 and had yet to teach the send out. I had two weeks. Since that is a very short period of time to complete the entire process I decided to trust her very solid random downs. It worked and she was actully the only dog that did down that day. It also held up in training for years (I would throw it in on occasion) and then when I decided to do the OB1 on her after over a year of not really training any obedience at all.

The solid down was an extension of the training we did when I introduced her to the e-collar. I could down her when she was in full puruit of a toy so I knew she would be reliable in the trial. Down meant down.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Tammy, pressure does not have to mean pain. Whenever a dog (or human for that matter) is confused there is pressure that causes stress. Compulsion when done correctly can actually cause less stress because there is less confusion on the dog's part. It is much more black and white. Motivational training, which does NOT always mean purely positive, can at times have many grey areas that confuse the dog and thus cause stress. This stress can show up in many subtle ways that are far easier to ignore or rationalize away, but still there.


----------



## Branca's Mom (Mar 26, 2003)

But, in this thread and in training - forced/pressure = pain? Perhaps I am not understanding? 

I think like Anne or someone said, I have a preconceived notion of compulsion and it is unpleasant notion. Perhaps I have never seen it done correctly and without emotion? 

I do understand that motivational training can bring on stress/unpleasantness. I too have seen that and it is not a fun thing to watch. 

I can LOGICALLY understand that done correctly, compulsion/force training can be less stressful than badly done motivational training, but for me personally, I just don't think I can get past my own experiences in life to see this objectively.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote:I also don't know many trainers, actually I don't know if I ever met one who is a machine and doesn't bring their emotions to training. I've not met many (any?) trainers who have not EVER lost their temper, at least just a little, during training. Once pain is introduced into training, I don't like what door that leaves opens


I know exactly what you are saying. That goes back to what I said earlier where people get caught up in the violence of giving a correction and then get angry. However, even if you are not applying corrections, anger in the handler frightens the dog and causes stress. Even if you train motivationally, anger in training is about the harshest thing you can do to an animal. I am not saying I have never lost my temper either. One thing I have said to the people who know me is that the one thing I have changed the most in the way I train dogs is ME. The dogs have made me a better, more mature person and taught me how to control myself. I started when I was quite young and I did not always handle myself the way I should with my dogs, just like your example there with all the people you know. Maybe the difference between me and those people is that I recognized that what I was doing was probably the worst mistake you can make when you train dogs.

Since being a dog trainer means you have to be really good at reading the people as well as the dogs, I can say this about what I have noticed in people. The ones who really understand what they are doing and have taken the time to try to learn how to teach an exercise all the way through before they try to teach the dog, are far less likely to get angry. Anger comes from frustration :

*Frustration: a common emotional response to opposition. Related to anger and disappointment, it arises from the perceived resistance to the fulfillment of individual will.*

People want the dog to do something yet do not fully understand how to teach it, resulting in frustration that leads quickly to anger. They take what the dog is doing in response to their inadequate attempts to communicate with him, too personal. 
I understand this part of the equation better than anything else because along with all the dogs I have trained, came the people who handle them. You can tell yourself all you want that you are training dogs but mostly, you are teaching the people. 

So, I guess my point here is, the more you help people to understand training, the less likely dogs will be abused. That is one reason I never have a problem helping people with advice because I understand how much that helps the dogs. Just telling people not to get angry is not enough, you have to teach them how to communicate with their dogs.
There are people who really believe that dogs understand WHY they are angry. No, they do not, they just know that you ARE angry and that triggers avoidance behavior in the dog. Then you are there fighting against a natural instinct in the dog while you try to teach him to do what you ask. Pretty stupid actually. Ask yourself how well you listen when you are frightened half out of your mind. 
Like everything , people have to recognize their own limitations before they try to impose themselves on animals and others. It requires a level of maturity to achieve.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote:I can LOGICALLY understand that done correctly, compulsion/force training can be less stressful than badly done motivational training, but for me personally, I just don't think I can get past my own experiences in life to see this objectively.


Then you are a person who understands her own limitations, which, like I said before, is what most people should be able to do before they try to train an animal.

Also, any type of emotion in the handler the dogs feel. I think people do not fully understand that either. GSDs in particular are very sensitive to their handler’s moods. So, even if it is not anger but maybe anxiety, you are causing a disturbance for your dog. You have to be comfortable and in command of your own emotions if you want to get the best results with your dog. If you can’t do that when you use a certain method, it is best not to go there.

Compulsion= corrections. If you use corrections, you are using compulsion. Most people who have this really negative picture, have seen compulsion done really wrong. Where more force than was necessary was used and the dog was not shown clearly how to get out of the stress. Then you start to see a dog who looks like he is fighting for his life and in reality, that is what he thinks he is doing. That is abuse.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Anne, all the years we have talked and all of the posts you have written, I have to say this is one of it not the best!!

To add, I was responding to your last post since we must have been posting at the same time.


----------



## Northern GSDs (Oct 30, 2008)

> Quote: The ones who really understand what they are doing and have taken the time to try to learn how to teach an exercise all the way through before they try to teach the dog, are far less likely to get angry. Anger comes from frustration


Well said











> Quote:Where more force than was necessary was used and the dog was not shown clearly how to get out of the stress.


Now combining the two above elements together...this is why overall I think compulsion type training is often done poorly. It takes a skilled handler and one who is in tune with his or her particular dog to be able to apply compulsion training methods correctly. 



> Quote:Then you start to see a dog who looks like he is fighting for his life and in reality, that is what he thinks he is doing.


And this was exactly what I was saying as to why we often end up seeing in a dog that has been taught an exercise through poor compulsion training methods - to me, it is not a pretty picture and illustrates the type of relationship between dog and handler that I don't like to see.

Dog training is truly an art and a science to me and one that requires critical thinking on the part of the handler. Any one method is not the end-all or completely correct or incorrect one to use - it is how it is applied and how well we understand and can implement it's correct use and context specific application that really counts at the end of the day. 

I know there have been instances whereby I have been guilty of not using them correctly, either due not correctly reading my dog and/or letting my emotional side get the best of me








So on that note, I am curious as to how many people think that overall compulsion methods are used correctly by most handlers or not? Or maybe that is a whole other topic for discussion!


----------



## Northern GSDs (Oct 30, 2008)

> Quote:The send-out can be started with force, but it does not make sense to do so...I think that for the send-out the dog needs some idea of what he is doing which is taught early on with the conventional "target" method.


OK - so now THIS was was I was getting at. With your introductory post, I took it that you were implying a whole different thing (teaching through force immediately). I see this as fine tuning or refining, not _teaching the send out purely through the use of compusion/force_.


----------



## Branca's Mom (Mar 26, 2003)

I first watched SchH training in the early 90's in Europe. I went to some of the big trials became interested in SchH so started visiting some clubs as an observer. I didn't understand the language so what I learned was thru watching only. When you don't understand a language, your other senses become more acute. What I saw there was some? lots? of compulsion based training but (mostly) done with great deal of finesse so that the stress was minimal to the dogs. I was lucky to get to watch the guy that had Blacky (Neuen-something) and a few other really good dogs and even though I didn't really understand what I was seeing, I can't remember seeing overly stressed dogs for the most part and I think that even then I would have been able to pick up on a truly stressed dog. So perhaps if I think back <u>to that time</u>, I can understand more clearly where this training has a place. Unfortunately, later in that decade, I became so traumatized to any form of violence -nothing to do with dog training- that my vision of things changed dramatically. Perhaps I lean so heavily against any form of pain or violence now that I am not able to see clearly anymore.

I still love watching SchH trials but have only trained in AKC obedience in the past few years. Due to this lower level of stimulation, I don't have to use physical corrections, almost all needed corrections are verbal. This is my personal limit now. 

Very recently, I was on the phone and was very frustrated by the person that I was speaking to. Even though I did not raise my voice *AT ALL*, both of my dogs got worried looks on their faces and actually got up and went to the bedroom and Branca stood at the door and looked out at me. Even though it was not directed at them in any way, there is no doubt in my mind that they were feeding off my feelings. I feel badly about that now and should have walked outside so they didn't have to deal with that. 

I want to ask a question to anyone who can help me out here.... I normally am really laid back when it comes to training, I hardly ever get frustrated and can't remember more than once or twice actually getting angry and that had to do with the person I was training with rather that directed at my dog. However, when I HAVE found myself getting frustrated, I have put my dog in a down and walked away while I thought about what I was doing. I would come back, play a little then gone back to training. A couple of times if I really am feeling beyond getting a handle on myself I just simply stop altogether. I have been told by someone much more experienced than myself never to do that, but for me, I felt like it was the right thing to do. So, I do know that it is confusing to the dog but is this the right thing to do? And if not, what is the correct way of handling things when you feel yourself getting frustrated?


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

To be a successful "trainer" with dogs you have to be able to "read" dogs to know which recipe brings the best result. I have seen handlers in clubs and police academies that produced a nice finished product because they stuck with the program and the head trainers provided the "reading". Many of these people couldn't read a dog but did a good job of handling and following direction. The problem is that many of these people because of their handling skills believe they can "train" dogs. I say this because when you see people locked into specific ways to achieve something, regardless of the composition of the dogs mental makeup, then it tells me somrthing. There are still aspects of Koehler method of training that I use for some dogs because they do better with it. A ggod trainer will apply the methodology in their bag that will best fit the type of dog before them.JMO


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgI am just curious if Lauri sees a different perspective now or if she still believes it is a stupid methodology.


Sorry - I missed this so I'm late getting back here.

Yes, I STILL see it as a 'stupid' method (note - the method is stupid, not the user







).

I've witnessed too much abuse (some first hand) all for the sake of a dog doing better at some sport the HUMAN wants to win.

I knew someone that used a hot wire to teach her dog to slouch it's back when the judge brought out the measuring wicket (agility). The owner wanted the dog to jump at the lower height and the dog was right on the line between them. If the dog didn't slouch it could have been made to jump the greater height.

All for the sake of getting better scores and winning more ribbons and bragging rights ... for the HUMAN.

One of the most disturbing things I ever heard about was in a fictional book but it was based on a real life event. A racehorse was trained to take off at the sound of a dog whistle. The trainer blew the whistle and then another person shot a flame thrower behind the horse. They kept repeating this, getting closer and closer to the horse. It was a way to produce a "natural" burst of speed and adrenaline in the horse without using drugs. Horses are terrified of fire and of course the thing bolted every time.

All for the sake of winning money ... for the HUMANS.

You haven't been here long so you probably don't know that I'm 100% in favor of finding out what the DOG wants to do, then we do that. That's how I ended up starting the first All Breed Lure Coursing club in the US. My Cocker Spaniel is crazy about the game.

Anyway - back to the forced go-out. I can't see any way to teach it that is non-punitive for the dog.



> Quote: I am not opposed to any method of training so long as it results in the correct behavior.


If I want 100% correct behavior I'll buy a robot dog. I own living, breathing, THINKING and FEELING creatures and I respect that. I refuse to use any means necessary to get something that is not an absolute must (a recall is something that I would use force *if necessary* as it could save the dogs life some day).



> Quote:I guess I could argue that if the dog is showing the correct behavior, the training, no matter what the method, did not apply too much stress or pain. If it did, you would not see the correct behavior.


Please reread my description of the horse training. These horses won their races all right. They were stressed beyond belief and terrified ... but they won.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote:
> Quote:I guess I could argue that if the dog is showing the correct behavior, the training, no matter what the method, did not apply too much stress or pain. If it did, you would not see the correct behavior.
> 
> Please reread my description of the horse training. These horses won their races all right. They were stressed beyond belief and terrified ... but they won.


Excuse me.....terrified has nothing to do with the "correct behavior" I was referring to. I did not say a word about WINNING anything, I was discussing behavior, which in my definition, would not include an animal frightened almost to death.
I am not interested in having this kind of conversation, so, this is my last comment on this thread.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Primary reason I cut back most of posts. This topic is about training and many people read it to learn about training. Dog training, not human training, or human needs and emotions transposed to dogs. Whenever working dogs are treated like people the working quality is bred out and they become like the, Oh NEVER mind...I'm like Anne this conversation is moving away from training.peace!


----------



## Branca's Mom (Mar 26, 2003)

When it comes right down to it, I should stay out of the SchH forum..... and from this point on will do so. I no longer have an interest in it other than as a spectator sport, and not even so much in that regard anymore, so my feelings and opinions on it do not matter anyway. 

I was actually hoping for an answer to my question from the more experienced SchH people but will post it on a general training thread as that is where it really belongs anyway. 

Carry On.....


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Sorry Tammy, I forgot to answer your question. IMO, your approach is correct and admirable. Many people do not have that kind of control when they start to lose it.


----------



## phgsd (Jun 6, 2004)

I have seen the sendout taught via compulsion. This was done with a showline dog who didn't have the prey/food drive to go out willingly. The owner just wanted the dog titled. 

The sendout was taught with an e-collar and a mat - dog was taught that the mat was the "safe" place when pressure was applied, then the mat was moved progressively further away. It worked well - the end result of the training was that the dog was fast and reliable. 

I have not used compulsion for the sendout (although IMO the down is separate and I have used compulsion on that). I haven't had to - my current dog has an awesome sendout, show her once or twice on a field and she'll remember it forever and goes out fast and straight. She hasn't let me down yet, everyone is always impressed. 

I hope that I don't have to train a dog that lacks the drive to do a motivational sendout, but if I HAD to do it for some reason I do not have a problem with compulsion...

If I find myself getting frustrated on the field, I will wait for a moment when the dog is doing well, reward, and then end the session. If I can I will talk to my TD (assuming he's watching) and he can tell me whatever I'm doing wrong...because in the end it is my fault that the dog isn't responding. 

If I can't recover from the mood then I will just forget training and take the dogs for a hike or something. I can only remember one time when I just couldn't get out of the funk though and it didn't have anything to do with dogs, my JRT just sensed I was in a miserable mood and wouldn't work for me.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

> Quote:I hope that I don't have to train a dog that lacks the drive to do a motivational sendout, but if I HAD to do it for some reason I do not have a problem with compulsion...


If I owned a dog that didn't have the drive to teach a reward based send out I would find a different line of work for the dog. While I have no problem with compulsion, I do have a problem using it on a dog that lacks the drives to do the work.


----------



## phgsd (Jun 6, 2004)

I was thinking more along the lines of...say you get an adult dog who'd somehow been trained horribly for the sendout and having to completely retrain, something like that. Not likely to ever get to the point where it's not fixable but I never say never...
I would not personally work a dog without the drive to do the work. But I guess to some it's a business, to the rest of it's something else. The showline dog I mentioned was being titled for a lot of $$$. To the trainer, it was just business. Do I agree with it? No, but I constantly watch and learn so I can adapt things to work if/when I ever need them.


----------



## Elaine (Sep 10, 2006)

I just helped someone retrain their seven year old dog that had been trained extremely badly on the send out - amongst other things. They had done a terrible job with an e-collar and food at the end. The poor dog had his tail tucked, belly to the ground, crept painfully slow down the field, and frequently refused to go when asked to do this exercise.

The first thing I did was take that darn collar off and retrain motivationally with a toy. This dog got his SchH 1 this fall and his send out was fast, straight, and happy. I about had tears in my eyes when I saw how well he did. The rest of his routine wasn't perfect, but he never left his handler and they actually looked like a happy working team on the field.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

In AKC the send is very short distance. I have seen compulsion done with a pulley like deal. Line is attached to the dogger then through a loop at the go out spot and back to handler. Handler backs up and dog is pulled to the go out target. Short distance of course. 

I have also seen the go-out taught as a forced retrieve in that an item to retrieve is at the target area and hidden from view. Dog is sent to retrieve and if not, forced retrieve correction applied. I oversimplified this explanation.

I imagine you could have a target box and send your dog to it and then apply correction to get into the box. I made that one up just sitting here trying to think of how it could be done.

I have never seen a long go out trained with compulsion.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: phgsdI was thinking more along the lines of...say you get an adult dog who'd somehow been trained horribly for the sendout and having to completely retrain, something like that. Not likely to ever get to the point where it's not fixable but I never say never...
> I would not personally work a dog without the drive to do the work. But I guess to some it's a business, to the rest of it's something else. The showline dog I mentioned was being titled for a lot of $$$. To the trainer, it was just business. Do I agree with it? No, but I constantly watch and learn so I can adapt things to work if/when I ever need them.


Unfortunately I think a lot, maybe most, show line dogs are trained this way. Quick methods, a lot of compulsion b/c it's fast and hey if you are being paid to train the dog (already lacking in drive and motivation) why would you spend a lot of time doing it right when the ends (title) seem to justify any means? It's the same with tracking, LOTS of compulsion. I know a guy who bought a SchH1 showline from Europe. He was telling us he took it out and setup a SchH 1 length track but didn't put down any articles. As the dog tracked, he was very obviously becoming more and more stressed. His training had simply been pressure to get his @$$ to that article and be safe there. Nothing having to do with actual tracking behaviors. Same for protection - bite that sleeve and bite it hard and you are "safe", the pressure turns off. I don't think this is *all* bad, I have used compulsion already, even to teach a new behavior quickly (down out of motion) and I know that pressure is an important part of the sport, but I think it's sad when the dog is entirely trained this way, especially when it's just for money to get a POS dog titled and not because that dog actually needs that type of pressure in training.

I personally have seen show line dogs sent off to Germany at 1 or 2 years of age, with very little training or foundation in SchH and they are "SchH1" in just a few months. Either I daresay that title was a gift, or the dog just got the crap kicked out of it nonstop until it squeaked by. Then the dogs come home and they won't even do a "sitz" without you applying some correction first or making the dog believe he better sit or he will get whooped. This is why I've sworn I will never, ever, ever send a dog away for training. If I do not have the time and patience to do it right (or at least make the effort to learn) then I might as well not have the dog.

I've seen people who have no involvement in SchH try to criticize serious sport people for being inhumane but honestly being involved in the show scene, I am appalled by the attitudes and methods I've seen from some of the show trainers. I would rather take my show dog to a working club where we are always looked down on but the people know what they are doing and the methods are appropriate for the dog then join a club with all show dogs where the dogs are either pressured or physically coerced into everything and/or the trainers and helpers spend more time trying to make it easy for their dog to title than actually training them how to title.


----------



## ShatteringGlass (Jun 1, 2006)

I do AKC, in which the rings are small so the send out is a short distance. But I have been working on the send out with directed jumping with my Dalmatian puppy and he has really responded well to a motivational send out. I started teaching him that the send out was go out to the target, then transition it to go out until I say sit. I can see obviously where corrections and pressure are needed in later aspects of the learning phase and proofing, but in initially teaching a new exercise, I always find the dog more willing to learn and perform when they are working out of drive/motivation.

Shane, 8 months, doing an AKC send out/directed jump
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsDGph2gk1g


----------

