[working-gundog] communication "over the hill" > GSP Forum

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search

Forums > Mailing Lists > working-gundog

Subject: [working-gundog] communication "over the hill"

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

cwalt

MH
Posts:180

08/12/2008 10:25 AM
Jere Murray wrote: Recently I've become interested again in Gould's "Influence Handling," or more specifically interested in whether it really does work "over the hill" and if so HOW. As I said earlier, while I'm open to well conceived unconventional explanations, I won't go there without ruling out the conventional or without solid evidence for some unconventional mechanism. ... At this point it wouldn't surprise me that one might develop this behavior well enough to accomplish the "over the hill" blind retrieve handling Gould and Tarrant talked about. This dog may be a bit old for that now and he isn't exactly well developed in that regard when he can see me though he handles pretty well when he thinks I'm really in the loop in the search for a downed bird. I wish Mike still had that dog now, or when I visited him in Idaho several years ago; or a new one. Jere ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I have read neither Gould or Tarrant so I'm not certain about their thesis. In versatile dog testing the 'over the hill' control is examined by the retrieve from the drag track. This isn't exactly a blind retrieve since the dog is allowed to use the scent trail to get to the game. Frequently they don't use the scent trace. The essence of the test is that the dog arrives at the game out of sight of the handler and has a decision to make, namely what to do with the game? Will the dog handle the game properly where the handler cannot see either the dog or the game? The answer to this question is the entire purpose of the test and the results are often very surprising in that they reveal more about the handler/dog relationship than any other possible examination. The test itself is 100% cooperation and has nothing to do with obedience or retrieving. If the dog is cooperative, and cooperation is always a reciprocal relationship that cannot be force trained, the dog will handle the game properly out of the handler's line of sight. In the case of the test this is when the dog promptly retrieves the game to the handler without hesitation, dawdling or other unusual behavior. Out of sight handling of game is always and entirely a matter of the relationship between dog and handler and has little to do with training and/or obedience. There is never any doubt about the dog's handling of the game, either fur or feather, if the pack relationship between dog and man is correct. If there is anything forced in this relationship the dog will usually exhibit this when out of the handler's line of sight. There isn't space here to discuss the dozens of different ways that the dog can show that it is not cooperating with the handler and, quite interestingly, the aberrant behavior cannot be cured by further force or obedience training. In essence over the hill 'control' is to be expected when the handler and the dog cooperate with each other, if there's no cooperation there's no 'over the hill' control in any form. Cj

jmurr

MH
Posts:158

08/12/2008 3:30 PM
I have no doubt what you say is correct, but it goes to a different phenomenon. I don't mean to imply "over-the-hill" control can be achieved without the cooperative relationship you describe. I'm sure this is necessary, but doubt it is sufficient. Being a physicist I am drawn to an attempt at understanding the mechanism by which control such as Tarrant and Gould described may be effected. What is the nature of the communication mechanism between dog and handler which makes it possible for the handler to stop a dog "over the hill" and then cast it right or left in or back by moving right or left, backwards or forward? I admit such has relatively little practical use (as the handler doesn't KNOW what the dog is doing or, more importantly, what it should do) but the claim that it can be achieved, if true, bears scrutiny. As I said earlier, I suspect the sence of hearing comes into the equation and perhaps the sense of touch. I'll try and find an appropriate passage to quote next time. Jere > Jere Murray wrote: > > Recently I've become interested again in Gould's "Influence Handling," > or more > specifically interested in whether it really does work "over the hill" > and if so > HOW. As I said earlier, while I'm open to well conceived unconventional > explanations, I won't go there without ruling out the conventional or > without solid > evidence for some unconventional mechanism. > ... > At this point it wouldn't surprise me that one might develop this > behavior well > enough to accomplish the "over the hill" blind retrieve handling Gould > and Tarrant > talked about. This dog may be a bit old for that now and he isn't > exactly well > developed in that regard when he can see me though he handles pretty > well when he thinks I'm really in the loop in the search for a > downed bird. I wish > Mike still had that dog now, or when I visited him in Idaho several > years ago; or a new one. > Jere > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I have read neither Gould or Tarrant so I'm not certain about their > thesis. In versatile dog testing the 'over the hill' control is > examined by the retrieve from the drag track. This isn't exactly a > blind retrieve since the dog is allowed to use the scent trail to get to > the game. Frequently they don't use the scent trace. The essence of > the test is that the dog arrives at the game out of sight of the handler > and has a decision to make, namely what to do with the game? Will the > dog handle the game properly where the handler cannot see either the dog > or the game? The answer to this question is the entire purpose of the > test and the results are often very surprising in that they reveal more > about the handler/dog relationship than any other possible examination. > The test itself is 100% cooperation and has nothing to do with obedience > or retrieving. If the dog is cooperative, and cooperation is always a > reciprocal relationship that cannot be force trained, the dog will > handle the game properly out of the handler's line of sight. In the > case of the test this is when the dog promptly retrieves the game to the > handler without hesitation, dawdling or other unusual behavior. > > Out of sight handling of game is always and entirely a matter of the > relationship between dog and handler and has little to do with training > and/or obedience. There is never any doubt about the dog's handling of > the game, either fur or feather, if the pack relationship between dog > and man is correct. If there is anything forced in this relationship > the dog will usually exhibit this when out of the handler's line of > sight. There isn't space here to discuss the dozens of different ways > that the dog can show that it is not cooperating with the handler and, > quite interestingly, the aberrant behavior cannot be cured by further > force or obedience training. In essence over the hill 'control' is to > be expected when the handler and the dog cooperate with each other, if > there's no cooperation there's no 'over the hill' control in any form. > Cj >

cwalt

MH
Posts:180

08/13/2008 7:56 AM
Jere Murray wrote: > Being a physicist I am drawn to an attempt at understanding the mechanism by which > control such as Tarrant and Gould described may be effected. What is the nature of > the communication mechanism between dog and handler which makes it possible for the > handler to stop a dog "over the hill" and then cast it right or left in or back by > moving right or left, backwards or forward? > Jere > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sounds like metaphysics to me if your statement is accurate. What possible mechanism could there be that would allow a dog out of the handler's sight to mimic the handler's movements? Is this a variation on the Clever Hans phenomenon? I do know that there have been problems in NSTRA with handlers using ultrasonic whistles to control their dogs while in the field so they have rules against such but I gather that that isn't the case here. Tell us some more about this, we haven't read Tarrant. Cj

jmurr

MH
Posts:158

08/13/2008 12:34 PM
Have you been speed reading again? Or has the volume of my offerings bored you? I already suggested that the dog may be discerning the handler's movements through the use of the sense of hearing and/or touch. I told of my own limited experiments while walking the dogs on noisy gravel roads. We do know the dogs' sense of hearing is EXTREMLY sensitive, do we not? Couldn't be Clever Hans effect - Clever Hans had to see the minute unconscious body language cues of the human in order that he "perform." N'est ce pas? Later, I will try and find a passage or two to quote from Tarrant and/or Gould. As I also said earlier, I don't accept the "invisible rubber band" appeal to mystisism one or both put forth in explanation. Jere > Jere Murray wrote: >> Being a physicist I am drawn to an attempt at understanding the mechanism by >> which >> control such as Tarrant and Gould described may be effected. What is the nature >> of >> the communication mechanism between dog and handler which makes it possible for >> the >> handler to stop a dog "over the hill" and then cast it right or left in or back >> by >> moving right or left, backwards or forward? >> Jere >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Sounds like metaphysics to me if your statement is accurate. What > possible mechanism could there be that would allow a dog out of the > handler's sight to mimic the handler's movements? Is this a variation > on the Clever Hans phenomenon? I do know that there have been problems > in NSTRA with handlers using ultrasonic whistles to control their dogs > while in the field so they have rules against such but I gather that > that isn't the case here. Tell us some more about this, we haven't read > Tarrant. > Cj > >

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Mailing Lists > working-gundog > [working-gundog] communication "over the hill"

ActiveForums 3.7