|
| Author |
Messages |
|
cwalt
MH
Posts:180
 |
| 09/22/2008 1:48 PM |
|
| Steadiness is like pregnancy, the dog is steady or it isn't, there are
no real degrees of steadiness. As simple as that assertion might be
there are many people who misunderstand it and try to grade steadiness
in stages and some even try to train steadiness in stages. This idea
evolved from a teaching exercise for novice judges that had nothing to
to do with steadiness per se but was about how to judge and score
various degrees of steadiness in a test. The inexperienced or non
hunting judges would ask how they should assign a number to steadiness
for a dog that was steady on one bird but broke and chased on another
find. We decided that the easiest way to teach scoring was to divide
the act of steadiness into parts such as steady to flush, steady to
wing, steady to shot, steady to fall and so on. The earlier in the
sequence that the dog failed the lower the score would be and then we
could assign a number for steadiness to each bird contact and determine
the final score for steadiness overall by averaging the individual
partial scores. The teaching exercise was a success, we could explain
how to evaluate steadiness and a novice judge could learn to assign
numerical scores to a dog's varied performances in the field.
The problem occurred when these judges tried to explain the scores to
dog owners. It was common for a judge to identify a steadiness score of
2, for example, as a dog being steady for one bird but breaking at the
flush for another bird. The judge could also explain to the handler
that the dog broke at the shot and/or the fall for two birds and thereby
received a 3 for an overall steadiness score. This manner of
explanation led to handlers and owners speaking of steadiness in terms
of: "my dog is steady to the shot and then breaks, I have to work on it."
A year or two after we developed the explanation of steadiness scoring
for judges I began to encounter some very strange training exercises in
handler's clinics. Handlers and trainers were setting up peculiar
situations and were screaming "whoa" at the dogs at different times.
These rituals were nonsensical to me and I started asking the clinic
trainers what the hell they were doing. They told me that a dog was
only steady to flush and they were training it for steadiness to wing,
the next stage of steadiness. Handlers would assert that they had
trained the dog to be steady to shot and they were working on steadiness
to fall and so on. The training clinics were actually trying to teach
the dogs to be steady in a sequence of steps: steady to flush, steady to
wing, steady to shot, steady to fall and so on! The judge's training
exercises had evolved into a conviction that steadiness was trained in
four or more successive stages. Naturally the dogs were as confused as
the trainers and steadiness training was an exercise in chaotic
thinking. Because steadiness is one single exercise, the dog is steady
or it isn't, you cannot teach steadiness in four successive exercises.
Retrieving can be trained as a chaining exercise where one stage leads
to the next but that is impossible for training steadiness because it is
a single act. It is very strange to note that ideas can evolve in
random directions that we cannot anticipate.
Cj
// |
|
|
|
|
rospigan
MH
Posts:372
|
| 09/23/2008 2:27 PM |
|
|
>>>the trainers
and steadiness training was an exercise in chaotic
thinking. Because
steadiness is one single exercise, the dog is steady
or it isn't, you cannot
teach steadiness in four successive exercises.
Retrieving can be
trained as a chaining exercise where one stage leads
to the next but that is
impossible for training steadiness because it is
a single act. It is
very strange to note that ideas can evolve in
random directions that we
cannot anticipate.
Cj>>><>
Yes, it is
amazing how often we in everyday life meet people who think that things can be
"just a little pregnant", metaphorically speaking. There are many situations,
that are more or less important to the destiny of the mankind, were we
found this "partial pregnancy" compromise thinking.
I remember long
ago there was this dog shrink woman living nearby. She explained that dogs and
other carnivorous animals are actually vegetarians. When they kill a grass
eating animal the first thing they eat is the stomach content, she said. I told
her that when I leave the entrails from a deer or moose on the ground then
foxes, badgers, crows, magpies and raven will take care of it. When I come
back 24 hours later the only
thing that remains is the stomach contains, everything else, every single small
piece of it, is gone. When my dog sees the stomach contains it may roll in it
but it never try to eat it.
I do not know
were the woman had got her information from, probably some dog shrink bible,
but she spread it to ignorant pet dog owners. Those people also make the
world to a "partially pregnant" place because they think that the "full
pregnancy" alternative is too scaring for them. They can not really deny that
carnivorous animals sometimes eat flesh, that is; they are sometimes pregnant,
but most often they are not pregnant at all and eat vegetables. Well, this is of
course true for at least one carnivorous animal, the brown bear that eats
anything including old, smelly shoes.
This kind of
thinking is most often only irritating but when circulating around among the
higher governing authorities in the society, or in my profession; the sea safety
organisations, it can become dangerous.
There should be one single, universally usable way to steady a dog to
flush, shot and fall and that it to train it to sit to a long whistle blast.
This must be trained anywhere and anytime and the response from the dog should
be instantaneous, like it was struck by lightning. Then you can blast the dog
down when it things start to happen.
Well, that was the theory. It works well for spaniels and retrievers but
when you have trained that with a 454 cubic inch blockhead setter until its ears
have fallen of, you will rather frequently find that
it still is only partially pregnant, when the course of
events get hot  )) Torsti
Borta Med Vindens Kennel "Ask not what your dog can do for you. Ask
what you can do for your dog." www.rospigan.net |
|
|
|
|
jmurr
MH
Posts:158
|
| 09/23/2008 3:01 PM |
|
| Here's another random direction to consider.
Steadiness is a concept which needs to be defined within some context. You seem
to be adopting the NAVHDA concept - the only acceptable dog behavior after a
point is to remain in place until released by the handler.
The lack of steadiness is manifested by the dog breaking it's stand, sit, point
(condition of remaining fixed in place) on occurance of some triggering event.
Typical events which are innate triggers are the flush and flight of a bird.
Conditioned (perhaps alternative innate - they seem pretty natural when they
occur) triggers are the shot and subsequent fall of a bird. The dog trained NOT
to break on the natural trigger of a flushing and fleeing bird has been
counter-conditioned to ignore that trigger. If it is allowed to then break when
the gun is fired and/or the bird is seen falling from the sky, one or both of
those events replace the natural trigger in the behavioral conformation of the
dog. This dog may well be steady enough for many practical purposes - but not
for testing/competing in a venue which demands the dog remain stationary until
released by the handler such as NAVHDA tests.
Question: When the single bird pointed by a dog flushes or is flushed and the dog
is still standing, is the dog exhibiting the innate point/staunch action pattern?
Or is it's behavior a conditioned response - the result of training?
I seem to remember a tale told here of an unsteady dog, a setter I believe, which
remained fixed in place until its hunting partner stopped moving at which point it
broke and flushed the pointed bird. Was that dog "steady?"
> It is very strange to note that ideas can evolve in
> random directions that we cannot anticipate.
> Cj
> //
>
|
|
|
|
|
cwalt
MH
Posts:180
|
| 09/23/2008 4:31 PM |
|
| Maud & Torsti wrote:
>
> There should be one single, universally usable way to steady a dog to flush, shot and fall and that it to train it to sit to a long whistle blast. This must be trained anywhere and anytime and the response from the dog should be instantaneous, like it was struck by lightning. Then you can blast the dog down when it things start to happen.
>
> Well, that was the theory. It works well for spaniels and retrievers but when you have trained that with a 454 cubic inch blockhead setter until its ears have fallen of, you will rather frequently find that it still is only partially pregnant, when the course of events get hot ))
>
> Torsti
>
``````````````````````````````
It's difficult to train with any universal steadiness command. The
'whoa' for pointing dogs and a 'hup' for flushing dogs or a 'drop' for
some continentals all require that the dog do different things.
Obedience to a single absolute control command can and should be trained
to the point of an instant unthinking response but the command should
suit the expectations for the breed. Blockheads often require alternate
training methods but they should be as well trained as a soft
cooperative dog. Training a block headed early retrieving pointing dog
often requires some training that doesn't diminish or obliterate the
pointing instinct but this can almost always be worked out so that it
doesn't cause more problems than it cures. There's a training method
for almost anything and you can usually do it without tearing off the
dog's ears. {
Cj |
|
|
|
|
rospigan
MH
Posts:372
|
| 09/24/2008 11:25 PM |
|
>>>Training a block headed early retrieving pointing dog
often requires some training that doesn't diminish or obliterate the
pointing instinct but this can almost always be worked out so that it
doesn't cause more problems than it cures. There's a training method
for almost anything and you can usually do it without tearing off the
dog's ears. { Cj>>>
Actually I meant that I would blast the dogs ears
of with the whistle, but then again, what's the difference ))
I do not remember for how long the setter have been
bred mainly for one single purpose, to find and point birds, but it must have
been some 300 - 400 years, to the days when netting birds begun. It is important
to remember this before we go any further in this discussion and focus on
setters only. In this process other characteristics have been weakened like
aggression, competition drive and perhaps something that is very pronounced in
some other gundog breeds like spaniels, Labradors etc., namely "the sense of
being a pack animal"! I do not find a better expression for the moment, even
though this one also is deceptive since: It is difficult to find any other
breeds, besides of spaniels, pointers and retrievers, than setters,
that can in a new hunting camp, beaming together from all directions,
accept and enjoy the company of other dogs as immensely and
spontaneously.
While this kind of friendliness and sense of
belonging to a pack goes all the way to easy co-operation with man under most or
all situations on the hunting grounds with the other breeds mentioned, and to a
great extent pointers also, the setters often seem to be a different kettle of
fish.
MOTIVATION
While the other British breeds, except for the
pointer, perhaps, are generally easy to artificially motivate to do and
enjoy many different tasks far apart from actual hunting, you will seldom see
setters are general purpose service dogs. They lack what we over here call "the
social competition drive" and they lack the needed patience but you could also
say that they are genetically programmed to find birds, birds, birds. I do not
know if it possible to write a program for a dog that says: Find birds no matter
what the effort may be! Maybe these specialist dogs were created by out-breeding
any other interest, motivation from them but the last single one; the drive to
hunt small game. Small game because the courage and sharpness needed to
tamper with big game was bred out from them - and so on. When co-operation and
pack-sense was out-bred perhaps you got the wide ranging and independent
search. I have seen a few young, totally raw setters that have been
completely un-interested in what is going on around them, sitting or standing
with closed eyes, nose high, inhaling and analysing whatever scent the wind
brought to them, blind and deaf to any other stimuli. They belonged in
another world and they did not want to belong to our world.
Fortunately few setters are today totally
un-fostered as youngsters, they have at least got some house training, so
to say.
When we humans act instinctively, we use to
say that we act with our "reptile brain". I try to find an explanation to why
particularly setters can be so excluding towards any human commands once they
have found fresh scent and I am very curious about what goes on in the dogs head
when it is on point or has started to locate the birds. Beyond any doubt it is
very, very concentrated and Cj has in the past mentioned "nasal deafness" as a
mental state the dog can have with fresh scent in its nose. In other words the
dog is so concentrated on the scent so the stimuli from its ears simply will not
reach its brain. This would not indicate disobedience since the dog is unable to
hear any commands.
The dog would be disobedient if it can hear
and interpret the command properly but still neglect it. In order to
neglect a command the dog understands, it must be motivated to follow it's
own judgement of the situation, rather than the handlers judgement. Now, if this
was any other breed but a setter we could call it's behaviour for obstinacy and
obstinacy comes from a strong competition drive and can be cured with even more
leadership and obedience training. Since in most of our setters the major part
of the social competition drive is out-bred it must be something else that
caused the dogs unwanted and sudden separation from co-operation with it's
pack-leader once it has got scent in it's nose.
We can whip the dog into obedience in such
situations but we would loose something for ever, namely the dogs ability to
work with and present the birds for the gun in a favourable way. Since we
loose something with the whipping the method is not very attractive and the
sensible handler may understand that there is something going on in the
dogs head, once it has found scent, that he or she do not
understand.
Is it the "reptile brain"? It is beyond any
doubt for sure that the dog can be left to handle the birds the way it finds
best and with experience it will master them brilliantly until the point when
they are flushed. I can understand perfectly well the will to wildly run after
them once they have flushed, what else could a wild dog without a shotgun
do?
The question is, if we exclude the situation
with nasal deafness, what is the motivation for the dog to totally neglect our
commands in this situation? The same dog that was so easy to live with and
perhaps also to handle all the way until it got scent in its nose? There must be
some higher level of consciousness for the dog, that is switched on
and of with the scent of birds. My experience is that it is much easier to train
them to obedience at the vicinity of any other game, including cats and other
domestic animals, than birds and sometimes hares.
What is the real difference to a spaniel or Labrador? The prey
drive =game sharpness? A spaniel is of course not built to last as long as a
setter, the rather muscular and ungainly body, compared to the setters body,
makes it impossible for the spaniel to have the physical stamina of the setter
but the will, the drive is there. Hence, if it was the strong prey drive alone
that caused the difficulty to master the dog that has scent in its nose, the
spaniel would be as difficult as the setter but it is not.
I call the setters hammerheads or blockheads for the sake of
illustration but actually I think they are neither of them. The
problem is that I do not know what they are.......
No matter how much you work with them in bird situations it
seems like they become steady when they are ready for it, not
because of what you have done!
Next question: If it was not the training: What makes them
ready?
Torsti
Borta Med Vindens Kennel
"Ask not what your dog
can do for you.
Ask what you can do for your dog."
www.rospigan.net
|
|
|
|
|
cwalt
MH
Posts:180
|
| 09/27/2008 3:00 PM |
|
| Maud & Torsti wrote:
> There should be one single, universally usable way to steady a dog to
> flush, shot and fall and that it to train it to sit to a long whistle
> blast. This must be trained anywhere and anytime and the response from
> the dog should be instantaneous, like it was struck by lightning. Then
> you can blast the dog down when it things start to happen.
> Well, that was the theory. It works well for spaniels and retrievers but when you have trained that with a 454 cubic inch blockhead setter until its ears have fallen of, you will rather frequently find that it still is only partially pregnant, when the course of events get hot ))
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We all give lip service to the power of 'whoa', 'drop' or 'hup' but I
very rarely encounter dogs that are sufficiently trained so that the
response to the command is reflexive. In most of the best trained dogs
there is a hesitation before obedience that shows that the dog is
"thinking about the command". The ideal is, as you say, instant
response without thought.
Cj
|
|
|
|
|
rospigan
MH
Posts:372
|
| 09/28/2008 4:43 PM |
|
|
>>>>We all give lip service to the power of 'whoa', 'drop' or
'hup' but I
very rarely encounter dogs that are sufficiently trained so that
the
response to the command is reflexive. In most of the best trained
dogs
there is a hesitation before obedience that shows that the dog is
"thinking about the command". The ideal is, as you say, instant
response without thought.
Cj>>>>
The hesitating
"camel-drop" is rather common among setters and least common among spaniels,
provided we think of dogs that have a lively temperament. (I start to think that
it is a pity that I am so hooked to the British breeds of birddogs. I could
benefit from learning more about the German breeds. Now I only know the
Wachtelhund a bit and it is often very responsive in every aspect.)
When you train
a spaniel in a positive way it often soon starts to enjoy the training
immensely. Since they are so very spontaneous the training must be adjusted to
their maturing ability to concentrate as they gain age. Keeping this in mind the
training can be kept positive all the time. To them the "drop" becomes just
another piece of fun in a game (play) between you and them. You notice that
the dog enjoys the drop-game and hence drop it often and everywhere. Soon the
action has become reflexive to the dog.
Generally it is more difficult to motivate a setter
to have fun during the training for any extended time. There has been one Gordon
setter in Sweden that was treble champion, FTCH, SCH and finally also an
Obedience Champion. The last one is without any doubt the most difficult one to
obtain for a setter since it must be genuinely interested in such work for many
years before it is good enough. To keep its motivation up, great demands are
made on the handler. The kennel name of this particular dog suggest that it was
not from Scandinavian breeding but originated from Holland. "Tootsie van der
....something", don't remember now.
The great majority of those who are running setters
are not any great trainers. Then again nor are those who runs spaniels or
retrievers (I think of the small and fast working type "pheasant missile"
retrievers). Still the last group does in average better in the obedience
part with their dogs, when scent of game or visible game is around.
In my opinion the setters are by the scent of
game brought into another dimension, a dimension where the normal order of rank
and the commands given by the packleader are not valid any more. When the
setter hits the scent cone it takes charge of the hunting pack, there is little
doubt about it. When you see a first class setter handle the birds there is no
doubt about its efficiency, and the handler has little or nothing he
can contribute with to the work. It is pretty obvious that the dog is the
indisputable master of the situation.
Maybe we should turn the clock back some 150 - 200
years in order to understand. Maybe we should re-read the very old books written
by those who originally bred the ancestors to the dogs we have today. Maybe we
have misunderstood the entire meaning and the true nature of the setter and the
pointer?
The manufactures of (ball-) bearings say that their
bearing is not a bearing until it has been firmly fixed into the bearing
housing and shaft. Until then it is just a precision made but delicate piece of
metal. Once firmly fixed in place it transforms into a strong and
long.lasting part of a perfectly working machinery.
Maybe those who created our British birddogs did
not see them as birddogs until they had scent in their nose, and not from what
they saw of the dog when it had a lazy time in the armchair or
couch!
What would happen with our thinking about the
training of the British birddogs if we only thought of them as very, very
specialist experts in the art of finding and handling birds only - and
nothing else? What if we stopped to think of them as still another mutated
variety of Canis Lupus and gave them credit for what they by a great effort in
time, skill, money, aim and burning desire, were sculptured into both
in appearance and mentality, by men whose equal we can not find today?
Oh My God.....that was some writing! You should have made me into a
philosopher instead ;-))
Torsti
Borta Med Vindens Kennel "Ask not what your dog can do for you. Ask
what you can do for your dog." www.rospigan.net |
|
|
|
|
jmurr
MH
Posts:158
|
| 09/29/2008 6:45 PM |
|
| Maybe Maurice (he has trained a few setters) can find time to comment on the "West
Method" which does not use a verbal "whoa" or proxie and does train stop to flush,
gun, fall backing etc all together (what I term "in parallel" in analogy to
parallel communications between computer and printer for insatance and as oppossed
to serial communications in the same instance.). The result is natural point and
the steadiness you requested. The pointing dog folks in the USA do not train a sit
or similar but this can easily be done.
Jere
> Maud & Torsti wrote:
>> There should be one single, universally usable way to steady a dog to
>> flush, shot and fall and that it to train it to sit to a long whistle
>> blast. This must be trained anywhere and anytime and the response from
>> the dog should be instantaneous, like it was struck by lightning. Then
>> you can blast the dog down when it things start to happen.
>> Well, that was the theory. It works well for spaniels and retrievers but when you
>> have trained that with a 454 cubic inch blockhead setter until its ears have
>> fallen of, you will rather frequently find that it still is only partially
>> pregnant, when the course of events get hot ))
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
You must be logged in to use this module.
|