# How do you train Retrieve on Flat/Over High Jump?



## Princess Dollie (Jan 15, 2011)

Dollie is 10 months old now. She will start Basic Obedience in about 4 weeks. Although AKC Open Level Obedience is a long way off for us, I do have a question about the Retrieve on Flat and Retrieve Over High Jump exercises. Specifically training on the retrieve part.

A little history. About 25 years ago, when I began prepping my Sheltie for Open Level exercises; I was trained a certain method to teach retrieve. 

My memory is a little sketchy but I know it involved pinching the inside of his ear HARD. I tried it a couple of times and, honestly, I did not like that I was deliberately hurting my dog simply because he was not understanding what I wanted him to do. So I quit pinching his ear, scrapped the idea of getting a CDX on him, and he lived happily ever after.

Back to today. I would hope that we are more enlightened on training methods (a lot has changed since then) and that there is a better method to teach retrieve. 

What is the method to train retrieve? Is there anything that I can start working with Dollie on now that would give her a good basis for this exercise?


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

I think the ear pinch is still used by some trainers in the US - don't know how widespread it ever was in the UK, but it would come under the heading of no-noes for me too. I know some people clicker train the retrieve with great success - have you tried googling for reward based methods?


----------



## cbrand (Aug 9, 2009)

I originally trained Sabrina with a "play" retrieve. She is a very serious worker with a monster retrieve and I didn't have too many problems with it until one show where I forgot my dumbbell and I had to borrow one. She refused to retrieve the stranger's dumbbell and so we flunked.

With my next two dogs Izze and Delilah, I taught a forced retrieve that involved an ear pinch. I made it clear from the beginning that the retrieve was real work and not just for fun. I use the ear pinch a bit differently than others in that I did not use it to get the dogs to open their mouths initially, but as a correction for a failure to retrieve. Having used both methods, I would probably always use a forced retrieve in the future. It is something, however, that I think you should get professional help in teaching.

As far as the retrieve over the high jump. My dogs are initially taught to take the dumbbell, carry it, and never drop it. I can walk Delilah around the house and she will hold the dumbell. I teach my dogs to jump independently. Then I teach them to jump the high jump holding the dumbbell. Finally I give the retrieve over the high jump command (starting with a very low jump). They know how to jump, they know how to retrieve so then it just becomes a matter of rewarding out and back jumping/retrieving and correcting a dog who tries to run around (do it on leash helps with this).


----------



## Karma'sACat (Jun 1, 2010)

I don't do any competitive obedience but had to teach my first service dog (she was owner trained, not from a program) to retrieve. I refused to teach a forced retrieve...I don't ever want my service dog to associate fear with their work.
I'm a clicker trainer, so I trained the retrieve that way. Dixie had a low retrieve drive so I broke the behavior down in to very smal parts. We started with a dumbbell because it was an easy first object.
First, I would set the dumb bell out and click/treat when she looked at it. Once she got that, I moved up to clicks for moving toward it, then nose touches, then mouth touches, etc until she would pick it up. Then we started working on her holding it in her mouth for longer and longer periods of time, then finally bringing it towards me until we had her retrieving it.
For me, once we had a solid retrieve cue down,we worked on generalizing it to all items I asked for. I'm on my phone right now but will post a couple links I used when I get home.


----------



## CelticKitti (Jul 1, 2010)

I used the same method as Karma. Mia does not respond well to correction and learns much faster with the clicker. For both my guys it's all about keeping it fun. You also have to figure out what is the most motivating for the dog, food is the easy answer and most dogs will work for food. But Kodi's all time favorite thing is fetch! However we can't play fetch with everything so I use food too.

We just started working on Mia's formal retreive. Best of luck to you.


----------



## Feralpudel (Jun 28, 2010)

Teaching an inducive retrieve with food is a middle ground between EP and shaping it with the clicker or relying on a play retrieve. PD, if you PM me your email addy I will send you a file outlining the inducive retrieve with food.


----------



## Fluffyspoos (Aug 11, 2009)

Although Vegas has a high retrieving drive, I use the ear pinch method when he drops items that he should be carrying. Most things he will carry fine, though he doesn't really care at all to have a moving bird in his mouth. That's something I'll work on later when I have more confidence he won't drop it and shred it.. again.


----------



## Princess Dollie (Jan 15, 2011)

Oh geesh. It never dawned on me to incorporate a clicker with retrieval training. :doh: Dollie is very familiar with the clicker.

Cbrand, you jogged my memory of how I was taught. You present the dumbell in some fashion in front of your dog (memory getting cloudy here) and then give the Take It command. If dog does not mouth it, you were to pinch the ear.

I'm looking forward to the links from KC. And FP: will send you a PM.

Thanks!!


----------



## Karma'sACat (Jun 1, 2010)

Ok, finally home after a marathon doctor day.

This link is my favorite. She breaks it down in very detailed steps:
Keepers - Shirley's Retieve

These are two great videos that have slightly different methods, I used the first:


----------



## AgilityIG (Feb 8, 2009)

A friend of mine is doing a "trick a week" training on her blog and has a nice breakdown of teaching a retrieve from last Friday's trick: Smooth Sailin' Agility I think it's about the third entry down right now. 

Personally, I won't force train anything. These are only "tricks" for our personal benefit. Our dogs are not asking to be shown - this is all for us. I value my relationship with my dog too much to cause him physical harm for my own vanity.


----------



## Princess Dollie (Jan 15, 2011)

I just got the inducive retrieve material from FP. I haven't had a chance to review it; but, just looking at some of the click/treat methods briefly, I see no reason why we can't start on this now. 

I have one of those orange retrieving bumper thingies somewhere. I think it would be the perfect shape and size for her to start with.

Once I do a thorough review of all material and work with her a few times, I'll let you know how we are doing.

Thank-you, KaC, FP, and AgilityIG.


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

AgilityIG said:


> A friend of mine is doing a "trick a week" training on her blog and has a nice breakdown of teaching a retrieve from last Friday's trick: Smooth Sailin' Agility I think it's about the third entry down right now.
> 
> Personally, I won't force train anything. These are only "tricks" for our personal benefit. Our dogs are not asking to be shown - this is all for us. I value my relationship with my dog too much to cause him physical harm for my own vanity.


That is a great blog; I've been reading it for a while now and really enjoy it.

Well-stated .... "Our dogs are not asking to be shown". I used to use Koehler methods but was never entirely comfortable and was very happy to do away with force based methods. Esp when current research on learning and retention shows positive methods are quicker and last longer.


----------



## cbrand (Aug 9, 2009)

JE-UK said:


> Well-stated .... "Our dogs are not asking to be shown".


And yet, didn't you post in another thread that a BYB is a breeder who does not show her dogs? So what is it? Do you want us breeders to show and title our dogs or not?



> Esp when current research on learning and retention shows positive methods are quicker and last longer.


Can you reference these studies and provide a link? I do not personally know any competitors showing at the top levels of Obedience and Hunting, where an exact retrieve really matters, who do not use a forced retrieve of some sort.


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

cbrand said:


> And yet, didn't you post in another thread that a BYB is a breeder who does not show her dogs? So what is it? Do you want us breeders to show and title our dogs or not?


Resounding yes!!

With regard to competing, I can see where it appears I'm contradicting myself. I don't have anything against competing, competition is a valuable way to demonstrate function; I want to compete my own dog. But it's MY choice to compete, not the dog's. Therefore, I feel an obligation to make training a positive experience for the dog. I take a similar approach with my horse ... her preference would be to sit in a field and graze, so if I'm going to drag her to a dressage show, I have an obligation to make the experience as positive as possible. 



cbrand said:


> Can you reference these studies and provide a link? I do not personally know any competitors showing at the top levels of Obedience and Hunting, where an exact retrieve really matters, who do not use a forced retrieve of some sort.


Dogs can be and are being titled with positive methods; Susanne Jaffa put both working trial and obedience titles on a positively trained dog.

Not sure anyone has done a statistical analysis and counts on titled dogs in obedience and how they are trained, but there is a lot of momentum in the UK. Agility is a newer sport, and is dominated by positive trainers. Trudi Swann is competing a lot of dogs and trains with positive methods.

Behavioural and learning research has consistently shown that dogs trained with positive methods learn faster/better. 

There's a good summary journal article: Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare, Hiby, E.F.; Rooney, N.J.; Bradshaw, J.W.S. If I can figure out how to attach a pdf I can upload it. Overall, findings were that positive training correlates with higher number of behaviours learned and low number of behaviour problems. Conversely, punishment correlates with problem behaviours.

Known issues and results (multiple studies in operant conditioning on people, dogs, rats, etc.) with punishment used in training are anxiety, lower self-esteem, generation of avoidance behaviours, and aggression. Also well-established is that it can suppress behaviours without eliminating them. 

The only difficulty I see with training with positive methods rather than punishment is that the former requires a more creative approach ... I need to constantly be aware of the relative value of my reinforcers versus the reinforcer in the undesirable behaviour, while it's easy to think of a suitable punishment. 

I don't argue that punishment & aversive methods work. Of course they work. I used them on a number of dogs. They've worked for decades, if not centuries. But I don't think they work BEST.

I am a hypocrite though, fully admit it. I am glad that the science backs up positive methods, I'm glad more and more people are training this way, but I like training this way because it's _nicer _:smile:.


----------



## Feralpudel (Jun 28, 2010)

JE-UK said:


> Dogs can be and are being titled with positive methods; Susanne Jaffa put both working trial and obedience titles on a positively trained dog.
> 
> Behavioural and learning research has consistently shown that dogs trained with positive methods learn faster/better.


OF COURSE you can title dogs with positive-only methods. I know a local clicker-trained poodle with a UD and a JH. But this person's dogs have a reputation for being inconsistent in field trials. This trainer and others have also been quick to say that it will take *longer* to train a dog using positive-only methods, so I am a bit puzzled by the faster claim. 

There is also a *huge* amount of territory between positive-only and the other end of the continuum--it's not as if this is an argument between clicker trainers and people who beat their dogs (although it can sometimes sound that way). Every obedience trainer I know uses huge amounts of praise/treats/play, especially when *teaching* an exercise.


----------



## cbrand (Aug 9, 2009)

JE-UK said:


> I take a similar approach with my horse ... her preference would be to sit in a field and graze, so if I'm going to drag her to a dressage show, I have an obligation to make the experience as positive as possible.


So do you not use a whip or spurs when you ride? At what level do you show? What are your scores? 





> Not sure anyone has done a statistical analysis and counts on titled dogs in obedience and how they are trained, but there is a lot of momentum in the UK.


Exactly. To my knowledge there has not been a comprehensive study done on competition dogs. The funny thing is that competition people want to win. I would think that if positive only methods worked BETTER then everyone would be jumping on that band wagon.




> Agility is a newer sport, and is dominated by positive trainers. Trudi Swann is competing a lot of dogs and trains with positive methods.


Agility lends itself well to positive only training. Understand though that in agility, you get to issue commands over and over and over again and that there is a huge range of what is passing in agility i.e you only have to have 1 toenail on the contact area to pass. You don't have to be perfect the 1st time the way you do in Obedience.



> There's a good summary journal article: Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare, Hiby, E.F.; Rooney, N.J.; Bradshaw, J.W.S.


Read it. This study was written by someone who is affiliated with an animal rights organization called Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. The study looked at pet owners and the training they did at home on basic house manners. Data was collected by interviewing owners out walking their dogs, not by observing their training techniques and the results.



> I don't argue that punishment & aversive methods work. Of course they work. I used them on a number of dogs. They've worked for decades, if not centuries. But I don't think they work BEST.I am a hypocrite though, fully admit it. I am glad that the science backs up positive methods, I'm glad more and more people are training this way, but I like training this way because it's _nicer _:smile:.




I support you in your choice of training methods, however, I think you need to walk a mile in those shoes. Go out and train and show in Obedience using only positive methods and then see what your results are.


----------



## Fluffyspoos (Aug 11, 2009)

I balance my training with negative and positive, it works for my dogs, though the training should be what's best for the dog itself.


----------



## Princess Dollie (Jan 15, 2011)

cbrand said:


> I do not personally know any competitors showing at the top levels of Obedience and Hunting, where an exact retrieve really matters, who do not use a forced retrieve of some sort.


cbrand, what are the other force methods available for retrieve?


----------



## cbrand (Aug 9, 2009)

Princess Dollie said:


> cbrand, what are the other force methods available for retrieve?


I don't really know.

Well I know that the hunting folks use E-collars pretty extensively, but this may be for directional or distance control. 

I don't use the ear pinch to teach "take it" or to teach/enforce "hold". I use the ear pinch (and a pretty light one) as a consequence of a failure to retrieve or failure to pick up an item when directed to. I use a chuck under the chin to enforce "hold".

I have seen folks use a collar pop to correct a failure to retrieve.


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

Feralpudel said:


> OF COURSE you can title dogs with positive-only methods. I know a local clicker-trained poodle with a UD and a JH. But this person's dogs have a reputation for being inconsistent in field trials. This trainer and others have also been quick to say that it will take *longer* to train a dog using positive-only methods, so I am a bit puzzled by the faster claim.
> 
> There is also a *huge* amount of territory between positive-only and the other end of the continuum--it's not as if this is an argument between clicker trainers and people who beat their dogs (although it can sometimes sound that way). Every obedience trainer I know uses huge amounts of praise/treats/play, especially when *teaching* an exercise.


Absolutely fair point ... the spectrum is huge, from completely abusive methods to positive-only with no aversives at all. And I don't think the occasional aversive correction is abusive. Lots of dogs, maybe even a majority, shrug off an aversive correction with no ill effects and get the point that was trying to be made.

There's a difference between *learning *a behaviour, i.e. making a link between a cue and an action, and *performing *that behaviour reliably, to an exacting standard and with lots of distractions, as in an advanced obedience test. Side by side comparisons of learning show positive methods are faster and the learning lasts longer. For example, there is a recent study by Bello & Helleski (I have the article but not sure about copyright implications of posting it) that took two groups of horses trained in a scary task, one set with only halter pressure (negative) and one with rewards. The reward group learned faster, and one year later, the latter group (re-)achieved the same task quicker and with fewer stress signs.

IMO, and I don't think anyone has specifically looked at this, the most advanced levels of competition provide such high levels of stress and distraction that it may be impossible to provide enough reinforcement to overcome the negatives, which leads to a situation where only a higher negative can work as a training method. This is an ethical quandary, and one that I haven't worked out a solution for in my own mind. It may be that very advanced competition is in itself abusive, and maybe we should be examining our own motivations.

The downside, if there is one, of positive training is that the dog has a choice. Use of punishment methods may reduce the possibility in the dog's mind, which may be why there is skepticism that a dog can be trained to a highly advanced level with positive methods. That's a reliability question, not a pure learning question.


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

An ethical quandary indeed. I can imagine deliberately hurting one of my animals if their safety was in question, and there was no alternative. Or even if the retrieve were to feed my family, and again all other alternatives had been exhausted. I baulk at it for something that is in effect for my own vanity - the dog doesn't give a damn about the awards and rosettes.


----------



## Feralpudel (Jun 28, 2010)

JE-UK said:


> IMO, and I don't think anyone has specifically looked at this, the most advanced levels of competition provide such high levels of stress and distraction that it may be impossible to provide enough reinforcement to overcome the negatives, which leads to a situation where only a higher negative can work as a training method. This is an ethical quandary, and one that I haven't worked out a solution for in my own mind. It may be that very advanced competition is in itself abusive, and maybe we should be examining our own motivations.


If you look at the Utility exercises in Obedience, they are all about the dog *making decisions* *at a distance* from the handler: which glove to run to, which jump to take, which article to retrieve. The phrases I hear over and over again from high-level trainers are "confidence" and "helping the dog be right." The most popular method of teaching scent articles involves huge quantities of squeeze cheese. 

I went to Open class last night. There were about half a dozen of us working for an hour. I don't think I saw anything that would disturb an all-positive trainer, and yet I don't think any of us would call ourselves all positive trainers. My point is that for most trainers, there is a lot of ink spilled on lists like this over a difference between 98% positive methods and 100% positive. 



JE-UK said:


> The downside, if there is one, of positive training is that the dog has a choice. Use of punishment methods may reduce the possibility in the dog's mind, which may be why there is skepticism that a dog can be trained to a highly advanced level with positive methods. That's a reliability question, not a pure learning question.


I don't like the idea of the ear pinch, either. But I have heard countless stories of dogs who floundered with a reliable retrieve until ear pinched once. Then it is as if the light bulb goes on and the dog says, "well, why didn't you just tell me that in the first place?!"


----------



## Karma'sACat (Jun 1, 2010)

As I said before, I'm fairly ignorant about high level obedience but I guess I'm confused as to how many service dogs can be reliably clicker trained (and I mean true, Karen Pryor clicker training) to retrieve a variety of objects but it can't be done for obedience. Many dogs have multiple retrieve behaviors, especially medical response dogs. Dix can go get my meds from another room every time as well as picking up anything I need and bringing it to me.
It does make me wonder.
Re: no study being done on top OB competitors, you would need to start them without any training of the behaviors, which I would guess means starting young. Also, such study would be expensive and I would bet hard to get those with the best chance of going all the way to participate and getting enough to have a reliable sample size. The overall impression I get is that they are so convinced clicker training (as I don't think all positive methods are created equal) won't work they often refuse to try or when they do, they do it incorrectly then feel they can say it doesn't work. 
One more thought. If guide dogs and guide horses can be reliably clicker trained (and there are many out there these days), how can behaviors for a competition not? This again goes back to the what is too much/how far is too far question.


----------



## cbrand (Aug 9, 2009)

Karma'sACat said:


> As I said before, I'm fairly ignorant about high level obedience but I guess I'm confused as to how many service dogs can be reliably clicker trained (and I mean true, Karen Pryor clicker training) to retrieve a variety of objects but it can't be done for obedience.


Because if the service dog fails to retrieve correctly the first time, you can give it a second or third command and no harm/no foul. In the ring, it has to be right the 1st time or you flunk. It pretty much sucks (to use the vernacular) to train for months, travel for hours, pay for hotels and meals and pony up an entry fee only to go home without a qualifying leg.


----------



## Princess Dollie (Jan 15, 2011)

I remember once seeing a long sit in Open - where the owners have to leave.

A dog was in his sit/stay, owner left. Then the dog laid down. It was kind of funny (to me anyway) because the dog looked around and sort of gave a look of "oh my god, everyone else is SITTING!" and he sat back up.

Owner comes back smiling because she thinks they passed the exercise. WRONG.


----------



## Karma'sACat (Jun 1, 2010)

cbrand said:


> Because if the service dog fails to retrieve correctly the first time, you can give it a second or third command and no harm/no foul. In the ring, it has to be right the 1st time or you flunk. It pretty much sucks (to use the vernacular) to train for months, travel for hours, pay for hotels and meals and pony up an entry fee only to go home without a qualifying leg.


I disagree. Service dogs should NOT need to hear a command multiple times. In many cases, like if I need my meds, needing a command multiple times can be life threatening. If your dog needs multiple commands, they should not be a full service dog, they should have kept the in training status longer. I hope you aren't seeing a bunch of service dogs who need multiple commands to do their work as these are the dogs who get SDs in general a bad rap.


----------



## Princess Dollie (Jan 15, 2011)

When there is a tie in competive obedience, the more fast and precise dog will win. So the dog who gets his butt down faster will win over the slower dog.

This is where owners start to make decisions...do I want an obedient dog? do I want an OTCH? can I have both?

I now think that I was shown a method of retrieve that was way over on one side of the continuum. I was also young and too trusting.


----------



## Karma'sACat (Jun 1, 2010)

Princess Dollie said:


> I now think that I was shown a method of retrieve that was way over on one side of the continuum. I was also young and too trusting.


When I was younger, I was taught many of the same things. Then I got Dixie (this is before I got sick) and those methods would have made her totally shut down. I had to learn a different method to have a dog I could do things with. After much research, clicker training was it.


----------



## Feralpudel (Jun 28, 2010)

Karma'sACat said:


> The overall impression I get is that they are so convinced clicker training (as I don't think all positive methods are created equal) won't work they often refuse to try or when they do, they do it incorrectly then feel they can say it doesn't work.
> One more thought. If guide dogs and guide horses can be reliably clicker trained (and there are many out there these days), how can behaviors for a competition not? This again goes back to the what is too much/how far is too far question.


Most of the trainers I know use some form of clicker training, with or without a clicker. It's just not the only tool in their toolbox.


----------



## Karma'sACat (Jun 1, 2010)

Feralpudel said:


> Most of the trainers I know use some form of clicker training, with or without a clicker. It's just not the only tool in their toolbox.


Part of the problem is that not all "clicker training" is created equal. The brain doesn't process a click the same as a verbal marker. Nor can humans duplicate exactly their verbal marker each time (emotion, tone, volume, inflection, etc). Clicker training has become a blanket term for anything that uses a marker. When I speak of it, I mean Karen Pryor clicker training.
Clicker training doesn't mean never saying no, you just don't use that when the dog doesn't do the right thing during training. The lack of a click tells them they didn't offer the correct behavior. In life, I use eh-eh. 
The problem is, so many of the other "tools" require physical manipulation. I can't do that. Even a small leash correction, an ear pinch, they would cause me more pain than it would the dog. Clicker training allows me to train my dog with the least pain, even on days when my speech is slurred or I say the wrong word.
I'm not bashing other methods. I don't use them because a)I can't and b)I don't think I need to use pain/force to teach me dog.


----------



## fjm (Jun 4, 2010)

That is very interesting, KC - I hadn't thought about the advantages of clicker training when you are forced to be hands off, or have bad speech days. I have tried to persuade my dyslexic neighbour to try it, to give some consistency to her cues and rewards, but I think that is a lost cause!


----------



## Karma'sACat (Jun 1, 2010)

fjm said:


> That is very interesting, KC - I hadn't thought about the advantages of clicker training when you are forced to be hands off, or have bad speech days. I have tried to persuade my dyslexic neighbour to try it, to give some consistency to her cues and rewards, but I think that is a lost cause!


It definitely forces you to rethink how you do things. I also use hand signals since I can reliably do those even when I can't reliably speak them. It is really interesting to speak with others how they adapt training to their disabilities. Having people to talk to about how they adapted is invaluable when my disease progresses.


----------



## JE-UK (Mar 10, 2010)

fjm said:


> An ethical quandary indeed. I can imagine deliberately hurting one of my animals if their safety was in question, and there was no alternative. Or even if the retrieve were to feed my family, and again all other alternatives had been exhausted. I baulk at it for something that is in effect for my own vanity - the dog doesn't give a damn about the awards and rosettes.


Agreed. In fact, we 'hurt' our dogs all the time for their own good ... Vasco would prefer not to go to the vet, for example :smile:.

I'm struggling with the question of advance competition and methods required to succeed. On the one hand, there are lots of positives ... I think you need competition (whatever the sport) to prove function, it's inspiring for novice dog owners, it gives dogs a job. But upper levels have become so competitive that the expense of competing is prohibitive (no idea how people manage that also work full time!) and criteria for success is down to millimeters. 

We change the 'rules' for sports all the time, i.e. age limits for women's gymnastics, new safety rules in eventing. It may be we need to look at dog sports in the same light. Although the solution may already be in the works, what with the emergency of new dog sports, like rally, heelwork to music, canicross, etc.


----------

