For some reason, Shirely has changed her kennel name from Regan to Trax. So if you see Trax dogs, it’s the same great genes!

You’ve certainly had a run of bad luck with the dogs lately….so it’s time there was some good news for you….

Annie xxx

Thanks for your reply. You raise a lot of interesting questions.

I do know a bit about US training methods, although obviously not first-hand by way of competing myself. But I do have quite a few DVDs, which were recommended by folk in the US, and I’ve hung out on US forums for a few years. My husband is American and we have a lot of friends and family over there. Which is all to say that I know where you’re coming from.

US Field Trial dogs are big running, hard hunting, tough dogs who have been bread through the years for more and more increased desire IMO. The side effect is less and less willingness to focus on the handler.

I’m not entirely sure that’s true. If you look at the pedigrees of the top Weims competing in Obedience and Agility in the US – something Regen Weimaraners have an excellent reputation for – you will see a lot of field blood in their pedigrees. Usually at least 50% field-bred, if not more. And in Obedience and Agility, dogs have to focus hugely on their handlers and work in close partnership with them. So I disagree that this is about genetics, and the more field-bred a dog is, the less able to focus on the handler and the more focussed on pleasing itself by accessing the environmental rewards. Otherwise breeders like Regen would want to stay well clear of field-bred dogs. And they don’t, instead they are arguably the top Weim competitors in those fields, with largely field-bred dogs.

Instead, I think a lot of this is about nurture: What a dog learns is rewarding, as a puppy and young teen, s/he is likely to continue finding rewarding as an adult. So if a young dog is exposed to game at a young age, and not much clicker training with the handler s/he is likely to find hunting rewarding as an adult – but may lack focus on the handler. If a dog has intensive clicker-training sessions daily with the owner and no game exposure when young, the dog is likely to grow up to be much more handler-focussed and biddable – but may lack hunting drive and range. Somewhere in there, is a balance: A dog which is independent and will hunt with great drive and desire, yet also wants to know where you are and to work with you to get game in the bag. That probably requires exposure to both lots of game and also lots of clicker training, when young!

there are behaviors that we want to teach a dog to perform. Stand/Sit to flush, Recall, retrieve, hold and release on cue to hand. As in add behaviors with positive training. Then we do want to reduce behaviors as well. Natural behaviors or bred in behaviors like desire to not only find but catch game are behaviors one wants to reduce, visa vie “punishment” in the science of learning sense of the word.

Yes, there are both behaviours we want to pro-actively train a dog to do – and also behaviours we want to train a dog *not* to do. However, there are more tools in the positive-only trainer’s tool-box than rewarding behaviours we like. This is what the whole article above is about. It is a misunderstanding of positive-only training to think that trainers are just clicking and giving treats when they see something they like. There is a whole lot more involved in using reward-based methods successfully with gundogs.

It’s simply not necessary to use punishment (what you are calling ‘negative stimulus’) in order to get the behaviour you want. If a dog tries something and it repeatedly doesn’t work, that behaviour will ‘extinguish’ – it will stop. Ie: If a dog tries to chase and it repeatedly can’t because it is on a long-line, eventually that dog will give up. It may take many repetitions, especially if the dog has chased a lot in the past and especially if the dog has been bred to have high desire. But it will happen. We know this, since learning theory is a science.

Using punishment might achieve the end result (stopping chasing) faster, but is it fair to punish a dog for something he doesn’t even know? (Ie ‘sit’/stand, in this particular situation, with this particular game distraction, at this particular moment – see the article above for what I wrote about generalisation in gundog work.)

Would you not agree that all negative stimulus is not abusive, and can be used in a way that is not abusive but actually for its purpose to reduce the occurrence of an unwanted behavior? If you take the analogy with the child and the cake, would you suggest that children should never be reprimanded for any negative behavior?

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘negative stimulus’, there. I’ll assume you mean positive punishment (the application of something which stops the behaviour), since it sounds like that’s what you mean. Well, I think the word ‘abusive’ is not really part of the conversation about learning theory. What is abusive and what isn’t is always up for debate and is a moral and ethical issue. Even in humans there is currently a big debate about smacking children. But although we can argue forever about what is ‘abusive’ and what isn’t, it is clear-cut and absolute what is ‘positive punishment’ and what isn’t. Smacking a child is positive punishment. Checking a dog on a choke chain is positive punishment. Whether these things are abusive or not, and whether you feel comfortable using a method which might be considered abusive, is much more getting into the territory of human ethics and morals and straying far away from learning theory and the hard science.

Learning theory and hard science tells us that positive punishment has certain fall-outs when used. These are not moral or ethical ‘fall-outs’ – they are hard science, based again on learning theory. I would really recommend that you read a couple of books if you are unsure about using punishment and deciding which way to go. The best book I’ve read is ‘Excel-erated Learning: Explaining how dogs learn and how best to teach them’ by Pamela J. Reid. This is a very balanced book, which discusses the issues unemotionally and factually – including the pros and cons of positive punishment. Once you’ve read that, you’ll have a much better all round understanding and be able to decide how best to train your dog.

Good luck!

The zero carbs thing is quite important though, to starve tumours: There are carbs in egg and also often in tripe (due to the contents of the tripe), so those two are out for us. It will predominantly meat-based, what we end up feeding.

I’m guessing that, quantity-wise, 5-6 chicken wings is a meal, then? This is the sort of thing which is difficult to figure out – roughly how much is a meal…!

With the push US for the “Versatile” dog training, I think you are correct. US Field Trial dogs are big running, hard hunting, tough dogs who have been bread through the years for more and more increased desire IMO. The side effect is less and less willingness to focus on the handler. These dogs are “tough” meaning they have been bred to take harsh treatment, or force breaking, and not end up nervous wrecks as you say. But the dogs have become impractical in that one has to own a horse to hunt behind them, and one has to have access to sometimes 1000′s of acres of land for them to hunt on. In our modern world neither of those things are practical. Most people don’t have access to that much property, and well if you have to train and keep a horse to hunt, and train a dog to hunt with it, you must not have any other activities to do(work, family, etc).

So one can see where a more positive form of training suited to a softer more handler focused dog is an evolution that hunters and breeds are moving too. That being said one does find that there seems to be some unresolved dichotomy between the “Traditional Trainer” and the “Positive Trainer” as it refers to gun dogs. Your article states it well in many places but particularly with this statement …”The irony is that dogs have been genetically selected and bred, for generations, to want game and to have intense desire – to find game inherently rewarding. Then we come along and start to punish the dog for the very attributes we have tried so hard to breed in, to select for…”

In short I think as with some trainers in the US there is and will be a healthy mix of both positive and negative stimulus training in the end (see willowcreekkennels.com). After all there are behaviors that we want to teach a dog to perform. Stand/Sit to flush, Recall, retrieve, hold and release on cue to hand. As in add behaviors with positive training. Then we do want to reduce behaviors as well. Natural behaviors or bred in behaviors like desire to not only find but catch game are behaviors one wants to reduce, visa vie “punishment” in the science of learning sense of the word.

Would you not agree that all negative stimulus is not abusive, and can be used in a way that is not abusive but actually for its purpose to reduce the occurrence of an unwanted behavior? If you take the analogy with the child and the cake, would you suggest that children should never be reprimanded for any negative behavior?

While I make an argument here, I am still really on the fence and would like your opinion

We all have our fingers, toes, legs and eyes crossed here for Slate, sending health thoughts. It’s not a pretty sight I can tell you. xxxxxxxxx

We’ll be thinking of you and hoping for good news.

Annie xxxx