Why working retrievers are worth preserving
By Gina Spadafori
July 1, 2009
During a “lively” discussion of the use of e-collars following this post, there was an expansion into whether we needed to preserve a working dog who does a job some people don’t like: Hunt.
Why do we need retrievers from top-level hunting lines at all? some asked, arguing that hunting should be banned, anyway, so who needs the dogs who do that work?
Several folks pointed out that the drive, trainability, athleticism and focus of hunting-line retrievers was ideal for search and rescue work.
Well, guess what? It’s also good for something else.
This morning I’m listening to NPR, a story about the military’s bomb-sniffing dogs. The reporter describes a drill the handler is doing with his dog, a Labrador retriever. I didn’t have to imagine this drill from the description of the reporter: I’ve seen it, in field training.
Lode is a black Labrador retriever; his tall, thin handler is Lance Cpl. Robert Leddy.
“We usually air them out before we start to work them, so they don’t go to the bathroom while we’re running them and stuff,” Leddy says.
“When he’s all done, he usually comes up to me and tells me he’s ready,” he adds.
Lode and Leddy are one of 13 bomb-detecting teams attached to the Marines’ 2nd Battalion, 8th Regiment, whose home base is Camp Lejeune, N.C. Their task is to help clear the roads of the deadly bombs that are taking a major toll on U.S. troops.
In one training exercise involving foot-long rubber batons called bumpers, Lode plays an impressive game of fetch. He follows whistles and arm signals like a border collie, going to the bumper Leddy directs him to, while ignoring the others.
The drill trains the dog to be able to approach a suspicious pile of gravel or a box near the road that could contain a bomb.
Dear NPR: That’s not “like a border collie” at all. That’s like a retriever. And that drill is done every day by working hunting dogs.
Good boy, Lode. Keep saving lives.
Anyone know why they are using retrievers instead of, say, beagles? Just curious :)
Comment by straybaby — July 1, 2009 @ 8:25 am
They need a high degree of precision handling to send the dog in a straight line to the suspected bomb. From there, pretty much any dog could say, “yep, those are explosives.”
They’re not sniffing luggage … they going out into a mine-field.
What they’re doing is exactly what goes on in a high-level hunt test: A straight-line directed retrieve: Go out, sit at the whistle. Go right, sit at the whistle. Go back, sit at the whistle, etc. This is how retrievers are handled to a bird they didn’t see fall in high-level hunt test.
A beagle has a GREAT nose, but is too independent in his decision-making for the job they’re using these Labradors for.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 1, 2009 @ 8:45 am
I guess the meta-question is, “Why do people who want, need, value certain kinds of dogs have to justify their universal social acceptability to some amorphous ‘we’ in order to continue on with our lives — as we choose to live them, with the animals we choose?”
It’s not up to the indefinite “we” to pass judgment on the social utility of my dog.
Nobody asked my grandmother to justify the social utility of collecting antique salt cellars, ya know?
There are people who spend more time, money, and emotional energy trying to assemble a complete collection of Precious Moments figurines than I do on my dogs. For reals. As long as I don’t have to look at those horrid little alien tchotches, it’s none of my damned business.
There are people who spend half a working day, every day, scrapbooking. This opens the question of what the hell memories they have to preserve if all they do is sit around with crinkle-edge scissors and tacky glue, but it’s not my business how they spend their time and money.
There are people who bodybuild obsessively, spending hours a day in the gym. This is their passion. Is it up to “us” to tell them they should instead be spoon-feeding paralyzed monk seals?
Hunting is legal. Some people choose to hunt with dogs. I can present many reasons why it is better to have hunting and hunters than not, and many more reasons why bird hunting is best done with dogs. But in the context of “Why have that kind of dog at all?” my response is to mind your own damned business.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 1, 2009 @ 9:17 am
Why are they using retrievers? Because they have nose and biddability. And they are using Labs, because, although they don’t have the best noses of the retriever world, it’s easier to find one that has good working ability and they mature faster than the other breeds.
Working retrievers have also been used in New Zealand to help biologists get a good handle on kiwi numbers and distribution.
And let’s not forget that retrievers are a humane hunting device. Bird hunters always wound birds, and without a retriever, they could have escaped with their mortal wounds to die a horrible death. Because the dogs find them and bring them in, they can be dispatched quickly and humanely.
Now, all of that is moot if we assume that hunting is evil. Well, if you like to preserve wetlands, then you should appreciate duck hunters. Duck hunters understand that ducks need healthy wetlands in order to thrive, and they also need clean water. Organizations like Ducks Unlimited fight for clean water and healthy wetlands: http://www.ducks.org/conservation/
And that clean water is good for us, but it also provides habitat for all sorts of other organisms.
And that’s just one example.
So if you’re truly green, you’ll support responsible and ethical hunting. And yes, working retrievers and their owners are part of the solution for better animal welfare and for protecting ecosystems.
And selfishly, having owned retrievers from both working and nonworking lines, I’ve found the working ones to be smarter and better natured than the nonworking ones.
Comment by retrieverman — July 1, 2009 @ 9:18 am
You might like to take a look at the Bumblebee Conservation Trust’s bee nest tracking dog, Toby.
He’s a Springer and they’re making use of his ability to find things in thick cover.
Comment by Rosemary Rodd — July 1, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Source for the use of retrievers in kiwi conservation: http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/.....-rock.html
Comment by retrieverman — July 1, 2009 @ 9:20 am
Thanks for the retriever info Gina and RM!
And yes, I support responsible and ethical hunting. AND retrievers! :)
Comment by straybaby — July 1, 2009 @ 9:42 am
Yeah, baby. You tell ‘em Gina! >ggg<
Comment by Deanna — July 1, 2009 @ 10:24 am
I thought the follow-up from the earlier discussion wasn’t whether or not hunting should be alllowed. Rather, I thought it was the idea that high level hunt tests bear about the same relationship to what day-to-day hunters do with their dogs as OTCh level Obedience bears to the guy who wants his dog to be well-behaved on a walk.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 1, 2009 @ 11:03 am
The duties of all working breeds are worth preserving in some fashion, even if it has to be adapted to the world we live in now, as in this article. I wish we didn’t need bomb sniffing dogs and Lode could spend his whole day retrieving ducks. :O)
There’s a neat article in the latest issue of Bark Magazine about a Cairn terrier that is helping to save an almost extinct breed of sea turtle by sniffing out their nest so that the eggs can be put in incubators.
Comment by Original Lori — July 1, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Retrievers from hunting or field trial lines are among the most common dogs, and in some cases THE most common dogs, in a wide range of scent detection jobs. These jobs include: wilderness airscent search-and-rescue, trailing search-and-rescue, law enforcement tracking/trailing, urban search-and-rescue (disaster), cadaver detection on land, cadaver detection on water, avalanche rescue, law enforcement evidence detection, narcotics detection, explosives detection, accelerant (arson) detection, mine detection, termite detection, agricultural pest insect detection, wildlife detection, natural gas detection, and a host of other scent detection jobs. Dogs in scent work are more limited by our imaginations than by canine capabilities.
Basically, in these jobs we need dogs with high hunt drive, trainability, solid nerves, and hardness. In most of these jobs the dogs work off leash so we also need biddability.
Few breeds and most dogs even in the “right breeds” have the combination of traits that we need. You’ll see these traits in some working-bred herding dogs and some working-bred retrievers. Like most breeds bred for traditional hunting work, beagles don’t have the required trainability or biddability, and they are too hardwired for crittering.
I’m not aware of any scent detection job that requires dogs to take a long distance precision straight line ala hunting retriever field trials and hunt tests. Mine detection? Maybe. The other jobs, I don’t think so.
One of my colleagues in wilderness airscent SAR works a Senior Hunter Labrador Retriever that is most of the way toward finishing his Master Hunter title. As a result of his hunt test training, that dog can do some fancy casting. Only once in this dog’s SAR work has his handler ever had to use this dog’s hunt test casting skills… to get him around some impassible terrain.
The specific trained skills in hunt tests / field trials are not the point. By selecting for the _genetic_traits_ required in hunt tests and field trials, we select for the traits needed in practical scent detection work.
Hunt tests and field trials are absolutely vital in maintaining a pool of dogs for practical scent work.
Comment by LauraS — July 1, 2009 @ 11:30 am
Lots of dogs are being used for “work” other than their original purpose. Diane Jessup is training American Pit Bull Terriers for detection work (several of her dogs are on duty now with the Washington State Police), selecting those for the breed’s high drive and determination. (oh, and btw, because the follow up on that last subject was NOT whether hunting was allowable, but what The Other Pat said and also whether aversives were required: Jessup says she trains exclusively using play and other non-aversive techniques). Pit bulls can make great SAR dogs for the same reasons, because of their willingness to work past pain and obstructions. No one would say that we have to preserve dogfighting to maintain those qualities (well, actually there ARE people who say that but of course they are moral cretins).
So YES to preserving the “working” qualities of dogs, and YES to using the special skills and desires of dogs to help people. Working dogs want to work.
Personally I have no problem with using retrieving dogs to retrieve downed ducks, and I have no problem with people hunting in general.
But using the value of preserving working qualities of dogs as a principle argument in favor of activities society may come to find untenable? Not so much.
Many breeds are going to be facing the dilemma that responsible breeders of the APBT have faced for decades now: how to preserve those qualities in the absence of the original test.
Comment by EmilyS — July 1, 2009 @ 11:31 am
There are people who spend more time, money, and emotional energy trying to assemble a complete collection of Precious Moments figurines than I do on my dogs. For reals. As long as I don’t have to look at those horrid little alien tchotches, it’s none of my damned business.
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 1, 2009
This is a great comment, in that it made me laugh and shake my head up and down in vehement agreement.
When my Gram died, she left a couple hundred collectible and/or commemorative cups and saucers, which where all carefully kept dusted and on proud display in her home.
My mom begged me to take them, as the only granddaughter. No way.
Although … now what I think of it, they would have been really fun for target shooting.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 1, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Gina, if they were such a super collection, don’t ya think you mom would keep them, herself?
Just a thought—but cups and saucers, not MY cup of tea!:)
Comment by Colorado Transplant — July 1, 2009 @ 11:51 am
The meat of this post was in Gina’s comments. Why do we need to justify our love and dedication to our dogs? Being about to have a daughter in two weeks, I have been told by a number of people that I will not have time for my dogs once my daughter comes. However, there are a lot of families that can have fifth kid, give adequate attention to him, and still have time for the other four. Wouldn’t two dogs be easier than that?
Comment by Jorge Guzman — July 1, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
These qualities are worth preserving because it certainly will save a lot of time instead of trying to develop them in other, non-traditional breeds not usually or consistently recognized as possessing the same skills.
I “get” using dogs that test well from alternative sources like shelters, but the demand for dogs of this caliber is outstripping their availability.
Domestic and Military applications are still pretty dominated by pure bred Mals and Labs. Domestic law enforcement is starting to look for dogs from other sources as budgets are cut, but the search is often tedious and the results less than stellar.
When you have such a rich pool of talent to choose from, wouldn’t it make more sense to continue what you have as opposed to having to try to recreate it in a breed or breeds that offer less in the way of selection, or worse, undergo the endless search for candidates from non-traditional sources?
I have hooked dogs out of shelters as service/working dogs and even landed a Pit a job as a detector dog in a community that has effectively banned them. It helped that she looked like a Lab that had a head on with a Mack truck, but the search was endless to come up with a few really viable candidates.
When time is the issue, it is important to have a ready source.
Comment by Linda Kaim — July 1, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
As to the subject of needing to use aversive in training dog for field work, I just watched a fabulous video on retriever training called The Wildrose Way Retriever Training by Mike Stewart. Yes choke collars are used for the basic obedience portion of training but NO e-collars or pinched ear retrieves. He showed mainly positive reinforcement methods and repetition/memory training. I was impressed. (not that I agreed with every bit but still) I have been told he gets picked on in trial circles for being to soft on his dogs AND because his dogs are to calm. (WTF??? Please let me see a field trial lab in my area that is to calm, PLEASE!)
And as to aversives being needed for bomb dog (or drug dog) training, you actually cannot use aversives to force a dog to learn how to use it’s nose. You can use it for the basic obedience portion of training because it is seperate however.
An interesting look at trainng military dogs is in the book “Always Faithful~ A memoir of the Marine Dogs of WWII” by Capt William W. Putney DVM, USMC ret. He was one of the first to use positive methods in war dog training.
Comment by Marie — July 1, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
And as to aversives being needed for bomb dog (or drug dog) training, you actually cannot use aversives to force a dog to learn how to use it’s nose. You can use it for the basic obedience portion of training because it is seperate however.
Dogs already know how to use their noses and we are incapable of teaching them anything in that regard, with any tool. We teach them which scent we want them to search for, and we teach them to tell us about when they find it.
The most common use of aversives I see in scent work is to stop crittering, not basic obedience.
Comment by LauraS — July 1, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
The contention that “basic obedience” is separate from any scent-detecting dog’s work is a curious one, and not supported by any work I have done or seen performed.
But what the hell would I know?
Comment by H. Houlahan — July 1, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
I mean that you can train the dog in basic obedience, sit, come, down, go left etc, seperately. Teaching tracking (as opposed to teaching them how to use their nose for those sticklers out there) is taught seperately because it is a different activity.
Think Obedience ring vs Agility ring. Two seperate events in which you can use two seperate training methods for if you so choose. (and that might not be the best example)
I have worked with drug dogs and in that case you do NOT stop them from pulling on leash or do anything that makes them stop and pay attention to the handler. It would be inturupting their focus and perhaps shut them down. Yes you can direct them to a specific search area though AND teach them a passive find to protect property.
In training the scent work you (typically) use different methods for teaching that vs the obedience involved with passive finds. (think toy as reward vs traditional choke collar to teach the sit stay passive find)
I have worked with some cadaver dogs which are taught passive article indication so evidence can be protected.
I also do tracking with two of my dogs. Teaching how to find the track and teaching basic commands are seperate. I do not do obedience on the track aside from teaching article indications. (and there is leeway in this)
I want my dog to pay attention to the scent of the track so I do not use my reward marker words I might use in teaching regular obedience work on the track because I don’t want her looking at me for direction. I can use them for the article indications however.
Does that make more sense?
Comment by Marie — July 2, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
I would have never thought about teaching that HIGH precision of handling to work your dog through a mine field to sniff out a bomb. If you’ve never handled a retriever in that manner before it is not as simple as telling it to go left, right or away from you. REAL precise dogs will take casts (signals) like the hands of a clock regardless of condition or terrain. Wind, hillsides, thick cover, water etc. all have an impact on the direction a dog may or may not take. As a dog handler, you have to know what your dog’s tendencies are can give them the cast you think will get them exactly where you need them to be. I thought handling to a blind for a ribbon was pressure. I can’t imagine handling your dog to a bomb in a mine field. Just think, One paw in the wrong place in the mine field. What an amazing testament to the intelligence and work ethic of dogs and their relationship with their handlers.
Comment by Verde — July 4, 2009 @ 10:31 am
From Marie:
“As to the subject of needing to use aversive in training dog for field work, I just watched a fabulous video on retriever training called The Wildrose Way Retriever Training by Mike Stewart. Yes choke collars are used for the basic obedience portion of training but NO e-collars or pinched ear retrieves.” “…you actually cannot use aversives to force a dog to learn how to use it’s nose. You can use it for the basic obedience portion of training because it is seperate however.”
Ok, there is so much wrong with this that it’s very hard to know where to start, so I’ll just dive in. The tone of Marie’s post leads me to believe that she thinks that all obedience trained dogs are trained using aversive methods. I fight this mentality all. the. time. along with the mentality that all aversive techniques are inherently bad.
The dogs who are trained using “jerk and pull” methods rarely perform as brilliantly as they are capable of. Which is why most of us have gone to using motivational methods to obedience train. :-) And to train in general.
So back to your comments, let’s start with the idea that so-called “choke” collars are OK (IMO, if you are choking your dog, you are misusing the collar) and an ear-pinch or the use of an e-collar is bad. I would say that it depends on the hands behind either method. I would say that there is still a place for these methods, but that they should not be used willy-nilly and the idea of “teaching” a dog basic obedience, or anything, in this way makes me shudder.
Marie, let me ask you, if your dog is out 100 yards from you, and he’s headed for something dangerous like a leg-breaking hole, and he ignores your stop whistle, don’t you want a way to reach out and touch him? That’s why we use e-collars. (Hey, at least you called it an e-collar and not a shock collar.) The level of stimulation depends on the dog and collars these days can be easily set. They also have a short burst setting and a longer setting that cuts off after a few seconds. (Different buttons.)
My beef with positive-only training methods is that it’s incredibly unfair to the dog to make him continually guess if he’s offering the right behavior. I’ve seen many dogs get very frustrated until he is shown or told when he’s wrong as well as when he’s right. Telling him when he’s not right speeds the process along of him learning what’s right, and I would argue that the dog is happier. A trainer near here offers a terrific demonstration in her beginning classes regarding the frustration (to the dog) of positive only training — she has students try to train their fellow students to do a behavior using positive only. The activity makes the point.
“Aversive” is a pretty loaded word. I believe that dog training needs to include consequences for being wrong once he knows what’s right. Is telling the dog “no” aversive? Is letting the dog run into the collar when he’s out of position aversive? (FWIW, I don’t teach heeling that way, ick.) Is giving the dog a “wake up” bounce for lack of of effort aversive?
All I know of scent work at this point is teaching my dog to pick out my scent on an article from a pile of articles with someone else’s scent. And I know that people teach that by tying the wrong articles down to a board so that if the dog tries to pick up the wrong one, he can’t. I would argue that to some dogs, that is an aversive method — but it works. (I don’t use that method.) I tried to train a dog using a positive-only method and the dog got very frustrated. I found that by telling a dog when he is wrong that it actually created more confidence (he isn’t guessing) and a happier dog. (There’s a lot more to it than that, FWIW.)
If my dog is giving me the dew claw and avoiding the exercise, I will find some way to create a consequence for that that admittedly is more harsh than a game-show buzzer noise. He knows what the game is, what’s expected of him. My dogs also know the ear-pinch. Used correctly, it provides the dog information of what is expected in much the same way that pressure on a bit in a horse’s mouth does. (The pressure is removed when the animal gives the correct response.) The only way to fairly use pressure methods is to teach the animal how to remove the pressure or the “aversive” first.
My point is that “aversives” have their place in dog training but also that it depends on the dog. I would also argue that the high-intelligence, high-drive dogs that are suitable for high-level training (SAR, scent work, all the things being talked about here) are the most likely candidates. I don’t like it, but aversive techniques can be used to teach (tie-down method of teaching scent work). Aversive techniques are best used by a person who knows exactly what they are doing with a certain type of dog.
Whew, sorry. I guess this is what happens when someone pushes my “obedience training with a ‘choke’ collar” and “ear-pinch and e-collars are always bad” buttons. Kind of unusual to see them both in the same post.
Comment by Deanna — July 6, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
Comment by Deanna — July 6, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
“My beef with positive-only training methods . . . . “
Would you care to define “positive-only training methods” and say who here says they’re a “positive-only” trainer?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
The Myth of “Purely Positive”:
http://www.clickertraining.com/node/988
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
The Myth of “Purely Positive”
http://www.google.com/search?c.....p;oe=UTF-8
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2009 @ 4:59 pm