# Shock collars



## cgriffin (Nov 30, 2011)

Not a big fan of shock collars!


----------



## Caesar's Buddy (May 25, 2010)

Boy, I don't know about shock collars... I raised and trained Caesar and Jenni using a rattle can. (Pop can with small pebbles in it) My breeder suggested it to me. When they were being naughty I would shake the can, and if I had to I could throw it in the direction where they were.

It worked miracles, even as adults it worked. I personally would only use a shock collar as a very last resort. However, there are many on here with way-way more knowledge than I have... 

Pat


----------



## baumgartml16 (Jun 19, 2011)

I like the can idea...I will add that to list to try before I would resort to the shock collar.


----------



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

Am I crazy?
Answer: Yes!


----------



## potentiallygolden (Dec 21, 2011)

Do you use a prong collar? With my previous dog, I had a tough time getting her under control (she was a Jack Russell Terrier, very fast, and very stubborn). Then an obedience instructor introduced me to a prong collar, and it changed everything. The best part was I really didn't have to yank on her at all when the prong collar was on (which made me feel a lot better about the humanity of the situation). After 1 or 2 times of pulling with the prong collar, she was much more submissive.

If you do go with a prong collar - make sure not to have excess prongs in it - it should fit snug around the dog. And don't leave it on when you're not in training or behavior modification mode


----------



## Jingers mom (Feb 10, 2012)

I'm not a fan of shock collars either. When we got our black lab (he was a year old) he came with a shock collar. He had not been trained in any way other than he was house broken and knew how to fetch a ball. I tried using it on a very low setting and the dog completely ignored me. Frustrated, my husband took it a upped the sock factor. I had gone inside to do something when I heard to dog yelp. The shock collar was gone the next morning after my husband went to work. I refused to use it again on any animal. Noah is a very, very, stubborn lab. It took some time and love and he's a great dog now except his recall is delayed sometimes he see's something more interesting than coming back to me; I'm working on that. 

A shock collar if used correctly by a trained adult, might work wonderfully. But, if you get frustrated and up the current a bit it can really hurt. If you get one make sure you learn the correct way to use it. Noah ignored it except the night he yelped . 

Since the shock collar incident with Noah, it's taken him a long time to bond with my husband. He bonded immediately to me because I loved him and showed him kindness. It took Noah more than a year to bond with my husband, but now they are best friends.

One thing you can try is an air horn (canned you can buy them for sporting events etc.). On little toot and it gets their attention.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

I am for anything that works. That being said, I am only for shock collars as a last resort, or a specific behavior. I don't think that it should be used for everyday training. I have seen it used very effectively when training dogs to avoid rattlesnakes. I also watched a show where the dog wouldn't stop chasing the farm equipment and had gotten run over more than once by the huge tractor tires. The dog even lost an eye in one of the accidents and didn't stop. When a shock collar was used correctly, the dog stopped chasing the tires. My brother has used a shock collar on all of his dogs for specific behaviors. Once the behavior is corrected, he puts the shock collar away. He has had his collar for about 20 years and used it on 5 different dogs. Only for specific behaviors and only until the behavior was corrected. I know a person who uses a shock collar incorrectly and the results are a very nervous and shaky dog. She is now just a bundle of nerves and it is very sad to see. She wears the collar all the time and is shocked (very gently, I am told) whenever she does something "wrong". That, in my opinion is a lazy way to train. 
Using a shock collar isn't as easy as putting it on the dog and poofff it works. The handler must be trained by someone who knows how to do it right. If you do decide to go this route, you will need to find the right collar and the right trainer. I would stay clear of anyone who suggests using it for all training such as sit, down, etc.


----------



## cgriffin (Nov 30, 2011)

I have used the pepples in the can with good success before also, forgot about that one. 
Still NO to shock collars from me.


----------



## baumgartml16 (Jun 19, 2011)

No it is. I am no where near comfortable with this. It was suggested and I thought about it for 30 minutes but no, I can't do it. 

We will use some tough love with her first and if that doesn't work try the can or air horn ideas. The last thing I want is for her to not trust me or any kind of nervousness of hers to come from me. 

Thanks for setting me straight, this is why I love this forum!


----------



## Mb190e (Feb 7, 2012)

Caesar's Buddy said:


> Boy, I don't know about shock collars... I raised and trained Caesar and Jenni using a rattle can. (Pop can with small pebbles in it) My breeder suggested it to me. When they were being naughty I would shake the can, and if I had to I could throw it in the direction where they were.
> 
> It worked miracles, even as adults it worked. I personally would only use a shock collar as a very last resort. However, there are many on here with way-way more knowledge than I have...
> 
> Pat


I too have used the soda can and currently use a soda can for unwanted behavior. In another thread people were against using the soda cans with pebbles and it made me feel like I was being a bad person/trainer (abusing the dog) I guess it just depends on what you're comparing it to beating the dog, shock collar or soda can

I had a long talk with my wife and family members about the soda can and mistreating the dog with it, they convinced me that I wasn't.

The soda can with pebbles in it definitely works for unwanted behavior.


----------



## Running Star (Nov 4, 2011)

My Girl has a shock collar / viberator collar I have NEVER had to use the SHOCK feature of it.
I found that if she started to run after a car I would just turn on the VIBERATOR feature on it and the viberating feel would break her contration on the car and STOP chasing it .She would then try to look to see what was making that funny viberating feeling on her.
I think it took her about 3 times with the VIBERATOR part on her.
Now she dosen't even try to chase a car.
Still goes after Squirels but she hasn't learned how to climb a tree yet.
She also goes after chipmunks but there too fast for her to catch.
But Rabbits are still fair game she has cought one.
In my openion get a VIBERATOR collar ( cheeper and works just as well )


----------



## toliva (Nov 24, 2011)

My friend uses them on her adult german shepherds for specific behaviors. They are extremely well-trained dogs and not timid or fearful at all. However, she is a professional dog trainer and works at a dog school, so she knows what she is doing. And, using it on a GS is totally different than a GR.

I agree that it would have to be be an absolute last resort for a golden... and even then, probably for only life-threatening behaviors like car chasing.


----------



## Capt Jack (Dec 29, 2011)

I have a shock collar for Jack but it has a beep & vibrate button too I don't use the shock unless I fear he's putting himself in danger I think the reason the beep usually works fine is because he is yard trained with a pet safe fence & the beep let's him know what will happen next.If the pup was timid or scidish I'd never use one Jack is a bull but I'd say you must know the dog first it could do more harm than good


----------



## baumgartml16 (Jun 19, 2011)

Yea, Koda is definitely a more sensitive dog so this is probably not the way to go.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

goldhaven said:


> I am for anything that works. That being said, I am only for shock collars as a last resort, or a specific behavior. I don't think that it should be used for everyday training. I have seen it used very effectively when training dogs to avoid rattlesnakes. I also watched a show where the dog wouldn't stop chasing the farm equipment and had gotten run over more than once by the huge tractor tires. The dog even lost an eye in one of the accidents and didn't stop. When a shock collar was used correctly, the dog stopped chasing the tires. My brother has used a shock collar on all of his dogs for specific behaviors. Once the behavior is corrected, he puts the shock collar away. He has had his collar for about 20 years and used it on 5 different dogs. Only for specific behaviors and only until the behavior was corrected. I know a person who uses a shock collar incorrectly and the results are a very nervous and shaky dog. She is now just a bundle of nerves and it is very sad to see. She wears the collar all the time and is shocked (very gently, I am told) whenever she does something "wrong". That, in my opinion is a lazy way to train.
> Using a shock collar isn't as easy as putting it on the dog and poofff it works. The handler must be trained by someone who knows how to do it right. If you do decide to go this route, you will need to find the right collar and the right trainer. I would stay clear of anyone who suggests using it for all training such as sit, down, etc.


That is horrible. Poor dog has no idea when she will get shocked, and no idea why she gets shocked. Spending every moment scared of when the next shock is coming.

That's not lazy training, that is ignorant people who have no idea how to correctly use the collar, inflicting torture on the dog. Those people need to be reported for animal abuse. 

Kodasmomma, I am very glad you chose not to try the shock collar.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Both my goldens are e-collar conditioned. E-collars are a wonderful tool and will not harm a dog when used correctly. However I would have to say no. I don't think an e-collar should be used for this kind of behavior. I am all of 110lbs myself and my Cody was over 100lbs and I could yank him up by his collar if need be. Maybe a trainer can show you how to get him up by his collar. Yes I know mine also will lay on their back and devil dog me but I know how to grab the collar. They are not going to lay there choking they will get up.

Now later on if you are still really struggling with recall you can find a profesisonal that can train you and your dog with the e-collar. It's nothing to be afraid of and when you actually see and feel how it works all your fears will go out the door. It's an excellent tool for off leash and recall.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

toliva said:


> My friend uses them on her adult german shepherds for specific behaviors. They are extremely well-trained dogs and not timid or fearful at all. However, she is a professional dog trainer and works at a dog school, so she knows what she is doing. *And, using it on a GS is totally different than a GR.*
> 
> I agree that it would have to be be an absolute last resort for a golden... and even then, probably for only life-threatening behaviors like car chasing.


I disagree Why would it be any different?


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

mylissyk said:


> That is horrible. Poor dog has no idea when she will get shocked, and no idea why she gets shocked. Spending every moment scared of when the next shock is coming.
> 
> That's not lazy training, that is ignorant people who have no idea how to correctly use the collar, inflicting torture on the dog. Those people need to be reported for animal abuse.
> 
> Kodasmomma, I am very glad you chose not to try the shock collar.


I agree that it is also ignorant. Unfortunately, it is not animal abuse. Luckily, most golden owners love to talk to other golden owners. They always comment on how well behaved my girls are and I use this as an opportunity to educate the ignorant. Sometimes it works, sometimes not so much. I always try. I was taught that you can catch more flies with honey, and accusing someone of abusing their pet is not so sweet.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

What is the issue with the dog in the OP? She shuts down and won't move? I'll go back and reread. It is usually helpful to deal with a dog's actions rather than anthropomorphising and reading in emotional motivations like "stubborn" bc it sets up an antagonistic relationship between puppy and owner. It's helpful to remember the littermate's "mommy" is another dog, and not a human, in realizing how much dogs and humans are crossing over species barriers to communicate. Shocking a puppy for not moving worries me that there are already miscues going on.


----------



## aerolor (May 27, 2011)

Never used a shock collar or a prong collar in over 45 years of having a variety of dogs. Can't abide the things . They are not widely used over here and are quite unpopular - thank goodness.


----------



## Capt Jack (Dec 29, 2011)

By the way if you do decide to use an E-collar try it on yourself first.I would never do anything to Jack I wouldn't do to myself.


----------



## FeatherRiverSam (Aug 7, 2009)

The e-collar / shock collar is another tool to help train your dog but like any other tool if used incorrectly it can do more damage than good. But if used in the way it was meant to be used it can be a real life saver, for your dog, particularly in the area of recall and selective hearing.

I was introduced to it years ago by our trainer for use in field working English Setter's. The extended control you have over the dog is the key element. The idea is not to electrocute the dog but rather give it a an audible beep followed by a mild correction if he is non-responsive to a command which he has been trained to do. If the dog has been trained correctly the actual use of the shock portion of the collar is rarely used.

The collar has given me the freedom and my dog the freedom to be off lead in back country area's where danger can appear out of no where; wild life, barbed wire fences, cattle / bulls, other aggressive dogs, off road vehicles, venomous snakes, yellow jacket hives...and the list goes on.

When my dog sees the leash he is delighted...hey I'm going for a walk...alright. But when he see's the shock collar he's doing summersaults!!! It's hey I'm going for an off lead run!!! Let's get going!!! If your dog cowers when he see's the collar you've done something VERY WRONG!!!

I'm not sure I understand exactly what your application is for use of the collar but it certainly does has it's limitations and again if used incorrectly can do more damage than good. Our Golden's for the most part are very sensitive dogs and want to please so you do have to be vary careful, but if done correctly it can be a very useful tool. And a qualified trainer in the use of a collar is an absolute!!!

Pete


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Capt Jack said:


> By the way if you do decide to use an E-collar try it on yourself first.I would never do anything to Jack I wouldn't do to myself.


A professional e-collar trainer will make you feel the sensation that the dog feels. So no worries about the dog being harmed.


----------



## Suni52 (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm not opposed to them, and have seen them used very successfully, but I think a shock collar should be used as a last resort. A pinch collar can be effective if you have difficulties making corrections on a leash with a simple slip collar. It feels like another dog nipping at their scruff. They look a lot meaner than they actually feel to the dog. 
How are you trying to teach the recall? Recalls take longer to teach than other commands.


----------



## mudEpawz (Jan 20, 2011)

What is the can with pebbles theory? I've never heard on this method before.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Krys! said:


> What is the can with pebbles theory? I've never heard on this method before.


It is used to get their attention.


----------



## bioteach (Nov 13, 2010)

Buckskin was the most stubborn Golden that ever lived. We hired a professional trainer who gave us our money back and referred us to a person who trained military dogs. He gave us our money back too.

In frustration, we bought a shock collar. Bucky learned from the very first (mild) "correction" that he only had to do what was asked of him when he was wearing it. He became "collar wise" immediately. 

I would only recommend a shock collar for one application - snakeproofing. Here in the desert Rattlesnakes abound and Goldens tend to "explore" them with sometimes tragic results. Professional trainers fit your dog with a shock collar, present them with a stuffed snake and shock them when the golden tries to paw or pick the snake up. That's the only time that I would want to have my dog shocked.


----------



## toliva (Nov 24, 2011)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I disagree Why would it be any different?


I think their temperments are quite different, but I could be wrong, as I have only been around a few GS's. I just wouldn't say 'oh my friend used one on a GS so I will use one on my GR' is all I meant. Sorry to derail the thread.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

bioteach said:


> Buckskin was the most stubborn Golden that ever lived. We hired a professional trainer who gave us our money back and referred us to a person who trained military dogs. He gave us our money back too.
> 
> In frustration, we bought a shock collar. Bucky learned from the very first (mild) "correction" that he only had to do what was asked of him when he was wearing it. He became "collar wise" immediately.
> 
> I would only recommend a shock collar for one application - snakeproofing. Here in the desert Rattlesnakes abound and Goldens tend to "explore" them with sometimes tragic results. Professional trainers fit your dog with a shock collar, *present them with a stuffed snake and shock them when the golden tries to paw or pick the snake up. *That's the only time that I would want to have my dog shocked.


They used a stuffed snake? Seriously? Our snake avoidance class uses a real live rattler. They not only need to smell them, but hear them. Normally dogs go after moving prey.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

Captain has a shock collar, after trying many options and many issues to be fixed we seemed a trainer and they told us a shock collar would be best. We chose the one that she told us, worked with her and Captain is amazing. We trained him for about an hour with shock on 1 and beep. Now all we ever do is beep and he stops what he is doing, drops what he has, comes and sits in front of me wagging his tail for a treat or pat. I feel like no matter where he is (within 1000 ft) I have him under control. My stress goes way down. 
You have to use it right or your dog will completely shut down on you.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

bioteach said:


> Buckskin was the most stubborn Golden that ever lived. We hired a professional trainer who gave us our money back and referred us to a person who trained military dogs. He gave us our money back too.
> 
> In frustration, we bought a shock collar. Bucky learned from the very first (mild) "correction" that he only had to do what was asked of him when he was wearing it. He became "collar wise" immediately.
> 
> I would only recommend a shock collar for one application - snakeproofing. Here in the desert Rattlesnakes abound and Goldens tend to "explore" them with sometimes tragic results. Professional trainers fit your dog with a shock collar, present them with a stuffed snake and shock them when the golden tries to paw or pick the snake up. That's the only time that I would want to have my dog shocked.


As far as collar wise, that is why a professional is suggested for using the collar. I was told that the collar should be put on at least one month in advance of ever using the shock so that they don't associate the collar with the correction. I was also told that they should not know that the correction is coming from you. When my brother used it for counter surfing, he stood outside on the porch and watched through the window, when the dog got on the counter he shocked it. He waited about 10 minutes more and then went in an played with the dog. He went back outside about 3 hrs later and the dog never went near the counter. The dog didn't associate the shock with my brother or the collar, just the counter. He tested a couple more times in the next month or so and the dog passed so he put the collar away. 
Specific instances, done correctly it works.


----------



## Mb190e (Feb 7, 2012)

Krys! said:


> What is the can with pebbles theory? I've never heard on this method before.


To get the dogs attention when you catch him in the act like when he's mounting my daughter, rattle the can and he stops what he's doing looks at you. Eating plants, jumping and any other unwanted behavior just rattling the can they stop and look at you.


----------



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

It can also be very aversive to sensitive dogs.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> It is used to get their attention.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

Mb190e said:


> To get the dogs attention when you catch him in the act like when he's mounting my daughter, rattle the can and he stops what he's doing looks at you. Eating plants, jumping and any other unwanted behavior just rattling the can they stop and look at you.


We used that method. Only worked for a couple days then he got used to the noise and didn't care about it.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

LibertyME said:


> It can also be very aversive to sensitive dogs.


Sure some dogs are more sensitive than others.


----------



## Mb190e (Feb 7, 2012)

I use it along with the word NO. just like the clicker training it doesn't take long for them to to associate the word NO with the rattling of the can. I always say NO before I go for the can.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

I believe that shock collars should only be sold at training facilities and an extra charge for training sessions should be included in their cost. Having them be available to everyone and anyone that wants one is a recipe for disaster. The average dog owner has absolutely no idea how to use them and many, many dogs have suffered for their owners ignorance.

I will never use them, but others will and that's where I feel that they need to be sold responsibly. Will that ever happen? Probably not. People want a quick fix and actually taking the time to train their dog with the collar doesn't fit that picture. Slapping one on their dog and zapping them, they think will be the cure all. Unfortunately, it usually makes things worse. Sad...:no:


----------



## FeatherRiverSam (Aug 7, 2009)

I couldn't agree more kwhit. People looking for a short cut, which in some essence they are, not willing to put the time in to learn how to use them responsibly have no business using them. PERIOD!!!


Pete


----------



## spruce (Mar 13, 2008)

kwhit said:


> I believe that shock collars should only be sold at training facilities and an extra charge for training sessions should be included in their cost. Having them be available to everyone and anyone that wants one is a recipe for disaster. The average dog owner has absolutely no idea how to use them and many, many dogs have suffered for their owners ignorance. :no:


 
I think person needs to pass a background test before being allowed access to one. I've tested one on myself, low level is like static shock....but what would a high level feel like?


----------



## Shalva (Jul 16, 2008)

the problem with shock collars is if you don't know what you are doing you can be shocking for one thing but your dog could think that you are shocking for something else.... so for example you want to stop leash pulling... the dog walks along sees another dog and pulls to get to the other dog... you shock the dog for leash pulling but your dog thinks you shocked him because of the other dog... this means that you can make your dog fearful of other dogs and aggressive toward other dogs. This is very hard to fix. 

At a field training class there was a young golden who was running the bank instead of crossing a small stream directly... the person with the shock collar kept zapping the dog for entering the stream at the wrong place.. the dog thought she was getting zapped for touching the water and ended up being afraid of water and would no longer cross the stream at all... 

Shock collars can work great in the right hands... they can also ruin a good dog if they are used incorrectly.

The moral of this story is unless you know what you are doing with the shock collar and how to use it... you should only undertake this with the guidance of a professional who has a great deal of experience.

That having been said... I have 9 dogs here... 5 goldens, 3 Flat Coats and an Irish wolfhound (talk about big) and I have never needed a shock collar and all of my dogs are well behaved, walk nicely on leash and are overall well mannered dogs. I just bought one last year to use more as a bark collar... because my youngest, bing was going to get us kicked out of the neighborhood with his incessant barking...


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I agree with what Shalva has to say. Me personally, other than an Invisible Fence collar, I have never used a shock collar. I was tempted 16 years ago when my second golden escaped from the building where I work and started running at break neck speed for the very busy Route One. I called and called... at the last minute, she turned around and came back to me. I decided that if that became a habit, we might need more drastic measures for her own safety. However, this story has a happy ending... persistent obedience training culminating in her UD, fixed her once unreliable recall...


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

ANY type of training/training tool can harm or confuse a dog if not done correctly. The e-collar gets a bad rap because of human ignorance period. Knowledge is key to *any* type of training or tool. Contrary to what some believe an e-collar is not a tool to just use as a last resort, nor is it a quick fix tool. Nor is it because an owner is lazy. If you have never used one or been trained with one, odds are you have no clue what a great tool it can be and think it is the cruelest tool in the world, which is not the case at all. The best advice I can give is before you knock something at least get educated.


----------



## bioteach (Nov 13, 2010)

The idea of having the dog wear the collar for a while so that he does not associate the shock with the collar or us was indeed what we did. We were in another room but had purposely left some cheese out on the counter. He became collar-wise nonetheless. 

The good news is that as Buckskin matured he began to respond to positive training methods and became a very loving companion. 

As for the stuffed snake - I agree that a real snake (hopefully defanged) is a far better way to go; but thankfully, we never had to test the training. Our guys spent many happy hours hiking the desert with us and we never encountered a snake. One day we did have one come up to our window after a sudden storm flooded its burrow. Brewer saw the snake through the window and calmly walked into another room.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

I just took them for a walk and brought Captain's collar out and he wagged his tail came over and sat in front of me. I put it on and he was as happy as can be. Didn't use it once while we were out. 
We used the collar for a number of things. All of which were fixed with some minor corrections here and there. Mainly picking up tissue in the park, now he drops it when asked. We are working on not picking it up completely but baby steps. 
We kept Cap's collar on for 8 hours during the day for a week before using it. Then started classes with it.
We were taught when putting it on have a treat so when you put it on he gets a treat at the same time it is being wrapped around his neck. It is a great tool when used properly.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I think an e-collar is total overkill for basic household obedience. If you have a dog that's shutting down, adding an unpleasant sensation is much more likely to cause more problems than to solve the initial problem.

I agree with LJilly that "stubbornness" probably doesn't describe what's actually going on from the dog's perspective. If you give us some more detail of the problem behavior (perhaps there's already a thread on this?) we may be able to provide specific training advice that doesn't involve escalating to stronger aversives.


----------



## baumgartml16 (Jun 19, 2011)

tippykayak, there is a thread, i think it is called "the stubborness continues" in the main section.

She has gotten better since we started putting her prong collar on when we go out. Now if she is doing that we say up and pull up on the prong collar. Once she is up she gets tons and tons of praise and treats! It has been working much better now. I also try to anticipate her about to lay down and distract her before we get to that point.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

I am not a fan of shock collars. I think you can make improvements to your training and behaviors Koda is offering. Spend your $ to see a trainer and have them come to the house. This is not a situation where I would use a shock collar. More training is in order, but with positive reinforcement. Koda is young, you are expecting far too much (ex. a 110% recall) at this age. Practice, practice, practice-- in a controlled environment.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

baumgartml16 said:


> tippykayak, there is a thread, i think it is called "the stubborness continues" in the main section.
> 
> She has gotten better since we started putting her prong collar on when we go out. Now if she is doing that we say up and pull up on the prong collar. Once she is up she gets tons and tons of praise and treats! It has been working much better now. I also try to anticipate her about to lay down and distract her before we get to that point.


Sounds like just being assertive is helping quite a bit. She now actually knows that you mean business. Great job!


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

I have successfully used a shock collar for a fear aggressive GSD with a trainer's guidance.

I would never use it on a breed like a golden, unless a trainer thought it was needed.

When Brady was younger, he used to do the same stubborn, drop to the ground, I am not going anywhere. I would then have to tell him, "I am boss" in a deeper voice, grab his collar with a yank, he might have even been dragged a couple inches and continue my way. He VERY quickly learned I would not put up with it. I believe this was in his teenage months.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

cubbysan said:


> I have successfully used a shock collar for a fear aggressive GSD with a trainer's guidance.
> 
> I would never use it on a breed like a golden, unless a trainer thought it was needed.
> 
> When Brady was younger, he used to do the same stubborn, drop to the ground, I am not going anywhere. I would then have to tell him, "I am boss" in a deeper voice, grab his collar with a yank, he might have even been dragged a couple inches and continue my way. He VERY quickly learned I would not put up with it. I believe this was in his teenage months.


E-collars are not used just for aggressive dogs. Not sure what a goldens temperment has to do with e-collar training. There are many golden gun dogs that are successfully trained with the e-collar. And contrary to the belief _on here_ they are not just used for a last resort. 

I believe Koda just needed her mom and dad to be a little more aggresive and it seems they are doing just fine.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> E-collars are not used just for aggressive dogs. Not sure what a goldens temperment has to do with e-collar training. There are many golden gun dogs that are successfully trained with the e-collar. And contrary to the belief _on here_ they are not just used for a last resort.
> 
> I believe Koda just needed her mom and dad to be a little more aggresive and it seems they are doing just fine.


In this situation, I think an e-collar should be a last resort. 

I know plenty of goldens that have been trained successfully in the field with an e-collar. I have no problem with e-collars when used correctly in the right situation, under the right hand. I have not seriously begun any field with my goldens yet but have laid groundwork for FF. I prefer to not use an e-collar, and if that stifles our progress- that's ok. May I change my mind and use one? It's possible, but I haven't crossed that bridge yet. 

In my opinion, the OP could get better results with other training methods better suited to this particular situation.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

CarolinaCasey said:


> In this situation, I think an e-collar should be a last resort.
> 
> I know plenty of goldens that have been trained successfully in the field with an e-collar. I have no problem with e-collars when used correctly in the right situation, under the right hand. I have not seriously begun any field with my goldens yet but have laid groundwork for FF. I prefer to not use an e-collar, and if that stifles our progress- that's ok. May I change my mind and use one? It's possible, but I haven't crossed that bridge yet.
> 
> In my opinion, the OP could get better results with other training methods better suited to this particular situation.


 
My comment was directed at a post saying I would never use it on a golden. And I believe Koda's parents handled their situation well.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

We do not allow e collars/ shock collars at our training center or on our 11 acre grounds. They are called "the invisible leash" by the two trainers here who champion their use. People working retrievers in the field at a high level aside, it is taking the easy way out to suppress a dog that way, and there will be repercussions in your dog's view of the world.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

There are at least 5 well-fought battles on this topic if you do a search.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> We do not allow e collars/ shock collars at out training center or on our 11 acre grounds. They are called "the invisible leash" by the two trainers here who champion their use. People working retrievers in the field at a high level aside, it is taking the easy way out to suppress a dog that way, and there will be repercussions in your dog's view of the world.


I respect you for what you do at _your_ training center. However it is not clear to me what you are saying by suppressing a dog that way and that there will be repercussions in the dogs view of the world.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

It's a very important decision, so make sure you study the science of dog training, and read quite a bit both pro and con to inform yourself beyond anecdotal opinions on the internet. Dogwise, UPenn &Tufts Vet schools have good info. Make an informed decision about something so important.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> It's a very important decision, so make sure you study the science of dog training, and read quite a bit both pro and con to inform yourself beyond anecdotal opinions on the internet. Dogwise, UPenn &Tufts Vet schools have good info. Make an informed decision about something so important.


Absolutely everyone should get educated before they use _any_ type of training tool. And most importantly _educate, experience, and train with that tool_ *before* throwing out terms that it is just an easy way out to suppress and that it will lead to repercussions in a dogs view of the world.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Absolutely everyone should get educated before they use _any_ type of training tool. And most importantly _educate, experience, and train with that tool_ *before* throwing out terms that it is just an easy way out to suppress and that it will lead to repercussions in a dogs view of the world.


You don't have to train with a tool in order to decide not to use it. We all decided not to cut switches to beat our dogs with, despite the extensive use of that "tool" fifty years ago. It's specious to suggest that one has to train with a tool in order to decide not to use it. Personal experience is simply one kind of way to learn.

And when you see enough dogs who've suffered negative consequences after being subjected to a particular tool or technique, it's not too crazy to suggest that there's a relationship.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> _*You don't have to train with a tool in order to decide not to use it.*_ We all decided not to cut switches to beat our dogs with, despite the extensive use of that "tool" fifty years ago. It's specious to suggest that one has to train with a tool in order to decide not to use it. Personal experience is simply one kind of way to learn.
> 
> And when you see enough dogs who've suffered negative consequences after being subjected to a particular tool or technique, it's not too crazy to suggest that there's a relationship.


I never said this nor would I even suggest this. However what _I did say_ in so many words was that if you are going to throw_ out bad accusations about a tool that if used properly _at least have first hand knowledge and experience and possibly even facts. Without that it is just what she said another anectodal opinion on the internet.
And let's make this clear again. I am not talking about animals that have been wrongly subjected to any tool by ignorant people.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I've worked with many, many dogs who have been trained with an e collar/ shock collar. In expert hands at field training is a different discussion than a pet owner who learns to use on one their pet dog for vey basic training.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> However what _I did say_ in so many words was that if you are going to throw_ out bad accusations about a tool that if used properly _at least have first hand knowledge and experience and possibly even facts.


Again, you don't have to have first hand knowledge to learn about something, and you don't have to have first hand knowledge in order to give advice. My doctor can treat me for malaria even if I'm the first case he's seen. I can tell other people not to hit their dogs without hitting mine a few times first to find out how they react. I know how they'd react, and from book learnin', I know that hitting an animal in order to shape its behavior can have all kinds of undesired consequences.

I've worked with dogs who've been hit, dogs who've been shocked, dogs who've been pulled up hard on the leash constantly, and dogs who've been manhandled by owners. I don't have to do any of those things personally to understand that the consequences I'm seeing come from them, nor do I have to do any of them personally in order to explain to people why they're a bad idea. And honestly, I could have told you that hitting a dog was a bad idea and why before I worked with my first headshy dog. In that situation, I learned mostly from the book and only a teeny bit from practice.

When it comes to the e-collar, there's a group of people who've been highly successful with them for advanced work, so it's a different situation than things like hitting and choking. None of those trainers, though, are here saying it's a good idea to use one to get basic household obedience out of a puppy. That's because it isn't. I don't need to be a traditional field trainer with 10 e-collar trained dogs to tell you that. We're not addressing whether you can use an e-collar with great skill to take a dog to a high level of competition. It's clear that you can. We're addressing whether a family with a dog that rolls on its back really ought to be adding an e-collar to that mix. They shouldn't.

And lastly, what I've learned from experience is that when a dog learns reliability as a way of avoiding punishment, I see very different behavior than when a dog learns a technique as a way of having fun and gaining a reward. I regularly see joyful workers with handlers who emphasize reward and strive to take aversives out of their training, and I regularly see dutiful workers with handlers who go to a shock, a stern voice, or a leash pop as their first reaction. Those corrections don't automatically take the joy out of it for the dog, but they do when you overuse them or apply them without precision. So it's a perfectly legitimate argument to make when I suggest that people, when training adolescent puppies, put the harsher corrections aside. I don't have to have ruined a puppy that way myself in order to suggest to others that it's a bad idea.

You're essentially making an argument ad hominem when you say that a poster needs to train with an e-collar in order to advise others against it. It's specious. Either the point is accurate or it isn't; it doesn't matter who's saying it.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I have no doubt that you _can_ use a switch to get basic family obedience out of a dog without creating aggression. I have no doubt that many, many people have. But none of us use them because so much has been learned about the science of dog training since that era. Also, contemporary Americans seem to have decided that dogs' lives have much more value than we thought fifty years ago, so it's more important to be nice to dogs.


----------



## Charliethree (Jul 18, 2010)

I just DON'T get it. I don't understand why it is 'okay' to inflict 'discomfort', even pain to a dog in the name of 'training' . There is a lot of discussion and support about how shock collars, prong collars work, and what they work for, and the consensus is if used 'properly' they don't hurt the dog. How does one learn to use these collars 'properly' without going thru the learning process - actually using it on the dog and the dog suffering the consequences of your 'learning' mistakes? No 'trainer' can tell you how much of a 'shock' your dog can 'handle', or how 'hard' the correction 'needs' to be to inhibit the unwanted behavior in your dog - you have to 'try it out' on the dog to see what works. People should take into consideration not just how whatever training method they are using works, or how fast it works but also WHY it works and what impact it is having on the dog.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Again, you don't have to have first hand knowledge to learn about something, and you don't have to have first hand knowledge in order to give advice. My doctor can treat me for malaria even if I'm the first case he's seen. I can tell other people not to hit their dogs without hitting mine a few times first to find out how they react. I know how they'd react, and from book learnin', I know that hitting an animal in order to shape its behavior can have all kinds of undesired consequences.
> 
> I've worked with dogs who've been hit, dogs who've been shocked, dogs who've been pulled up hard on the leash constantly, and dogs who've been manhandled by owners. I don't have to do any of those things personally to understand that the consequences I'm seeing come from them, nor do I have to do any of them personally in order to explain to people why they're a bad idea. And honestly, I could have told you that hitting a dog was a bad idea and why before I worked with my first headshy dog. In that situation, I learned mostly from the book and only a teeny bit from practice.
> 
> ...


Again you are not reading my posts correctly:no: I never said that the e collar is never *misused,* I never said that *it is a correct tool to use for basic training*, and most importantly if you scroll back to the first page *I told Kodas mom that I would not recommend it for her problem.*

*What I said was don't throw out acussations about a tool if you have not actually experienced using one in a professional proper manner. Because I believe if you have you would know for a fact that those acussations are untrue.*

I don't advocate using a switch or hitting and harming a dog. I have never advocated to use an e collar for basic training either. So please save your condescending posts to yourself. Their very unbecoming. Anyone that has had their dog professionally conditioned and trained with an e collar know for a fact it does not cause harm or have adverse effects. So when I see the general ignorant faulse acussations in regards to the e collar, I feel the need to educate.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Charliethree said:


> I just DON'T get it. I don't understand why it is 'okay' to inflict 'discomfort', even pain to a dog in the name of 'training' . There is a lot of discussion and support about how shock collars, prong collars work, and what they work for, and the consensus is if used 'properly' they don't hurt the dog. How does one learn to use these collars 'properly' without going thru the learning process - actually using it on the dog and the dog suffering the consequences of your 'learning' mistakes? No 'trainer' can tell you how much of a 'shock' your dog can 'handle', or how 'hard' the correction 'needs' to be to inhibit the unwanted behavior in your dog - you have to 'try it out' on the dog to see what works. People should take into consideration not just how whatever training method they are using works, or how fast it works but also WHY it works and what impact it is having on the dog.


Well said. I really agree with this, in particular the consideration of the dog that someone used to learn/practice on.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Charliethree said:


> I just DON'T get it. I don't understand why it is 'okay' to inflict 'discomfort', even pain to a dog in the name of 'training' . There is a lot of discussion and support about how shock collars, prong collars work, and what they work for, and the consensus is if used 'properly' they don't hurt the dog. How does one learn to use these collars 'properly' without going thru the learning process - actually using it on the dog and the dog suffering the consequences of your 'learning' mistakes? No 'trainer' can tell you how much of a 'shock' your dog can 'handle', or how 'hard' the correction 'needs' to be to inhibit the unwanted behavior in your dog - you have to 'try it out' on the dog to see what works. People should take into consideration not just how whatever training method they are using works, or how fast it works but also WHY it works and what impact it is having on the dog.


Loud noises can be discomforting to a dog. A bolting dog can get hit by a car........that would cause pain and suffering and possibly death. A dog with high prey drives can get lost in the middle of the desert......which will lead to pain and suffering and possibly death. I think I would chose a little discomfort, how bout you? And contrary to beliefs on here.....they feel a little discomfort when they are being conditioned. After that everyone that uses one on these boards can honestly tell you they hardly ever or possibly never have to stimulate them unless it is an emergency for the dogs own safety.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Loud noises can be discomforting to a dog. A bolting dog can get hit by a car........that would cause pain and suffering and possibly death. A dog with high prey drives can get lost in the middle of the desert......which will lead to pain and suffering and possibly death. I think I would chose a little discomfort, how bout you?


Well...dogs can be trained to avoid those situations without an e-collar so I'd have to say, no...I wouldn't choose a little discomfort.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

kwhit said:


> Well...dogs can be trained to avoid those situations without an e-collar so I'd have to say, no...I wouldn't choose a little discomfort.


And that is your choice With that being said there are no absolutes in life. Some feel more comfortable knowing they have total control if that situation arises.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> With that being said there are *no absolutes* in life. Some feel more comfortable knowing they have *total control* if that situation arises.


These two statements are contradictory. First you say there are no absolutes and then you mention total control...which is it? 

And for you to have total control in any given situation...wouldn't that mean that the dog would have to wear the collar 24/7?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

kwhit said:


> These two statements are contradictory. First you say there are no absolutes and then you mention total control...which is it?
> 
> And for you to have total control in any given situation...wouldn't that mean that the dog would have to wear the collar 24/7?


Sorry if I was not clear enough. There are no absolutes with training ( a dog is still an animal no matter how we think of them as humans) however with an e-collar there is total control.

As far as your second question.....if you think you have safety issues 24/7 sure. But why would you?


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> There are no absolutes with training ( a dog is still an animal no matter how we think of them as humans) however with an e-collar there is total control.
> 
> 
> As far as your second question.....if you think you have safety issues 24/7 sure. But why would you?


Total and absolute are interchangeable in my mind, so again, your statement is contradictory to me. 

To the second part of your post...because you never know, and that's why relying on a collar to get that recall is, to me, counter productive. I would rather have a dog trained to respond to me and not to a device on it's neck. If the only way to insure a recall is if the dog is wearing it's collar, then I don't think that the dog is truly trained. 

When, if ever, is the collar not going to be necessary? If it's a tool, then eventually the dog won't need to wear it anymore, correct? Everyone I've known that trains with the e-collar outside of field work, always has it on their dog. To me that's a crutch. Again, my opinion.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

baumgartml16 said:


> She has gotten better since we started putting her prong collar on when we go out. Now if she is doing that we say up and pull up on the prong collar. Once she is up she gets tons and tons of praise and treats! It has been working much better now. I also try to anticipate her about to lay down and distract her before we get to that point.



baumgartml16,
I am so glad that you were able to sift through all of this information and find a solution that works for you.


----------



## Mac'sdad (Dec 5, 2009)

Hope this helps .... lots of info ...Pro & Con....

Shock collar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

kwhit said:


> Total and absolute are interchangeable in my mind, so again, your statement is contradictory to me.
> 
> To the second part of your post...because you never know, and that's why relying on a collar to get that recall is, to me, counter productive. I would rather have a dog trained to respond to me and not to a device on it's neck. If the only way to insure a recall is if the dog is wearing it's collar, then I don't think that the dog is truly trained.
> 
> When, if ever, is the collar not going to be necessary? If it's a tool, then eventually the dog won't need to wear it anymore, correct? Everyone I've known that trains with the e-collar outside of field work, always has it on their dog. To me that's a crutch. Again, my opinion.


Again I will try to explain what I meant. There is_ no absolutes in training (especially recall) UNLESS you have an e collar. Because with an e-collar you have total control if used correctly. Dogs are animals first and foremost. Especially if they are prey driven. _I think people forget this. No better yet from reading on here *I know* people forget this lol!

A dog should already be trained for recall before using an e collar. Like I mentioned I would never use it for basic training. Me personally, I don't rely on the collar for recall. It is a safety back up tool that is there* in the event of an emergency*. When I leave home on walks and hikes you will always see my dogs e collar also.

I am not advocating people to get one, I am however trying to stop the myths of a very valuable harmless tool when used correctly.

And I apologize to the op for this thread getting off track.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> There is_ no absolutes in training (especially recall) UNLESS you have an e collar._


_

Wow..._


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

kwhit said:


> Wow...


Why is that wow? My first dog was a recall fool. He was the star of all his training classes. Never had a problem with him ever. Trainer always used him as an example. Then we bought our home at the Colorado river out in the low desert here in So Cal. That is when I found out what a high prey drive he had. He loved those cute little bunnies lol! When he was focused on them......_all the training he had went out the door._ I was lucky to get him back. I was in tears because I thought he would be lost in the desert. That is when I realized that there is no absolutes. Once he was conditioned with the collar he could have his fun chasing bunnies and he always remembers his recall.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

I agree with Wyatt's mom. I only have the e collar on Captain and it is just a sense of security. I hardly ever have to use it and when I do it is only the beep. He knows all his basic commands with it off and his recall is amazing when off. But at the same time, he is a dog and a teenaged dog so he can get stupid. This just gives me the security that if he sees let's say an aggressive dog and he doesn't listen to my leave it or whistle the e collar is the back up plan. I love it, he loves his freedom and everythIng runs smoothly.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

With Phoebe I am constantly saying leave it, stay here, stay, phoebe no, and it is a lot of stress because she is free to do whatever she wants. When she gets old enough she will have an e collar too and she will go through the class that we did with Captain.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I respect you for what you do at _your_ training center. However it is not clear to me what you are saying by suppressing a dog that way and that there will be repercussions in the dogs view of the world.


Good luck getting a straight answer on this one. Trust me, been there, tried it, never could get concrete examples of psychological fallout from an ecollar. 

Also, I can tell you that this is gonna go over like a ton of bricks:



> However what _I did say_ in so many words was that if you are going to throw_ out bad accusations about a tool that if used properly _at least have first hand knowledge and experience and possibly even facts. Without that it is just what she said another anectodal opinion on the internet.
> And let's make this clear again. I am not talking about animals that have been wrongly subjected to any tool by ignorant people.


About twice a year I subject myself to the anti-ecollar threaders, it's equally entertaining and annoying.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

K9-Design said:


> Good luck getting a straight answer on this one. Trust me, been there, tried it, never could get concrete examples of psychological fallout from an ecollar.
> 
> Also, I can tell you that this is gonna go over like a ton of bricks:
> 
> ...


LOL! You called it.....instead of answering my question she just told me to check out other opinions on the internet:uhoh:


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> What I said was don't throw out acussations about a tool if you have not actually experienced using one in a professional proper manner. Because I believe if you have you would know for a fact that those acussations are untrue.


I have seen highly successful trainers use e-collars, in person. I disagree that I need to hit the button myself in order to have opinions about their use.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> So please save your condescending posts to yourself. Their very unbecoming.


I apologize. It's not my intent to condescend. I felt like you were telling me that my opinions held no value because I lacked personal experience. Still, my tone is my responsibility, and I'm sorry that I came across that way.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> Anyone that has had their dog professionally conditioned and trained with an e collar know for a fact it does not cause harm or have adverse effects. So when I see the general ignorant faulse acussations in regards to the e collar, I feel the need to educate.


Calling us ignorant, by the way, is far more condescending than anything I said. I think you're incorrect in your assessment of the safety and reliability of e-collar trained behavior, particularly for family obedience, but I don't think you're ignorant.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

When I worked at Petsmart a young asian lady came in with her 8 month old Golden Retriever and she was looking to fix her dogs pulling, so I signed her up for beginners class and we went through the options of the easy walk harness, gentle leader, martingale and prong collar. We tried all of them on and the prong worked the best but she kept saying no no and pointing to his neck, I looked and there were 2 burn marks on the dogs neck from a shock collar. I was very mad, I called animal control and they came and actually took the dog from her. 

But as I said before it can be a life saver when used and trained properly.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Have you guys heard of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy? I feel like that's happening here.

We all agree, right, that there are dogs whose owners used e-collars and now the dogs have a negatively altered worldview and undesired behavioral problems, right? These dogs exist. I don't see how anybody who could dispute that.

When I say that an e-collar can alter a dog's view of the world or lead to undesired consequences, that's what I'm referencing. I'm also referring to a larger group of dogs who don't have full blown fear and anxiety reactions but have lesser problems on the same continuum. Maybe they don't bite, but they're more anxious and less trusting than they would be if their owners had trained a different way.

By simply saying "well, those owners misapplied the tool," you're redefining the use of the tool. So you point to the well-adjusted dogs whose owners use e-collars as proof of the safety of the tool, and you explain away all the other dogs as the consequence of "misapplication."

So what we have is a tool with the potential to cause real problems, and the risk of those problems is higher the less experienced the handler is. It's never zero, because none of us train perfectly. We screw up our timing, get frustrated, miscommunicate, or misread the dog. Anybody who says they don't make those mistakes is either lying outright or hugely deceiving themselves. When you make those mistakes with positive reinforcement, the consequence is that it takes longer to get the behavior you want and to get it reliable. When you make those mistakes with an e-collar, you risk damaging your dog's trust and you risk creating fear issues.

That's why they work well as a tool for experienced handlers. The right level of correction, delivered at the right moment can shape behavior really effectively without damaging trust. And that's also why when people ask about them for basic training for young dogs, a lot of us come out of the woodwork to say "nooooooo!"

The approach you take to training your dog absolutely shapes your dog's view of the world and of you. That's why nearly all of us show our dogs that obedience leads to a party. We all know that a dog lights up, works hard, and enjoys a task when he's motivated by the rewards of the task itself (like in retrieving) and the rewards we supply in return for what we want (treats, praise, games, toys, etc.). What we disagree on is the value and the risk of using discomfort to punish disobedience or negatively reinforce obedience.

My view is skewed by the fact that I see a relatively high proportion of dogs whose owners have failed with punishment. The dog has neither strong obedience nor trust that people make sense and provide rewards. That really shapes the way I look at punishment. If you're around highly trained field dogs much more and basic family obedience training much less, you see a relatively high proportion of e-collar trained dogs dogs with strong skills and trust in people. But nobody can deny that the risk of adverse effects is a real and present danger with an e-collar. And when an e-collar trained dog suddenly goes for another dog without provocation, the e-collar group is inclined to say that the e-collar had nothing to do with it, and the non-e-collar group is inclined to wonder, based on the relationship they've seen (both in person and in books) between punishment and anxiety, whether it did.

I don't think we have a definitive answer in those situations, but I don't think my opinion, or the opinions of those who agree with me on this one could be described as either ignorant or lacking basis in personal experience or academic knowledge.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> Good luck getting a straight answer on this one. Trust me, been there, tried it, never could get concrete examples of psychological fallout from an ecollar.


I've mentioned about a dozen times that I was bitten by a dog who was e-collar trained, and I'm pretty confident that his sudden and extreme fear reaction was a product of his anxiety over being repeatedly shocked. Why doesn't that count?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

We work with 50- 100 dogs a week here, and have seen many whose problematic behavior is suppressed by the e collar, but the underlying problem was not addressed. 

Thus, we see the dog who now has a bite history rather than before when something constructive could have made the dog feel safer in her world. We have a westie right now who was trained her basics by a trainer who calls the e collar the invisible leash. The westie bit a neighborhood kid when the ecollar was used to punish her for visiting. The parents of the kid want the westie put down. We have a doberman from a breeder who has produced very stable temperamnets who shakes like a leaf and is very neurotic- pees submissively- fear-bites trained puppy basics from the get go with an e collar. We have a pitbull who developed a fear of jumping out of her car, so the owners shocked her to get her out. Now she is panicked by the car in general and has a phobia about it. We have a gorgeous shepherd trained by the same "invisible Leash" guy, and the dog is so depressed the owners are worried about what they've done. Yes, he stopped jumping, but he barely picks his head up, turns his head away from his owners, and walks like an old guy with his head ducked. We have a sheltie who has been shocked for barking, and is collar-wise and barks immediately if it is not on and was debarked last week. The behavior was suppressed, but not addressed. I could go on and on. 

When I hear that someone trained puppy basics /dog manners basics with an e collar and the dog is fine, well I want to see a happy friendly dog interacting well with other dogs and people for myself before I take their advice. Since we do not live with each other's dogs, we do not know if they are confident, happy, nasty with other dogs, fight, bite or ere peaceful etc beyond the PR they receive from their own owners, so all these posts have at least grain of salt and are no substitue for finding a real life trainer or a real life peer group. I find it interesting that some of the staunchest e collar defenders I know own dogs that are known for their temperament problems.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

I have a question for those of you who are opposed to the e-collar. 

Do you feel the same way about the invisible fence?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I'n not crazy about the invisible fence for suburban dogs who otherwise do not get much exercise/attention/ training. They get to rehearse lunging at dogs who pass by, get frustrated, and run the fence. We have so many of those who have learned to lunge at passing dogs it makes me weary just thinking about it! Also, other dogs/kids or animals can wander in.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

goldhaven said:


> I have a question for those of you who are opposed to the e-collar.
> 
> Do you feel the same way about the invisible fence?


In my experience, invisible fence dogs tend to localize any anxiety and shyness to the border of the yard because the shock is paired so perfectly to the location. That can lead to territorial, fence-running behavior, especially when the dog is out all day doing it. I do wonder if that has any spill-over into dog aggression, but I haven't seen a situation where I felt the two were directly connected. It seems roughly the same to a dog who runs a traditional fence; I couldn't say for sure that a dog running the border of an invisible fence, barking at me is any more snarky than he would be if allowed to run a chain-link fence.

Personally, I wouldn't trust an electric fence for unsupervised yard time. My experience is colored by a lady down the street who is forever forgetting to charge the collars and chases her unruly, aggressive dogs down the street crying. I would also worry that if a dog did develop any territoriality, even if it wasn't heightened by the collar, with no real fence, a kid can just wander in and get bitten by a territorial dog.

I certainly wouldn't use one for supervised time.

So I don't feel exactly the same way as I do about the push-button e-collar for direct punishment of undesired behavior, but I definitely wouldn't use an invisible fence under any circumstances.


----------



## Charliethree (Jul 18, 2010)

goldhaven said:


> I have a question for those of you who are opposed to the e-collar.
> 
> Do you feel the same way about the invisible fence?


Absolutely. We adopted a foster dog out to a home on an acreage, the owners, unknown to us, installed an invisible fence. The company that supplied the fence and the 'instructions' assured the family this was a safe and humane way to contain their dog. Within 6 months after installing the fence, the dog was returned to us with a bite history - he had never shown aggression issues before the fence was put into use - the owner verified this, this guy loved this dog. He had bitten the owner several times when he was trying to put on the 'collar', he had bitten the wife and the child as well. They were now afraid of him, and he afraid of them. Ultimately, despite rehoming him (with full disclosure) to an experienced dog trainer - he learned to trust her but continued to randomly bite adult males. He never learned to trust men, and ultimately attacked a man he was familiar with, that was sleeping on the ground - and was euthenized. I have no doubt in my mind that the association created between the shock collar and the male owner caused this dog to fear ALL men and led to this sudden and unprovoked attack and cost this dog his life.
Those same associations can happen when a dog is shocked for getting too close to the fence, or wearing an e collar for 'training', while his attention is on a child, a dog, a jogger, owner, or whatever. When the consequence of 'seeing a child, dog, jogger IS pain' it can, in time, lead to a vicious - seemingly out of the blue, unprovoked attack on a 'victim', when the dog has finally 'had enough' and crosses the invisible 'line'.


----------



## spiritdogs (May 17, 2008)

These threads are so distressing to me. Back in my youth, I lost a dog that was only two years old. He was hit by a car because he would not recall. It was entirely my fault, because I didn't know a darn thing about training then, and listened to all kinds of bad advice, from both ordinary people and dog trainers. Then, positive training didn't really exist, for all intents and purposes, so the advice you are seeing here about shake cans, prong collars, and shock collars, would have been the conventional wisdom. The trouble is that those things create no bond with the dog, and what you need to have a really reliable recall is a dog that truly wants to be with you - even more than he wants to chase squirrels or take a dive in the pond. I have never, since that horrible day EVER had a dog that won't recall. The reason is that I was highly motivated to find out how to train a different way, since the way I had been taught basically killed my dog!!! My mother, in her infinite wisdom, made an offhand comment that set my life on a different path. She said, "You know, your grandmother used to train the farm dogs to do all kinds of tricks using cookies." I learned that a high rate of reinforcement, with something the dog really likes, DOES work. Of course, you have to know how to implement the training, setting the dog up for success in increments - it would be folly to try to get a dog to already chasing a squirrel to come away from it for a milk bone. However, by associating a new signal with a HUGE smorgasbord of good stuff, you can gradually build a great recall. Pam Dennison's whistle recall DVD is excellent for that. Just remember what I said about the dog's very first exposure to the whistle noise - huge payoff just for hearing it!!!

Anne Springer
Paws for Praise
Charter Member, Pet Professional Guild


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I have seen highly successful trainers use e-collars, in person. I disagree that I need to hit the button myself in order to have opinions about their use.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An opinion to use a tool is one thing. Throwing out wrong accusations about a tool one has never actually experienced_ using correctly_ on a dog is completely different. Nobody ever talks about the actual wonderful outcome this tool produces. It is always what someone heard or about the abusers of the tool. Which can happen with ANY TOOL.
In regards to the " *general* ignorant" comment, it was meant as being ignorant *as in not having knowledge of the way the tool is used responsibly.* And it wasn't directed towards you. I'm sorry that you took my comment completely out of context.
I do think that the general public is ignorant in the use of an e-collar.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

spiritdogs said:


> The trouble is that those things create no bond with the dog, and what you need to have a really reliable recall is a dog that truly wants to be with you - even more than he wants to chase squirrels or take a dive in the pond. I have never, since that horrible day EVER had a dog that won't recall. . . I learned that a high rate of reinforcement, with something the dog really likes, DOES work. Of course, you have to know how to implement the training, setting the dog up for success in increments - it would be folly to try to get a dog to already chasing a squirrel to come away from it for a milk bone.
> 
> I agree with this post wholeheartedly.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

spiritdogs said:


> These threads are so distressing to me. Back in my youth, I lost a dog that was only two years old. He was hit by a car because he would not recall. It was entirely my fault, because I didn't know a darn thing about training then, and listened to all kinds of bad advice, from both ordinary people and dog trainers. Then, positive training didn't really exist, for all intents and purposes, so the advice you are seeing here about shake cans, prong collars, and shock collars, would have been the conventional wisdom. The trouble is that those things create no bond with the dog, and what you need to have a really reliable recall is a dog that truly wants to be with you - even more than he wants to chase squirrels or take a dive in the pond. I have never, since that horrible day EVER had a dog that won't recall. The reason is that I was highly motivated to find out how to train a different way, since the way I had been taught basically killed my dog!!! My mother, in her infinite wisdom, made an offhand comment that set my life on a different path. She said, "You know, your grandmother used to train the farm dogs to do all kinds of tricks using cookies." I learned that a high rate of reinforcement, with something the dog really likes, DOES work. Of course, you have to know how to implement the training, setting the dog up for success in increments - it would be folly to try to get a dog to already chasing a squirrel to come away from it for a milk bone. However, by associating a new signal with a HUGE smorgasbord of good stuff, you can gradually build a great recall. Pam Dennison's whistle recall DVD is excellent for that. Just remember what I said about the dog's very first exposure to the whistle noise - huge payoff just for hearing it!!!
> 
> Anne Springer
> Paws for Praise
> Charter Member, Pet Professional Guild


My Cody had a solid recall, however he was highly prey driven. I almost lost him in the desert one day. Now I have no fear of ever losing a dog again Oh and both my dogs were/are velcro dogs. Saying that using an e-collar creates no bond is a very reckless statement and is exactly my argument on this thread.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

My dog is a Velcro dog also and he loves putting on the e-collar. We have never used it above level 1 though. We were told to never go above 2.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I've mentioned about a dozen times that I was bitten by a dog who was e-collar trained, and I'm pretty confident that his sudden and extreme fear reaction was a product of his anxiety over being repeatedly shocked. Why doesn't that count?


It doesn't count because someone who is repeatedly shocking a dog with an e collar is an abuser. We were talking about properly trained dogs. I would bite you too if I was being abused


----------



## baumgartml16 (Jun 19, 2011)

I think invisible fence is different depending on how you are going to use it. We are planning to put one in only for a backup. Koda knows her yard very well and has never actually tried to leave it BUT you just don't know. Someone else on another thread had mentioned that someone left the back door open, the dog bolted after an animal and they had to go on a search. We don't let Koda outside unsupervised as it is so that would never be the situation so she wouldn't be allowed to "run the fence". We would treat it like it wasn't there but if she did bolt she would be more likely to stop than run out in the street. We have her on her lead when she is out now and she has never made an attempt to run up to people/dogs passing on the street so I dont think taht would be an issue. If she did ever attempt to "run the fence" we would be down there bringing her back up and stopping that behaviour immediately.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

baumgartml16 said:


> I think invisible fence is different depending on how you are going to use it. We are planning to put one in *only for a backup*. Koda knows her yard very well and has never actually tried to leave it *BUT you just don't know*. Someone else on another thread had mentioned that someone left the back door open, the dog bolted after an animal and they had to go on a search. We don't let Koda outside unsupervised as it is so that would never be the situation so she wouldn't be allowed to "run the fence". We would treat it like it wasn't there but if she did bolt she would be more likely to stop than run out in the street. We have her on her lead when she is out now and she has never made an attempt to run up to people/dogs passing on the street so I dont think taht would be an issue. If she did ever attempt to "run the fence" we would be down there bringing her back up and stopping that behaviour immediately.


Actually I don't think it is any different. This is* exactly* what most people use the e-collar for. Back up. It's a sense of security knowing you will not lose your dog. Because you just never know.


----------



## baumgartml16 (Jun 19, 2011)

Right, I am not opposed to e collar which is why i asked about it. Like you all said though, I don't think I should use it for the issues I was having.


----------



## FeatherRiverSam (Aug 7, 2009)

I think people who use e collars should be required to wear one so each time they shock their dog they get the same shock...after all it's your fault for not training a reliable command. And I fully support the RESPONSIBLE use of e collars.

Pete


----------



## Otter (Feb 23, 2011)

baumgartml16 said:


> We are planning to put one in only for a backup.


Just a quick FYI...
Last fall our Barkley was attacked by another (male?) Golden that charged through an invisible fence and across a 4 lane road. I don't trust invisible fences. Maybe the dog wasn't trained properly, idk. Just thought I'd throw that out there...


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

FeatherRiverSam said:


> I think people who use e collars should be required to wear one so each time they shock their dog they get the same shock...after all it's your fault for not training a reliable command. And I fully support the RESPONSIBLE use of e collars.
> 
> Pete


My boyfriend and I both shocked ourselves before putting it on Captain so we knew it didn't hurt him. 

I personally think it is COMPLETELY UNFAIR for you to say that it is our fault for not properly training our dogs. Dogs are animals, if they see something they want, there is nothing to stop them from running towards it. 
Everyone needs to give their dogs a correction at some point, it is easier and more accurate as I do not have to call him, he comes then I discipline him? no way, I just give him a beep from a far and he stops what he is doing, if he doesn't I shock him on level one. He doesn't put his tail between his legs and run, he just backs off and does something else. 
The Dog Whisperer taps the dogs on the side to snap them out of their one track mind, the shock/beep does the exact same thing.


----------



## baumgartml16 (Jun 19, 2011)

Yes, I realize they can break through but that is why I say backup. We will always be with her when she is outside and will always take extra measures when in the front to keep an eye out for other people. That is when we will step in and keep her from going anywhere. 



Otter said:


> Just a quick FYI...
> Last fall our Barkley was attacked by another (male?) Golden that charged through an invisible fence and across a 4 lane road. I don't trust invisible fences. Maybe the dog wasn't trained properly, idk. Just thought I'd throw that out there...


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> It doesn't count because someone who is repeatedly shocking a dog with an e collar is an abuser. We were talking about properly trained dogs. I would bite you too if I was being abused


Right, this is a perfect example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. The people we're talking about aren't abusers. They're well-intentioned and doing their best with the tool. Calling them abusers is unfair and inaccurate. You're always going to conclude that the e-collar is safe if you exclude every dog who suffered a negative consequence from your evidence.

I'm not making the argument that e-collars _automatically_ cause these extreme problems, simply that they _commonly_ cause problems, and they cause the problems in the hands of well-intentioned, kind people who love and pamper their dogs.

Taking every example of a dog who suffered negative consequences and labeling the owner an "abuser" takes away the responsibility to critically examine the tool and its potential side effects.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> It doesn't count because someone who is repeatedly shocking a dog with an e collar is an abuser. We were talking about properly trained dogs. I would bite you too if I was being abused


If all you're talking about is dogs that never experience a negative side effect, then yes, the e-collar never has negative side effects. Do you see the fallacy you're engaging in?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> An opinion to use a tool is one thing. Throwing out wrong accusations about a tool one has never actually experienced_ using correctly_ on a dog is completely different.


I have experienced it used "correctly." And my "wrong accusations" are based on observing dogs who've been trained and handled by "experts," both during training as they received shocks and being handled without the collar. It's also based on observing dogs who've been trained and handled by people who simply picked up an e-collar at a Petco. I don't know why you keep insisting that I have to press the button myself in order to have an opinion.

Have you ever trained a dog to 100% recall without delivering any remote corrections? If not, why do you insist it cannot be accomplished without an e-collar? That fallacy goes both ways.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> Nobody ever talks about the actual wonderful outcome this tool produces. It is always what someone heard or about the abusers of the tool. Which can happen with ANY TOOL.


Really? There are some glowing odes to the e-collar all throughout the forum.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> I'm sorry that you took my comment completely out of context.


I'm just quoting this part because it made me smile.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Phoebe's mom said:


> My boyfriend and I both shocked ourselves before putting it on Captain so we knew it didn't hurt him.


You expected the shock, so were prepared for it. Totally different. You also have no idea what your dog feels. If it didn't hurt him or, at the _very least_, wasn't an _unpleasant feeling_, it wouldn't work.

Da*n, I told myself I wasn't getting back into this thread...:doh:


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

kwhit said:


> If it didn't hurt him or, at the _very least_, wasn't an _unpleasant feeling_, it wouldn't work.


Bingo. However we like to euphemize it (nick, tap, reminder, interruption), it can only work to reduce a behavior if it's something the dog wants to avoid.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Right, this is a perfect example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. *The people we're talking about aren't abusers.* *They're well-intentioned and doing their best with the tool. Calling them abusers is unfair and inaccurate.* You're always going to conclude that the e-collar is safe if you exclude every dog who suffered a negative consequence from your evidence.
> 
> I'm not making the argument that e-collars _automatically_ cause these extreme problems, simply that they _commonly_ cause problems,* and they cause the problems in the hands of well-intentioned, kind people who love and pamper their dogs.*
> 
> Taking every example of a dog who suffered negative consequences and labeling the owner an "abuser" takes away the responsibility to critically examine the tool and its potential side effects.


I'm sorry but I *totally* disagree here. No kind, well intentioned person who pampers, or loves their dogs for that matter is going to repeatedly shock a dog. That is an *accurate discription of abuse loud and clear*. I can't even believe you are using that for your argument LOL! What a joke.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> If all you're talking about is dogs that never experience a negative side effect, then yes, the e-collar never has negative side effects. Do you see the fallacy you're engaging in?


I will try _one more time_ I said if a dog owner and dog is properly trained and conditioned with an e-collar they will not have any negative side effects. Again I am intelligent enough to know that dogs have been harmed by the e collar. And also by prong collars and also by choke collars etc.....is that clear enough now?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I'm sorry but I *totally* disagree here. No kind, well intentioned person who pampers, or loves their dogs for that matter is going to repeatedly shock a dog. That is an *accurate discription of abuse loud and clear*. I can't even believe you are using that for your argument LOL! What a joke.


How do you think the general public uses e-collars? They shock the dog when the dog does something undesired. They repeat it the next time the dog does something undesired. Just like you said you do when your dog blows off a recall command. He blows it, you beep. He blows again, you nick. What do you do if he blows you off after the first nick? Turn it up and nick again, right? And then you reward when he complies. That's the kind of repeated shocking I'm talking about.

If somebody loves a dog, takes it to the vet regularly, plays with it in the backyard, feeds it premium food, and even seeks out alternate training when the e-collar isn't working, how can you really call them abusers? You're selling this as a harmless and safe tool (your words). In the real world, rather than the ideal world of everybody using it like an expert every time, it is rife with the potential for harm.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I have experienced it used "correctly." And my "wrong accusations" are based on observing dogs who've been trained and handled by "experts," both during training as they received shocks and being handled without the collar. It's also based on observing dogs who've been trained and handled by people who simply picked up an e-collar at a Petco. I don't know why you keep insisting that I have to press the button myself in order to have an opinion.
> 
> Have you ever trained a dog to 100% recall without delivering any remote corrections? If not, why do you insist it cannot be accomplished without an e-collar? That fallacy goes both ways.
> 
> ...


Obviously you have not read all my posts.:
I already explained that my first golden had a solid recall. Or so everyone thought so including his trainer until he started chasing a bunnie in the middle of the desert and we lost him. And yes you do pick my posts apart and take them out of context.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

kwhit said:


> You expected the shock, so were prepared for it. Totally different. You also have no idea what your dog feels. If it didn't hurt him or, at the _very least_, wasn't an _unpleasant feeling_, it wouldn't work.
> 
> Da*n, I told myself I wasn't getting back into this thread...:doh:


Well since he doesn't show any signs of discomfort my guess is that it does not hurt him. He is a baby and he tells us when something hurts so yes I do know. 
And you do not know how we were told to do it. We had to put it on our arms and the other one will shock at a random time. It startled us but did not hurt. 
I go to physio and the muscle shocker is more of a shock then the collar. 
Take your own advice. Stay out of the thread.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> No kind, well intentioned person who pampers, or loves their dogs for that matter is going to repeatedly shock a dog. That is an *accurate discription of abuse loud and clear*. I can't even believe you are using that for your argument LOL! What a joke.


Did you not read the statement below? People actually believe that the collars don't hurt their dogs, no matter what the setting. So tippykayak's comment is true, IMO, proven by one of our own members who use the collar. And he never mentioned repeatedly, you did. 



Phoebe's mom said:


> My boyfriend and I both shocked ourselves before putting it on Captain so we knew it didn't hurt him.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I will try _one more time_ I said if a dog owner and dog is properly trained and conditioned with an e-collar they will not have any negative side effects.


We never disagreed on that. What we disagree on is the likelihood that somebody won't quite get that training and conditioning quite right and on the severity of the side effects. People who screw up e-collar conditioning and training aren't abusers, but they do have to live with the side effects.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> Again I am intelligent enough to know that dogs have been harmed by the e collar. And also by prong collars and also by choke collars etc.....is that clear enough now?


Eminently.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

kwhit said:


> You expected the shock, so were prepared for it. Totally different. You also have no idea what your dog feels. If it didn't hurt him or, at the _very least_, wasn't an _unpleasant feeling_, it wouldn't work.
> 
> Da*n, I told myself I wasn't getting back into this thread...:doh:


 
No, the trainer lets you feel it because they want you to experience first hand the tingly feeling, not shock like people here seem to believe. 
You should try it


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Obviously you have not read all my posts.:
> I already explained that my first golden had a solid recall. Or so everyone thought so including his trainer until he started chasing a bunnie in the middle of the desert and we lost him. And yes you do pick my posts apart and take them out of context.


I really hate to argue about this experience of yours because it bums me out and makes it seem personal.

Since you brought it up, though, my point is that you _do_ have the right to argue about the effectiveness of no-e-collar recall, even though you've never trained a dog to true reliability with it. BTW, you can't use the same dog as an example of reliable recall and an example of unreliable recall in the same argument. Regardless, the validity of your point doesn't stand on whether you've done it yourself or not. Nor does the validity of my point stand on whether I've attempted to train recall with an e-collar myself.

And I'm not taking your posts out of context. You're making a logical fallacy, one that even has a name because it's so common in arguments, and I'm pointing it out to you.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

" Dogs are animals, if they see something they want, there is nothing to stop them from running towards it."

I agree that dogs are animals. 
And as the responsible owner it is me through my training that will stop them from running towards it (whatever it is)
I do want a dog that will happily follow my requests on the first request.

I want the dog to choose me over the squirrel, deer, bunny, dog, biker, running squealing child, chicken bone or some smelly dead thing and be happy about it, thinking I am more fun.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Phoebe's mom said:


> Well since he doesn't show any signs of discomfort my guess is that it does not hurt him. He is a baby and he tells us when something hurts so yes I do know.


Then how do you think it works? 



Phoebe's mom said:


> Take your own advice. Stay out of the thread.


This is totally uncalled for. GRF is a public forum in which people have a right to express their opinions. Telling other people to get out goes against the spirit of discussion and exchange. We're here to hear other people who disagree (sometimes quite strongly) so we can learn something; we're not here to stand in the echo chamber of our own opinions.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

It is just suppose to Get their focus off of whatever they are doing that we don't like. It isn't made to hurt them.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> How do you think the general public uses e-collars? They shock the dog when the dog does something undesired. They repeat it the next time the dog does something undesired. *Just like you said you do when your dog blows off a recall command. He blows it, you beep. He blows again, you nick.* What do you do if he blows you off after the first nick? Turn it up and nick again, right? And then you reward when he complies. That's the kind of repeated shocking I'm talking about.
> 
> If somebody loves a dog, takes it to the vet regularly, plays with it in the backyard, feeds it premium food, and even seeks out alternate training when the e-collar isn't working, how can you really call them abusers? You're selling this as a harmless and safe tool (your words). In the real world, rather than the ideal world of everybody using it like an expert every time, it is rife with the potential for harm.


I already told you that the general public is ignorant of the proper use of the e collar. 

And those were not my words lol! My actual words were "all I have to do is put the collar on" and I can't tell you when the last time I even had to use the "tone".


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Phoebe's mom said:


> It is just suppose to Get their focus off of whatever they are doing that we don't like. It isn't made to hurt them.


It's not designed to cause horrible pain, no, and I don't believe that it does. It is, however, designed to create a sensation that a dog wants to avoid. Whatever description you use for that sensation, the dog doesn't like it and wants it to stop. If it were a neutral sensation, it would not be useful for shaping behavior.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> No, the trainer lets you feel it because they want you to experience first hand the tingly feeling, not shock like people here seem to believe.
> You should try it


I have, a few times. I sold them in my shop for years until I quit carrying them. To me, it wasn't a tingling feeling at all. It was very, _very_ uncomfortable, a feeling that I definitely wanted to avoid. I don't think that a "tingling" feeling would call a dog with a high prey drive off a chase.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I already told you that the general public is ignorant of the proper use of the e collar.
> 
> And those were not my words lol! My actual words were "all I have to do is put the collar on" and I can't tell you when the last time I even had to use the "tone".


Yes, now that the behavior is ingrained, that's what you do. How many times did you shock him in training and proofing recall? Once? Twice? A dozen times?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

kwhit said:


> Did you not read the statement below? People actually believe that the collars don't hurt their dogs, no matter what the setting. So tippykayak's comment is true, IMO, proven by one of our own members who use the collar. And he never mentioned repeatedly, you did.


What? OK. LOL!


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> We never disagreed on that. What we disagree on is the likelihood that somebody won't quite get that training and conditioning quite right and on the severity of the side effects. People who screw up e-collar conditioning and training aren't abusers, but they do have to live with the side effects.


I already said people are ignorant in the use of the collar. So maybe I should elaborate for you? Ok here we go. Ignorant people will use the collar incorrectly which will lead to abuse.........there we go.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I really hate to argue about this experience of yours because it bums me out and makes it seem personal.
> 
> Since you brought it up, though, my point is that you _do_ have the right to argue about the effectiveness of no-e-collar recall, even though you've never trained a dog to true reliability with it. BTW, you can't use the same dog as an example of reliable recall and an example of unreliable recall in the same argument. Regardless, the validity of your point doesn't stand on whether you've done it yourself or not. Nor does the validity of my point stand on whether I've attempted to train recall with an e-collar myself.
> 
> And I'm not taking your posts out of context. You're making a logical fallacy, one that even has a name because it's so common in arguments, and I'm pointing it out to you.


My Cody had a solid recall. He was however prey driven whther you like to believe it or not. Most the general public will not put their dogs in situations where they will find this out. Plain and simple.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

On here I am labeled a dog abuser because my dog wears an e-collar. I think that is bs so you call me or people that use e-collars bad owners I don't care about respecting them anymore. Everything I do is for my dogs. If my dog was in pain I would not put it on him. If he didn't want to put it on I would not put it on. But he enjoys it because I don't shock him, i use it only as a correction when I cannot get to him and even then I will use a voice command and he obeys. 
It is just a safety measure that he wears the e-collar.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I already said people are ignorant in the use of the collar. So maybe I should elaborate for you? Ok here we go. Ignorant people will use the collar incorrectly which will lead to abuse.........there we go.


I see your logic, but I don't think it's so simple as giving people a little information and curing their ignorance and then all of a sudden the e-collar is going to be a great tool in pretty much anybody's hands. The people you've casually labeled "abusers" certainly believe they've educated themselves and are doing their best for their dog.

I don't think recommending it as the only way or the best way to solve behavioral problems (including recall reliability) is responsible.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

kwhit said:


> I have, a few times. I sold them in my shop for years until I quit carrying them. To me, it wasn't a tingling feeling at all. It was very, _very_ uncomfortable, a feeling that I definitely wanted to avoid. *I don't think that a "tingling" feeling would call a dog with a high prey drive off a chase.*


And neither will a solid recall. However once conditioned the dog will think twice before going after that prey.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> My Cody had a solid recall. He was however prey driven whther you like to believe it or not. Most the general public will not put their dogs in situations where they will find this out. Plain and simple.


I certainly do believe it. I just don't think it makes any sense to hold him up as an example of reliable recall and as an example of unreliable recall in the same breath. As I have highly reliable dogs with high prey drives, I'm completely sympathetic to what you're talking about.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Phoebe's mom said:


> On here I am labeled a dog abuser because my dog wears an e-collar. I think that is bs so you call me or people that use e-collars bad owners I don't care about respecting them anymore.


Nobody called e-collar users abusers. The word abuser was brought up by somebody who uses an e-collar, not by me or by anybody else in this thread who's arguing against their use.

In fact, my point was that many people who are _not_ abusive choose an e-collar and then have negative side effects with their dog. Nobody equated it with abuse.



Phoebe's mom said:


> Everything I do is for my dogs. If my dog was in pain I would not put it on him. If he didn't want to put it on I would not put it on. But he enjoys it because I don't shock him, i use it only as a correction when I cannot get to him and even then I will use a voice command and he obeys.
> It is just a safety measure that he wears the e-collar.


I respect your right to use it, but nobody insulted you personally or even generally, and I don't think you have any right to tell people to get out of a thread.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Yes, now that the behavior is ingrained, that's what you do. How many times did you shock him in training and proofing recall? Once? Twice? A dozen times?


In training? Seriously I believe he was nicked maybe 3 times on #1. Kinda like rattlesnake avoidance class. Just a few times to get his attention. I use the tri tronics pro 100. However every dog is different.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

"It is just suppose to Get their focus off of whatever they are doing that we don't like. It isn't made to hurt them."

Why can't the dog just listen to a request from the owner? 

If the dog is well trained wouldn't it listen to the first request and then not need the correction (beep, nic)?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Phoebe's mom said:


> On here I am labeled a dog abuser because my dog wears an e-collar. I think that is bs so you call me or people that use e-collars bad owners I don't care about respecting them anymore. Everything I do is for my dogs. If my dog was in pain I would not put it on him. If he didn't want to put it on I would not put it on. But he enjoys it because I don't shock him, i use it only as a correction when I cannot get to him and even then I will use a voice command and he obeys.
> It is just a safety measure that he wears the e-collar.


This is why we need to educate. Don't let it get to you only you know the truth.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I see your logic, but I don't think it's so simple as giving people a little information and curing their ignorance and then all of a sudden the e-collar is going to be a great tool in pretty much anybody's hands. The people you've casually labeled "abusers" certainly believe they've educated themselves and are doing their best for their dog.
> 
> I don't think recommending it as the only way or the best way to solve behavioral problems (including recall reliability) is responsible.


Oh puleeze! "a little information" is not the same thing as getting trained.
Guns don't kill, people do. And you can't honestly tell me that someone is abusing without knowledge of doing it. If so than those people should not have animals or kids for that matter.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> In training? Seriously I believe he was nicked maybe 3 times on #1. Kinda like rattlesnake avoidance class. Just a few times to get his attention. I use the tri tronics pro 100. However every dog is different.


If he's only been nicked three times ever, I don't believe your experience is typical of a person who uses an e-collar in obedience training. When I've observed highly experienced trainers working titled dogs, I frequently see more nicks than that in a single session.

With only three nicks ever in his life, it's unlikely that he would develop any of the anxiety behaviors we're discussing. But I don't believe that low number of nicks is emblematic of typical use.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I certainly do believe it. I just don't think it makes any sense to hold him up as an example of reliable recall and as an example of unreliable recall in the same breath. As I have highly reliable dogs with high prey drives, I'm completely sympathetic to what you're talking about.


Sure it does......if only to prove that nothing is guaranteed. Sometimes people forget they are animals.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Oh puleeze! "a little information" is not the same thing as getting trained.
> Guns don't kill, people do. And you can't honestly tell me that someone is abusing without knowledge of doing it. If so than those people should not have animals or kids for that matter.


I think you just made my point pretty clearly.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

Sorry, people are implying it. Definitely implying that I am a bad dog owner and my dog is not well trained. Which is ridiculous and unfair.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> If he's only been nicked three times ever, I don't believe your experience is typical of a person who uses an e-collar in obedience training. When I've observed highly experienced trainers working titled dogs, I frequently see more nicks than that in a single session.
> 
> With only three nicks ever in his life, it's unlikely that he would develop any of the anxiety behaviors we're discussing. But I don't believe that low number of nicks is emblematic of typical use.


I said he was nicked about that many times *in conditioning.* I never said that he never got nicked again lol! We off leash hike all the time and it is my safety net.

Gun/field training is completely different and I can certainly understand how an e collar can come into play. Like another poster said it is like tapping them to get their attention to stay focused. And being professional trained myself I can see no harm.

Everyone has their own view on training and what tools to use. Everyone needs to find what works best for them without using abuse. And you can do this properly with any tool. And most importantly people need to get educated before putting something down that they never infact never actually tried themselves.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I think you just made my point pretty clearly.


What that people actually know when they are abusing? Which is pretty clear to me too. And that being ignorant is not an excuse?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Phoebe's mom said:


> Sorry, people are implying it. Definitely implying that I am a bad dog owner and my dog is not well trained. Which is ridiculous and unfair.


I agree! Although not directly it is coming off loud and clear and a little condescending to say the least.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

People have crops for horses. Used correctly it is very efficient. Used incorrectly it can be a disaster. People also think this is cruel but it is not.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I agree! Although not directly it is coming off loud and clear and a little condescending to say the least.


Exactly!!! I want to take a video of what Captain does when I take out the e-collar. He gets so excited because he knows he gets a treat and gets to go some where exciting.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> And most importantly people need to get educated before putting something down that they never infact never actually tried themselves.


"Get educated" clearly means "agreeing with Wyatt's Mommy" here.

And it's clear that we're not going to see eye to eye on the idea that a person can hold a valid opinion about something based on firsthand experience and research without actually training a dog all the way through with the tool.

Like I said, if you want to hold to that logic, then you can't lecture me on the fact that I can't have reliability without leaving an e-collar on me all the time, because you haven't trained that way or done it yourself (and no, Cody doesn't count, since his recall wasn't reliable).


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I agree! Although not directly it is coming off loud and clear and a little condescending to say the least.


I let the first "condescending" comment go and even apologized, because I know I can sound that way some time, and that's my fault. But taking lectures from you on tone is a little galling. Glass houses, etc.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> Oh puleeze!





Wyatt's mommy said:


> What? OK. LOL!





Wyatt's mommy said:


> Most the general public will not put their dogs in situations where they will find this out. Plain and simple.





Wyatt's mommy said:


> Obviously you have not read all my posts.:





Wyatt's mommy said:


> I can't even believe you are using that for your argument LOL! What a joke.





Wyatt's mommy said:


> I will try _one more time_ ....is that clear enough now?





Wyatt's mommy said:


> I'm sorry that you took my comment completely out of context.





Wyatt's mommy said:


> I do think that the general public is ignorant in the use of an e-collar.





Wyatt's mommy said:


> LOL! You called it.....instead of answering my question she just told me to check out other opinions on the internet:uhoh:





Wyatt's mommy said:


> Again I will try to explain what I meant. There is_ no absolutes in training (especially recall) UNLESS you have an e collar. Because with an e-collar you have total control if used correctly. Dogs are animals first and foremost. Especially if they are prey driven. _I think people forget this. No better yet from reading on here *I know* people forget this lol!





Wyatt's mommy said:


> So when I see the general ignorant faulse acussations in regards to the e collar, I feel the need to educate.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> "Get educated" clearly means "agreeing with Wyatt's Mommy" here.
> 
> And it's clear that we're not going to see eye to eye on the idea that a person can hold a valid opinion about something based on firsthand experience and research without actually training a dog all the way through with the tool.
> 
> Like I said, if you want to hold to that logic, then you can't lecture me on the fact that I can't have reliability without leaving an e-collar on me all the time, because you haven't trained that way or done it yourself (and no, Cody doesn't count, since his recall wasn't reliable).


The only thing that is clear here is you continue take all of my posts and twist them or just totally ignore them whichever suits your mood I suppose.

And I am intelligent enough without stooping to being egotistical and condescending to know that a solid recall is only solid until one day it isn't. _And there is no trainer on this earth that can guarantee that it won't happen._

And I believe I got my message across from the get go that everyone needs to find a method and tool that works for them as long as it is in a humane way. I respect everyones choice in this. However what I don't respect is uneducated assumptions period whether it be using a prong collar, a choke collar, a harness, or an e collar. None of these will harm your dog if used correctly and you as a trainer know this.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I let the first "condescending" comment go and even apologized, because I know I can sound that way some time, and that's my fault. But taking lectures from you on tone is a little galling. Glass houses, etc.


Yes I apologize for the "Oh puleeze" However I stand by all the other posts as trying to educate You would ask me a question and avoid my answers.....there ya go!


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

A dog can be a human's partner, pet, or prisoner, and there are two perspectives involved in determining which he truly is: his and ours. There is much solemnity in the decisions we make about how to train dogs, and they say much about our values. Where we set limits for ourselves, what we think are best practices in training/husbandry, and what we think are gratuitously cruel or unacceptable practices differ so much on this issue it is like there is a grand canyon between us.

In the end, we will walk down different roads with this tool, and really no one is showing much respect for the other side. For me, I've had eleven dogs with reliable recalls and I have seen them many, many times wheel around to come in the face of great temptations because of the painstaking groundwork laid in puppyhood. 

The good thing though, is people reading the thread get two sides. The bad thing is that we like each other less every time we go through one of these marathons.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> A dog can be a human's partner, pet, or prisoner, and there are two perspectives involved in determining which he truly is: his and ours. There is much solemnity and gravity in the decisions we make about how to train dogs and horses, and they say much about our values. Where we set limits for ourselves, what we think are best practices in training/husbandry, and what we think are gratuitously cruel or unacceptable practices differ so much on this issue it is like there is a grand canyon between us. In the end, we will walk down different roads with this tool, and really no one is showing much respect for the other side. For me, I've had eleven dogs with reliable recalls and I have seen them many, many times wheel around to come in the face of great temptations because of the painstaking groundwork laid in puppyhood. In truth, I do not respect the e collar as a tool for training basic obedience, which is already clear. Others of you do not respect positive training and do not believe it has equal power to the e collar in ensuring a good, safe recall. There is equal passion on both sides. The good thing though, is people reading the thread get two sides. The bad thing is that we like each other less every time we go through one of these marathons.


 
What I respect is the ability to understand that every single dog is different, and the ability to read each dog and be able to find what works best for that dog. For me there is no set training "method" or a "program". It's figuring out the individual I am working with, and doing what it takes to get him where I want him. It is usually somewhere in the middle of the "sides" I see in these "marathons". I'm not a "Montessori trainer" (You're not a _bad _doggie, you just make bad choices... ), I pick puppies up by the scruff of the neck, my dogs do hear the word no in a growly voice, if they are bitey they are corrected, and they do wear "choke" collars. (gasp) I have even used FF and an e-collar. They also are praised profusely. Hugs and kisses come before treats for me. (They get tons of treats - for breathing, being cute, etc  My dogs are happy, trusting, willing, reliable, and safe. We can take 5-10 dogs out on "field trips", running the dunes, swimming, off lead in the woods - without issue, and we can LIVE with them, happily and calmly.
And I don't really care anymore if you (and that's a collective "you", not anyone in particular) like or respect me and how I choose to train, as long as the dogs do. And they do. And the owners who I have helped do, as well, so for me, its all swell.

Now,


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

I have to agree with Pointgold. Train the dog on the end of the leash. 

The electronic collar is probably the single most effective training tool to come down the road in the last 50 years.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I was having this discussion with the OTCH person I train with last Saturday about training and the various ways to train. I think the thing we both agree upon is that not all dogs can be trained the same way. I have never done any field training, no experience there.. but I have trained four dogs to a CD, three to a CDX, and one to a UD, plus many rally titles too numerous to count. I can say that I have never used compulsion. When it came time to train my UD girl to pick up the dumbbell, she started with an ear pinch. I was horrified and her ear became raw. I told myself that if this is what it took, I would be done. She devised a positive way to train her and we got our CDX in 3 straight shows with placements.. and ultimately a UD, placements for all legs, and RA, she died before that last RE leg... However, this is also the same dog that as a young dog escaped from the animal hospital where I work and headed straight for Route One... eventually, she came back to me.. but I vowed that if her recall didn't improve, I would consider a shock collar for her safety. Never came to that and she became a very obedient dog. For me, as a bystander, it is all about timing. Regardless of which tool you use, if you have bad timing you will ruin your dog. You can even mess it up with positive training if you are late to reward the dog or inaccurate, etc... you tell the dog to sit, and by the time you reward it, it's standing, then you are not really rewarding the sit. I have witnessed trainers with shock collars in field training that have up, bright happy dogs. I just have to say for show ring obedience, it is not for me. I grew up with beagles who make you hit your head against a wall when it comes to training. I choose goldens, because I wanted a biddable , easy to train dog. My UD certainly pushed it, but when we got her number through positive methods, she was awesome.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

The problem with the "use whatever method you think suits your dog" argument is that it can be used to justify pretty much any training practice, no matter how outdated or barbaric. I doubt all of us would really argue that all training models are created equal.

I'd prefer to talk about how to make our training better, not to look for rationales to defend whatever practice we happen to have had previous success with. There's lots of stuff I did in dog training ten years ago that I cringe now at the thought of. And there's plenty of stuff I hear people advocate (stuff from harsh TV trainers comes to mind) that I think is a terrible idea. 

And to go back to the original purpose of this thread, I think the e-collar is a terrible idea for the OP. Whether it's a terrible idea for every dog every time is not something I have any interest in arguing.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I agree, the e collar is not a good use for the OP. But, in general, you cannot necessarily train all dogs successfully with the same methods... and if your timing is better than mine, what might work for you, might not work for me...


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Sally's Mom said:


> I agree, the e collar is not a good use for the OP. But, in general, you cannot necessarily train all dogs successfully with the same methods... and if your timing is better than mine, what might work for you, might not work for me...


I definitely agree that you have to adapt the training to the dog, but I also think there are things you decide are not for you. I also think people should understand the potential side effects of whatever training tools they adopt.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Back when I was training my 1400 lb horse, I had this awesome trainer that taught us to work with each other. I certainly could not over power the horse (my trainer could as he was a very big man). Anyway, we taught my horse to want to do things with me.. I have carried over that philosophy to the dogs. But, I see all of these clients who come in and think that if they continually feed the dog while it is on the table, they are positively training the dog. It drives me nuts... that, IMO, is an incorrect use of using food.... With my first golden, our head trainer was too aggressive for me. He respected that I WOULD NOT snap her collar...but he had other great pointers for show ring obedience... which I listened to... And even with my positive OTCH friend, there are things she recommends which are not for me....


----------



## Duke08 (Aug 22, 2008)

I use a Tri-Tronics E-collar on Cam. I always just use the two lowest settings on the controller and he is one of the most obedient Golden's. It does take some proper techniques to use properly and it does not hurt the dog. I tried it on myself before I put it on him. It feels like a very small muscle twitch and each level above that is a stronger twitch. No "shock" at all like most people think. Cam is to the point now after a year that I no longer need the collar, except when there are a lot of distractions around. That's my $.02.

Jeff


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

Duke08 said:


> I use a Tri-Tronics E-collar on Cam. I always just use the two lowest settings on the controller and he is one of the most obedient Golden's. It does take some proper techniques to use properly and it does not hurt the dog. I tried it on myself before I put it on him. It feels like a very small muscle twitch and each level above that is a stronger twitch. No "shock" at all like most people think. Cam is to the point now after a year that I no longer need the collar, except when there are a lot of distractions around. That's my $.02.
> 
> Jeff


You described my situation with the e-collar perfectly. Thank you.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Sally's Mom said:


> I agree, the e collar is not a good use for the OP. But, in general, you cannot necessarily train all dogs successfully with the same methods... and if your timing is better than mine, what might work for you, might not work for me...


I've had entire litters in my class. And what works for one puppy doesn't work for another. They are individuals. Just like kids - same mom and dad, totally different people. 
Figuring them out is half the fun. And if it isn't fun, I'm not doing it. I'll keep doing what I do, happily. If someone who has never seen my dogs wants to think that I am justifying something that is outdated or barbaric, fine. I know better, and I think that those who know me and my dogs, and who have trained with me and live happily with their dogs do, too.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

PG, agreed.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Duke08 said:


> I use a Tri-Tronics E-collar on Cam. I always just use the two lowest settings on the controller and he is one of the most obedient Golden's. It does take some proper techniques to use properly and it does not hurt the dog. I tried it on myself before I put it on him. It feels like a very small muscle twitch and each level above that is a stronger twitch. No "shock" at all like most people think. Cam is to the point now after a year that I no longer need the collar, except when there are a lot of distractions around. That's my $.02.
> 
> Jeff


I wonder if the people that use the word "shock" have even tried or felt the e collars on the market today. They are neither outdated or barbaric. They have improved tremendously over the years. I too have a tri tronics pro 100.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

A few resources to think about: 

http://www.cabtsg.org/electronic.htm
A number of devices that administer an electric shock are now available to pet owners The manufacturers of there devices recommend their use in the training or control of animals.

Their effectiveness depends upon the pain and fear experienced by the animal, but to use them correctly requires detailed understanding of behaviour and its motivation, as well as very precise timing. Few operators are able to achieve any reliable success with these devices and the consequences of failure can be a worsening of the problem behaviour. These devices are now available to dog trainers and the general public via mail order, through pet shops and veterinary practices. The product marketing implies that electronic training devices are simple, humane and effective.

Pet owners, with little or no experience or understanding of training can purchase this equipment and use it on their animals with no proper guidance and without any attempt to identify the motivation for the unwanted behaviour. Such an approach at best results in control of symptoms rather than treatment of cause and at worst may cause new problems to develop. For example, the use of pain and fear as a method of training or controlling an animal has been shown to have the potential to induce aggression and to cause long term behavioural problems. This is due to inappropriate associations made between the aversion of the device and the presence of unconnected stimuli in the environment, including people.

The indiscriminate use of shock collars therefore poses a threat to the safety of the general public, as well as to the welfare of the animal. We believe that sufficient alternative methods of treatment exist that such electronic training devices are redundant.

It is the responsibility of the veterinary surgeon to prevent unnecessary suffering in animals under our care.

Therefore, as an association affiliated to BSAVA, it is our duty to recommend that shock collars and all other related training and control aids should be banned from sale or use.



> The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB)recommends that veterinarians not refer clients to trainers or behavior consultants who
> coach and advocate dominance hierarchy theory and the subsequent confrontational training that
> follows from it,” the position statement says


http://www.clickingwithcanines.com/id56.html


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

While I agree with fitting methods to individuals to a certain extent, it is a question of degree. If someone put an e collar on a puppy in a STAR puppy class she taught, that would cross a line for me. A fit between method, trainer, dog, and owner IS important, but some things are over-the-top no matter who does it.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> While I agree with fitting methods to individuals to a certain extent, it is a question of degree. If someone put an e collar on a puppy in a STAR puppy class she taught, that would cross a line for me. A fit between method, trainer, dog, and owner IS important, but some things are over-the-top no matter who does it.


If you are suggesting I that have, or would or use an e-collar on a puppy you could not be any more wrong.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ollars-shock-pets-obedience-banned-Wales.html


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Lol, just the opposite. I am suggesting you would never do that. While there are many ways to train, some options should be ruled out flatly as unacceptable practice.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> Lol, just the opposite. I am suggesting you would never do that. While there are many ways to train, some options should be ruled out.


Huh. Didn't quite get that from your post. 

I"ll just stick with what has worked for me and the dogs I work with. The pissy rhetoric in these threads about the evil "shock" collar has lost its entertainment value. I've generally stayed out of them for a reason. I think I'll re-adopt that policy. ​


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

People draw their lines in different places, and we choose for our dogs through what we do to them and with them. I do think e collars are a cruel way to train puppies or family dog manners, but then again some people think I am cruel for clipping Copley and Lushie's whiskers for the show ring. In the end, the dog will judge by how he/she feels about us and this world. There's still mystery about the dog's perspective no matter how well we know dogs.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

One last post, and then I'll leave you all to play by yourselves  And this is simply to demonstrate that you can find articles and videos to support ANY opinion that you want to.

Sit Means Sit | Dog Training| Dog Trainers | Dogs Training Collars | Dog Training Schools | Point, Counterpoint and Common Sense- Veterinarians on Shock Collars


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Thanks PG. It is great to have articles that support all side so people can decide for themselves. 


Companion Animal Behaviour Therapy Study Group - Electronic training aids
http://www.rottilounge.de/downloads/E_collar_Article.pdf
BBC News - High Court backs ban on pet shock collars in Wales
BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | Shock dog collars 'complete ban'
Animal Behavior and Medicine Blog | Dr. Sophia Yin, DVM, MS
http://www.dogsportmagazine.com/?p=43
Good News For Pets | Vets on Behavior Proclaim, Never Use Shock Collar
Electric collars
http://www.holisticforpets.com/pdf/ElectricCollarTraining_Borwick.pdf
Victoria Stilwell: Say "no" to electronic fencing - New York small dogs | Examiner.com


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy wrote: I wonder if the people that use the word "shock" have even tried or felt the e collars on the market today.

There were about 12 people that used the word "shock" on the thread. From reading the posts at least 5 of them have used the e-collar.

I also looked at who was using the word shock collar on the thread. I believe some used it because that is what the OP originally called it. Others used both words e-collar and shock collar in the same and different posts (about 9 people). There may have been individuals that used the term "shock collar" for effect but it didn't look that way (imo). 

There were 7 people that only used the term e-collar and not all of them have used the collar.

At the time I looked through it there were 171 posts and I may have got distracted at some point so there is a possibility of some human error.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

solinvictus said:


> Wyatt's mommy wrote: I wonder if the people that use the word "shock" have even tried or felt the e collars on the market today.
> 
> There were about 12 people that used the word "shock" on the thread. From reading the posts at least 5 of them have used the e-collar.
> 
> ...


My point was, what do people think when they hear the word "shock". What do people think when a poster on here talks about a shock collar giving off an electrical shock lol! I would love for these people to go to a professional e collar training class. Not only go, but get involved with it. Know the truth. That's all.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> The only thing that is clear here is you continue take all of my posts and twist them or just totally ignore them whichever suits your mood I suppose.


It's called an M.O. Aggravating, isn't it. Ignore function ROCKS!


----------



## Mac'sdad (Dec 5, 2009)

I think this horse has been beat to death....


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> It's called an M.O. Aggravating, isn't it. Ignore function ROCKS!


I'm just quoting this just in case you go back and edit it later.


----------



## Kaila (Feb 1, 2012)

Honestly, to the dog, shocking them for not getting up can have similar effects to kicking them (with the same intensity as a low-grade shock) for not getting up. The problem with that is that they can learn to associate the discomfort with YOU. They interpret it as mom trying to call them, possibly getting frustrated, and then suddenly they're uncomfortable or in some pain.. and it's ONLY when mom is trying to get them to come to her. Even if the dog eventually complies, he's doing it because he wants to avoid pain/discomfort. Not because he trusts you. Not because he knows that doing so will actually benefit him. Not because he wants to please you.

If you're having trouble with recalls, then it sounds to me like you're not using a reward that's high value enough. Try baking some skinless, boneless chicken breasts in the oven and dice them up. Put them in a ziploc baggy and stick it in the fridge. Teach him the "Touch" command first at a short distance.

Start by sitting right infront of him. Hold a treat in your palm and close only your thumb over the treat. Hold your hand up as if you're going to ask for a high five (only your thumb is folded into your palm holding the treat--it looks like you're showing him the number four with your fingers). When he goes to sniff the treat in the center of your palm, say "yes!" the second that his nose brushes your hand and give him the treat. When he's reliably doing it without even thinking about it, take the treat out of your hand without him noticing and see if he touches your hand anyway. If he does, show him your empty hand, and feed him a hidden treat. (This teaches him to touch your hand and not just blindly follow the treat.) Start adding the cue "Touch!" whenever his nose brushes your hand.

Gradually add distance so that he has to stretch his neck out to touch your hand, then get up and take a step to touch you, then take three steps, then five, etc. Keep it fun and don't get frustrated--remember, this is a game! If it stops being a game for either of you, take a breather and try again later. Some dogs get frustrated by learning new things and start going into avoidance. It may look like stubbornness, but it's actually their "I don't know what you want me to do so I'm going to stop trying" face. You need to show him that even a little bit of effort is a good thing!

If chicken doesn't work for him, try different rewards. Is there anything that he goes really super crazy for? River loves paper towels, so when I teach "Leave It" I use paper towels because they're really high distraction for her. When she listens successfully, I actually let her play with the paper towel for a few seconds. It's SO rewarding to her that she's more likely to listen to me the next time we train.

If he's not participating in the game, then my best guess is that 1) he is either suffering from some sort of hidden discomfort and getting up is too difficult/painful for him to be worth whatever reward you have, 2) you're really boring and need to step up your praise, get better treats, etc., or 3) you've yelled at him, dragged him, or expressed that you were frustrated with him in some way in the past so as to make him apprehensive about coming to you.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

Wow, who said they shock their dog because they don't get up? My dog does a solid recall. I just have it on for far corrections and in the off chance that he gets carried away I know I can get his attention. But rarely do I need to use it. We used hot dogs to train, but faded the treat as I am not going to carry around food for their whole lives. This is just a safety measure. Hardly used. 
Let's say your dog find something really yummy and starts eating it, he doesn't listen to your command of leave it. It takes you a couple seconds to run over and by the time you have its gone. Might have been poisoned. Might have been something that's going to give them diarrhea. I just like to know that I have control from a far even though he is trained. He might have a teenage moment.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Phoebe's Mom, That's what the OP said....


----------



## marsh mop (Mar 13, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> I'm just quoting this just in case you go back and edit it later.


Now that is funny!


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

Oh ok! Gosh, no one should shock a dog of it isn't getting up!! If you can touch the dog their is no need for a shock. My e-collar doesn't even work unless you are at least a meter away. Just in case the dog gets a hold of the remote.


----------



## baumgartml16 (Jun 19, 2011)

Okay, for anyone that has not read the thread through I am not going to use a shock collar so the point is mute at this point in relation to this thread.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

K9-Design said:


> It's called an M.O. Aggravating, isn't it. Ignore function ROCKS!


It is aggravating when they ask a question than sidestep all your anwsers.  I think this topic has been ignored too long that is why they keep referring it to an "electric shock".


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Kaila said:


> Honestly, to the dog, shocking them for not getting up can have similar effects to kicking them (with the same intensity as a low-grade shock) for not getting up. The problem with that is that they can learn to associate the discomfort with YOU. They interpret it as mom trying to call them, possibly getting frustrated, and then suddenly they're uncomfortable or in some pain.. and it's ONLY when mom is trying to get them to come to her. Even if the dog eventually complies, he's doing it because he wants to avoid pain/discomfort. Not because he trusts you. Not because he knows that doing so will actually benefit him. Not because he wants to please you.
> 
> If you're having trouble with recalls, then it sounds to me like you're not using a reward that's high value enough. Try baking some skinless, boneless chicken breasts in the oven and dice them up. Put them in a ziploc baggy and stick it in the fridge. Teach him the "Touch" command first at a short distance.
> 
> ...


I know 19 pages is alot to read thru. But I would highly recommend it


----------



## My Big Kahuna (Dec 14, 2011)

I sure am late to the party! What a thread lol...


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

World-renowned veterinarian, animal behaviorist, author, and expert in modern psychological dog training and behavior counseling, Dr. Ian Dunbar PhD, BVetMed MRCVS, discussed the use of Shock Collars in a coast-to-coast telephone discussion, providing his professional opinion.

“Shock collars are absolutely unsuitable for the general public,” Dr. Dunbar said. “Most people try to use it to control their dogs off-leash.” Dr. Dunbar stated, “Shock collars are not a magic pill.” Comparatively, “With proper training, Voice Control is one hundred times more efficient.”

Dr. Dunbar, whose internationally followed, science-based, positive Lure-Reward training for puppies and adult dogs has replaced outdated and cruel training methods using choke-chains, prong collars, shock collars and physical force, elucidated, “Averse stimulus is not instructive.” Dr. Dunbar affirmed, “Depending on the setting, the shock collar is a form of harassment or abuse.” The goal of dog-training is to phase-out the training tools and rely on life-rewards. “Inexperienced handlers who use shock collars have not trained their dog.” Becoming reliant on the shock collars can develop “Learned Helplessness” in which a repeated averse stimulus traumatizes the dog and prevents any action.

“I find shock collars unnecessary,” concludes Dr. Dunbar. “I would never use them for correcting temperament or behavior problems, dogs that show signs of aggression, hyperactivity, or fear.”

In conclusion, Pat Miller, a highly esteemed Certified Dog Behavior Consultant and Certified Professional Dog Trainer, who also provides training clinics and academies for trainers at her Peaceable Paws training facility in Maryland, testifies, “Shock collars give a false sense of security and control to the person pushing the button. Some dogs will continue on their mission despite the pain of the shock and the pain only aggravates and arouses them further.”

“If a dog’s intent is to approach another dog or person, not only may he continue to do so despite the shocks,” Ms. Miller says, “but his initially friendly intent, if it was that, may change to aggression as he associates the presence of the dog or person with the cause of the pain.”

“Although legal in this country, while illegal in others, shock collars are simply and completely unnecessary and inhumane.” Ms. Miller notes, “If a trainer chooses to use a legal pain-causing tool on private property, that is his or her unfortunate choice. But, it should not be approved public policy when a more humane, much safer physical leash does a far better job of protecting humans and dogs alike.”



Continue reading on Examiner.com To shock or not to shock: There is no question| Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/animal-advo...t-to-shock-there-is-no-question#ixzz1rp9EnCUp


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

I just googled Dr Dunbar, there are so many people against him. There will always be people on both sides. I would just drop it.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

_I took this from one the people who dissected one of his seminars. 

“In the Shock collar world, Bubba shocks the dog without letting them get it right or showing them how to and then making them do the task” To me this quote sums up the fact that Dr. Dunbar is unwilling to learn and understand about modern remote collar training. Ask any one of my clients and they will tell you that one of the things I repeat over and over in all my lessons is the importance of telling the dog what to do and showing or helping the dog perform the task consistently for a period of time before we assume the dog has full understanding. I would never allow one of my clients (or myself) to shock a dog for no reason, to shock without teaching. I would never put a remote collar, prong collar, slip collar, bag of treats, head halter, gentle leader in the hands of a dog owner without teaching them how to use it to the best of the dogs ability.
_


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

_When someone asked Dr. Dunbar “Why are shock collars used in training then?” this was his answer: “It is horrible that they are because there is no proof of reliability, it is wrong because so many trainers have proven themselves to be hopeless dog trainers, and shock collars will do a lot of damage and make the dogs life miserable”_

_If you have ever learned how to use a remote collar from an educated instructor, or seen a remote collar trained dog perform to the best of their ability or even just taken time to learn about remote collars, the statements above make your blood boil a bit…trust me I felt the need many times to get up, walk out and not worry about the loss of my seminar fee…but I understand that there are more than one way to learn and I was learning!_


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Phoebe's mom said:


> “In the Shock collar world, Bubba shocks the dog without letting them get it right or showing them how to and then making them do the task” To me this quote sums up the fact that Dr. Dunbar is unwilling to learn and understand about modern remote collar training.


When did he actually say this? I ask because it's ungrammatical and sounds like somebody paraphrasing him inaccurately, not directly quoting him. If you look at what he really says when directly quoted, it's far less insulting and far more accurate.


EDIT: I found where you're quoting from, somebody's blog who's typing up quotes they say he said at a seminar. I think they're paraphrasing him pretty badly, since some of those quotes are at odds with things he's said in his own books, and many of them don't actually make grammatical sense as sentences somebody would say.

It might be more helpful to address things he's said in an article written to journalistic standards or from one of his books. Working solely off this blog is a little more like responding to hearsay.


----------



## Phoebe's mom (Jan 17, 2012)

There is a bunch of his quotes on this ladies website. She went to his seminar. Obvisouly I am not sure if she is paraphrasing or she wrote it down. Ian Dunbar's "Science based Dog Training" and opinions about Remote collar trai | The Truth About Shock Collars


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Phoebe's mom said:


> _*When someone asked Dr. Dunbar “Why are shock collars used in training then?” this was his answer*: “It is horrible that they are because there is no proof of reliability, it is wrong because so many trainers have proven themselves to be hopeless dog trainers, and shock collars will do a lot of damage and make the dogs life miserable”_


ROFLMBO!!!!!! That was an answer? LOL! Talk about skirting the question. OMG! Does that sound familiar or what. LOL! Give me a break.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> “*Shock collars are absolutely unsuitable for the general public,*” Dr. Dunbar said. “Most people try to use it to control their dogs off-leash.” Dr. Dunbar stated, “Shock collars are not a magic pill.” Comparatively, “With proper training, Voice Control is one hundred times more efficient.”
> 
> Dr. Dunbar, whose internationally followed, science-based, positive Lure-Reward training for puppies and adult dogs has *replaced outdated and cruel training methods using choke-chains, prong collars, shock collars* and physical force, elucidated, “Averse stimulus is not instructive.” Dr. Dunbar affirmed, “*Depending on the setting, the shock collar is a form of harassment or abuse.”* The goal of dog-training is to phase-out the training tools and rely on life-rewards. *“Inexperienced handlers who use shock collars have not trained their dog*.” Becoming reliant on the shock collars can develop “Learned Helplessness” in which a repeated averse stimulus traumatizes the dog and prevents any action.


I agree that e collars are unsuitable for the general public. Duh I don't think any trainer in their right mind wouldn't agree with this. That is why they want to teach the proper use of the tool.

These tools he mentioned are not outdated. However their use is. Over time we learn better techniques just like any product. Just as the e collar is not the same model as when it first came out. Amazing what we learn with new technology every day.

LOL! I love how he says depending on the "setting" the e collar is a form of abuse. DUH again. However he did save face because he didn't say it was abuse on the correct setting

And this comment:
*Inexperienced handlers who use shock collars have not trained their dog*.” 
Makes no sense whatsoever. Common sense tells me inexperienced means just that.....inexperienced. Honestly all I read is "narrowmindness"


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Schilder and van der Borg (2004) analysed both the long and short-term behavioural effects associated with shock collar use during the training of German shepherd guard dogs. The study

serves as an interesting comparison to that of Hiby et al. (2004) as it evaluates punishment- based training as performed by specialist trainers. The study compared the conduct of sixteen dogs trained with shock collars to that of fifteen dogs receiving analogous training that had never been shocked. Behavioural reactions were monitored both on and off the training grounds, before and during training, as well as during free-park walks. Ear, tail, and body posture, in addition to various behaviours, were used to evaluate stress, fear and trauma, as opposed to conventional physiological measures, such as cortisol, as training generates high levels of excitement, which alter the accuracy of such measures (Schilder and von der Borg, 2004). Shocked dogs continually demonstrated lower ear position compared with non-shocked dogs during all experimental activities. Similarly, shocked dogs showed an increased frequency of tongue flicking during obedience work in the park and on the training grounds, and exhibited excessive front paw elevation when compared with the control group - indicative of submission, fear and even chronic or acute stress (Beerda et al., 2000).

Schilder and von der Borg (2004) also found that shocked dogs associated their trainer with imminent aversive stimuli and some exhibited "learned helplessness", linking the auditory command directly with being shocked, as opposed to seeing it as punishment for the inappropriate response to that command. The authors recommend the incorporation of more reward-base training and prohibition of shock collar use for the schooling of sport dogs. It was concluded that shocking influences long term welfare "in a negative way" (Schilder and von der Borg, 2004) and that shocked dogs exhibited elevated stress in all activities. One dog, for example, behaved like the shocked dogs despite not having been shocked for over 1.5 years. 



Schilder and colleagues (2004) compared the behaviour of dogs trained using shock
collars with a control group of dogs, during both free walking in a park and training
sessions. They found that in both situations the dogs previously trained using shock
collars showed more behaviours associated with stress than dogs trained in similar
way, but without shock collars. They concluded that the dogs associated the presence
of the handler with the aversive shock, as they were showing fearful behaviour even
when free walked in a different context.

To facilitate an association being made between the behaviour to be suppressed and
the punishment, the timing of the punishment is vital. Anxious and fearful responses
particularly occur where the punishment is poorly synchronised with the action of the
animal (Schalke et al., 2005). In such cases, the recipient does not learn to associate
the punishment with their own behaviour, but may associate it with other stimuli
present at the time, or the general context in which the punishment occurred. This
problem of inappropriate timing of punishment is exacerbated by the tendency for
owners to not be objective in their use of punishment techniques: often such
techniques are used when they themselves are angry or frustrated, and unrelated to
specific behaviours in their dog. Owners can be seen, for example, repeatedly
shocking a dog for running off after it has come back into sight.
Schilder observed that shocks were frequently given by trainers immediately after the
command was given, not giving the dog the opportunity to react to the command and
avoid the shock, but instead teaching the dog that the command was a predictor of the
shock. If such undesirable associations were made when the device was used by
experienced trainers, then it is very likely that this would happen even more
frequently where training is carried out by members of the general public.




http://www.dogdaysnw.com/doc/overall_collars.pdf ( From The Journal Of Veterinary Behavior)


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Sorry to be so late to this party, especially when it's my favorite topic. To the OP, I think that the Ecollar, used properly, is the best tool for your situation, as long as the dog is at least six months old. I've previously written a post on how I suggest that the tool be used to teach a recall. You can read it here. http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94724-teaching-recall-ecollar.html

This thread seems to have gone the way of many Ecollar threads, the petty bickering, the quoting out of context and with people citing all sorts of nonsense. But the post that mentioned Schilder is perhaps the most ridiculous. 

The Schilder study is one of the worst studies ever done on the Ecollar. Here's what behaviorist Steven Lindsay has to say about it in Volume 3 of his _Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training. _Emphases are mine.


> Instead of instilling social aversion and anxiety as suggested by the authors, the foregoing animal and human research supports the notion that *competent electronic training appears to promote positive social attachment, safety, and reward effects that may be provided and amplified via affectionate petting and reassuring praise. The preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that ES escape/avoidance and pain reduction should promote long-term effects that are incompatible with fear and stress, making the trainer an object of significant extrinsic reward that actually enhances the dog's welfare via an improved capacity for social coping, learning, and adaptation. *Evidently, many of the shocks delivered by the handlers were far from traumatic experiences, since the authors had to double-check with them to confirm the actual number of shocks received by the dogs.


 

Lindsay continues,


> 1. The social behaviors that the authors used to judge that the dogs were under stress are ambiguous, and are displayed by dogs in a variety of situations, only some of which involve high levels of stress. *There is zero scientific evidence that these indicators mean what the authors claim they mean. *





> 2. *The authors made no attempt to blind themselves to the experimental and control groups. *Unlike the Tuskegee studies, they weren't measuring cortisol levels in the saliva and/or blood - they were subjectively interpreting behavior. And they _knew_ which dogs were being subjected to which training protocol, when they were doing the interpretation.
> 
> ... They repeatedly emphasize that such devices produce stress, but provide no evidence that ES in the context of dog training overtaxes biobehavioral control systems or harms a dog's biological fitness in any way.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

And now Lou Castle is back....


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Sally's Mom said:


> And now Lou Castle is back....


Never met him but I see nothing wrong with his views.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Hi there Lou. You're back!


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Never met him but I see nothing wrong with his views.


All I said was Lou Castle is back...


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Sally's Mom said:


> All I said was Lou Castle is back...


I can read


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Sally's Mom said:


> And now Lou Castle is back....


 
Someone has a flair for the obvious. lol

I just wish that I'd found this thread earlier. I hate it when misconceptions and myths are told about the Ecollar. Some people somehow forget that ALL methods of training a dog invoke stress. ALL methods invoke discomfort of some kind. Some choose to over look it when it happens with their methods of choice, or worse, even deny that it happens. Dogs trained with Ecollars perform to escape or avoid the discomfort that a stim brings. Dogs trained with treats perform to escape of avoid the discomfort that NOT−having−a−treat brings.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> Hi there Lou. You're back!


 
So I'm told. LOL.


----------



## AnnaJack (May 5, 2012)

I personally was against the shock collars because they seemed cruel. My neighbors had the WORST labs! They were aggressive and would scare anyone walking by their house. Many times they broke through their invisible fence and chased other animals/people. The last straw was when they broke through and attacked my golden 1 day after having surgery. My husband flipped and told them they need to correct the problem or he would turn them in. They got shock collars for both of them and let me tell you, they are completely different dogs! They do not bark or chase after anything. They stay right next to their owners. I actually talked to my neighbor and asked what brand they were because I was so impressed by how well they worked. I purchased 2 for my dogs. I was hesitant at first because they seem so intimidating. I to this day have only had to shock them twice. You have to start at the lowest setting and adjust it until you can see their head jerk. It honestly does not hurt them at all. They are to the point where all I have to do is beep them and tell them the command I want them to do and it works like a charm. Actually I haven't even used them for months because they have been so good. I only pull them out every once in a while when they get out of control to bring them back down a notch. Just putting on the collar works. I don't even have to beep them anymore. They honestly are not as bad as they appear


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

A couple of good blog posts on using ecollars and critically evaluating studies done on them:

Remote Control « Spot Check

See no evil. Read no evil. Cite no evil. « Smartdogs' Weblog

Very interesting is a study where they actually used ecollars to fix aggression in dogs.


----------



## ashleylp (Jul 23, 2011)

I know I'm a bit late to this party ... but I'd love to throw my two cents in. I use an e-collar with Remy and decided to go that route because we are doing hunt and field and the "long arm" that they provide is priceless. Let me begin by saying that I NEVER thought that I would EVER EVER use a "shock collar" on Remy. I thought they were cruel and uncalled for, totally unnecessary.

I was introduced to them at our club hunt training days and it wasn't long before I could easily see the benefits. Use CORRECTLY, they are wonderful.

Let me see if I can explain it the way I had it explained to me. Imagine you have a kid and that kid likes to play video games. When the kid is really into the video game, sometimes it doesn't matter how many times you say "kid! kid! kid! kid! kid!"... they will be zoned out and won't hear. Now imagine that you walk up and touch the kid. Odds are, they'll focus back on you and away from the game. If they ignore you, it's no longer subconscious, but conscious. The e-collar is that ability to touch the dog when they are distracted. One of my biggest draws to the e-collar was the ability to keep Remy SAFE while off leash at the park (not to mention in the field!). If he's chasing a squirrel toward traffic there's A) no way I could catch him and B) Not much I could do to be more interesting than that squirrel. No amount of treats will make him turn from a distance and run back to me when he is truly distracted and in danger.

That's where the e-collar comes in. It doesn't have to be used in a "painful" way... I used it on myself before I EVER put it on my dog. If used CORRECTLY, it is extremely effective and humane. If used INCORRECTLY, it is painful, abuse, and can RUIN a dog.

So my advice is to look into it, experience the e-collar up close and personal for yourself... feel it on your bare arm, etc. and if you decide to go that way GO TO A TRAINER FOR HELP. The timing is so important and is something that has to be learned.

Hope this isn't too controversial, that's not my intent. I'd recommend the e-collar to anyone.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

In the end, if , say, Fido gets shocked and Tally never does, but both have reliable recalls, then it becomes not a question of are both training methods effective, but of does the end justify the means. If Tally earns his CD with no corrections, and Fido earns his with e collar training, then both have worked to achieve the goal, but our question becomes to assess if there has been a cost. The various studies try to ascertain this crucial information- is there a side effect or cost to using punishment to train a dog? Stress hormones are measured. . . Behavior is followed. . . Does being punished or being shocked cause changes in the way the dog views the owner, the training process, the world around him, his inner chemistry, hormones, and wiring? Since we can cite studies by credible sources in both directions, my question becomes, why risk it when there are many humane effective methods available. 

Right now, at our training center, we a working with a standard schnauzer who was taught simple things like Leave It and recall wtih an e collar. He is shut down and paralyzed with fear to the point he cannot function in CGC class. The owners sent him to Invisible Leash Boot Camp ie ten days of shock collar training, and then his vet sent him here to us bc the dog is so shellshocked. Is that abusive- yes. Is it easier to suppress, terrorize, and shut down a dog with an e collar than with a clicker? Heck, yes. 

I am pleased to have raised 11 goldens who have lovely prompt recalls off leash, give the canine good citizen test to help other dog/owner teams, and are wonderful house dogs all with CGC and most with TDI-therapy dog certifications, plus modest accomplishments in Rally O, obedience and the breed ring- anything I ask them- without even collar corrections, never mind shocking them for compliance. The 11 are from vastly different backgrounds from the highest test working lines, to BYB, to show dogs- every kind of golden. Since I do not have a field title, I will not say anything about field work. However, since my goldens are objectively proven to be excellent dog citizens on or off leash wherever they go, and since we train 100 dogs a week here, I feel free to give the opinion that training a pet golden house manners with an e collar is overkill. 


If you need to shock a dog for basic manners, you need to invest in your own dog handling and communication skills, and I think it is very sorrowful for the dog. If people are free to write that studies citing the harm to a dog-owner relationship that comes from electronic collar use are nonsense, then I will feel free to say the reason these threads catch fire is that people who use these collars get very defensive about them: I call smoke/fire. That is why silly euphemisms get made up to whitewash how the collars work, and people complain when an electric shock is called a spade instead of a "stim". 

* Field training/performance is a whole separate subject from people's pet dogs.


----------



## ashleylp (Jul 23, 2011)

I totally and completely understand that clicker training, etc. can be just as effective as e-collar training. Just as the clicker is a tool, I use the e-collar as a tool.

BUT, to clarify, I'd like to add that if I EVER saw any adverse reaction from the e-collar... any displays of fear of me/the collar/training, I would reevaluate immediately. I put my dog's happiness and needs above all else. Anything I do with him, I do for him. I am not training for hunt trials because it is something I wanted to do (although I'll admit that I've caught the bug... ha) but because Remy displayed a love for it. The look in his eyes truly inspires me and keeps me going.

When I pull out the collar, he gets very excited because he knows it means we are either going to hunt training with the club or going to the park to train in the field. The day he cowers away from it is the day I'll put it away for good.


----------



## ashleylp (Jul 23, 2011)

On the other hand, I just read this article: Change.org Petition Seeks to End Shock Therapy for Kids | Boston Daily

I had no clue that that even existed anymore!


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> If people are free to write that studies citing the harm to a dog-owner relationship that comes from electronic collar use are nonsense, then I will feel free to say the reason these threads catch fire is that people who use these collars get very defensive about them: I call smoke/fire.


It's a two-sided coin. Opponents of ecollars are always posting about the potential harm often ignoring the potential good. As someone who uses the ecollar for advanced retriever work I will stand up and educate for my right to do so. I also used to think they were 'cruel' but I know better now. I accept the potential for harm, but that does not mean I should completely avoid it. Its about weighing risks vs benefits. It is important to present a balanced argument.

I can quite happily say that my dog will go out of the way to pull her ecollar out of its charger to bring it to me with tail wagging...that she jumps, barks, and spins when I get it out. One of the studies from the blog post found that when the ecollar was actually taught and the dog learned how to avoid the correction there was no added stress. While many of the studies opposing ecollar use often never stated the level of shock (umm, big difference here) or the connection between the shock (often random)...or in the case with the studies on beagles they took dogs from a kennel who had hardly been around people, strapped on the collar and used the highest setting possible on all of the dogs with random shocks to demonstrate the worst possible scenario. Well no wonder they dogs were stressed. That is cruel...not because they used the collar, but how they used it. So many of these studies that support it only support the extreme if even that at all...it is unfortunate that people hear study and equate it to useful. You need to critically evaluate them to know that yourself and that isn't always main stream knowledge.

I admit it is not for everyone--you should seek professional guidance with even that being hard because not all trainers are created equal. I agree it does not sound like the right choice for the OP. I just hate the judgmental attitude that comes from these threads.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I think my only rule in dog training is I don't make absolute rules for what I will and won't do. Each situation is evaluated on its own.

Someone being able to train a dog to do such and such using one method has no influence on me thinking I should train that way too. I have no problems with the way I train and it really doesn't matter to me if someone can accomplish something through clicker training or whatever, that doesn't make it a better way to train for me.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

No adverse effects again today when Wyatt couldn't wait for me to put his on. Tail wagging, dancing in circles.."come on mom hurry up and put my collar on so we can go play in the park". I can't even remember the last time he got stimmed. No clicker will stop a highly driven dog focused on prey. Nor will he hear your command if he gets out of hearing range. Trust me I have been there. Safety first. 

ecollar users are not defensive. Just want people to get educated and know the truth about them. And we call it a stim because it is not an electrical shock. If anyone has ever been zapped by electricity and also an ecollar you know they are not one and the same. And I was another one that thought they were cruel until I actually got educated and started using them.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> In the end, if , say, Fido gets shocked and Tally never does, but both have reliable recalls, then it becomes not a question of are both training methods effective, but of does the end justify the means. If Tally earns his CD with no corrections, and Fido earns his with e collar training, then both have worked to achieve the goal, but our question becomes to assess if there has been a cost.


There is _"a cost"_ to all methods of training. ALL of them cause stress at various levels. Some trainers, particularly those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" pretend that their methods do not cause stress. But all they're doing is ignoring reality. 



Ljilly28 said:


> The various studies try to ascertain this crucial information- is there a side effect or cost to using punishment to train a dog?


To date, no study on the Ecollar has shown any costs that do not exist with other forms of training. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Stress hormones are measured. . . Behavior is followed. . . Does being punished or being shocked cause changes in the way the dog views the owner


As does an owner who withholds an offered treat. But some want to pretend that there's no effect to this. 



Ljilly28 said:


> the training process, the world around him, his inner chemistry, hormones, and wiring? Since we can cite studies by credible sources in both directions, my question becomes, why risk it when there are many humane effective methods available.


The Ecollar when used properly is just as humane as any other method. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Right now, at our training center, we a working with a standard schnauzer who was taught simple things like Leave It and recall wtih an e collar. He is shut down and paralyzed with fear to the point he cannot function in CGC class.


Some will notice that those who oppose Ecollars will cites anecdotes such as this one where it's obvious that an Ecollar was used improperly to merely shock a dog when he did something the owner did not want. Conveniently they ALWAYS cite uses of their tools/methods of choice when they are used properly. This is, I think, unfair, unjust, and shows an obvious bias. The fact is that problems can (and will) occur with ANY TOOL/METHOD if it's used improperly. But some want to pretend that this is not the case. Beware of these people, they are trying to deceive. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Is it easier to suppress, terrorize, and shut down a dog with an e collar than with a clicker? Heck, yes.


No it's not. It can be done EASILY with any tool/method. 



Ljilly28 said:


> I am pleased to have raised 11 goldens who have lovely prompt recalls off leash, give the canine good citizen test to help other dog/owner teams, and are wonderful house dogs all with CGC and most with TDI-therapy dog certifications, plus modest accomplishments in Rally O, obedience and the breed ring- anything I ask them- without even collar corrections, never mind shocking them for compliance. The 11 are from vastly different backgrounds from the highest test working lines, to BYB, to show dogs- every kind of golden. Since I do not have a field title, I will not say anything about field work. However, since my goldens are objectively proven to be excellent dog citizens on or off leash wherever they go, and since we train 100 dogs a week here, I feel free to give the opinion that training a pet golden house manners with an e collar is overkill.


Often those who favor one method over another will tell you of their personal success with a very small number of dogs, often their personal pets. In this case it's a commercial trainer but still, she has little to no experience with Ecollars properly used. Similarly, I feel free to give the opinion that training a pet golden house manners with an Ecollar, is an excellent way to get the job done. A quick read of posts on this (or any forum) shows that many people have problems in applying the so−called "kinder gentler methods." 



Ljilly28 said:


> If people are free to write that studies citing the harm to a dog-owner relationship that comes from electronic collar use are nonsense


Please show us anywhere in the study that shows that there is _"harm to a dog-owner relationship that comes from electronic collar use."_ That is stated as a conclusion but it's not supported by anything in the study. That's the case with many Ecollar studies. 



Ljilly28 said:


> then I will feel free to say the reason these threads catch fire is that people who use these collars get very defensive about them: I call smoke/fire.


These discussion _"catch fire"_ for a couple of reasons. One is that Ecollars are the most misunderstood tool that exists in training dogs today. There are more myth, misconceptions and outright lies told about them than any other tool. Another reason is that most people have had some personal experience of shock and it's not a pleasant one. They think that the pain they've gotten in those experiences is the same that what's done to a dog when an Ecollar is in use. It's not, but they simply refuse to accept it. Another reason is that there are many who have a vested interest in commercially selling the so−called "kinder gentler methods" and one way they market them is to compare them to the "horrid Ecollar." Often they come from an emotional stance, rather than one of logic and reason. 

But there's plenty of smoke/fire out there. It especially comes up when the truth about the so−called "kinder gentler methods" are pointed out, that they cause just as much stress, perhaps even more, than the Ecollar or some conventional methods. The recent study out of Hannover, Germany by Salgirli, which used cortisol levels to measure stress levels (quite unlike the subjective methods used in Schilder) shows that the Ecollar produces less stress than either a pinch collar or quitting signal, one of the so−called "kinder gentler methods." In fact, the quitting signal produced more stress in the dog than EITHER the Ecollar or the pinch collar. 

Notice that I didn't make any comments about the Schilder study, I merely quoted a well known behaviorist who saw the obvious holes in the study. 



Ljilly28 said:


> That is why silly euphemisms get made up to whitewash how the collars work, and people complain when an electric shock is called a spade instead of a "stim".


The word "stim" is short for "stimulation." Yes it's a euphemism but it's hardly a silly one. I doubt that a day goes by that someone does not use half a dozen of them. As many who use Ecollars have said here, a stim from a modern Ecollar is not what the average person thinks of when they think of "shock." I have all my clients feel the stim from an Ecollar before I use it on their dog. Almost universally they describe it as a "buzz, a tingle, or a tap." Children who feel it GIGGLE. That's NOT the response of most people who feel either the shock of reaching for a doorknob and getting zapped by the blue flame, or who get a shock from a table lamp.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

GoldenSail said:


> One of the studies from the blog post found that when the ecollar was actually taught and the dog learned how to avoid the correction there was no added stress.


I find it fascinating that in my experience, the anti Ecollar folks NEVER acknowledge this? They simply ignore things that don't agree with their thoughts. 



GoldenSail said:


> While many of the studies opposing ecollar use often never stated the level of shock (umm, big difference here) or the connection between the shock (often random)...or in the case with the studies on beagles they took dogs from a kennel who had hardly been around people, strapped on the collar and used the highest setting possible on all of the dogs with random shocks to demonstrate the worst possible scenario. Well no wonder they dogs were stressed. That is cruel...not because they used the collar, but how they used it.


It's also fascinating that they continue to cite such studies but NEVER admit the shortcomings such as you point out. They go right to the conclusion. The fact is that "tingling" a dog while showing him how to make the stim stop, gives far different results from blasting a dog randomly. But conveniently the antis, don't see this. 

In the recently cited Schilder study, they go into great detail about the equipment that they used. We know the various breeds of dogs used. We know their sexes and ages. We know how many wore Ecollars and how many did not. We know the brand of camera used to film the study; its model number and the size of film it used. We even know that it had a 40X optical zoom! We know the sampling method they used, the number of training sessions they observed, and the number of sequences they filmed. We know the OB commands that were used during the "walking" phase of the study, and what "protection" movements were involved. We know how the data was analyzed; we know what sampling method was used; we know how each ear and tail position was scored, and we know how the data from the two samples was compared.

But nowhere does it state what brands or models of Ecollar was used! I find this omission startling! That is, until I came across the lie that is told in the study, that in general a current of a few thousand volts is used. It turns out that they used several brands of Ecollar. Most of them were probably the obsolete Shecker Teletakts, known as the most powerful Ecollar made. This model has contact points located on opposite sides of the dog's neck, (as opposed to most modern Ecollars that have their contact points about 1 1/4" apart), so there's MUCH MORE tissue involved than with modern Ecollars.



GoldenSail said:


> So many of these studies that support it only support the extreme if even that at all...it is unfortunate that people hear study and equate it to useful. You need to critically evaluate them to know that yourself and that isn't always main stream knowledge.


Many people don't possess the knowledge or the skill involved in this _"critical evaluation."_ and so they blindly accept the conclusion without realizing that the study may not even support it. 



GoldenSail said:


> I just hate the judgmental attitude that comes from these threads.


For some antis this is almost a religious zealotry. They think they have the moral high ground and push it as if it was actually true.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> Dogs trained with Ecollars perform to escape or avoid the discomfort that a stim brings. Dogs trained with treats perform to escape of avoid the discomfort that NOT−having−a−treat brings.


Is this some kind satire I don't understand or are you serious? The "stress" a dog goes through while working for a reward and the "stress" a dog goes through in an attempt to escape discomfort are obviously entirely different. To suggest they're the same is simply ridiculous.

I see that conflating the two by assigning the word "stress" allows you to state that all training methods are equal because all employ "stress," but do you really expect people to buy that? It's patently obvious that working to avoid a shock is entirely different in a dog's mind than working to receive a reward.

Plus, good trainers typically aren't showing a treat in 99% of training scenarios. The dog is working in a general expectation of a reward because he knows that obedience leads to good results. Good trainers also aren't treat-exclusive. So the dog is rarely actually staring at a treat. You know that, right?

Lastly, we see lots of dogs who have suffered the consequences of the misuse of aversive tools like the e-collar. These dogs show side effects like appeasement behavior, learned helplessness, anxiety, and a host of other problems. When you see a dog trained just as incompetently in a reward-only system, you have a dog who's equally untrained but with a much milder set of side effects. The "stress" the aversively trained dogs experience is pretty different from the "stress" the rewarded dogs experience. You like to shoot down anecdotes of dogs suffering from e-collar side effects, but will you honestly sit there and say that the side effects of a reward-based system are identical? And will you expect anybody to believe it?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> Many people don't possess the knowledge or the skill involved in this _"critical evaluation."_ and so they blindly accept the conclusion without realizing that the study may not even support it.


Can you be more specific about these "many people?" I don't see any in this thread, so I'm not sure why you brought them up. You like to throw out your insults with phrases like "many people" or "the antis" so you're not technically breaking forum rules by insulting us directly.

Don't try to strawman us by arguing against positions you feel are held by some anti-e-collar people somewhere in the world. It's transparent, and the only people you're going to fool with it are the people who already agree with you.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Is this some kind satire I don't understand or are you serious? The "stress" a dog goes through while working for a reward and the "stress" a dog goes through in an attempt to escape discomfort are obviously entirely different. To suggest they're the same is simply ridiculous.
> 
> I see that conflating the two by assigning the word "stress" allows you to state that all training methods are equal because all employ "stress," but do you really expect people to buy that? It's patently obvious that working to avoid a shock is entirely different in a dog's mind than working to receive a reward.
> 
> ...


I agree, only thing I would have said differently is "drastically" instead of "pretty" different.


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Lastly, we see lots of dogs who have suffered the consequences of the misuse of aversive tools like the e-collar. These dogs show side effects like appeasement behavior, learned helplessness, anxiety, and a host of other problems. When you see a dog trained just as incompetently in a reward-only system, you have a dog who's equally untrained but with a much milder set of side effects. The "stress" the aversively trained dogs experience is pretty different from the "stress" the rewarded dogs experience. You like to shoot down anecdotes of dogs suffering from e-collar side effects, but will you honestly sit there and say that the side effects of a reward-based system are identical? And will you expect anybody to believe it?


This is my biggest problem with e-collars. In the hands of the average dog owner, the likelihood of an e-collar being used incorrectly and doing more harm than good is just too great. Maybe they have a place, or can serve a purpose in the hands of professional trainers, or in the hands of someone who has _years_ of experience handling dogs and training to a high level. But in the hands of your average pet owner, who probably isn't an expert at reading their dog, doesn't have absolutely flawless timing, etc., I think the risk of making matters worse is too high.

And personally, I really don't see the point in e-collars at all. I think pretty much anything that can be accomplished with an e-collar can be accomplished without one, using positive methods. It may take longer, but in the long run, I think it's the better way to go. I can make my dog do something because he's afraid NOT to, or I can make him WANT to do it. Fear wears off. A dog doing what he "wants" to do is going to hold up.


----------



## Charliethree (Jul 18, 2010)

I am one of those 'antis' that cannot see the 'good' in using an ecollar (avoidance training). To me there is little difference between training with an ecollar and training with a stick. In either case YOU have to expose the dog to the physical result of 'non-compliance' (conditioning - as it is called) before he learns to avoid it or understands the 'warning' ie: you have to inflict 'discomfort' on the dog with the stick (or ecollar) before he 'knows' what it means. 
That is what I can not get past.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

LifeOfRiley said:


> This is my biggest problem with e-collars. In the hands of the average dog owner, the likelihood of an e-collar being used incorrectly and doing more harm than good is just too great. Maybe they have a place, or can serve a purpose in the hands of professional trainers, or in the hands of someone who has _years_ of experience handling dogs and training to a high level. But in the hands of your average pet owner, who probably isn't an expert at reading their dog, doesn't have absolutely flawless timing, etc., I think the risk of making matters worse is too high.
> 
> And personally, I really don't see the point in e-collars at all. I think pretty much anything that can be accomplished with an e-collar can be accomplished without one, using positive methods. It may take longer, but in the long run, I think it's the better way to go. *I can make my dog do something because he's afraid NOT to, or I can make him WANT to do it. Fear wears off. A dog doing what he "wants" to do is going to hold up.*


I'm an ecollar user and my dog happily does what he wants to do daily without fear.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I'm an ecollar user and my dog happily does what he wants to do daily without fear.


And you would be one of the people who learned how to use the collar correctly and teach your dog what you want from him with fair corrections he understood.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

LifeOfRiley said:


> This is my biggest problem with e-collars. In the hands of the average dog owner, the likelihood of an e-collar being used incorrectly and doing more harm than good is just too great. Maybe they have a place, or can serve a purpose in the hands of professional trainers, or in the hands of someone who has _years_ of experience handling dogs and training to a high level. But in the hands of your average pet owner, who probably isn't an expert at reading their dog, doesn't have absolutely flawless timing, etc., I think the risk of making matters worse is too high...
> 
> ...


Well put, and exactly my biggest problem with them also.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Charliethree said:


> I am one of those 'antis' that cannot see the 'good' in using an ecollar (avoidance training). *To me there is little difference between training with an ecollar and training with a stick.* In either case YOU have to expose the dog to the physical result of 'non-compliance' (conditioning - as it is called) before he learns to avoid it or understands the 'warning' ie: you have to inflict '*discomfort' *on the dog with the stick (or ecollar) before he 'knows' what it means.
> That is what I can not get past.


This is what most people think when they don't have first hand knowledge of the product. Isn't the snap of the collar causing discomfort to a dog also?


----------



## akgolden (Jun 18, 2011)

So to sum this whole entire thread up...

Some agree with the e-collar some don't


if it works for you, use it. If it doesn't work for you or you do not agree with it, don't use it.


This is one of those topics that everyone will not always be 100% in agreement. 


The most important thing, like ANY training is to make sure it is use correctly, which has been mentioned numerous times in this thread. Any form of training not used correctly will result in added stress to the dog and frustration to the owner. 


With that said I have had great success with the e-collar and 99% of the time all I have to use is the tone to get their attention and the response I want. Only when they are completely focused and I need their attention to keep them safe will they get a slight stimulation or if even that I will usually just use the vibrate feature on mine.



just my 2c


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

mylissyk said:


> And you would be one of the people who learned how to use the collar correctly and teach your dog what you want from him with fair corrections he understood.


But isn't that why we all go to training classes? To learn correctly how to use any type of tool. Prong collars, choke chains, etc?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> No clicker will stop a highly driven dog focused on prey. Nor will he hear your command if he gets out of hearing range.


You're misstating the training outcomes in order to make your point. Nobody stops a driven dog with a clicker, and nobody's advocated for that (nor would they, as it's obviously absurd). You stop a driven dog with a habit, not a cookie. And frankly, you shouldn't be stopping him with an e-collar either. If he's truly driven, the size of the shock you would need would be unfair. If you're in that situation and you need to use the bigger shock to keep the dog safe, that's one thing. But as a training situation, it's a huge failure.

If you want to use an e-collar to _train_ recall, you use it to train the habit, just like you use a clicker to train a habit. No good training program tries to outbid a huge distraction with the strength of either a bribe or a punishment. Both make for a bad training moment.

You're talking about using an e-collar as a long line. That's entirely different than using it as a _training_ tool. If you only feel safe putting an e-collar on your dog so you can shock him in a situation in which his training has failed, that's one thing. But it's not training a dog with an e-collar.

And letting your dog out of range has nothing to do with the superiority of the training method. If he's out of range of your voice, he's out of range. If he's out of range of your e-collar remote, he's out of range. If you're working your dog with your voice, you work him before he leaves your voice range. If you're working with a whistle, same thing. 

Let's flip the situation. Your dog runs out of sight. Now your e-collar is useless, since you're risking shocking him while he's on the way back. Your voice, however, is still useful, since you can give recall commands. Does that mean the voice is always more reliable?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> No adverse effects again today when Wyatt couldn't wait for me to put his on. Tail wagging, dancing in circles.."come on mom hurry up and put my collar on so we can go play in the park".


People often use this kind of anecdote to demonstrate that the dog doesn't mind the method. The dog doesn't understand that the collar is what delivers the punishment. His attitude is collar=park. He can't easily make the association between seeing the collar and getting shocked because he doesn't see the collar when he's getting shocked. The question is the dog's attitude while he's being worked with shocks. Does he still wag and dance in circles while you're stimming him?

Nonetheless, there are lots of well-adjusted dogs out there who've had some level of e-collar training. The question that matters to me is how easily the tool creates negative side effects, both when it's misapplied and even when it's used in an "expert" program. When it comes to owners buying one, reading an article, and making up most of the training program (which is how most people train dogs, regardless of what methods they pick), the e-collar is ripe with the potential for disaster. In more expert hands, they're obviously safer, but the question of less pronounced side effects still remains.


----------



## MarieP (Aug 21, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Let's flip the situation. Your dog runs out of sight. Now your e-collar is useless, since you're risking shocking him while he's on the way back. Your voice, however, is still useful, since you can give recall commands. Does that mean the voice is always more reliable?


I tried to stay out of this but I can actually answer this one. I would risk shocking my dog if out of site. Why? Because my dog knows that even if he is responding to my voice command, a shock means "hurry your butt up!!!!" On a novice dog who doesn't understand the collar like that, then I wouldn't (but I also better not put him in a position like that). Same goes for the sit, which I train first. If I say sit, then Riot says "dododo, here I go sitting," ::shock:: SIT. Responding to the command is not the end all, be all of collar training. Responding promptly is also important, and learning to respond fast enough to not require a correction. And if my dog gets out of my sight and I say "here," he should be booking it back fast enough that he shouldn't need a correction, or will only need one to get him moving faster back into my sight.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

mlopez said:


> I tried to stay out of this but I can actually answer this one. I would risk shocking my dog if out of site. Why? Because my dog knows that even if he is responding to my voice command, a shock means "hurry your butt up!!!!" On a novice dog who doesn't understand the collar like that, then I wouldn't (but I also better not put him in a position like that). Same goes for the sit, which I train first. If I say sit, then Riot says "dododo, here I go sitting," ::shock:: SIT. Responding to the command is not the end all, be all of collar training. Responding promptly is also important, and learning to respond fast enough to not require a correction. And if my dog gets out of my sight and I say "here," he should be booking it back fast enough that he shouldn't need a correction, or will only need one to get him moving faster back into my sight.


My point wasn't about whether or not you should shock a dog out of sight to try to get him back. The point is that the shock isn't a command and that the fact that it works at a larger range than a voice doesn't make it a better way to say 'come' to a dog. It's a bad way to say "come" regardless of the distance.

But since you set up this scenario, if a dog is out of sight, how do you know how to deliver a correction in a useful way? What if he's already booking it? Why does the shock mean "book it faster" rather than "you're doing it wrong"?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> *You're misstating the training outcomes in order to make your point.* Nobody stops a driven dog with a clicker, and nobody's advocated for that (nor would they, as it's obviously absurd). You stop a driven dog with a habit, not a cookie. And frankly, you shouldn't be stopping him with an e-collar either. If he's truly driven, the size of the shock you would need would be unfair. If you're in that situation and you need to use the bigger shock to keep the dog safe, that's one thing. But as a training situation, it's a huge failure.


I did not misstate anything. And I have never found the ecollar to be useless. If I did I woudn't be using it.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

> Originally Posted by LifeOfRiley
> This is my biggest problem with e-collars. In the hands of the average dog owner, the likelihood of an e-collar being used incorrectly and doing more harm than good is just too great. Maybe they have a place, or can serve a purpose in the hands of professional trainers, or in the hands of someone who has years of experience handling dogs and training to a high level. But in the hands of your average pet owner, who probably isn't an expert at reading their dog, doesn't have absolutely flawless timing, etc., I think the risk of making matters worse is too high...


What an awesome comment, and so very true.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> People often use this kind of anecdote to demonstrate that the dog doesn't mind the method. The dog doesn't understand that the collar is what delivers the punishment. His attitude is collar=park. He can't easily make the association between seeing the collar and getting shocked because he doesn't see the collar when he's getting shocked. The question is the dog's attitude while he's being worked with shocks. Does he still wag and dance in circles while you're stimming him?


I wouldn't be using it if it showed any adverse side effects. Does he dance in circles and wag his tail when I am stimming him? Don't have to stim him unless he takes off after prey and I would hope he isn't dancing but more like paying attention to get his sorry butt back to safety.


----------



## akgolden (Jun 18, 2011)




----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I did not misstate anything.


I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. When you say that a clicker won't stop a driven dog, you're either misstating it deliberately or you have no idea how people use clickers to train. You don't click at a dog who's chasing prey. If you weren't misstating, what on earth could you have meant?



Wyatt's mommy said:


> And I have never found the ecollar to be useless. If I did I woudn't be using it.


I didn't say it was always useless, just that it was useless once a dog went out of sight. Would you shock a dog who went around the corner? If so, how would you be sure you weren't shocking a dog while he was returning?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I wouldn't be using it if it showed any adverse side effects. Does he dance in circles and wag his tail when I am stimming him? Don't have to stim him unless he takes off after prey and I would hope he isn't dancing but more like paying attention to get his sorry butt back to safety.


So no, he does not dance and wag in circles when you use the stim. You want his butt to be sorry when you use it.

Don't pretend that your dog loves the e-collar. Your dog loves the park.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. When you say that a clicker won't stop a driven dog, you're either misstating it deliberately or you have no idea how people use clickers to train. *You don't click at a dog who's chasing prey*. If you weren't misstating, what on earth could you have meant?
> 
> Hence the reason I said it wouldn't work. However an ecollar will.
> 
> ...


It wasn't useless for me. He came back safely.

But to be fair and answer your question. If my dog took off after prey I would give him his command to come to me. Which he knows. If he chooses to ignore my command and runs out of sight, I yell it again with the stim. He will return safely.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> So no, he does not dance and wag in circles when you use the stim. You want his butt to be sorry when you use it.
> 
> *Don't pretend that your dog loves the e-collar*. Your dog loves the park.


WTH? Where did I say that? I said he was not fearfull or have any adverse effects of his collar and does the happy dance when I put it on.
Yes if my dog is in danger I want his sorry butt back home safe. Just as I would with my human child.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Hence the reason I said it wouldn't work. However an ecollar will.


Neither will turning around three times and throwing salt over your shoulder, but why would I mention it? You mentioned clicking at the dog as an expression of how the clicker wouldn't work but the e-collar would. But you expressed a completely stupid way of using a clicker rather than the way somebody would actually use it to create recall reliability.

That's not a fair characterization of the difference between the methods. So you misstated the use of the clicker in order to make your point about the e-collar. 



Wyatt's mommy said:


> It wasn't useless for me. He came back safely.


Useless as a training opportunity. If you want to use the e-collar as a leash, that's fine, but nobody else is talking about that kind of use except for you. When a dog's training has failed and you shock him as a last-ditch effort to get him back, that's not a training method. The real question is how to get a dog to reliably obey in the first place.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> But to be fair and answer your question. If my dog took off after prey I would give him his command to come to me. Which he knows. If he chooses to ignore my command and runs out of sight, I yell it again with the stim. He will return safely.


The dog takes off around the corner. You give the command to return. For the time that the dog is out of sight, you don't know if he's obeying or if he's ignoring you. How do you know whether to stim? What happens if you shock him while he's on the way back? Haven't you undermined your recall training?

I created the scenario simply to point out that a dog can go out of voice range so your e-collar is the only way of getting in touch with him, but he can also go out of sight range where you can get him back with voice but you can't deliver an effective punishment with the device.


----------



## akgolden (Jun 18, 2011)

and it's time to unsubscribe LOL.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> WTH? Where did I say that? I said he was not fearfull or have any adverse effects of his collar and does the happy dance when I put it on.


You said your dog did the happy dance when you put the collar on. Why else would you say that except to prove that he knew he was getting a shock collar put on and didn't care? My point is that he doesn't know it's a shock collar. He just knows the sequence that collar comes before park.

I did say that there were lots of dogs who had some degree of e-collar training and seemed very well adjusted. I'm sure Wyatt is one of those dogs. I just take issue with the concept that Wyatt's happy reaction to the collar says anything about the collar itself.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> Yes if my dog is in danger I want his sorry butt back home safe. Just as I would with my human child.


While we both agree the dog needs to be safe, the difference between you and me is that I don't think he needs to be sorry.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

akgolden said:


> and it's time to unsubscribe LOL.


I think it's kind of interesting that your current participation in this thread is to make snarky comments about how this thread keeps going on. But you make those comments _in the thread_. So you're part of the thing you're complaining about with the added bonus that you aren't actually contributing to the discussion.

I'll never for the life of me understand why people feel the need to post "oh, time to hit the ignore button!" or "time to unsubscribe!" If you're fed up, just do it. Why post about it unless you're intending it as a rude comment on other people?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Neither will turning around three times and throwing salt over your shoulder, but why would I mention it. You seemed to mention clicking at the dog as an expression of how the clicker wouldn't work but the e-collar would. But you expressed a completely stupid way of using a clicker rather than the way somebody would actually use it to create recall reliability.
> 
> That's not a fair characterization of the difference between the methods. So you misstated the use of the clicker in order to make your point about the e-collar.
> 
> ...


I have come to the conclusion that you just want to put words in my mouth and twist and turn everything as usual. You can create all the little scenarios all you want, but it doesn't change the FACT that if my dog was ever in a dangerous situation I WILL GET HIM BACK SAFELY. It doesn't change the FACT that my dog is not fearfull of the tool or the FACT that he has no adverse effects from it. Or the FACT that he never gets stimmed unless he is put in an unsafe situation. Or the FACT that both of us are stress free while we are out and about off lead.

AND insulting a poster who you know nothing about just speaks volumes.


----------



## akgolden (Jun 18, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I think it's kind of interesting that your current participation in this thread is to make snarky comments about how this thread keeps going on. But you make those comments _in the thread_. So you're part of the thing you're complaining about with the added bonus that you aren't actually contributing to the discussion.
> 
> I'll never for the life of me understand why people feel the need to post "oh, time to hit the ignore button!" or "time to unsubscribe!" If you're fed up, just do it. Why post about it unless you're intending it as a rude comment on other people?


Look at the general tone and responses from people in this thread. I have yet to see any thread involving e-collars go smoothly. It's always ends up in a pissing match of you said this, you said that, I am right your are cruel yada yada. Yes I made a snarky comment but it was in an attempt to lighten the mood, not to be rude to any of the members. I didn't point anyone out or direct it at anyone. Also hence the picture I posted. 


It's the internet, people need to learn to relax and understand not everyone is going to agree with them and that's ok.


----------



## baumgartml16 (Jun 19, 2011)

Perhaps one of the mods wants to close this thread? I am the original poster and got the information a long time ago that I intended to take from this. I hate to see members getting mad at each other over one of the threads I started...


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> You said your dog did the happy dance when you put the collar on. *Why else would you say that except to prove that he knew he was getting a shock collar put on and didn't care?* My point is that he doesn't know it's a shock collar. He just knows the sequence that collar comes before park.
> 
> I did say that there were lots of dogs who had some degree of e-collar training and seemed very well adjusted. I'm sure Wyatt is one of those dogs. I just take issue with the concept that Wyatt's happy reaction to the collar says anything about the collar itself.
> 
> ...


 
To prove the "myth" about adverse effects the ecollar has on dogs. To prove the "myth" that ecollars make dogs fearfull.

I would rather have a sorry butt dog than a dead dog. But that's just me.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I have come to the conclusion that you just want to put words in my mouth and twist and turn everything as usual. You can create all the little scenarios all you want, but it doesn't change the FACT that if my dog was ever in a dangerous situation I WILL GET HIM BACK SAFELY. It doesn't change the FACT that my dog is not fearfull of the tool or the FACT that he has no adverse effects from it. Or the FACT that he never gets stimmed unless he is put in an unsafe situation. Or the FACT that both of us are stress free while we are out and about off lead.


No, but as long as you're going to put your theories about the e-collar against a misunderstood or mischaracterized version of other methods, I'm going to point that out. You said that a clicker wouldn't bring a dog back. That's not a fair characterization of how a clicker is used.

Nobody has ever disputed that you can get your dog back after he's blown you off by shocking him. My dispute is the idea that it constitutes a training method. 

I also never said your dog was fearful of the e-collar.

As far as Wyatt having adverse effects, I never made a single comment about that, except to say that I was confident that he's a well-adjusted dog.

So now who's twisting?



Wyatt's mommy said:


> AND insulting a poster who you know nothing about just speaks volumes.


Who'd I insult?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> To prove the "myth" about adverse effects the ecollar has on dogs. To prove the "myth" that ecollars make dogs fearfull.


Right, and your anecdote doesn't prove anything other than the fact that Wyatt has associated that collar with fun trips. Even if somebody misused the collar and really did create bad effects, a dog could still get excited by the sight of the collar because he doesn't understand that it delivers shocks but he does understand that it always shows up right before going to the park.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> I would rather have a sorry butt dog than a dead dog. But that's just me.


Now who's twisting? I said the dog needed to be safe. I just don't think that being sorry has to be part of it.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> No, but as long as you're going to put your theories about the e-collar against a misunderstood or mischaracterized version of other methods, I'm going to point that out. You said that a clicker wouldn't bring a dog back. That's not a fair characterization of how a clicker is used.
> 
> Nobody has ever disputed that you can get your dog back after he's blown you off by shocking him. My dispute is the idea that it constitutes a training method.
> 
> ...


Really who did you insult?

I'm not going to argue with you because all my posts were pretty darn clear.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

baumgartml16 said:


> Perhaps one of the mods wants to close this thread? I am the original poster and got the information a long time ago that I intended to take from this. I hate to see members getting mad at each other over one of the threads I started...


Don't blame yourself. We can go round and round on this one. If it helps you feel better, I'm not mad at anybody. Even the most heated discussions are usually with posters I'd probably like a great deal in real life if we walked our dogs together.

Wyatt's Mommy takes her dog on off-leash walks all the time and cares a lot about his safety. I like her a lot for that because I think that makes her a really good dog owner.

And I see akgolden's name pop up in threads pretty consistently, always with supportive and positive comments about other people's dogs and photos. I thought the one post was rude, but that doesn't mean I'm mad at her.

I hope that people could separate disagreements on issues and posts from character judgments.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Right, and your anecdote *doesn't prove anything other than the fact that Wyatt has associated that collar with fun trips.* Even if somebody misused the collar and really did create bad effects, a dog could still get excited by the sight of the collar because he doesn't understand that it delivers shocks but he does understand that it always shows up right before going to the park.
> 
> 
> 
> Now who's twisting? I said the dog needed to be safe. I just don't think that being sorry has to be part of it.


LOL! Yes fun not fear


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Really who did you insult?


If you're talking about my post in reply to akgoldens, I called the post rude. I didn't insult anybody.


----------



## akgolden (Jun 18, 2011)

Im not insulted. It's the internet..


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

akgolden said:


> Look at the general tone and responses from people in this thread. I have yet to see any thread involving e-collars go smoothly. It's always ends up in a pissing match of you said this, you said that, I am right your are cruel yada yada. Yes I made a snarky comment but it was in an attempt to lighten the mood, not to be rude to any of the members. I didn't point anyone out or direct it at anyone. Also hence the picture I posted.
> 
> 
> It's the internet, people need to learn to relax and understand not everyone is going to agree with them and that's ok.


Hey, fair enough. That kind of comment gets said in much more heated circumstances in a pretty nasty way, so I read it in that context. Sorry 'bout that.

I don't think people are going to necessarily agree here, but I do think it's important to challenge some assertions that people make, particularly when it comes to a tool like the e-collar, which has really ruined some dogs' lives. I generally believe in the rights of people to do things their own way, but it's very hard to see a shut-down, nervous dog who's been wrecked by a harsh training method.

It's very rewarding to work on drawing that type of dog out, but I'd prefer that it didn't happen in the first place. So when these e-collar threads pop up and people ask about using them for training, it's hard for me to just walk away and leave assertions about the e-collar's safety unchallenged. It's a tool that's easily misused, and the consequences can be severe for the dog.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

ANY tool easily misused can have severe consequences on a dog. I have seen dogs terribly mistreaded and ruined with no tools used.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> ANY tool easily misused can have severe consequences on a dog. I have seen dogs terribly mistreaded and ruined with no tools used.


But some tools carry much greater consequences for common mistakes in methods and timing.

I have not seen a dog terribly mistreated with a positive reinforcement program. I've seen dogs whose owners misapplied it, and the dogs didn't learn anything, but they also weren't mistreated or ruined. It takes something that causes discomfort, fear, or pain to "ruin" a dog in the sense that I mean (i.e., shut down, reactive, nervous, learned helplessness, etc.).


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> It takes something that causes discomfort, fear, or pain to "ruin" a dog in the sense that I mean (i.e., shut down, reactive, nervous, learned helplessness, etc.).


seen all of the above in poorly trained clicker dogs. It's a very sad sight actually. Actually the majority of clicker trained dogs I've seen in obedience trials exhibit this. Clicker training is just as easy to do poorly and leave a dog confused show the signs of shut down, learned helplessness, etc


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> seen all of the above in poorly trained clicker dogs. It's a very sad sight actually. Actually the majority of clicker trained dogs I've seen in obedience trials exhibit this. Clicker training is just as easy to do poorly and leave a dog confused show the signs of shut down, learned helplessness, etc


Learned helplessness, by definition, is the product of repeated negative stimulus. A confused dog with a terrible clicker training cannot be exhibiting actual learned helplessness. 

It's funny how differently we might interpret something. I've seen confused dogs who wouldn't work for their owners. The situation (e.g., a show) makes them nervous and they stop working. But that's not the same thing as learned helplessness.

I'm open to the concept that somehow the owners are creating a negative stimulus by misapplying clicker training and the dogs are shutting down, but I just don't see how they'd do it. It seems more likely that they're mixing in aversives if they're creating true learned helplessness. I also don't know how you can be sure a dog is exclusively clicker trained just by watching the owner at a show.

But are you, at the core, making the argument that a badly clicker trained dog shows just as many problems—and just as severe—as a badly e-collar trained dog?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I see 100 dogs a week, and there is just no real life comparison between inexpertly clicker trained pet dogs and improperly e collar trained pet dogs, as in the OP's potential situation. The badly clicker trained dog might be rude and not respectful if the owners do not understand the method, but they are not quaking, paralyezd puddles of fear like I had to work with today. 

I also completely disagree with the claim that clicker trained dogs are sad sights of learned helplessness at obedience trials , as that award goes to the poor veteran dogs in Open B who have been nailed on a flexi lead/ prong collar so much they slink front like their owners beat them. Love the old collar correct/ shovel the reward in the mouth simultaneously . . and the Open dogs that flee the ring. There is nothing so depressing as a dog who would rather leave the ring than work with his owner. . . one of the more common sights at obedience. 

I took a lesson today with a clicker trained dog and his owner who just won Utility B over all the northeast make- your-dog -keep- his -nose -in- the- bridge- of -your- fingers cookie cutter aversive trainers still doing things like it is 1972. A dog that ran SH with no CC. . . I openly admit to great respect for cross over trainers and disdain for that lady at every trial giving her doberman about 10 brutal corrections in the hall to wake the dog up. There are just lots of heavy handled brutal people whose training methods stopped evolving in 1972 .

What it comes down to is if you want to hit, cuff, shock, collar correct, ear pinch until a yelp/scream, prong collar, or kick your dog, you can bc you get to decide.If you want to minimize pain and stress in training, and seek out reward -based methods, you can.You can get pretty good results either way if you have good timing, good technique and clear criteria. The question becomes, how do we most ethically share life with a dog.

No way would Louisina give Flip to me for training and noooo way one of the shock collar possee is EVER getting near Tally.

We have not much in common, not even dogs


----------



## Zazoo (Jul 1, 2011)

I have a collar that beeps, vibrates, and shocks.. Madison was trained using it as a correction.. I rarely, if ever had to use the shock with her.. The beep and vibrate did the job just amazingly.. The only time I've used the shock is if she ran out on to the road. Then it's like an invisible fence.. For Zane, the collar doesn't even phase him.. He's stubborn, but I will get him to listen to me, if it's the last thing I do.. I don't want him on a chain his whole outside life.. I want him to be able to run around the fenceless yard and not run away.. If Madison can learn, Zane can too.. Hope you can figure out what works for Koda and you..


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I didn't say that clicker training can't be effective, but that used incorrectly it can cause a lot of bad effects and emotional stress in the dog. Yes so can ecollars, so can prong collars, and so can a bag of pupperoni. I didn't come into the thread to say one method is better than another, but I have seen dogs out there get totally stressed out and shut down because they were no longer receiving the feedback they are used to getting in training, had no idea if what they were doing was right or not, so started working slower and slower, more and more hesitantly, until they shut down altogether.

Please keep in mind I am not posting to dis any method of training, but people keep posting about how if positive methods are misused it is of no harm to the dog (paraphrasing here, not anyone's exact words), and I do disagree with that.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> Please keep in mind I am not posting to dis any method of training, but people keep posting about how if positive methods are misused it is of no harm to the dog (paraphrasing here, not anyone's exact words), and I do disagree with that.


I wouldn't say they do _no_ harm, just a lot less than misapplied aversive methods.

I've definitely seen that lack of motivation you seem to be describing, where the dog hasn't been taught to chain lots of activities together without a food reward. That's a major pitfall of misapplied treat training. The dog things he's getting non-rewarded and gets confused and then loses motivation. Some might stop where they are, offer random behaviors in the hopes of striking gold, or (most commonly in my experience) wander off to inspect something more interesting than the handler. It looks pretty different from learned helplessness, though.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> Some might stop where they are, offer random behaviors in the hopes of striking gold, or (most commonly in my experience) wander off to inspect something more interesting than the handler. It looks pretty different from learned helplessness, though.


I'm thinking more of the dog who starts slinking around, hanging back, freezing, deer in headlights I don't know what I'm supposed to do look


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> I'm thinking more of the dog who starts slinking around, hanging back, freezing, deer in headlights I don't know what I'm supposed to do look


I haven't seen that in clicker-only dogs. I don't know the training background of all the dogs I might see at a show, but I haven't seen the behavior you describe in dogs whose owners reported that they had trained without aversives.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> What it comes down to is if you want to hit, cuff, shock, collar correct, ear pinch until a yelp/scream, prong collar, or kick your dog, you can bc you get to decide.If you want to minimize pain and stress in training, and seek out reward -based methods, you can.You can get pretty good results either way if you have good timing, good technique and clear criteria. The question becomes, how do we most ethically share life with a dog.
> 
> No way would Louisina give Flip to me for training and noooo way one of the shock collar posses is EVER getting near Tally.
> 
> We have not much in common, not even dogs


Not sure where the last part came from or why it was thought needed to share on the thread. As for the top part, I think I do minimize pain and stress in training. I'm not out to hurt my dog or cause him stress. My goal is a happy, confident working dog, and if I thought that anything I was doing caused otherwise, then I wouldn't be doing it.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> I haven't seen that in clicker-only dogs. I don't know the training background of all the dogs I might see at a show, but I haven't seen the behavior you describe in dogs whose owners reported that they had trained without aversives.


When I've found it occur most often is when handlers are still using a clicker and food all throughout their run-through and warmups, and then go into the ring and the dog doesn't understand why they aren't getting the feedback they are used to. Dog hasn't learned yet that silence can be good. And since these dog's are most often in novice or open A, that means they will be doing a full heeling pattern first, with no feedback, and so they start to lag further and further behind or just stop heeling altogether.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> When I've found it occur most often is when handlers are still using a clicker and food all throughout their run-through and warmups, and then go into the ring and the dog doesn't understand why they aren't getting the feedback they are used to. Dog hasn't learned yet that silence can be good. And since these dog's are most often in novice or open A, that means they will be doing a full heeling pattern first, with no feedback, and so they start to lag further and further behind or just stop heeling altogether.


I've seen the bad preparation for a lack of reward markers and the resulting lagging and confusion. Just not the slinking you mentioned or other signs of fear.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> I see 100 dogs a week, and there is just no real life comparison between inexpertly clicker trained pet dogs and improperly e collar trained pet dogs, as in the OP's potential situation. The badly clicker trained dog might be rude and not respectful if the owners do not understand the method, but they are not quaking, paralyezd puddles of fear like I had to work with today.
> 
> What it comes down to is if you want to hit, cuff, shock, collar correct, ear pinch until a yelp/scream, prong collar, or kick your dog, you can bc you get to decide.If you want to minimize pain and stress in training, and seek out reward -based methods, you can.You can get pretty good results either way if you have good timing, good technique and clear criteria. The question becomes, how do we most ethically share life with a dog.
> 
> ...


All that you describe above is abuse. And I don't think anyone on here abuses their dogs.

And I can tell you that properly ecollar training will give you and your dog a stress free life. I just smile and snicker at all those that pass by us who constantly tug and snap and yank their leashes. That is not only stressful for the owner but abuse to the dog. I feel sorry for those poor pups and their owners. Wyatt and I just walk on by (off lead) with no stress or worry in the world.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> I have not seen a dog terribly mistreated with a positive reinforcement program. I've seen dogs whose owners misapplied it, and the dogs didn't learn anything, but they also weren't mistreated or ruined. It takes something that causes discomfort, fear, or pain to "ruin" a dog in the sense that I mean (i.e., shut down, reactive, nervous, learned helplessness, etc.).


I have. I have seen some dogs that suffered severe shutdown that were trained very positively (to the point of not even a collar correction being ok). It was a painful experience.


----------



## My Big Kahuna (Dec 14, 2011)

I respect so many of the members that have commented on this thread (on both sides) and I find this thread very informative and enjoy it immensely... I have never had experience with e-collars so this thread is very educational for me :wave:


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Is this some kind satire I don't understand or are you serious? The "stress" a dog goes through while working for a reward and the "stress" a dog goes through in an attempt to escape discomfort are obviously entirely different. To suggest they're the same is simply ridiculous.


ROFL. What is _"simply ridiculous"_ is people who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" who pretend that there is no stress inherent in their methods. Unless you're using some weird definition of "stress," they're the same thing. In one a dog is looking to escape physical discomfort. In the other he's looking to escape psychological discomfort, and if he's hungry, physical discomfort TOO. I happen to think that the psychological stress is more stressful. 



tippykayak said:


> I see that conflating the two by assigning the word "stress" allows you to state that all training methods are equal because all employ "stress," but do you really expect people to buy that?


I expect that people who are reasonable, rational and logical to ealize it. I don't expect that zealots will. 



tippykayak said:


> It's patently obvious that working to avoid a shock is entirely different in a dog's mind than working to receive a reward.


I find it hysterical that you are only able to see one side of the coin. The other side of _"working to receive a reward"_ is obvious to the first group that I mentioned in my last paragraph. For the rest, it has to do with escaping the discomfort that NOT having the reward brings. 



tippykayak said:


> Plus, good trainers typically aren't showing a treat in 99% of training scenarios.


Oh please. Don't tell me that the dog, with his keen sense of smell isn't aware when someone has a pocketful of treats. That's just absurd! It doesn't have to be offered, the dog knows it's there, he wants it, and he's not getting it. The result – stress. 



tippykayak said:


> The dog is working in a general expectation of a reward because he knows that obedience leads to good results. Good trainers also aren't treat-exclusive. So the dog is rarely actually staring at a treat. You know that, right?


Another nice evasion. Whether it's a food treat, praise, a toy, or anything else that's used as a reward – the dog knows that it's present, the dog wants it, he's not getting − stress. 



tippykayak said:


> Lastly, we see lots of dogs who have suffered the consequences of the misuse of aversive tools like the e-collar.


I see more _"dogs who have suffered the consequences of the misuse of"_ the so−called "kinder gentler methods" 



tippykayak said:


> These dogs show side effects like appeasement behavior, learned helplessness, anxiety, and a host of other problems.


Ditto for the dogs who have had the so−called "kinder gentler methods" improperly applied. 



tippykayak said:


> When you see a dog trained just as incompetently in a reward-only system, you have a dog who's equally untrained but with a much milder set of side effects.


I'll disagree. Sometimes it's milder, and sometimes it's not. 



tippykayak said:


> The "stress" the aversively trained dogs experience is pretty different from the "stress" the rewarded dogs experience.


Pray tell us exactly how this is different? 



tippykayak said:


> You like to shoot down anecdotes of dogs suffering from e-collar side effects, but will you honestly sit there and say that the side effects of a reward-based system are identical? And will you expect anybody to believe it?


As I just said, sometimes it's milder, sometimes it's not. I know that some will believe and some will not. Zealots will not. Those who are familiar with Ecollars will. It's those who are neither that I'm aiming at. Zealots will never change their minds, that's what makes them zealots. But those who are open-minded who have never heard this before, may consider it. That's all that I ask. 

Every coin has two sides. You folks only like to talk about one side.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> Many people don't possess the knowledge or the skill involved in this "critical evaluation." and so they blindly accept the conclusion without realizing that the study may not even support it.


 



tippykayak said:


> Can you be more specific about these "many people?" I don't see any in this thread, so I'm not sure why you brought them up.


 
If you've accepted the "findings" of the Schilder study, you're in that group. Are you? I'd expect that the poster who presented the study here, would also fall into that group. 




tippykayak said:


> You like to throw out your insults with phrases like "many people" or "the antis" so you're not technically breaking forum rules by insulting us directly.


 
This study has been presented in dozens of these discussions over many years. Nearly universally, people who have presented it have accepted it on face value and never thought to question any part of it. If you're not in the group then perhaps you can tell us of some it's shortcoming that I've not outlined. 




tippykayak said:


> Don't try to strawman us by arguing against positions you feel are held by some anti-e-collar people somewhere in the world. It's transparent, and the only people you're going to fool with it are the people who already agree with you.


 
Last post you insinuated that no one would believe me. I've already received three private messages and emails from people who have told me that they never thought of the issues that I presented. Now you tell me that the only people who I'm "going to fool are those who already agree with me. If they already agree then they won't be fooled, right? A logical fallacy on your part?


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Charliethree said:


> I am one of those 'antis' that cannot see the 'good' in using an ecollar (avoidance training).


Perhaps some education is in order? All Ecollar training is not as you state _"avoidance."_


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

akgolden said:


> This is one of those topics that everyone will not always be 100% in agreement.


It goes far beyond this. It goes to the fact that some people in their zeal to get people to use their methods will lie, will bring up myths and misconceptions, will ignore that their methods have shortcomings and will present only one viewpoint. 

Some of us are just presenting the truth regarding the lies, the myths, and the misconceptions, the shortcoming of some other methods and other viewpoints. 



akgolden said:


> The most important thing, like ANY training is to make sure it is use correctly, which has been mentioned numerous times in this thread. Any form of training not used correctly will result in added stress to the dog and frustration to the owner.


Yep, and with more ignorance about the Ecollar than most other tools, it's the one that needs the most education about.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Nonetheless, there are lots of well-adjusted dogs out there who've had some level of e-collar training. The question that matters to me is how easily the tool creates negative side effects, both when it's misapplied and even when it's used in an "expert" program. When it comes to owners buying one, reading an article, and making up most of the training program (which is how most people train dogs, regardless of what methods they pick), the e-collar is ripe with the potential for disaster. In more expert hands, they're obviously safer, but the question of less pronounced side effects still remains.


I really thought you were on the right track and then you suddenly made left turn. Lol. Fact is there are just as many people who will read an article about the so−called "kinder gentler methods" and will buy treats or a clicker or use praise or toys and the situation is just as _"ripe with the potential for disaster."_


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> My point wasn't about whether or not you should shock a dog out of sight to try to get him back. The point is that the shock isn't a command and that the fact that it works at a larger range than a voice doesn't make it a better way to say 'come' to a dog. It's a bad way to say "come" regardless of the distance.


That's why quality Ecollars have other signals that can be used. A couple of brands offer a vibration and several offer a tone, an audible sound. I don't believe that clickers, treats, or the like offer those do they? 



akgolden said:


> But since you set up this scenario, if a dog is out of sight, how do you know how to deliver a correction in a useful way? What if he's already booking it? Why does the shock mean "book it faster" rather than "you're doing it wrong"?


Because he knows, from previous training, what the stim means.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I didn't say it was always useless, just that it was useless once a dog went out of sight. Would you shock a dog who went around the corner? If so, how would you be sure you weren't shocking a dog while he was returning?


It really would be better if you learned a bit more about Ecollars. Most quality brands of Ecollar offer more than just the ability to deliver a stim. I've used both the vibration and the tone models to get a dog to recall when he's out of sight and out of hearing range.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Useless as a training opportunity. If you want to use the e-collar as a leash, that's fine, but nobody else is talking about that kind of use except for you.


Then allow me to point out another way to use the Ecollar. Now there are two of us. Does that make you feel better now? 



tippykayak said:


> When a dog's training has failed and you shock him as a last-ditch effort to get him back, that's not a training method.


I don't believe that anyone has said that it is. I think it's been brought up as an advantage of the Ecollar in that it provides insurance that other methods don't have. 



tippykayak said:


> The real question is how to get a dog to reliably obey in the first place.


Actually there are MANY _"real questions."_ Thinking that there is only ONE, is a pretty narrow viewpoint. 



tippykayak said:


> The dog takes off around the corner. You give the command to return. For the time that the dog is out of sight, you don't know if he's obeying or if he's ignoring you. How do you know whether to stim? What happens if you shock him while he's on the way back? Haven't you undermined your recall training?


Again, some knowledge about Ecollars on your part would be useful. In this case, I'd press the vibe button and he'd know to return to me. That REINFORCES the recall training.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I don't think people are going to necessarily agree here, but I do think it's important to challenge some assertions that people make, particularly when it comes to a tool like the e-collar, which has really ruined some dogs' lives. I generally believe in the rights of people to do things their own way, but it's very hard to see a shut-down, nervous dog who's been wrecked by a harsh training method.


It's just as painful to see dog brought to the pound to a fairly certain death because his owners failed to get timely results with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." It's just as painful to watch a dog run into the street and get killed because his owner, who had trained with those same methods, did not have a reliable recall. 

There's the other side of that coin thing again. 



tippykayak said:


> It's very rewarding to work on drawing that type of dog out, but I'd prefer that it didn't happen in the first place.


I've worked with many of these dogs for whom I was the last stop before the pound. It's very rewarding to show these owners how fast and easy it is to get control with an Ecollar without any of the side effects that some pretend happen all the time with the tool. 



tippykayak said:


> So when these e-collar threads pop up and people ask about using them for training, it's hard for me to just walk away and leave assertions about the e-collar's safety unchallenged.


Ditto for me for how difficult it really is to apply the so−called "kinder gentler methods" for the average pet owner. 



tippykayak said:


> It's a tool that's easily misused, and the consequences can be severe for the dog.


Those so−called "kinder gentler methods" are easily misused, difficult to apply to get reliability and have no safety fallback as does the Ecollar. The consequences can be fatal for the dog when he does not respond to commands to recall in dangerous situations.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> But some tools carry much greater consequences for common mistakes in methods and timing.


You're wrong. It's NOT the _"tool"_ in this case, it's the method. In fact the clicker requires far greater skill in timing than does the Ecollar if success is to be realized. 

The methods that I've developed make the timing much easier than with other methods. The clicker requires you to see something, recognize it as what you want, and then to click as quickly as you can. My methods with the Ecollar require no such skills. If one has the ability to tap their foot and clap their hands at the same time, their timing skills are good enough to use the Ecollar. 



tippykayak said:


> I have not seen a dog terribly mistreated with a positive reinforcement program.


This just tells us of your personal experience. I HAVE seen this. Just as you claim to rehabilitate dogs that have been mistreated with the Ecollar, my experience has been in rehabbing hundreds of dogs that were mistreated with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." 



tippykayak said:


> It takes something that causes discomfort, fear, or pain to "ruin" a dog in the sense that I mean (i.e., shut down, reactive, nervous, learned helplessness, etc.).


No it doesn’t. I've seen this with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" methods many times. I've dogs that were turned neurotic and some psychotic by the so−called "kinder gentler methods." Some that bit their owners because they wanted a treat so badly, and as a result were killed by those owners.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> I see 100 dogs a week, and there is just no real life comparison between inexpertly clicker trained pet dogs and improperly e collar trained pet dogs, as in the OP's potential situation.


I've put Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs and I stopped counting about ten years ago. I DO see this comparison and quite frequently. 



tippykayak said:


> The badly clicker trained dog might be rude and not respectful if the owners do not understand the method, but they are not quaking, paralyezd puddles of fear like I had to work with today.


No instead their owners are _"quaking, paralyzed puddle of fear"_ as I've worked with repeatedly. Afraid that their dogs would run into the street and be hit by cars. Afraid that they'd have to take their children to the ER because they'd get bitten again. Afraid that they'd break another hip because their dog pulled them off balance.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I haven't seen that in clicker-only dogs. I don't know the training background of all the dogs I might see at a show, but I haven't seen the behavior you describe in dogs whose owners reported that they had trained without aversives.


I was wondering how long it would take to get to this nonsense. Any owner who tells you that they have trained without aversives is lying. It's simply impossible. 

If there's anyone here who thinks that this is possible, simply tell us in detail how you train a sit and I'll show you where the aversives are. This is some of the nonsense that some who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" will spread.


----------



## Mssjnnfer (Aug 9, 2009)

Just an FYI, at the bottom of every post is a little box with a window and a minus sign in it. If you click it, it turns into a plus sign. Then when you go to post a reply you can use multiple posts, instead of replying to each post separately.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

edit out all three paragraphs so s not to offend anyone . . .


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Edited out- too much of a post


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Most of what you have to say here is a rhetorical dance, not an argument, so while I'll respond to the handful of points you actually made, I'm also going to amuse myself and point out the rhetorical stuff in blue.



Lou Castle said:


> ROFL. What is _"simply ridiculous"_ is people who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" who pretend that there is no stress inherent in their methods. Unless you're using some weird definition of "stress," they're the same thing. In one a dog is looking to escape physical discomfort. In the other he's looking to escape psychological discomfort, and if he's hungry, physical discomfort TOO. I happen to think that the psychological stress is more stressful.


Mock your opponent; redefine the terms of the argument.

I do think it's ridiculous to equate the stress of avoiding discomfort with the stress of wanting food. And I think it reflects a misunderstanding of reward motivation to suggest a dog is hungry when he's working for a reward. It's also weird to call physical discomfort "physical stress" and desire for a reward "psychological stress."

You can perform whatever verbal acrobatics you want. Avoiding discomfort and working for a reward are dramatically different in their effect on a dog.



Lou Castle said:


> I expect that people who are reasonable, rational and logical to ealize it. I don't expect that zealots will.


Create a false dichotomy by labeling your opponent.

I think there are reasonable, rational people on both sides of the debate. Many of them are participating in this thread.



Lou Castle said:


> I find it hysterical that you are only able to see one side of the coin. The other side of _"working to receive a reward"_ is obvious to the first group that I mentioned in my last paragraph. For the rest, it has to do with escaping the discomfort that NOT having the reward brings.


Mock; insult your opponent's intelligence.

The "discomfort" of not having a reward, especially when the dog doesn't know what the reward might be, is clearly not equivalent to the discomfort of an electric current on his skin, either in type or in severity.



Lou Castle said:


> Oh please. Don't tell me that the dog, with his keen sense of smell isn't aware when someone has a pocketful of treats. That's just absurd! It doesn't have to be offered, the dog knows it's there, he wants it, and he's not getting it. The result – stress.


Mischaracterize your opponent's position; argue against the straw man you've created.

As you have to be aware, since you are an experienced trainer, treats aren't the only kind of reward, and a trainer might have treats in his pocket but offer non-treat rewards for a while or have no treats in his pocket at all and offer non-treat rewards. One of the key aspects of reward-based training is varying the type and source of rewards.



Lou Castle said:


> Another nice evasion. Whether it's a food treat, praise, a toy, or anything else that's used as a reward – the dog knows that it's present, the dog wants it, he's not getting − stress.


Insult your opponent; repeat your point in new terms. 

I think people can evaluate this concept themselves. No need to go around and around on it. If you honestly think that the "stress" of wanting something good is the same as the "stress" of avoiding something bad, then that's what you think. I think both the science of behavioral psychology and people's personal experiences will back me up on this one.



Lou Castle said:


> I see more _"dogs who have suffered the consequences of the misuse of"_ the so−called "kinder gentler methods"


That completely contradicts my personal experience and what I understand about the role of P+ and R- in behavioral psychology. But I'm sure you're correct about your personal experience. I mean, I've certainly seen "the consequences of misuse" of rewards, but what I typically see is an untrained dog, not a fearful or anxious one.



Lou Castle said:


> As I just said, sometimes it's milder, sometimes it's not. I know that some will believe and some will not. Zealots will not. Those who are familiar with Ecollars will. It's those who are neither that I'm aiming at. Zealots will never change their minds, that's what makes them zealots. But those who are open-minded who have never heard this before, may consider it. That's all that I ask.


Mischaracterize and label your opponent.

Zealotry looks a lot different than what we're seeing in this thread. Sometimes people will bop threads like these with true zealotry pro or anti the e-collar. This discussion has been (mostly) friendly and even-keeled, and there are reasonable people and good trainers on both sides. There are also many of us who are open to learning and changing our minds on issues.

You, as somebody who's invested a career in a particular version of e-collar training, are probably the least likely person in this thread to change your mind on anything.



Lou Castle said:


> Every coin has two sides. You folks only like to talk about one side.


Mischaracterize your opponent to give yourself the moral high ground.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> If you've accepted the "findings" of the Schilder study, you're in that group. Are you? I'd expect that the poster who presented the study here, would also fall into that group.


It's a small study, so I take its findings as interesting without being conclusive. Some of the criticisms you leveled (well, the criticisms you copied and pasted into the thread that somebody else leveled) were legitimate. Some were a real reach (like your tortured speculation about what brand of collar they might have used).



Lou Castle said:


> This study has been presented in dozens of these discussions over many years. Nearly universally, people who have presented it have accepted it on face value and never thought to question any part of it. If you're not in the group then perhaps you can tell us of some it's shortcoming that I've not outlined.


It's too small. Its findings haven't been replicated (to my knowledge). It's a study that tells us that the issue needs more study. It's not conclusive on its own.



Lou Castle said:


> Last post you insinuated that no one would believe me. I've already received three private messages and emails from people who have told me that they never thought of the issues that I presented. Now you tell me that the only people who I'm "going to fool are those who already agree with me. If they already agree then they won't be fooled, right? A logical fallacy on your part?


Well, I've received seventy-four PMs, six telegraphs, and one smoke signal. I also think I see a guy waving...hang on...no, it's just a tree moving in the wind. Seriously, though, if you want to discuss PMs, I have a lot more than three complaining about how you crash the forum even though you don't have a Golden Retriever. I always make the point that an idea should be judged on its merit, not its presenter. But if you seriously want to judge this based on private messages, there are lots of negative ones both about your ideas and about your behavior.

If you would stop insulting other people's intelligence and being exceedingly rude so consistently, it would be much easier to defend your right to participate in these discussions.

I'm glad you're making people think. If your methodology works for people and the dogs get well trained with no side effects, then I'm glad. I want dogs to be safe and happy.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Wow. 
Just wow.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> I don't believe that anyone has said that it is. I think it's been brought up as an advantage of the Ecollar in that it provides insurance that other methods don't have.


Equipment cannot be substituted for training. Smart use of both is key.




Lou Castle said:


> Actually there are MANY _"real questions."_ Thinking that there is only ONE, is a pretty narrow viewpoint.


Mischaracterize your opponent's position in order to paint him as ignorant.



Lou Castle said:


> Again, some knowledge about Ecollars on your part would be useful. In this case, I'd press the vibe button and he'd know to return to me. That REINFORCES the recall training.


Act like your opponent doesn't know something obvious in order to make him look ignorant.

If you've trained your dog that vibe=come, that makes perfect sense. Just like if you taught him when you say "come," you mean come.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> That's why quality Ecollars have other signals that can be used. A couple of brands offer a vibration and several offer a tone, an audible sound. I don't believe that clickers, treats, or the like offer those do they?


No, but I have a whistle.  

If you're talking about an "e-collar" that's used solely to make cue sounds, or if you strap a walkie to your dog's collar, we're talking about an entirely different thing than a discomfort-based tool. I'm sure you're aware.




Lou Castle said:


> Because he knows, from previous training, what the stim means.


Can you explain how he knows it means "come" if he's already coming? Or if he knows that it means "come" when he isn't coming? This is an honest question, not some kind of trap. Despite my thick-skulled zealotry, I'd like to do you the courtesy of understanding your position.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> It's just as painful to see dog brought to the pound to a fairly certain death because his owners failed to get timely results with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." It's just as painful to watch a dog run into the street and get killed because his owner, who had trained with those same methods, did not have a reliable recall.
> 
> There's the other side of that coin thing again.


Compare your position to a weakened version of your opponents.

You can't compare well-executed e-collar training with badly executed reward-based training. A badly trained dog won't respond, regardless of which method you badly train it with.



Lou Castle said:


> I've worked with many of these dogs for whom I was the last stop before the pound. It's very rewarding to show these owners how fast and easy it is to get control with an Ecollar without any of the side effects that some pretend happen all the time with the tool.


Exaggerate your opponent's position and argue against the exaggerated version.

Nobody said they happened "all the time," simply that that some training methods and equipment carry higher risk factors than others.

And people who don't know how to train are always super impressed with somebody who does know how to get results. That sword cuts easily both ways. When a person has had no success and then they see you have success, they're always amazed. That speaks to the original trainer's incompetence, not to the relative risks of the training tools.



Lou Castle said:


> Those so−called "kinder gentler methods" are easily misused, difficult to apply to get reliability and have no safety fallback as does the Ecollar. The consequences can be fatal for the dog when he does not respond to commands to recall in dangerous situations.


Put your position up against a weakened version of your opponent's position (straw man).

Again, if the dog is untrained, that's dangerous. It doesn't matter which tool you've failed with. Just shocking a dog doesn't make him come back if you haven't trained him, any more than calling him makes him come back if he hasn't been trained.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> You're wrong. It's NOT the _"tool"_ in this case, it's the method. In fact the clicker requires far greater skill in timing than does the Ecollar if success is to be realized.


This measurement is somewhat subjective, but mistimed corrections are the cause of quite a bit of grief for dogs. Mistimed rewards simply fail to accomplish the training goal. The dog's usually pretty happy to get a mistimed reward. He just doesn't learn how to replicate the scenario.



Lou Castle said:


> The methods that I've developed make the timing much easier than with other methods. The clicker requires you to see something, recognize it as what you want, and then to click as quickly as you can. My methods with the Ecollar require no such skills. If one has the ability to tap their foot and clap their hands at the same time, their timing skills are good enough to use the Ecollar.


I honestly don't know anybody that trains obedience, field, or pet manners with your negative reinforcement method, so you can claim whatever you like and I have no way of objectively assessing how much skill the owner would need or how much success you actually have. You can claim whatever you like, but we just have your word to go on.



Lou Castle said:


> This just tells us of your personal experience. I HAVE seen this. Just as you claim to rehabilitate dogs that have been mistreated with the Ecollar, my experience has been in rehabbing hundreds of dogs that were mistreated with the so−called "kinder gentler methods."


You've never seen a dog suffering from e-collar abuse? Maybe that's because people who destroy their dogs' confidence by misusing e-collars don't go to a trainer who relies entirely on the device for his program. Or maybe you're just not mentioning it.



Lou Castle said:


> No it doesn’t. I've seen this with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" methods many times. I've dogs that were turned neurotic and some psychotic by the so−called "kinder gentler methods." Some that bit their owners because they wanted a treat so badly, and as a result were killed by those owners.


How do you define "psychotic" dogs? I've seen hard-mouthed dogs who didn't know how to take treats and resource-guarding dogs who'd fight over food, but I've never seen that _caused_ by reward-based methods (though I've seen it improved by them a number of times). I've been nipped a few times, but the one dog that's drawn blood off me was abused by an e-collar by well-intentioned people and it's because he went from zero to sixty in a panic reaction without signaling it in a way I could pick up on.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> No instead their owners are _"quaking, paralyzed puddle of fear"_ as I've worked with repeatedly. Afraid that their dogs would run into the street and be hit by cars. Afraid that they'd have to take their children to the ER because they bitten again. Afraid that they'd break another hip because their dog pulled them off balance.


Please use the quote function more carefully. Your posts have things attributed to me that I did not write.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> I was wondering how long it would take to get to this nonsense. Any owner who tells you that they have trained without aversives is lying. It's simply impossible.


I'm sure you think so or that you are using your expanded definition of "stress" to expand the definition of "aversive."



Lou Castle said:


> If there's anyone here who thinks that this is possible, simply tell us in detail how you train a sit and I'll show you where the aversives are. This is some of the nonsense that some who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" will spread.


I think we're all smart enough to see what you'd label "aversive." If my dog has any clue that there'll be a reward, he's stressed by the desire for that reward, and therefore it's "aversive." 

When I say without "aversives," I mean without inflicting physical discomfort (and no, I don't accept that wanting a treat is "discomfort" in any meaningful sense) or fear on your dog. I mean relying on negative punishment and positive reinforcement rather than positive punishment and negative reinforcement. 

But let's not argue against a straw man version of "kindler gentler" that nobody actually advocates, shall we? Nobody is advocating for a pure P-/R+ training program here, including the people that are pointing out the trouble with relying heavily on an e-collar to shape and reinforce behavior. We're talking about where a training program puts its emphasis and the potential side effects of using P+ and R-.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I'm in the market for a new ecollar, as our old Innotek Free Spirit is wanted by the Smithsonian.

With new Pointers ready to start, I'd love recommendations from those with newer (anything is newer than mine ) models. 
The Collar Clinic, btw, is right here in my home town...


----------



## marsh mop (Mar 13, 2009)

Pointgold said:


> I'm in the market for a new ecollar, as our old Innotek Free Spirit is wanted by the Smithsonian.
> 
> With new Pointers ready to start, I'd love recommendations from those with newer (anything is newer than mine ) models.
> The Collar Clinic, btw, is right here in my home town...


I have a friend with the Tri-tronics Sport Basic G3. Its no TT Pro 500 but a very nice unit for about $250.00.
Jim


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Pointgold said:


> I'm in the market for a new ecollar, as our old Innotek Free Spirit is wanted by the Smithsonian.
> 
> With new Pointers ready to start, I'd love recommendations from those with newer (anything is newer than mine ) models.
> The Collar Clinic, btw, is right here in my home town...


I use the Tritronics Pro 100. I believe Lou uses the Dogtra models. I have heard alot of good things about Dogtra. I am just used to the Tritronics as I started using it about 11 years ago on my first golden.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Can you explain how he knows it means "come" if he's already coming? Or if he knows that it means "come" when he isn't coming? This is an honest question, not some kind of trap. Despite my thick-skulled zealotry, I'd like to do you the courtesy of understanding your position.


I am going to try to answer this. An ecollar will prevent your dog from getting so far out of site that he starts dilly dalling walking back. If you have a high prey dog as I do, he will bolt after a rabbit and I will give the "come" command and if he ignores and turns that corner where he just went out of site I command again and stim. He will return. It is that quick. I know for a fact at that moment he is still focused and running after that rabbit. Again this all comes down to training and reading your dog. I can look at Wyatt and just tell by his expression on his face that he is getting ready to bolt after his prey. But the reality now is he is stopped BEFORE he bolts with just my command. However as Lou mentioned I have that insurance with the collar if he ever decides to bolt out of site.


----------



## akgolden (Jun 18, 2011)

Lou Castle said:


> That's why quality Ecollars have other signals that can be used. A couple of brands offer a vibration and several offer a tone, an audible sound. I don't believe that clickers, treats, or the like offer those do they?


That's the best feature of mine. I use the vibrate 99% of the time. They know that's a signal/warning that they need to respond to my command. 



Pointgold said:


> I'm in the market for a new ecollar, as our old Innotek Free Spirit is wanted by the Smithsonian.
> 
> With new Pointers ready to start, I'd love recommendations from those with newer (anything is newer than mine ) models.
> The Collar Clinic, btw, is right here in my home town...


I have a DT Systems IDT-PLUS Micro Dog Trainer Collar Receiver and Transmitter and it works amazing. Waterproof, great range and what I really love about it is it has a vibrate feature, a nick (no matter how long you hold it , it only apply's the stimulation for a split second) and then another button that will apply it for as long as you hold it.

The other feature that sold me was that I could expand it to up to 3 collars. So with a simple flip of the switch on the top I can go from the collar that's on my lab to the one thats on my golden and I don't have to carry two remotes.

Rechargeable battery and they last quite a long time. 

DT Systems IDT-PLUS Micro Dog Trainer Collar Receiver and Transmitter


----------



## akgolden (Jun 18, 2011)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I am going to try to answer this. An ecollar will prevent your dog from getting so far out of site that he starts dilly dalling walking back. If you have a high prey dog as I do, he will bolt after a rabbit and I will give the "come" command and if he ignores and turns that corner where he just went out of site I command again and stim. He will return. It is that quick. I know for a fact at that moment he is still focused and running after that rabbit. Again this all comes down to training and reading your dog. I can look at Wyatt and just tell by his expression on his face that he is getting ready to bolt after his prey. But the reality now is he is stopped BEFORE he bolts with just my command. However as Lou mentioned I have that insurance with the collar if he ever decides to bolt out of site.


I agree with this and this is probably the biggest reason that I purchased the collar. It's that safety net that if my dog gets to focused and my command is not getting her attention I can apply a small stimulation to gain their focus. I always reward with praise when she returns. 

With out this there would have been a few times my dog would have kept on doing her own thing and it would have put her in danger. 


It's also very useful when out hiking. 99% of the time my dogs are off leash (I live in Alaska... lots of open wilderness). But for that 1% time that I may run into wild animals (moose, bear etc) I want to know I can have them at my side in a heartbeat. Yes they usually come with a simple command but it's not worth the risk that if they decide to not listen that they go and confront a 1000lb moose that would stomp them to death..


----------



## ashleylp (Jul 23, 2011)

Pointgold said:


> I'm in the market for a new ecollar, as our old Innotek Free Spirit is wanted by the Smithsonian.
> 
> With new Pointers ready to start, I'd love recommendations from those with newer (anything is newer than mine ) models.
> The Collar Clinic, btw, is right here in my home town...


I sprung the money and got the TT Pro 500... and I don't regret it ONE BIT. Sure, it's a lot of upfront cost... but with the history of TT being such a great brand, it reassures me that there won't be an accident that ruins my dog. I know a lady who had a cheaper brand and it shorted out in the water. Her dog will never be the same... it's terrified not only of water but EVERYTHING and is skittish as they come. Really sad situation 

^^ and I realize that that story about the scared dog doesn't help the e-collar debate, but it was a FREAK accident and the dog loved it's collar before. She had always used it correctly, etc.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

ashleylp said:


> I sprung the money and got the TT Pro 500... and I don't regret it ONE BIT. Sure, it's a lot of upfront cost... but with the history of TT being such a great brand, it reassures me that there won't be an accident that ruins my dog. I know a lady who had a cheaper brand and it shorted out in the water. Her dog will never be the same... it's terrified not only of water but EVERYTHING and is skittish as they come. Really sad situation
> 
> ^^ and I realize that that story about the scared dog doesn't help the e-collar debate, but it was a FREAK accident and the dog loved it's collar before. She had always used it correctly, etc.


 
I can vouch that TT makes a great collar. You should have seen the abuse it took from my first golden lol! We have a place on the Colorado River and he was in the river daily and rolling in the sand. At one point it stopped working so I sent it back and the guy was amazed at how much sand was in it lol! He fixed it free of charge  The guarantee and the abuse it took sold me to buy another one for Wyatt.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Thanks.
The old Innotek actually still works and works well. It's just a dinosaur, and has none of the new technology/bells and whistles. It's worked well without, but our dogs are thoroughly trained, and as "reliable' on recalls as I could ask. It'll work fine for me, and I won't mind using it -but with us having 5 Pointers that will be doing field, (and 1-2 other fairly novice handlers - The Dogfather and Daniela) we need another, and I'd like it to be a good one.
Again, thanks. I appreciate the recommendations.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Most of what you have to say here is a rhetorical dance, not an argument


You just don't like having holes poked in your arguments so you play word games to divert attention away from it. I think the members are smarter than to be fooled by this. 



tippykayak said:


> , so while I'll respond to the handful of points you actually made, I'm also going to amuse myself and point out the rhetorical stuff in blue.


As long as you're _"amused."_ 



tippykayak said:


> Mock your opponent; redefine the terms of the argument.


You folks thought that you could define the terms of the argument in the first place, I've just taken it back, to show how wrong your arguments are. Here's a clue, you don't have exclusive rights to define the argument. I'll take it wherever it needs to go. 



tippykayak said:


> I do think it's ridiculous to equate the stress of avoiding discomfort with the stress of wanting food.


Thanks for your opinion. Mine is different. I think that it's the exact same thing! Stress causes all sorts of side effects. They're present with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" just as they are with ANY training method. There's at least one study that measured cortisol instead of using subjective means to measure stress, that shows it. I've already mentioned it. There are few studies done on those methods, no one is trying to ban them. 



tippykayak said:


> And I think it reflects a misunderstanding of reward motivation to suggest a dog is hungry when he's working for a reward.


You'd like people to think that I don't understand training that uses rewards. In fact you'd like people to think that using an Ecollar does not involve using rewards. You're wrong on both counts. 



tippykayak said:


> It's also weird to call physical discomfort "physical stress" and desire for a reward "psychological stress."


It's only _"weird"_ because you've never considered the other side of the coin from what you do. Those of us who have studied both sides understand it. 



tippykayak said:


> You can perform whatever verbal acrobatics you want. Avoiding discomfort and working for a reward are dramatically different in their effect on a dog.


Interestingly you merely repeat yourself instead of answering my very simple question by showing us how it's _"dramatically different."_ The real reason that you evade my question is that it's not different at all! 



tippykayak said:


> Create a false dichotomy by labeling your opponent.


There are obviously two sides of this discussion. Those who argue for Ecollars and those who argue against them. The dichotomy is not a false one. And since some members of one side have closed minds, that makes them zealots. AGAIN, you're wrong. lol



tippykayak said:


> I think there are reasonable, rational people on both sides of the debate. Many of them are participating in this thread.


Indeed there are . But there are also some who possess none of those traits on the anti−Ecollar side. 



tippykayak said:


> Mock; insult your opponent's intelligence.


AGAIN, you're wrong. No one's intelligence has been _"mocked."_ What has been done is to show that every coin has two sides. It's not a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of having an open mind and being, as I said, reasonable and rational. 



tippykayak said:


> The "discomfort" of not having a reward, especially when the dog doesn't know what the reward might be, is clearly not equivalent to the discomfort of an electric current on his skin, either in type or in severity.


Sure it is. Your dog knows after a few session what rewards you use. He knows when you've got a pocket full of treats. He knows when his favorite tug toy is in your pocket. Thinking that he doesn't know this, doesn't give an animal with one of the most sensitive noses on the planet much credit. 

Here's some video of a dog feeling, for the first time in his life, _"the discomfort of an electric current on his skin."_ Looks pretty horrible to me. ROFL 
Testing The Working Level If E-Collar On Lab Not quite the horror show that you want people to believe that it is. 



tippykayak said:


> As you have to be aware, since you are an experienced trainer, treats aren't the only kind of reward, and a trainer might have treats in his pocket but offer non-treat rewards for a while or have no treats in his pocket at all and offer non-treat rewards. One of the key aspects of reward-based training is varying the type and source of rewards.


If you ask around you'll see that very few people new to the so−called "kinder gentler methods" vary their rewards. Instead they find that their dog prefers one over the other and they stick with that. Very few new owners do as you claim, _"varying the type and source of rewards."_ You want people to think that all they have to do is vary the reward and they'll be gold. Fact is that some dogs don't care for treats. Some don't care for toys. Some don't care for praise. Some dogs will work for ONLY one reward, and so that's all that their owners do. 

I want to show folks how your debate technique is heavily flawed. Earlier you wrote,


> The dog is working in a general expectation of a reward because he knows that obedience leads to good results. Good trainers also aren't treat-exclusive. So the dog is rarely actually staring at a treat. You know that, right?


And I responded,


> Another nice evasion. Whether it's a food treat, praise, a toy, or anything else that's used as a reward – the dog knows that it's present, the dog wants it, he's not getting − stress.


You now write


> Insult your opponent; repeat your point in new terms.


There's no insult there. Conveniently you removed the context of my comments making it appear that I was insulting you. I wasn't. But nice try! lol



tippykayak said:


> I think people can evaluate this concept themselves.


I think that those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" have been shoving it down people's throats for so long without opposition, that many have swallowed it completely. 



tippykayak said:


> No need to go around and around on it.


I agree. Stress is stress. Some have coined a new term that's designed to put a new spin on this, but that's all it is, spin. 



tippykayak said:


> If you honestly think that the "stress" of wanting something good is the same as the "stress" of avoiding something bad, then that's what you think. I think both the science of behavioral psychology and people's personal experiences will back me up on this one.


Please show us some of those studies from the _"science of behavioral psychology."_ _ Somehow _ I don't think that you will. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I see more "dogs who have suffered the consequences of the misuse of" the so−called "kinder gentler methods"





tippykayak said:


> That completely contradicts my personal experience


I'm sure it does. When a mind is closed it only sees what it wants to see. 



tippykayak said:


> and what I understand about the role of P+ and R- in behavioral psychology.


You don't have the market cornered on _"the role of +P and –R."_ Yours is not the only opinion. 



tippykayak said:


> But I'm sure you're correct about your personal experience. I mean, I've certainly seen "the consequences of misuse" of rewards, but what I typically see is an untrained dog, not a fearful or anxious one.


I've seen both. 



tippykayak said:


> Mischaracterize and label your opponent.


I don't think that my _"opponent"_ has been _"mischaracterized."_ If you're think that you're a zealot, then you're welcome to the title. I have not applied it to any person in this discussion. But "if the shoe fits." 



tippykayak said:


> Zealotry looks a lot different than what we're seeing in this thread.


I'll disagree. This is exactly the tools of zealotry being used here. They include scaring people about Ecollars, applying myths and misconceptions. Citing scientific studies that are completely flawed, and then denying the label. 



tippykayak said:


> Sometimes people will bop threads like these with true zealotry pro or anti the e-collar. This discussion has been (mostly) friendly and even-keeled,


As long as you include the modifier _"mostly'_ your statement is accurate. But there has been quite a bit of unfriendliness and off balance discussion. 



tippykayak said:


> and there are reasonable people and good trainers on both sides. There are also many of us who are open to learning and changing our minds on issues.


I'll agree that there are SOME who are open to learning and changing their minds. But many minds are closed and not open to learning. 



tippykayak said:


> You, as somebody who's invested a career in a particular version of e-collar training, are probably the least likely person in this thread to change your mind on anything.


AGAIN, you're wrong. When I first heard of the so−called "kinder gentler methods" I investigated them for years. I have used them and have taught others how to use them too. And you're wrong about me _"investing a career in a particular version of Ecollar training"_ too. I've used, and still use MANY versions of training with the tool. I also use pinch collars, choke chains, harnesses, and virtually all the tools used with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" But I know when they're appropriate and when they're not. I've changed my mind on training MANY times in my dog training history.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> It's a small study, so I take its findings as interesting without being conclusive. Some of the criticisms you leveled (well, the criticisms you copied and pasted into the thread that somebody else leveled) were legitimate. Some were a real reach (like your tortured speculation about what brand of collar they might have used).


Sorry, but AGAIN you're wrong. That was not speculation. I've got friends in Europe who put me in touch with the group of competitors that participated in the study. A couple of them told me that the Shecker Teletakt WAS used by many in that group. 



tippykayak said:


> It's too small. Its findings haven't been replicated (to my knowledge). It's a study that tells us that the issue needs more study. It's not conclusive on its own.


And yet it was posted here (I'm sure) in the hopes that people would find it conclusive. It's not just the size of the study that's flawed, the very method used to determine if the dogs were stressed was completely subjective. Many of those "indicators" have other causes, yet the _"researchers" _ made no mention of this fact. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I've already received three private messages and emails from people who have told me that they never thought of the issues that I presented. Now you tell me that the only people who I'm "going to fool are those who already agree with me. If they already agree then they won't be fooled, right? A logical fallacy on your part?





tippykayak said:


> Well, I've received seventy-four PMs, six telegraphs, and one smoke signal. I also think I see` a guy waving...hang on...no, it's just a tree moving in the wind.


The difference between our statements? Mine is true. lol



tippykayak said:


> Seriously, though, if you want to discuss PMs, I have a lot more than three complaining about how you crash the forum even though you don't have a Golden Retriever.


Perhaps if having a Golden was a criterion for being a member and posting here, those people would have a point. Since it's not, they don't. This is exactly the sort of tactic that some zealots use. They can't put together a cogent argument so they attack on another level. 



tippykayak said:


> I always make the point that an idea should be judged on its merit, not its presenter. But if you seriously want to judge this based on private messages, there are lots of negative ones both about your ideas and about your behavior.


Yes, I'm sure that there are. It's easy to hate the one who does not support the status quo and who points out the errors of established members. It's not the first time it's happened and it won't be the last. I wear it as a badge of honor. 



tippykayak said:


> If you would stop insulting other people's intelligence and being exceedingly rude so consistently, it would be much easier to defend your right to participate in these discussions.


Really? Conveniently you forget YOUR rudeness and insults. Since you've taken this position, please point out some of mine.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier I wrote (referring to the fact that an Ecollar can get a dog's attention when a voice command will not),


> ... it's been brought up as an advantage of the Ecollar in that it provides insurance that other methods don't have.





tippykayak said:


> Equipment cannot be substituted for training. Smart use of both is key.


Please show us anywhere that I've said that _"equipment can be substituted for training."_ Here's that straw man argument that you keep accusing me of. And here you are doing it! ROFL

And now, a little bit of "sauce for the goose ..."

Earlier you wrote,


> The real question is how to get a dog to reliably obey in the first place.


Actually there are MANY _"real questions."_ Thinking that there is only ONE, is a pretty narrow viewpoint. 

And you responded, Mischaracterize your opponent's position in order to paint him as ignorant.

I DID NOT _"mischaracterize your ... position."_ You stated quite clearly, _"The real question ..."_ As I said earlier, there are MANY _"real questions."_ 

Earlier you wrote,


> The dog takes off around the corner. You give the command to return. For the time that the dog is out of sight, you don't know if he's obeying or if he's ignoring you. How do you know whether to stim? What happens if you shock him while he's on the way back? Haven't you undermined your recall training?


And I responded,


> Again, some knowledge about Ecollars on your part would be useful. In this case, I'd press the vibe button and he'd know to return to me. That REINFORCES the recall training.


And you responded, Act like your opponent doesn't know something obvious in order to make him look ignorant.

It's obvious that you failed to take this into account. It's obvious that you only examined stimming the dog. I'd guess that either you didn't know about vibe and tone or that you didn't want to bring it up because you knew that it would completely destroy your argument on this one point. If it was so _"obvious"_ I wonder why you didn't include it in your litany of harm that the Ecollar might cause in this situation. If you didn't know about vibe and tone of Ecollars would that make you _"ignorant?"_ Perhaps. but such a statement is limited to ignorance of that very small point. You'd like to be insulted and so you try to spread the application of the term as widely as possible. Wondering if it's possible for you to stop these silly games, stick to the topic and stop trying to "make points?" There's a "game of words" being played here ... by you, as you've told us for the purpose of _"amus[ing]"_ yourself.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> That's why quality Ecollars have other signals that can be used. A couple of brands offer a vibration and several offer a tone, an audible sound. I don't believe that clickers, treats, or the like offer those do they?





tippykayak said:


> No, but I have a whistle.


I love the way that some beg the question! ROFL. A whistle is in your mouth and your dog is hundreds of yards away, in a high noise environment, with the wind against you. Your whistle is worthless. He won't hear the sound of it. Since the vibration is right against his skin, he'll feel it. Since the tone is right next to his neck, he'll hear it. 



tippykayak said:


> Can you explain how he knows it means "come" if he's already coming? Or if he knows that it means "come" when he isn't coming? This is an honest question, not some kind of trap. Despite my thick-skulled zealotry, I'd like to do you the courtesy of understanding your position.


How come you think it's OK to ask me questions while, at the same time you avoid answering mine?


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> You can't compare well-executed e-collar training with badly executed reward-based training.


I can't!? It's something that you folks do regarding the Ecollar with great regularity, but I'm not allowed to do it!? ROFL. 

In JUST your posts that I've responded to (I haven't even considered what you wrote before I came into this discussion) you've talked about how dogs trained with the Ecollar are _"afraid, stressed,"_ suffer from _"learned helplessness, anxiety and a host of other problems."_ Quite a few others have made similar, or worse, statements. 

At one point you wrote,


> Lastly, we see lots of dogs who have suffered the consequences of the misuse of aversive tools like the e-collar.


The TRUTH is that dogs that are trained with _"well−executed Ecollar training"_ have NONE of these things going on. Yet, somehow you, and others, rather consistently overlook this fact throughout these discussions. Instead you focus on _"badly executed [training with the Ecollar]."_ I've said this before but now that you've made this absurd statement it bears repeating.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> ... In fact the clicker requires far greater skill in timing than does the Ecollar if success is to be realized.





tippykayak said:


> This measurement is somewhat subjective


I don't think so. If you're three seconds behind your dog with a clicker you'll be marking the wrong behavior. He'll be on to some new behavior and THAT'S what you'll be marking. It's not *just *that it's ineffective, you'll be teaching the dog the *wrong thing. * 



tippykayak said:


> Mistimed rewards simply fail to accomplish the training goal. The dog's usually pretty happy to get a mistimed reward. He just doesn't learn how to replicate the scenario.


They do far more than _"simply fail to accomplish the training goal."_ They frustrate the owner who may get angry as a result. That's how some dogs end up being abused or taken to the shelter. 



tippykayak said:


> I honestly don't know anybody that trains obedience, field, or pet manners with your negative reinforcement method


Here's one such person. 




Here's another. 




Here's the second fella with another trainer. 




Here's another. 




BTW using an Ecollar as –R is not "MY" method. I also use +P, -P and +R as well. I use lots of other tools and methods too, as do most good trainers. 



tippykayak said:


> so you can claim whatever you like and I have no way of objectively assessing how much skill the owner would need or how much success you actually have. You can claim whatever you like, but we just have your word to go on.


Well there's also my record to look at. I was a police K−9 handler for 5 1/2 years. I was the in−house K−9 trainer for my police department for another 15 years. Now I do seminars, consulting and have a few private clients for OB, problem solving and general behavior. I work with the local SAR group and local PD K−9's quite a bit. I'm just back from my 54th seminar and have two more scheduled for this year. I've been to 40 cities and three foreign countries doing them. Some people might consider that to be some _"success"_ and some may not. Many Ecollar trainers have had people speak ill of them on forums on the Net. I have yet to have anyone who's seen my work do that. At least that I've ever found. Perhaps someone can find it? 



tippykayak said:


> You've never seen a dog suffering from e-collar abuse?


Of course I have. I've rehabbed many of them. 



tippykayak said:


> Maybe that's because people who destroy their dogs' confidence by misusing e-collars don't go to a trainer who relies entirely on the device for his program. Or maybe you're just not mentioning it.


Just did. But you'd like to pretend that the same thing never happens with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." In fact it does. I see that too. 



tippykayak said:


> How do you define "psychotic" dogs?


Again we have the situation where you think that you get to ask me questions while refusing to answer mine.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Please use the quote function more carefully. Your posts have things attributed to me that I did not write.


Apologies. If you'll point me to those posts (a PM would do well – as your post probably would have been better sent) I'll be happy to repair those deficiencies.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> I was wondering how long it would take to get to this nonsense. Any owner who tell you that they have trained without aversives is lying. It's simply impossible.





tippykayak said:


> I'm sure you think so


I DO think so. But it's also a fact. 



tippykayak said:


> or that you are using your expanded definition of "stress" to expand the definition of "aversive."


You make an assumption and then jump to a conclusion. Both are wrong. 



tippykayak said:


> I think we're all smart enough to see what you'd label "aversive." If my dog has any clue that there'll be a reward, he's stressed by the desire for that reward, and therefore it's "aversive."


It's not that he's stressed, it's that withholding a treat IS an aversive. The dog performs to escape the discomfort of not having it. Just as a dog being trained with an Ecollar will work to escape the discomfort of the stim. 



tippykayak said:


> When I say without "aversives," I mean without inflicting physical discomfort (and no, I don't accept that wanting a treat is "discomfort" in any meaningful sense) or fear on your dog.


HERE we have YOU making up some new definition for _"aversive."_ It's properly defined as something that the dog does not like and that he'll work to avoid. It's NOT just _"physical discomfort ... or fear."_ YOU are the one who is twisting the meaning of the word. 



tippykayak said:


> I mean relying on negative punishment and positive reinforcement rather than positive punishment and negative reinforcement.


Then I suggest that you say this, instead of pretending that it's possible to train without aversives. 



tippykayak said:


> But let's not argue against a straw man version of "kindler gentler" that nobody actually advocates, shall we?


YOU are the one who wrote,


> I haven't seen the behavior you describe in dogs whose owners reported that they had trained without aversives.


According to you SOMEONE advocates it.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Pointgold said:


> I'm in the market for a new ecollar, as our old Innotek Free Spirit is wanted by the Smithsonian.
> 
> With new Pointers ready to start, I'd love recommendations from those with newer (anything is newer than mine ) models.
> The Collar Clinic, btw, is right here in my home town...


I'm a fan of the Dogtra Ecollars. I like the large number of levels that they offer. That allows the user to dial in precisely the level of stim that the dog needs. I'm sure that you know this but make sure that you buy quality. The field of quality Ecollars has grown recently from just two to several. TT and Dogtra are still the top of the heap, but there are some new contenders that offer some interesting features. Whatever you do, stay away from collars sold at the "big box" pet stores.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> Perhaps if having a Golden was a criterion for being a member and posting here, those people would have a point. Since it's not, they don't. This is exactly the sort of tactic that some zealots use. They can't put together a cogent argument so they attack on another level.


I think they're just bummed by what your presence does to the forum and want a reason for you to go away, just as people on some other dog forums have apparently decided. I don't think it's a fair reason, and I believe that we need to hear as many voices as possible on debates, so I defend your right to post. I do wish you could post in a more collaborative way, but what I wish for and what I can make happen are two different things.



Lou Castle said:


> Yes, I'm sure that there are. It's easy to hate the one who does not support the status quo and who points out the errors of established members. It's not the first time it's happened and it won't be the last. I wear it as a badge of honor.


I'm sure you feel better rationalizing it that way, but it has a lot more to do with your approach than with your ideas. When multiple forums feel the need to ban you, it might be helpful to consider that perhaps at least a sliver of the blame lies in your approach. That's slightly more likely than the idea that everybody who objects to your behavior is simply petulant about the idea of being wrong.



Lou Castle said:


> It's obvious that you failed to take this into account. It's obvious that you only examined stimming the dog. I'd guess that either you didn't know about vibe and tone or that you didn't want to bring it up because you knew that it would completely destroy your argument on this one point.


No, it's because we had only been discussing the role of stimming for twenty pages of this thread. It's common knowledge that many e-collars carry those functions. Those functions just hadn't been part of the discussion, since the discussion was about what a shock can communicate to a dog, not about what other non-shock functions an e-collar might have. I know you revel in the opportunity to show that your opponent is missing a piece of information so you can attack his credibility, but in this particular case, that's not what's going on.



Lou Castle said:


> I love the way that some beg the question! ROFL. A whistle is in your mouth and your dog is hundreds of yards away, in a high noise environment, with the wind against you. Your whistle is worthless. He won't hear the sound of it. Since the vibration is right against his skin, he'll feel it. Since the tone is right next to his neck, he'll hear it.


I have absolutely no problem with putting a walkie talkie on a dog's neck and training him to obey commands that come from it. If that involves purchasing an e-collar and not using the shock function, I don't see a problem with it. There was no point of disagreement on it until you decided to bring it up and pretend that I was against it. The disagreement there is between you and your straw man version of me, so I'll leave it to the two of you to argue about.



Lou Castle said:


> How come you think it's OK to ask me questions while, at the same time you avoid answering mine?


Ask me a real question and I'll answer it. So many of your questions redefine the terms of the argument on the fly that they're essentially rhetorical and there's nothing really to do with them. Or, if it helps you to think of it this way, ask me simpler, more straightforward questions.



Lou Castle said:


> I can't!? It's something that you folks do regarding the Ecollar with great regularity, but I'm not allowed to do it!?


You can in the sense that I won't try to stop you. It just doesn't hold water as an argument. And if you want to have a conversation with me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to attribute arguments that "folks" make if I haven't made them. (Straw man) I've brought up extreme effects of bad e-collar training to express my concerns about less obvious side effects in pet training, not to compare it against effective versions of reward training. That's pretty different than when you fabricate a version of reward training that nobody is advocating for and then shoot it down as ineffective.



Lou Castle said:


> I don't think so. If you're three seconds behind your dog with a clicker you'll be marking the wrong behavior. He'll be on to some new behavior and THAT'S what you'll be marking. It's not *just *that it's ineffective, you'll be teaching the dog the *wrong thing. *


How does that not apply to a mistimed stim? A clicker and a stim both involve a thumb on the button, no? How is the clicker so much harder to time? I'm not particularly a clicker enthusiast, but you seem to be stretching credibility here.



Lou Castle said:


> They do far more than _"simply fail to accomplish the training goal."_ They frustrate the owner who may get angry as a result. That's how some dogs end up being abused or taken to the shelter.


That's a scenario that goes doubly fast for mistimed or miscalibrated punishment. Not only is the dog untrained, but now he's nervous and fearful, which can lead to bites.



Lou Castle said:


> Here's one such person.


There are lots of people on YouTube doing lots of stuff. My point was that I don't have personal experience with people who use _your_ particular version of e-collar training as outlined on your website. It doesn't seem to be popular among obedience, agility, or field people here in the northeast. So I can't comment (and haven't) on its particular side effects in my personal experience.



Lou Castle said:


> BTW using an Ecollar as –R is not "MY" method. I also use +P, -P and +R as well. I use lots of other tools and methods too, as do most good trainers.


I can't pretend to have made an exhaustive reading of your entire site, but the articles I did read seemed to rely on R- to teach and shape behaviors from the getgo. If that's inaccurate, I'm happy to be set straight.

I don't feel like shopping through your dozens of fragments about the stress issue, but I'll point out that any Psych 101 or Animal Behavior 101 textbook differentiates between R-/P+ and P-/R+ and their consequences. Adding a negative stimulus is dramatically different in an animal's mind than withholding a positive stimulus. The "stress" my dog feels when he has to give a sit before being allowed to run out the door is very different than the "stress" a dog feels when he's trying to escape an unpleasant feeling. I don't need to produce "a study" on this issue because it's been studied so many times and replicated so many times that it's part of the basic common knowledge of the field. So if you want a source, open literally any psych textbook. Asking for a study proving the difference between P+ and P- like asking for a study proving that humidity plays a role in rainfall.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Lou Castle said:


> I'm a fan of the Dogtra Ecollars. I like the large number of levels that they offer. That allows the user to dial in precisely the level of stim that the dog needs. I'm sure that you know this but make sure that you buy quality. The field of quality Ecollars has grown recently from just two to several. TT and Dogtra are still the top of the heap, but there are some new contenders that offer some interesting features. Whatever you do, stay away from collars sold at the "big box" pet stores.


Thanks. As I said, I'm fortunate in that the Collar Clinic is here in my home town.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> *I think they're just bummed by what your presence does to the forum and want a reason for you to go away,* just as people on some other dog forums have apparently decided. I don't think it's a fair reason, and I believe that we need to hear as many voices as possible on debates, so I defend your right to post. I do wish you could post in a more collaborative way, but what I wish for and what I can make happen are two different things.


I have only been a member here for just over a year now. I came to this forum already a seasoned ecollar user. I got* blasted* when I mentioned it for the first time on here. From you and many others who now jump on me the moment I post on a thread of this subject. You continue to challenge me about what can go wrong with the collar and nothing about what does go right. And the same few other members all they do is repeatedly over and over post the *same one sided studies* of the abuse of the ecollar. And ignoring that ANY kind of tool not used correctly will have a negative. I have come to find out there are MANY members here that use the ecollar but are afraid to post because they don't like conflict.
I just wish the people that post only the negatives would take time out and get *first hand education* on the ecollar. Just not be so closed minded, that's all
And on a side note, I have never heard of Lou Castle until this thread. But I'm happy to meet him and hope he stays here:wavey:


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

I was happily reading through this post and then I got to fourteen pages of Tippy and Lou playing language chess. Who won the argument anyways? I feel like I watched a movie to the very end and then missed the last important scene...


----------



## my4goldens (Jan 21, 2009)

My only comment on this whole thread is hasn't this horse been beat to death?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

my4goldens said:


> My only comment on this whole thread is hasn't this horse been beat to death?


No I think people need to see _another_ view for once.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Originally Posted by *tippykayak*  
_*I think they're just bummed by what your presence does to the forum and want a reason for you to go away,* just as people on some other dog forums have apparently decided. I don't think it's a fair reason, and I believe that we need to hear as many voices as possible on debates, so I defend your right to post. I do wish you could post in a more collaborative way, but what I wish for and what I can make happen are two different things._




Whether one advocates the use of ecollars or not, or any other issue, it is pretty presumptuous, and an unkind little dig, to post something like this.

And there are plenty of folks here who do not have Goldens. It was made clear long ago that they are all welcome.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I have only been a member here for just over a year now. I came to this forum already a seasoned ecollar user. I got* blasted* when I mentioned it for the first time on here. From you and many others who now jump on me the moment I post on a thread of this subject.


It feels like, from this end of things, that there are several posters who come to each e-collar thread and post pro-collar comments and sometimes personal comments.

I have never "blasted" you by any stretch of the imagination, though. 



Wyatt's mommy said:


> You continue to challenge me about what can go wrong with the collar and nothing about what does go right. And the same few other members all they do is repeatedly over and over post the *same one sided studies* of the abuse of the ecollar. And ignoring that ANY kind of tool not used correctly will have a negative. I have come to find out there are MANY members here that use the ecollar but are afraid to post because they don't like conflict.


All of that cuts both ways. There are several people who feel a pro-collar group gangs up on dissent.

And it really isn't fair to say that nobody's acknowledging what goes right. And people have been very clear that all kinds of tools can be abusive or ineffective. The question raised, and one I don't feel gets acknowledged, is about the relative risk of each kind of method and tool.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> I just wish the people that post only the negatives would take time out and get *first hand education* on the ecollar. Just not be so closed minded, that's all


I really don't think it's appropriate to accuse me of being closed minded. I know lots about the e-collar, and I read all of your posts (and Mr. Castle's) carefully. Disagreement doesn't mean I have a closed mind. And if by "firsthand education," you mean I have to shock a dog I'm training, that's not going to happen, and that's not the only way to get educated, as I've said many times.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Whether one advocates the use of ecollars or not, or any other issue, it is pretty presumptuous, and an unkind little dig, to post something like this.


Perhaps, but



Pointgold said:


> I'm direct. Always have been, always will be. Contrary to what some would like you to believe, I never intend to hurt or offend. I'd rather say what I mean than eloquently disguising insults and meaness...


Or



Pointgold said:


> I'm not apologizing for how another person chooses to view my posts. "Coming on too strong"? If that is what someone thinks, so be it. I am what I am. If I help even ONE person or ONE dog, I'm happy, because it is better than none.





Pointgold said:


> Whether one advocates the use of ecollars or not, or any other issue, it is pretty presumptuous, and an unkind little dig, to post something like this.


If Mr. Castle feels it was inappropriate or hurtful, I'll apologize to him. I don't actually agree with those posts of yours I quoted. I do think we owe other people apologies for hurting their feelings, regardless of our intents. 

I was paraphrasing the content of PMs that were much more...colorful...in expressing the concept that Lou was a negative force on the forum, so I felt like I was really toning it down, not so much taking a dig. My feeling is that I'd like people to be nicer but that he gets to air his views and that those views should be judged on their merits, not on whether Mr. Castle has a Golden Retriever.



Pointgold said:


> And there are plenty of folks here who do not have Goldens. It was made clear long ago that they are all welcome.


As I have said many times, in many threads, in response to the PMs about Lou, and, in fact, earlier in this thread.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> *And it really isn't fair to say that nobody's acknowledging what goes right. *And people have been very clear that all kinds of tools can be abusive or ineffective. The question raised, and one I don't feel gets acknowledged, is about the relative risk of each kind of method and tool.


It's a very fair question. 

I couldn't care less what type of training method/tools people chose. I am a "Pro" whatever humanely way works for you and your dog. I see the positives and negatives in all methods.

In regards to "hands on education" that will help stop the myth that ecollar training "shocks/electricutes".


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> Perhaps, but
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You chose to pull quotes that I made - me talking about what *I *have said. Me. Not me saying something about what others may or may not have said about not liking someone being here. Big difference. 
But, whatever, because I won't argue with you. I only addressed it because I saw what you wrote quote in another's. I'll go back to using ignore.

I generally stay out of the ecollar threads for this very reason.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I couldn't care less what type of training method/tools people chose. I am a "Pro" whatever humanely way works for you and your dog. I see the positives and negatives in all methods.


I don't think all methods are created equal.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> In regards to "hands on education" that will help stop the myth that ecollar training "shocks/electricutes".


You're right that saying "electrocute" is inaccurate, but nobody has used the term electrocute in this thread, except one poster who was writing in support of the tool back on page 3 or so. "Shock," however, is the common term for passing an electrical discharge through a body part. It's an accurate word, whether it appeals or not. "Stim" is a lot _less_ accurate, as it is not actually a word, but rather a euphemism common among e-collar users.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> You chose to pull quotes that I made - me talking about what *I *have said. Me. Not me saying something about what others may or may not have said about not liking someone being here. Big difference.


I don't see the difference that when you say something, it's being forthright and you're not responsible if somebody else thinks it's unkind, but when I say something (not even to you!), you feel you have the right to comment on how kind it is.



Pointgold said:


> But, whatever, because I won't argue with you. I only addressed it because I saw what you wrote quote in another's. I'll go back to using ignore.
> 
> I generally stay out of the ecollar threads for this very reason.


I left you _entirely_ alone until you saw fit to comment on the relative kindness of something I said. If you don't attack me, I'll have no reason to defend myself.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I don't think all methods are created equal.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right that saying "electrocute" is inaccurate, but nobody has used the term electrocute in this thread, except one poster who was writing in support of the tool back on page 3 or so. "Shock," however, is the common term for* passing an electrical discharge through a body part.* It's an accurate word, whether it appeals or not. "Stim" is a lot _less_ accurate, as it is not actually a word, but rather a euphemism common among e-collar users.


You didn't answer my fair question?

Your play with words doesn't amuse me nor does it change the fact that it is a myth when it comes to ecollar training. Thus the reason for "hands on training".
"Stim" is short for the word "stimulator"

What do people equate when they hear the word "shock"?


*shock*

verb (used with object) 
8. to strike or jar with intense surprise, horror, disgust, etc.: He enjoyed shocking people. 

9. to strike against violently. 

10. *to give an electric shock to.*

*That would be the myth I was talking about.*

*But now that we are done talking negative let's talk about the positives of a properly ecollar trained dog.*


----------



## honeysmum (Dec 4, 2007)

Oh my goodness I read a few posts but stopped when things all got a little silly to be honest, bickering like former best friends in the playground that have fallen out, I was really interested to read different peoples views on E collars and why people use them for recall etc as E collars are banned in the UK but unfortunately think this thread is not one others would like to participate in shame.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

honeysmum said:


> Oh my goodness I read a few posts but stopped when things all got a little silly to be honest, bickering like former best friends in the playground that have fallen out, I was really interested to read different peoples views on E collars and why people use them for recall etc as E collars are banned in the UK but unfortunately think this thread is not one others would like to participate in shame.


It is a shame. Because I would like people to know of the positives and not just "ecollar gone wild" stories.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> You didn't answer my fair question?


You didn't actually ask a question. You just said that nobody acknowledged what went right with e-collars. Lots of people have, in this thread and others.

Or was there another question?



Wyatt's mommy said:


> "Stim" is short for the word "stimulator"


I don't think saying you're "stimulating" a dog is particularly accurate. Look at "stimulate" and "stimulator" in the dictionary. They're very broad terms, not terribly germane to passing a small electric current across the skin. I'm fine if people want to use them, but "shock" is much more specific and literally accurate.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> That would be the myth I was talking about.


My dictionary (American Heritage) defines "electric shock" as "a sudden discharge of electricity through a part of the body." Seems accurate.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Nobody is standing in the way of positive testimonials about e-collars. Several have been made in this thread.

If you want me to tell one, I don't have any. I have respect for trainers who successfully take their dogs through high levels of competition, and sometimes that means they use e-collars, but that's the closest I get.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> You didn't actually ask a question. You just said that nobody acknowledged what went right with e-collars. Lots of people have, in this thread and others.
> 
> Or was there another question?
> 
> ...


I want to hear the positives that come with properly trained ecollar dogs from the people that only point out mis use. Have they done any research on that? Or have they only done research on mis use? There is that clearer for you?

I have used an ecollar for the past 11 years. I can assure you that it is only a stimulate. There is no electric current passing across the skin. And that is accurate. Thus again a hands on education will prove me right.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I personally believe that not all dogs can be trained the same way....I have never used an electronic collar( except for my invisible fence), but I have certainly seen dogs who have benefitted from its' use. I have seen it used to make sure a dog has a perfect recall with an older owner who can't keep up. Or a dog who is so over the top, it is used to get his attention. So far, it is not for me. I have the philosophy with my dogs that if they aren't happy working with me with my methods, than I am also not happy. But, I have seen a local lab breeder and hunt test person demonstrate to me how enthusiastic her trainees work with an ecollar. They were very up.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I want to hear the positives that come with properly trained ecollar dogs from the people that only point out mis use. Have they done any research on that? Or have they only done research on mis use? There is that clearer for you?


I just said that pros I respect have used e-collars to train dogs to very high levels of competition!

Now you tell me about a downside.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> I have used an ecollar for the past 11 years. I can assure you that it is only a stimulate. There is no electric current passing across the skin. And that is accurate. Thus again a hands on education will prove me right.


Stimulate isn't a noun, so I have no idea what you mean with that sentence. And if it doesn't pass electric current, how do you think it works? Why do you think it has two prongs? Honestly, it's a little galling to take lectures on "getting educated" from somebody who has literally no idea how the device works.

What device makers and users call a "stim" is short for "stimulation," which is the common word they use for the feeling of current passing between the two contact points, across the skin. That's what you feel. At low levels of current, that feels like a tingle, and at higher levels, it feels much more painful.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I just said that pros I respect have used e-collars to train dogs to very high levels of competition!
> 
> Now you tell me about a downside.
> 
> ...


I want to hear from the people that keep posting horrid reviews of the mis use.
The only downside I see is mis use. Which is a downside in any training tool.

Ok I'm done with your snarkiness. 

I invite *anyone* out there to take a class and then come back and post about your experience verses what you think happens by reading some of these "anti ecollars" posters. Seriously I would love to hear what you say after actually taking a class and using one. I know you will be totally "shocked" (no pun intended lol) that it is not what you thought.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Don't call me names to cover over the fact that you don't understand how the device works, which you made clear in the very same post that you called me uneducated in how the device works. Just admit that you didn't know and go educate yourself.


----------



## marsh mop (Mar 13, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> Don't call me names to cover over the fact that you don't understand how the device works, which you made clear in the very same post that you called me uneducated in how the device works. Just admit that you didn't know and go educate yourself.


I can't fix a transmission. However I do have a drivers liecense and haven't crashed yet.
Jim


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

marsh mop said:


> I can't fix a transmission. However I do have a drivers liecense and haven't crashed yet.
> Jim


I'd hope, however, that you'd at least be sure to understand the basics of how one works before you'd consider lecturing people on learning how to drive stick.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Don't call me names to cover over the fact that you don't understand how the device works, which you made clear in the very same post that you called me uneducated in how the device works. Just admit that you didn't know and go educate yourself.


I think I am fully aware how a tool I have been using for 11 years works. Your posts are filled with snarkiness for everyone to see. I don't need to call you names.

Now I am understanding why ecollar users don't even make a point to post on this board. However that will never stop me from inviting people who are on the fence to a training class just to prove that there is no harm or adverse effects contrary to what some want them to believe.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I'd hope, however, that you'd at least be sure to understand the basics of how one works before you lecture people on learning how to drive stick.


Come out to So Cal and I will show you how it works.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I think I am fully aware how a tool I have been using for 11 years works. Your posts are filled with snarkiness for everyone to see. I don't need to call you names.
> 
> Now I am understanding why ecollar users don't even make a point to post on this board. However that will never stop me from inviting people who are on the fence to a training class just to prove that there is no harm or adverse effects contrary to what some want them to believe.


You made false claims, based on your experience, about how the device works. You lectured me about how I was wrong and told me repeatedly to "get educated." Then, it turns out, you don't actually know what you're talking about. Pointing that out might be snarky, but it's also true.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Come out to So Cal and I will show you how it works.


I know how my manual transmission works (though I don't have the skills to repair it), but I'm live-and-let-live when it comes to the auto vs. manual tranny debate. 

And honestly, despite all the negativity in our back and forth, I bet you're a blast to hang out with on a drive through So Cal with the dogs in the back.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> You made false claims, based on your experience, about how the device works. You lectured me about how I was wrong and told me repeatedly to "get educated." Then, it turns out, you don't actually know what you're talking about. Pointing that out might be snarky, but it's also true.


I know how it works that is why I use it. If you would like to learn you can private message me.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I know how my manual transmission works (though I don't have the skills to repair it), but I'm live-and-let-live when it comes to the auto vs. manual tranny debate.
> 
> And honestly, despite all the negativity in our back and forth, I bet you're a blast to hang out with on a drive through So Cal with the dogs in the back.


I would have a beer with you


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I would have a beer with you


I'd buy the first round. I'm funnier and less snarky-sounding in person.


----------



## marsh mop (Mar 13, 2009)

I am there!


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I use an ecollar in some instances and I don't see a problem with the term shock. I don't think there's a need to get people who are against them to "see the light.". If people don't like a training method I use, that's cool, there's methods other people use that I don't like. I will always point out inconsistencies I see in a conversation about a training method I have used and share my own personal anecdotes and experiences, but it's just food for thought so all angles can be looked at.

The only thing that I admit will get me angry (and this isn't pointed at a particular person or comment on this thread, just in conversations in general) is someone who says if you do <fill in the blank with whatever method or tool is being discussed> then you are abusive, you do not love your dog, you are just too lazy to train another way, or there is no way you can have a proper relationship with your dog. Such as the obedience person who got on a dog training group and stated that anyone who used a prong collar was a dog abuser and did not deserve their respect, and it showed in their relationship with their dog that they didn't use one of those because their dog still trusted and loved them and were happy to work for them, unlike all of "our" dogs. Then again those types of people are almost humorous in their assumptions, as they have never witnessed me training my dog, the relationship I have with my dog, or the joy my dog as working with me.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

marsh mop said:


> I am there!


Sounds good. My experience with field folks (e-collar and non-e-collar alike) is that I have a blast with them in real life.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I feel like we're all taking a cue from our dogs right now.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Loisiana said:


> I use an ecollar in some instances and I don't see a problem with the term shock. I don't think there's a need to get people who are against them to "see the light.". If people don't like a training method I use, that's cool, there's methods other people use that I don't like. I will always point out inconsistencies I see in a conversation about a training method I have used and share my own personal anecdotes and experiences, but it's just food for thought so all angles can be looked at.
> 
> The only thing that I admit will get me angry (and this isn't pointed at a particular person or comment on this thread, just in conversations in general) is someone who says if you do <fill in the blank with whatever method or tool is being discussed> then you are abusive, you do not love your dog, you are just too lazy to train another way, or there is no way you can have a proper relationship with your dog. Such as the obedience person who got on a dog training group and stated that anyone who used a prong collar was a dog abuser and did not deserve their respect, and it showed in their relationship with their dog that they didn't use one of those because their dog still trusted and loved them and were happy to work for them, unlike all of "our" dogs. Then again those types of people are almost humorous in their assumptions, as they have never witnessed me training my dog, the relationship I have with my dog, or the joy my dog as working with me.


I agree! And it's not that I want them to see the light, I do however want all the assumptions/rumors/myths (one being what you mentioned in your second paragraph) and on how they harm and destroy a dog by sending electrical currents across their skin if used correctly. I don't like the word "shock" because it gives people the wrong horrid impression. Which in actuality is not.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I feel like we're all taking a cue from our dogs right now.


Well I am being called to the pool by Wyatt as we speak......the weather is warm here, time to grab a tennis ball. Have a great nite


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

marsh mop said:


> I can't fix a transmission. However I do have a drivers liecense and haven't crashed yet.
> Jim


LOL! I just saw this, how perfect


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Well I am being called to the pool by Wyatt as we speak......the weather is warm here, time to grab a tennis ball. Have a great nite


You too! I'm EXHAUSTED. I was super sick earlier in the week and haven't gotten back on even footing. Honestly, it's probably making my posts more curt than they'd otherwise be. So I'm more inclined for dog snuggling than fetching at this point in the evening (also, y'know, different time zone).


----------



## akgolden (Jun 18, 2011)

My head hurts..


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> I'm a fan of the Dogtra Ecollars.


That's the collar our local Invisible Leash trainer uses and recommends. I guess he is a genius, because he can take any dog and return it 100 percent trained in 7 days of shock boot camp! I just fed my dogs, and promised them they would not have to go to camp with Uncle Invisible Leash. I will tell him he has many fans on this thread. I am sure he will be cheered by how many see the bright light of training through technilogical gadgets and heavy equipment.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

The methods someone selects with which to train a dog speaks to how they imagine that relationship- a subordinant, a partner, a punching bag, a sentient being with inherent rights, a follower, breeding stock, a subject for bragging rights, a leader , a child substitute, personal property, a friend, all of the above or none of the above. . . We make the world we see.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> The methods someone selects with which to train a dog speaks to how they imagine that relationship- a subordinant, a partner, a punching bag, a sentient being with inherent rights, a follower, breeding stock, a subject for bragging rights, a leader , a child substitute, personal property, a friend, all of the above or none of the above. . . We make the world we see.


And based on your view of ecollars, you seem to be saying that those who use them consider their dogs subordinants. punching bags, breeding stock, a subject for bragging rights (which you do your share of and I think that is cool...) personal property ... in other words, the negatives.
And only those who don't use them have dogs that are partners, friends, or anything lovely and positive?

This is grossyly unfair.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> That's the collar our local Invisible Leash trainer uses and recommends. I guess he is a genius, because he can take any dog and return it 100 percent trained in 7 days of shock boot camp! I just fed my dogs, and promised them they would not have to go to camp with Uncle Invisible Leash. I will tell him he has many fans on this thread. I am sure he will be cheered by how many see the bright light of trainin g through technilogical gadgets and heavy equipment.


 
My husband used to drive a white Ford Bronco. Doesn't mean he killed anyone.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> The methods someone selects with which to train a dog speaks to how they imagine that relationship- a subordinant, a partner, a punching bag, a sentient being with inherent rights, a follower, breeding stock, a subject for bragging rights, a leader , a child substitute, personal property, a friend, all of the above or none of the above. . . We make the world we see.


Wow. So much for not judging a book by its cover...

My dog slipped whistle sit the other day and I nicked her for it. Didn't stop her from joyously retrieving the bumper once she found it. Didn't stop her from wanting to lean against me or play with me afterward. Didn't stop her from wagging her tail happily when she did hit the whistle sit and I praised her. Didn't stop her from jumping and barking happily the next day I pulled it out to take her training...or the day after that...or the day after that. I guess no one told her that because I have used an ecollar on her that she should like me less, be more stressed and be less joyful in her work. Hmmm.

Oh, but she is slipping less whistle sits now and its cleaning up her blind work. Imagine that.

PG I know this is a golden retriever forum, but I sure would be interested in the work you do with the pointers. Love seeing dogs be unleashed to do what they were bred for!


----------



## Retrieverlover (Feb 8, 2010)

I used to be scared of E-collars but used right they are an amazing tool!


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I think they're just bummed by what your presence does to the forum and want a reason for you to go away


Is someone holding a gun to the heads of these people and forcing them to read my posts? My presence does NOTHING to the forum. I believe that this forum has an "ignore" feature and if people don't have the will power NOT to read my posts, perhaps taking advantage of that feature will help them. 



tippykayak said:


> just as people on some other dog forums have apparently decided.


Yep there are lots of people who have their minds made up about Ecollars and don't want to be confused by the facts. 



tippykayak said:


> I don't think it's a fair reason, and I believe that we need to hear as many voices as possible on debates, so I defend your right to post.


That's very big of you. I have a forum that is devoted mainly to the discussion of Ecollars. But we also allow posts and discussion on the so−called "kinder gentler methods." We discuss clickers, treats, praise, toys and all sorts of methods and tools. Some people don't want to hear about Ecollars and I always wonder why they don't simply refrain from reading threads that contain those discussions. 

I have noticed that threads that discuss them have some of the highest readership numbers on these forums. In this case, this thread is on page three of the most−read topics in this section of the forum and there are hundreds of such pages! And it's only been going for about 5-6 weeks. Many of the other threads that have higher readership stats have been going for years and are never−ending. So while some people whine about my style of writing and the topic, _ SOMEONE _ is reading the posts. 



tippykayak said:


> I do wish you could post in a more collaborative way, but what I wish for and what I can make happen are two different things.


I'm sorry but I see no way that this can happen. We're on opposite sides of the question and you will not hear anything that's being said. I use your methods, but you don't use mine. I'm open minded, while you claim that you are, but I don't see it. 

You have written


> You can't compare well-executed e-collar training with badly executed reward-based training.


But this is EXACTLY what you, and quite a few others, do repeatedly (only the other way round). You SAY that you want the best for the dogs, but sometimes that's an Ecollar. You won't _"collaborate"_ but you say that you wish that I would. I think that what you really mean is that you wish that I'd agree with you and then shut up. lol



tippykayak said:


> I'm sure you feel better rationalizing it that way, but it has a lot more to do with your approach than with your ideas.


I'll disagree. I've been nicey−nice many times on many forums when I first get there. After being extremely careful not to insult, not to be "in-anyone's-face" and to otherwise "walk on eggshells," the same insults, the same comments about my lack of skill as a dog trainer, the same "lazy trainer," the same "ignorant, abusive, etc.," comments fly at me. It has nothing to do with the approach and everything to do with the message. 



tippykayak said:


> When multiple forums feel the need to ban you, it might be helpful to consider that perhaps at least a sliver of the blame lies in your approach.


Some forums don't allow discussion in favor of Ecollars at all, and so I've been banned from a couple of them. That wasn't in their rules and so I joined, only to be banned after a few posts. Some forums are owned by people who don't like me personally. Every time I've been banned from one of them, it's because I've embarrassed them in discussions elsewhere, because they challenged me, and I showed the forum that they were wrong and that I was right. Once I was banned because I used the phrase "so−called 'kinder gentler methods.' " The owner thought it was insulting and so I added the phrase "(and that is not meant as a dig)" but it wasn't good enough for her. Once I was banned from an Email list because one of the rules said that profanity would not tolerated, but the owner used extremely harsh profanity anytime he disagreed with someone, in violation of his own rules. When I pointed out this "Do as I say, not as I do" contradiction, he took it personally and banned me. MOST OFTEN I've been banned because one of the moderators or the owner took me on, on this topic. They were about the myths, the lies, the misconceptions that abound about Ecollars. They could not stand to be corrected in front of "their followers" and so I had to go. I regard most of these banning as "badges of honor" as I mentioned earlier. 



tippykayak said:


> That's slightly more likely than the idea that everybody who objects to your behavior is simply petulant about the idea of being wrong.


Sorry but you're wrong. While some object to my style I've never been banned for that. It's a case of "killing the messenger." 



tippykayak said:


> It's common knowledge that many e-collars carry those functions.


I'll disagree. Daily I come across dozens of people who don't know this. It's hardly _"common knowledge."_ Heck, many people don't even know that Ecollars exist! 



tippykayak said:


> Those functions just hadn't been part of the discussion, since the discussion was about what a shock can communicate to a dog, not about what other non-shock functions an e-collar might have. I know you revel in the opportunity to show that your opponent is missing a piece of information so you can attack his credibility, but in this particular case, that's not what's going on.


I think that it is. You may intellectually know about these other functions, but in this segment of the discussion, I think that you forgot about them. You were so eager to "score points" that it didn't occur to you. 

Earlier I wrote,


> ... A whistle is in your mouth and your dog is hundreds of yards away, in a high noise environment, with the wind against you. Your whistle is worthless. He won't hear the sound of it. Since the vibration is right against his skin, he'll feel it. Since the tone is right next to his neck, he'll hear it.





tippykayak said:


> I have absolutely no problem with putting a walkie talkie on a dog's neck and training him to obey commands that come from it.


Uh, no one is talking about any such thing. 



tippykayak said:


> If that involves purchasing an e-collar and not using the shock function, I don't see a problem with it.


There are Ecollars made that have only a vibration function. But I'm sure that this too is _"common knowledge."_ lol

Earlier I wrote,


> How come you think it's OK to ask me questions while, at the same time you avoid answering mine?





tippykayak said:


> Ask me a real question and I'll answer it.


I have many times. 



tippykayak said:


> So many of your questions redefine the terms of the argument on the fly that they're essentially rhetorical and there's nothing really to do with them.


Even if that was true (it's not, and I'll show that it's not in a moment) you don't have exclusive rights to _"define the terms of the argument."_ I'll take it anywhere that I find useful, just as does everyone else. You just don't like it when I do so and prove you to be wrong. 

Here are three questions that I've asked you that ARE NOT as you've just described. 

1. When you claimed that _ "The 'stress' the aversively trained dogs experience is pretty different from the 'stress' the rewarded dogs experience. "_ I asked you how it was "different" You didn't answer. 
2.	When you claimed that _"If you honestly think that the 'stress' of wanting something good is the same as the 'stress' of avoiding something bad, then that's what you think. I think both the science of behavioral psychology and people's personal experiences will back me up on this one."_ I asked you to provide "some of those studies from the _'science of behavioral psychology.'_ " You did not answer. 
3.	When you claimed that I was _"insulting other people's intelligence and being exceedingly rude"_ I asked you to point out some of these insults and rudeness. You did not respond. 

Those are just a few that have occurred in this discussion. There are many more in previous discussions. It's a habit with you. When you find yourself painted into a corner by your own words and positions, you simply ignore questions that show it! 



tippykayak said:


> Or, if it helps you to think of it this way, ask me simpler, more straightforward questions.


I think I've shown that these are pretty _"simple ... straightforward questions/"_ 

Earlier you wrote,


> You can't compare well-executed e-collar training with badly executed reward-based training.


And I responded,


> I can't!? It's something that you folks do regarding the Ecollar with great regularity, but I'm not allowed to do it!? ROFL.





tippykayak said:


> You can in the sense that I won't try to stop you. It just doesn't hold water as an argument.


Yet, you folks do the EXACT SAME THING over and over and think that it DOES hold water. ROFLMAO



tippykayak said:


> And if you want to have a conversation with me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to attribute arguments that "folks" make if I haven't made them.


Sure it does. There's more than just you and I in this discussion. But the fact is that YOU HAVE MADE THEM. I showed it once before but apparently you missed it. In JUST your posts that I've responded to in this discussion you've talked about how dogs trained with the Ecollar are _"afraid, stressed,"_ suffer from _"learned helplessness, anxiety and a host of other problems."_ So it's NOT a straw man argument, YOU HAVE MADE THESE STATEMENTS! 

Earlier I wrote,


> If you're three seconds behind your dog with a clicker you'll be marking the wrong behavior. He'll be on to some new behavior and THAT'S what you'll be marking. It's not *just *that it's ineffective, you'll be teaching the dog the *wrong thing. *





tippykayak said:


> How does that not apply to a mistimed stim? A clicker and a stim both involve a thumb on the button, no? How is the clicker so much harder to time? I'm not particularly a clicker enthusiast, but you seem to be stretching credibility here.


Punishment works if it occurs 2-3 seconds after an undesired behavior. Clicker advocates tells us that it's best if we use a clicker because it marks "The precise moment in time" that the dog is correct. Some will say that using a verbal marker such as "yes" throws off the timing because it's not as precise as the clicker. I once attended a seminar on clicker training where the instructor said that even a clicker was imprecise because each press had TWO clicks to it and only one of them could be marking "the precise moment in time." he advocated using a "click" of the tongue because that had only "one click." 

If someone is 2 seconds behind "the precise moment in time" that the dog is correct, he'll be marking whatever behavior has come after the one that should be reinforced, the one that occurred at "the precise moment in time." And so instead of marking the correct behavior, he'll be marking the behavior that came just after it. 

Rather than _"stretching credibility"_ I'm using the language and the fact of why clicker training works, when it works, that is. It requires much more precision than my method of using the Ecollar. My methods have owners doing (for example) two things at once. In teaching the recall the trainer presses the button at the exact moment that he pulls on the leash. That's easy for just about anyone to do. 



tippykayak said:


> That's a scenario that goes doubly fast for mistimed or miscalibrated punishment. Not only is the dog untrained, but now he's nervous and fearful, which can lead to bites.


And here we have you AGAIN doing what you said I could not do. You're comparing poorly executed Ecollar training to well executed so−called "kinder gentler methods" Yessiree, no straw man here. ROFL. 



tippykayak said:


> My point was that I don't have personal experience with people who use _your_ particular version of e-collar training as outlined on your website.


If you base your comments, as you've done a couple of time, on your _"personal experience."_ you'll be quite limited. I've never seen the other side of the moon, but I'll assume that it exists. 



tippykayak said:


> It doesn't seem to be popular among obedience, agility, or field people here in the northeast. So I can't comment (and haven't) on its particular side effects in my personal experience.


My methods were developed primarily for pet owners. While some of it has application with OB, agility or field trainers, they have their own methods that have worked for ages. 



tippykayak said:


> I can't pretend to have made an exhaustive reading of your entire site, but the articles I did read seemed to rely on R- to teach and shape behaviors from the getgo. If that's inaccurate, I'm happy to be set straight.


I'll set you straight then. this is just basic OC (operant conditioning) when the button of an Ecollar is pressed discomfort is applied to the dog. If he'll work to make it stop, it's +P. when the button is released and the discomfort is removed, that's –R. Throw in treats, praise, toys, petting, etc. and you have +R. Using treat to lure a dog into (for example) a heel position and then withholding it, is –R. ALL four phases of OC are in use in my use of the Ecollar.. Training is best when it's balanced between reinforcement and punishment. Training that uses only the reinforcement side (actually that's impossible – but let's pretend for a moment that it can be done) is not as effective. 

I usually don't like to anthropomorphize but imagine the side effects of trying to teach someone to drive using only reinforcement and extinction (Ignoring undesired behavior in the hopes that it will stop). Just ignore all those silly collisions with parked cars and they'll stop, right? 



tippykayak said:


> I don't feel like shopping through your dozens of fragments about the stress issue, but I'll point out that any Psych 101 or Animal Behavior 101 textbook differentiates between R-/P+ and P-/R+ and their consequences.


Here's another question that you'll probably pretend wasn't asked. Please show us some of those textbook statements complete with links so that we can verify them. 



tippykayak said:


> Adding a negative stimulus is dramatically different in an animal's mind than withholding a positive stimulus.


My my my. One moment you try to be very scientific with comments about _"Psych 101 or Animal Behavior 101 textbooks"_ and the very next moment you make this statement that is so full of contradictions that it's difficult to know where to correct it. There is no such thing as _"adding a negative stimulus."_ In the language of OC "adding" means to introduce something into the situation. There is no such thing as a _"negative stimulus."_ Negative in the language of OC means to remove something from the situation. By _"negative stimulus"_ I'd guess that you mean an aversive, something the dog does not like and will work to avoid. But the sentence is so twisted that it makes no sense. 



tippykayak said:


> The "stress" my dog feels when he has to give a sit before being allowed to run out the door is very different than the "stress" a dog feels when he's trying to escape an unpleasant feeling.


Please tell us how you know exactly what the dog feels? Please tell us how you know exactly what is in his mind? Please tell us how you know that he thinks that "the stress" is different. What you might say if you wanted to be accurate is that YOU THINK that it's different. But, in reality, that's as far as you can go. 



tippykayak said:


> I don't need to produce "a study" on this issue because it's been studied so many times and replicated so many times that it's part of the basic common knowledge of the field.


I'll disagree. Please show us a study that supports this comment. If, as you say, it's been _"replicated so many times"_ it should be easy to find. Stress is stress to a dog because he lives in the moment. It's an uncomfortable feeling that raises his heart rate, raises his blood pressure and often produces cortisol. Making a dog sit before he goes through a door often brings whining, breaking of stays, high states of nervousness and excitement and sometimes biting. Those are obvious signs of stress. Some may train those behaviors away, but all they've done is to mask the visible signs of the stress. 



tippykayak said:


> So if you want a source, open literally any psych textbook. Asking for a study proving the difference between P+ and P- like asking for a study proving that humidity plays a role in rainfall.


A clever evasion, but an evasion nonetheless. Post one here, that you can supply a link to, so that we can verify that you're citing accurately, and let's discuss it.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> It feels like, from this end of things, that there are several posters who come to each e-collar thread and post pro-collar comments and sometimes personal comments.


Hmm. Odd, because it feels like, from this end of things, that there are several posters who come to each e-collar thread and post ANTI-collar comments and sometimes personal comments. 



tippykayak said:


> There are several people who feel a pro-collar group gangs up on dissent.


I don't think that there are enough of us to be called a _"group."_ There are several of us who, as individuals, reply to the attacks from the antis.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> "Shock," however, is the common term for passing an electrical discharge through a body part. It's an accurate word, whether it appeals or not. "Stim" is a lot less accurate, as it is not actually a word, but rather a euphemism common among e-collar users.


I don't think that it's an accurate term for today's collars. For those of 10-15 years ago it may have been accurate. Today, not so much. Universally when I have people feel the stim they describe it as a "buzz, a tingle or a tap." Children giggle. NOT ONE of the thousands who have felt a stim describe it as a shock. It's an emotional term that many antis use in the hopes of scaring people away from Ecollars.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

honeysmum said:


> I was really interested to read different peoples views on E collars and why people use them for recall etc as E collars are banned in the UK but unfortunately think this thread is not one others would like to participate in shame.


Ecollars are not banned in the UK. They are banned in Wales, a very small section of the UK.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> That's the collar our local Invisible Leash trainer uses and recommends.
> I will tell him he has many fans on this thread. I am sure he will be cheered by how many see the bright light of training through technilogical gadgets and heavy equipment.


Since no one knows who you're talking about it would be inappropriate to tell him he has _"many fans on this thread."_ 



Ljilly28 said:


> The methods someone selects with which to train a dog speaks to how they imagine that relationship- a subordinant, a partner, a punching bag, a sentient being with inherent rights, a follower, breeding stock, a subject for bragging rights, a leader , a child substitute, personal property, a friend, all of the above or none of the above. . . We make the world we see.


Indeed we do. I love dogs and want them to be trained as humanely as possible. I also don't want them to run into the street and be hit by a car. I also don't want their human owners to get frustrated with results that, even when properly applied take an inordinate amount of time to get reliable results, if they even can, and instead take them to the shelter, so I use an Ecollar.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Pointgold said:


> And based on your view of ecollars, you seem to be saying that those who use them consider their dogs subordinants. punching bags, breeding stock, a subject for bragging rights (which you do your share of and I think that is cool...) personal property ... in other words, the negatives.
> 
> And only those who don't use them have dogs that are partners, friends, or anything lovely and positive?
> 
> This is grossyly unfair.


Of course it is. It's what some of these folks do! But notice how quickly Tippykayak was to point out the rhetorical fallacies in the argument. Oh wait ... that never happened. Can you say "double standard." 

There's an old adage among lawyers ... "If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts. If the law is on your side, bang on the law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, bang on the table." Ljilly28 just "banged on the table."


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> I don't think that it's an accurate term for today's collars. For those of 10-15 years ago it may have been accurate. Today, not so much. Universally when I have people feel the stim they describe it as a "buzz, a tingle or a tap." Children giggle. NOT ONE of the thousands who have felt a stim describe it as a shock. It's an emotional term that many antis use in the hopes of scaring people away from Ecollars.


I think people should put them on their own necks at the levels used for the dogs and decide for themselves either way. Nonetheless, "shock" is technically accurate according to the definition of the word and the function of the device, regardless of whether or not you think that it captures the feeling.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> Of course it is. It's what some of these folks do! But notice how quickly Tippykayak was to point out the rhetorical fallacies in the argument. Oh wait ... that never happened. Can you say "double standard."


I didn't point out logical fallacies in LJilly's argument because she make any. SHe didn't mention e-collars in the post in question. She didn't say people who use e-collars are abusers. She said that our choice of tools reflects our understanding of our relationships with our dogs. I think that's true. It was Pointgold's post that ASSUMED she meant the bad relationships went with the e-collar and the good relationships mentioned went with other methods.



Lou Castle said:


> There's an old adage among lawyers ... "If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts. If the law is on your side, bang on the law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, bang on the table." Ljilly28 just "banged on the table."


Ad hominem.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

*at·tack*

   /əˈtæk/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[uh-tak] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA 
verb (used with object) 1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands. 
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy. 
3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly. 
4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement. 
5. to try to destroy, especially with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation. 
6. to set about (a task) or go to work on (a thing) vigorously: to attack housecleaning; to attack the hamburger hungrily. 
7. (of disease, destructive agencies, etc.) to begin to affect. 


verb (used without object) 
8. to make an attack; begin hostilities. 



Considering the below statement an "attack" is a stretch . It is apparently just fine for some people to chastise the tone or content of posts, or to make an "unfavorable criticism", or just to suggest being kinder, etc etc. Never would that be considered an "attack". 


_Whether one advocates the use of ecollars or not, or any other issue, it is pretty presumptuous, and an unkind little dig, to post something like this.

And there are plenty of folks here who do not have Goldens. It was made clear long ago that they are all welcome_. 

I have not "attacked" anyone.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Lou Castle said:


> I don't think that it's an accurate term for today's collars. For those of 10-15 years ago it may have been accurate. Today, not so much. Universally when I have people feel the stim they describe it as a "buzz, a tingle or a tap." Children giggle. NOT ONE of the thousands who have felt a stim describe it as a shock. It's an emotional term that many antis use in the hopes of scaring people away from Ecollars.


Thank you! And they will continue to try to make people believe that they are being shocked by a live hot wire which can harm and possibly kill instead of the actual truth.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> The methods someone selects with which to train a dog speaks to how they imagine that relationship- a subordinant, *a partner,* a punching bag, a sentient being with inherent rights, a follower, breeding stock, a subject for bragging rights, a leader , a child substitute, personal property, a friend, all of the above or none of the above. . . We make the world we see.


Correct and I acheived a partner for life by different methods which also included an ecollar.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> My presence does NOTHING to the forum.


I do disagree with that. But I support your right to post your views. 



Lou Castle said:


> I'm sorry but I see no way that this can happen. We're on opposite sides of the question and you will not hear anything that's being said. I use your methods, but you don't use mine. I'm open minded, while you claim that you are, but I don't see it.


You don't use my methods. Adding a clicker or a cookie to training that fundamentally relies on using negative reinforcement to shape behavior is not "using my methods," any more than it would be "using your methods" if I added an e-collar and shocked 2-3 seconds after an undesired behavior, but did the rest of my regime the same way.



Lou Castle said:


> But this is EXACTLY what you, and quite a few others, do repeatedly (only the other way round). You SAY that you want the best for the dogs, but sometimes that's an Ecollar. You won't _"collaborate"_ but you say that you wish that I would. I think that what you really mean is that you wish that I'd agree with you and then shut up. lol


I don't wish you'd shut up. If I wanted that, I'd stop replying to you. You really need to stop making assumptions about my intelligence or my intentions. If I haven't said it, don't assume I think it. You are woefully incompetent at predicting my intentions. Wanting what's best for dogs does not mean conceding all training equipment is created equal or carries exactly the same levels of risk.



Lou Castle said:


> It has nothing to do with the approach and everything to do with the message.


I'm sure you think so, but we have lots of people who use and advocate for e-collars on this forum that get a much, much better reception than you do.



Lou Castle said:


> I regard most of these banning as "badges of honor" as I mentioned earlier.


I know you do, but I wish you could see that you might have some iota of responsibility in such a long, sad history of personal conflicts.



Lou Castle said:


> You may intellectually know about these other functions, but in this segment of the discussion, I think that you forgot about them. You were so eager to "score points" that it didn't occur to you.


It's amazing how confident you are in judging other people's thought and intentions. I said quite clearly I hadn't forgotten but simply that it hadn't been part of the conversation (and that second part is demonstrably true), so are you willing to call me a liar openly rather than implying it?



Lou Castle said:


> Uh, no one is talking about any such thing.


We were talking about using sound to communicate with dogs. Could you really not figure it out that I meant that sound-only devices were fine?



Lou Castle said:


> Even if that was true (it's not, and I'll show that it's not in a moment) you don't have exclusive rights to _"define the terms of the argument."_ I'll take it anywhere that I find useful, just as does everyone else. You just don't like it when I do so and prove you to be wrong.


It's not about taking an argument in a new direction. It's taking the words the way I've used them and then changing the meaning when you use them, and then pretending you've refuted a point.



Lou Castle said:


> Here are three questions that I've asked you that ARE NOT as you've just described.
> 
> 1. When you claimed that _ "The 'stress' the aversively trained dogs experience is pretty different from the 'stress' the rewarded dogs experience. "_ I asked you how it was "different" You didn't answer.


I did answer it, but not in detail. I didn't think I had to, since it's such a basic part of the field. The stress equivalency you've cooked up isn't part of the literature. It's a tortured equivalency you and some other folks buy into in order to justify your methods. The onus really is on you to prove it, since it's _not_ an accepted theory in the field. But here goes anyway. 

When you use a negative stimulus, you teach the animal to avoid it, and you shape behavior with that fundamental principle. In many of the techniques you advocate on your website, the animal learns to turn off the stimulus by executing the behavior you want (R-). You can also use the shock to pair it with a behavior you don't want the animal to do (P+). In both situations, the animal learns to avoid something unpleasant. The "stress" involved is the desire to avoid or escape the shock. There can be stress both in anticipating a shock and in receiving it, and in behavioral language, the stress creates an attempt of escape or avoidance.

When you reward, the dog might feel a sort of tension in anticipating a reward, but since he doesn't engage in escape or avoidance behavior in regards to that tension, he's not experiencing the same kind of stress. He works primarily to receive the pleasure caused by the reward, not to escape the lack of pleasure.

You can try to blur that distinction by causing the cessation of discomfort a sort of "pleasure" and by pointing at the pre-reward tension as a sort of "stress," but that's really doing a disservice to the basic animal psychology involved. That's using semantic terms to blur a very real distinction. R+ works because the dog learns how to make pleasure happen. R- works because the dog learns to avoid something unpleasant. Both cause tension in the sense that they cause the animal to desire to change his behavior, but one causes fear/avoidance tension and one causes pleasure/pursuit tension.

Did you want a neurobiological answer? You'll need to do your own homework on that. I don't have avoidance neurochemical material at hand, and I'm not spending my afternoon on research in order to develop a chemical proof for a semantic question.



Lou Castle said:


> 2.	When you claimed that _"If you honestly think that the 'stress' of wanting something good is the same as the 'stress' of avoiding something bad, then that's what you think. I think both the science of behavioral psychology and people's personal experiences will back me up on this one."_ I asked you to provide "some of those studies from the _'science of behavioral psychology.'_ " You did not answer.


I did answer. You just didn't like the answer. But I'll answer again. You wouldn't go to "some studies" for the difference between avoidance and pleasure. You'd go to basic books on behavior and neurochemistry. You could do Myers or Schacter (psych texts). You could also try _Behavioral Endocrinology_ if you're interested in the chemical side. From there, you'd have studies cited you could continue to read if you were so inclined.

If you want to know what's covered in basic freshman psych, you can take Yale Psych 110 on iTunes U. I believe some of these topics are still covered, even though Salovey's not teaching it anymore.



Lou Castle said:


> 3.	When you claimed that I was _"insulting other people's intelligence and being exceedingly rude"_ I asked you to point out some of these insults and rudeness. You did not respond.


I marked multiple instances in blue in which you insulted my intelligence (which is exceedingly rude). Also, any time you say that somebody's comment makes you "LOL" or any variation thereon, that's rude too.



Lou Castle said:


> Those are just a few that have occurred in this discussion. There are many more in previous discussions. It's a habit with you. When you find yourself painted into a corner by your own words and positions, you simply ignore questions that show it!


Any other straightforward questions you have, please ask, and I'll give the best answers I can. I reserve the right to ignore rhetorical questions or anything that involves "LOL," sarcasm, or other silliness.



Lou Castle said:


> Sure it does. There's more than just you and I in this discussion. But the fact is that YOU HAVE MADE THEM. I showed it once before but apparently you missed it. In JUST your posts that I've responded to in this discussion you've talked about how dogs trained with the Ecollar are _"afraid, stressed,"_ suffer from _"learned helplessness, anxiety and a host of other problems."_ So it's NOT a straw man argument, YOU HAVE MADE THESE STATEMENTS!


I did not make statements about bad e-collar training in comparison to good reward training. What you quoted was a comparison between bad e-collar training and bad reward-based training. No straw man. Bad e-collar training is more harmful to the dog and to the human/dog relationship than bad reward-based training, hands down.



Lou Castle said:


> Punishment works if it occurs 2-3 seconds after an undesired behavior.


Source? Does it not work if it's outside that window?



Lou Castle said:


> Clicker advocates tells us that it's best if we use a clicker because it marks "The precise moment in time" that the dog is correct. Some will say that using a verbal marker such as "yes" throws off the timing because it's not as precise as the clicker. I once attended a seminar on clicker training where the instructor said that even a clicker was imprecise because each press had TWO clicks to it and only one of them could be marking "the precise moment in time." he advocated using a "click" of the tongue because that had only "one click."


I'm really not interested in defending with straw man versions of people you say you've met or things you say you've heard.



Lou Castle said:


> If someone is 2 seconds behind "the precise moment in time" that the dog is correct, he'll be marking whatever behavior has come after the one that should be reinforced, the one that occurred at "the precise moment in time." And so instead of marking the correct behavior, he'll be marking the behavior that came just after it.


Can you please explain why shocking a dog imprecisely is better than doing it at the precise moment of the undesired behavior? 



Lou Castle said:


> Rather than _"stretching credibility"_ I'm using the language and the fact of why clicker training works, when it works, that is. It requires much more precision than my method of using the Ecollar. My methods have owners doing (for example) two things at once. In teaching the recall the trainer presses the button at the exact moment that he pulls on the leash. That's easy for just about anyone to do.


But isn't he supposed to push it 2 or 3 seconds later? Can you explain, please? And how is doing two things at once easier than doing one thing at a time?



Lou Castle said:


> And here we have you AGAIN doing what you said I could not do. You're comparing poorly executed Ecollar training to well executed so−called "kinder gentler methods" Yessiree, no straw man here. ROFL.


There is no mention of reward-based training in the section you quoted, well executed or otherwise. The question was what happens when you mistime punishment. Now you're just making things up.



Lou Castle said:


> If you base your comments, as you've done a couple of time, on your _"personal experience."_ you'll be quite limited. I've never seen the other side of the moon, but I'll assume that it exists.


Personal experience, like book learnin', is just one kind of way to learn. But if you want to talk about the far side of the moon, you're gonna need some science, and you're a little thin on that credential.



Lou Castle said:


> I'll set you straight then. this is just basic OC (operant conditioning) when the button of an Ecollar is pressed discomfort is applied to the dog. If he'll work to make it stop, it's +P. when the button is released and the discomfort is removed, that's –R. Throw in treats, praise, toys, petting, etc. and you have +R. Using treat to lure a dog into (for example) a heel position and then withholding it, is –R. ALL four phases of OC are in use in my use of the Ecollar.. Training is best when it's balanced between reinforcement and punishment. Training that uses only the reinforcement side (actually that's impossible – but let's pretend for a moment that it can be done) is not as effective.


Withholding a treat is -P, not -R. Withholding of something desired is the basic definition of -P (according to Skinner). Again you want to blur the definitions a bit so you can pretend that a shock and a treat are essentially the same in their effects, but they patently are not.

"This is just basic OC," you say, but you're not using the terms correctly. Is this going to be like when you set me straight on batteries by making up stuff that wasn't true and then bulling on past it when I had to stop and explain how batteries work?



Lou Castle said:


> I usually don't like to anthropomorphize but imagine the side effects of trying to teach someone to drive using only reinforcement and extinction (Ignoring undesired behavior in the hopes that it will stop). Just ignore all those silly collisions with parked cars and they'll stop, right?


You do use punishment in a reward based system, just not positive punishment (addition of undesired stimulus in order to reduce undesired behavior) You use negative punishment (withholding of desired stimulus in order to reduce undesired behavior). And, most of us who are reward-based still do use some real positive punishment and negative reinforcement. We just try to avoid it wherever it's feasible because we recognize that it carries higher risks than negative punishment and positive reinforcement.



Lou Castle said:


> Here's another question that you'll probably pretend wasn't asked. Please show us some of those textbook statements complete with links so that we can verify them.


I gave you titles. It's not my job to provide you with the level of education you're pretending to have on this subject. I'm content to point out that you don't have it. You really should try the iTunes U course, though.



Lou Castle said:


> My my my. One moment you try to be very scientific with comments about _"Psych 101 or Animal Behavior 101 textbooks"_ and the very next moment you make this statement that is so full of contradictions that it's difficult to know where to correct it. There is no such thing as _"adding a negative stimulus."_ In the language of OC "adding" means to introduce something into the situation. There is no such thing as a _"negative stimulus."_ Negative in the language of OC means to remove something from the situation. By _"negative stimulus"_ I'd guess that you mean an aversive, something the dog does not like and will work to avoid. But the sentence is so twisted that it makes no sense.


I'm sorry I wasn't clear first time around, but if you can guess what I mean, you don't need to "correct" me. I sometimes say "negative stimulus" in order to use a dry, non-inflammatory term that doesn't conjure a sense of abusiveness. It would be more accurate to say "add an unpleasant stimulus." If you want to get technical about it, "an aversive" also isn't a traditional OC term. It's an informal one we kick around in dog training. And if you want to get super technical, "negative stimulus" (or more commonly, "negative condition") is frequently used in OC literature. "Negative" only means "removal" when you talk about the four quadrants. When it's not directly paired with "reinforcement" or "punishment," it's often used as a synonym for "unpleasant." You would learn things like this if you read those books or took that course.



Lou Castle said:


> Please tell us how you know exactly what the dog feels? Please tell us how you know exactly what is in his mind? Please tell us how you know that he thinks that "the stress" is different. What you might say if you wanted to be accurate is that YOU THINK that it's different. But, in reality, that's as far as you can go.


None of us can get in a dog's head, not me, and not you. But I know how I feel when I'm trying to end an unpleasant sensation (like trying to get the pins and needles out of a sleepy limb) and when I'm seeking a pleasant one (like getting the seal off a tub of ice cream), and they're really different feelings. 



Lou Castle said:


> I'll disagree. Please show us a study that supports this comment. If, as you say, it's been _"replicated so many times"_ it should be easy to find. Stress is stress to a dog because he lives in the moment. It's an uncomfortable feeling that raises his heart rate, raises his blood pressure and often produces cortisol. Making a dog sit before he goes through a door often brings whining, breaking of stays, high states of nervousness and excitement and sometimes biting. Those are obvious signs of stress. Some may train those behaviors away, but all they've done is to mask the visible signs of the stress.


-P does create a kind of stress, but it's not avoidance stress. "Living in the moment" just means that the dog can't logically connect sequences very easily. It doesn't mean all his emotions are identical. In fact, dogs have an extremely rich, complex emotional life, despite their relatively limited logical abilities. I refer you to the aforementioned texts on psych, behavior, and endocrinology. And, btw, if your -P scenario creates those behaviors, you would of course immediately stop using it, regardless of your training philosophy.



Lou Castle said:


> A clever evasion, but an evasion nonetheless. Post one here, that you can supply a link to, so that we can verify that you're citing accurately, and let's discuss it.


Book publishers, particularly those who sell to college-level courses, don't typically post the entire context of their texts for free. However, I've posted multiple texts and an online university course that would teach you all about this. If you have a nice free link that supports your position (i.e., the chemical or behavioral equivalence of -R and +R stress), post it.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> Considering the below statement an "attack" is a stretch . It is apparently just fine for some people to chastise the tone or content of posts, or to make an "unfavorable criticism", or just to suggest being kinder, etc etc. Never would that be considered an "attack".


I have left you alone, and I will continue to do so if you don't come on the attack. And it was clearly a starting of hostilities, so it does fit one of the definitions of that word.

If you prefer, I could simply say that I will not feel the need to defend myself if you don't feel the need to call me out. And taking lectures on manners from you is more than a little ironic, your interest in Emily Post notwithstanding.

If you leave me alone, I will continue, quite happily, to leave you alone. I suggest you put me back on ignore, as you've said you would.


----------



## Cowtown (Sep 23, 2009)

Ecollars are no big deal.

Collar conditioning takes 1-2 weeks max. Once it's done, it's done for life. There are bad people out there that do bad things to animals but most that use a collar do so with the mantra of "least amount of pressure to get the desired response". After a dog is ecollar conditioned the saying is "always on, seldom used". 

I have tried the collar on myself. The setting I have it on for my dog is actually barely noticeable. Some dogs require more pressure, some less. Once I realized the amount of ecollar pressure it takes for my dog then I wondered what the big deal was about. You can feel it but it's minimal at best...no big deal.

IMO, an ecollar nick is basically a long range collar/leash pop. If used properly, it is no more than the pressure of popping the collar on your dog.

Field, agility and obedience folks use the ecollar. It is widely used in the field because of having to communicate to your dog at distance. You don't use the collar to teach, you use it to reinforce a known command ie a long range collar pop. 

Field dogs wouldn't run like they do if they were beaten down and abused by the ecollar. No way. Ask most folks about their dogs reaction when they pick up their ecollars. Mine jumps up and down like a pogo stick in excitement because he knows fun stuff is about to happen with Dad.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

This really has been informative. 
And amusing. 

Not to mention shocking.


----------



## akgolden (Jun 18, 2011)

Lou Castle said:


> I don't think that it's an accurate term for today's collars. For those of 10-15 years ago it may have been accurate. Today, not so much. Universally when I have people feel the stim they describe it as a "buzz, a tingle or a tap." Children giggle. NOT ONE of the thousands who have felt a stim describe it as a shock. It's an emotional term that many antis use in the hopes of scaring people away from Ecollars.


Hit the nail on the head. You beat your ass I didn't put anything on my dog before trying it out myself. I have used my ecollar on myself on every setting it offered multiple times. It tickles at most or startles you cause you don't expect it. 



tippykayak said:


> I think people should put them on their own necks at the levels used for the dogs and decide for themselves either way. Nonetheless, "shock" is technically accurate according to the definition of the word and the function of the device, regardless of whether or not you think that it captures the feeling.


Read above. 



Pointgold said:


> This really has been informative.
> And amusing.
> 
> Not to mention shocking.


LOL


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

And clearly, I am all about the positive..but I have clients who come in and feed their dog from start to finish while it is on the exam table... So the other day, when I was examining a fearful dog, I asked the owner why she was continuously feeding her dog. She said it was because otherwise it wouldn't stay on the table. Are you kidding me? Like my children were raised, so are my dogs. Certain things are not options ... I put one of my dogs on a table, it behaves. I think that the whole thing with using food to get certain behaviors has lost its' path... continuously feeding a fearful dog in the office is not the answer. So while, I try to be positive, I think that some owners and some trainers have ruined the concept when using food...


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Sally's Mom said:


> And clearly, I am all about the positive..but I have clients who come in and feed their dog from start to finish while it is on the exam table... So the other day, when I was examining a fearful dog, I asked the owner why she was continuously feeding her dog. She said it was because otherwise it wouldn't stay on the table. Are you kidding me? Like my children were raised, so are my dogs. Certain things are not options ... I put one of my dogs on a table, it behaves. I think that the whole thing with using food to get certain behaviors has lost its' path... continuously feeding a fearful dog in the office is not the answer. So while, I try to be positive, I think that some owners and some trainers have ruined the concept when using food...


This almost goes without saying, but constantly feeding a nervous dog in order to get it to stay where it is is not an example of good reward-based training.

When people make up a food-based regimen and they're bad trainers (as the lady in your example evidently is), it doesn't work terribly well. The question I've raised is whether there's more or less potential for serious harm to the dog when somebody like that misapplies treats vs. somebody misapplying shocks.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

When a dog sees an e-collar, he has no idea that it's the thing that delivers shocks (or stims, or tickles, or whatever you want to call it). He associates it with working, going outside, etc. I find it strange that so many posters use their dog's reaction to the sight of the collar as proof that he doesn't mind what it does. If he didn't mind the stim, nick, or burn, he wouldn't change his behavior in response to it.

Use the tool; it doesn't make you abusive. But don't rationalize that dogs enjoy being stimmed because they see the big picture.


----------



## sameli102 (Aug 23, 2009)

What about a dog reactive or a super high prey dog. I have one that has been through so much training, including a professional trainer. Under usual circumstances he has great recall over and over again, but when it comes to a strange dog, a cat or prey, there is no stopping him, he just glazes over and he becomes a danger to not only the other animal but to himself. While he has never gotten anything but a bird or a rabbit, he is bent on trying. I read a post on here where someones golden killed a small dog and he is a very powerful dog. If I could be sure an e-collar could control that I would do it in a heartbeat as I have no right to allow my animal to harm someone elses. While I haven't used one it is in the back of my mind to try.

Whether this is acceptable golden behavior or not, he is mine and he is what he is and aside from that problem he is wonderful. I consider him my responsibility and not allow an accident.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I know trainers that I respect who are primarily positive, who would use an e collar in that situation...


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I think people should put them on their own necks at the levels used for the dogs and decide for themselves either way.


I agree. I test my Ecollars like this every day before I put them on the dogs. 



tippykayak said:


> Nonetheless, "shock" is technically accurate according to the definition of the word and the function of the device, regardless of whether or not you think that it captures the feeling.


It's a "shock word" (pun intended) that you, and others, use to scare people. If you were undergoing physical therapy for rehabilitation of an injury, your therapist might use a TENS unit (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator). That device also fits _"the definition of the word and the function of the device."_ Yet your PTist would not use that word, because it would scare the clients.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I didn't point out logical fallacies in LJilly's argument because she make any.


ROFLMFAO. That double standard is REALLY working overtime now. 



tippykayak said:


> SHe didn't mention e-collars in the post in question. She didn't say people who use e-collars are abusers.


And you're going to argue that since she didn't specifically mention Ecollars when this conversation is about, almost nothing but, that she didn't aim this comment at Ecollar users? 
* D O U B L E S T A N D A R D * 



tippykayak said:


> She said that our choice of tools reflects our understanding of our relationships with our dogs.


IT also reflects the fact that she and you (I could use the term "you folks" here, lol) DO NOT understand the first bit about proper Ecollar use. AGAIN you only refer to Ecollar as when they're used badly or misused. In spite of your earlier denial that's what you do. AGAIN, assuming the straw man role. 



tippykayak said:


> I think that's true. It was Pointgold's post that ASSUMED she meant the bad relationships went with the e-collar and the good relationships mentioned went with other methods.


Had this comment been made in a vacuum you might have a point. Since it was made here, you don't. Given that it was made in a discussion about Ecollars, given Ljilly28's previously stated position as opposing them, given her habit of sniping and snarky comments, realizing that she was talking about Ecollars is a logical, reasonable and safe assumption. 

Earlier I wrote,


> There's an old adage among lawyers ... "If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts. If the law is on your side, bang on the law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, bang on the table." Ljilly28 just "banged on the table."





tippykayak said:


> Ad hominem.


More silly word games. 

AND AGAIN you're wrong. An ad hominem is an attack on a person, rather than on their idea or something they said. Someone who pays attention to detail will notice that I was obviously talking about WHAT SHE SAID. Not her, as a person. So much for your ability to recognize these fallacies.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> You don't use my methods.


You really have no idea what I do. 



tippykayak said:


> Adding a clicker or a cookie to training that fundamentally relies on using negative reinforcement to shape behavior is not "using my methods,"


And so you assume that I merely _"add a clicker or a cookie"_ to my use of the Ecollar. And with this assumption AGAIN, you're wrong. I do quite a bit of training that does not include the Ecollar, that only includes the so−called "kinder gentler methods." Again, the difference between us is that I know when that they're not appropriate for all things or for all dogs. 

And I'll disagree that my methods _"fundamentally relies on using negative reinforcement to shape behavior."_ AGAIN, you're wrong. 



tippykayak said:


> any more than it would be "using your methods" if I added an e-collar and shocked 2-3 seconds after an undesired behavior, but did the rest of my regime the same way.


LOL. If you did this you'd be using an Ecollar poorly. 



tippykayak said:


> You really need to stop making assumptions about my intelligence or my intentions.


Ditto. 



tippykayak said:


> If I haven't said it, don't assume I think it. You are woefully incompetent at predicting my intentions.


Ditto again. 



tippykayak said:


> Wanting what's best for dogs does not mean conceding all training equipment is created equal or carries exactly the same levels of risk.


I agree. An Ecollar is a far better tool that any other for training a dog. lol



tippykayak said:


> I'm sure you think so, but we have lots of people who use and advocate for e-collars on this forum that get a much, much better reception than you do.


I'm sure that you do. Notice that there are very few of them in this discussion. They allow you and some others to run roughshod over the use of the tool. And so of course you'd prefer that I adopt that policy. But it's not going to happen. I'll continue to shoot holes through your misconceptions and posting of myths anytime I come across them and feel like it. I'm not here for a popularity contest. I'd much prefer that people learned the truth than to be considered one of the "cool kids." 

Earlier I wrote,


> I regard most of these banning as "badges of honor" as I mentioned earlier.





tippykayak said:


> I know you do, but I wish you could see that you might have some iota of responsibility in such a long, sad history of personal conflicts.


Oh I know that sometimes I have a LOT of responsibility for those conflicts. I never start the personal attacks, but after a period of being abused, being called names and other personal attacks, I've been known to respond in kind. I'm always amazed when, after a few weeks of remaining polite and professional, and just ignoring the personal attacks, when I go on the attack, those same people who have been attacking, fall on their back with their hands up whining "no fair, no fair." 



tippykayak said:


> so are you willing to call me a liar openly rather than implying it?


Saying that I think that you _"forgot something"_ is hardly the same as calling you a liar. But this is how the whining sometimes starts. You'll know when I call you a liar. Its looks like this, "Tippykayak, you're a liar." If I write something else, I'm not calling you a liar. Got it? 



tippykayak said:


> We were talking about using sound to communicate with dogs. Could you really not figure it out that I meant that sound-only devices were fine?


You probably just forgot about the vibration features, right? AGAIN. LOL



tippykayak said:


> It's not about taking an argument in a new direction. It's taking the words the way I've used them and then changing the meaning when you use them, and then pretending you've refuted a point.


I'll disagree with the first part of your statement, making the rest irrelevant. You folks have for years thought that you get to define the argument and that we'll either allow it or follow along. But you're wrong. I'll define the argument any way that I see fit. 



tippykayak said:


> I did answer it, but not in detail.


You didn't answer it at all. 



tippykayak said:


> I didn't think I had to, since it's such a basic part of the field.


You don't have to, but don't expect that I'll answer your questions when you don't answer mine. 



tippykayak said:


> The stress equivalency you've cooked up isn't part of the literature.


It doesn’t need to be. It's obviously just another way to state how your methods work. It's common sense. It's like calling a coin toss. When one says "it's heads," it's a given, and it does not need to be said that "tails is down." Similarly when one says that a dog performs because he wants the treat, it's understood, it's a given and you folks don't want to hear, but I have no problem in pointing out, that he's trying to escape the discomfort that NOT having the treat brings. Other side of the coin. 



tippykayak said:


> It's a tortured equivalency you and some other folks buy into in order to justify your methods.


It has nothing to do with justifying our methods, because they don't need justification. What IS happening is that I'm pointing the other side of your statement. Instead of buying into the "it's heads" statement, I'm showing that "tails is down." They mean exactly the same thing but you don't like having the negative side shown, the phrase "positive methods" has been so completely swallowed by people who want to feel good about their training that many of them they actually believe the nonsense that you're putting out. . 



tippykayak said:


> The onus really is on you to prove it, since it's not an accepted theory in the field. But here goes anyway.


One does not need to prove that the other side of a coin exists. It's a given. It's impossible for a coin to have only one side. You've just been ignoring this fact for so long that now it's become foreign to you, that it even exists. 



tippykayak said:


> When you use a negative stimulus, you teach the animal to avoid it, and you shape behavior with that fundamental principle.


You want to appear to be scientific but you miss it by a mile. _In the [scientific] literature _ there's no such thing as a _"negative stimulus."_ In OC, negative means to remove something. You are mixing up the scientific language with the popular literature and that is sure to result in confusion. I think that's part of your plan. To confuse the readers into believing that you have some fount of knowledge that you really don't have. 



tippykayak said:


> In many of the techniques you advocate on your website, the animal learns to turn off the stimulus by executing the behavior you want (R-). You can also use the shock to pair it with a behavior you don't want the animal to do (P+). In both situations, the animal learns to avoid something unpleasant. The "stress" involved is the desire to avoid or escape the shock. There can be stress both in anticipating a shock and in receiving it, and in behavioral language, the stress creates an attempt of escape or avoidance.


And when a dog knows that it's owner has treats (I see no reason to repeatedly refer to toys, praise, or anything else the dog wants and so I'll just use the word "treats" to refer to them all), and the owner is not giving it, the animal is stressed. The dog is performing to escape this stressful situation and to get the treat. He's performing to avoid or escape the unpleasant situation of NOT having the treat. There's nothing _"tortured"_ about this fact. It's simply the other side of the coin from what you folks teach. 



tippykayak said:


> When you reward, the dog might feel a sort of tension in anticipating a reward


That tension is commonly known as STRESS! And it's NOT just that he's anticipating that he might get a reward. He's STRESSED because he does not have it at this moment. I love how the word _"tension"_ is OK with you but "stress" is not. They're the same thing in this situation. 



tippykayak said:


> but since he doesn't engage in escape or avoidance behavior in regards to that tension, he's not experiencing the same kind of stress.


In fact, he IS working to escape or avoid the fact that he does not have the treat! I find it amazing that you and others (very conveniently) pretend that there's something else going on. I'm amazed, but I do understand why you do it, you don't want people to realize that your methods include stress as part of the learning procedure. You want them to think that only OTHER tools/methods have this as part of the learning mechanism. It’s a cover up that's been part of the so−called "kinder gentler methods" since they were devised. 



tippykayak said:


> He works primarily to receive the pleasure caused by the reward, not to escape the lack of pleasure.


I'll disagree. I think that BOTH are at work. You can't have one without the other. Two sides of the same coin. 



tippykayak said:


> You can try to blur that distinction by causing the cessation of discomfort a sort of "pleasure" and by pointing at the pre-reward tension as a sort of "stress," but that's really doing a disservice to the basic animal psychology involved.


No it's not. YOU are the one who is trying to blur the fact that there is no such distinction. These are simple facts. People stop hitting themselves on the head with a hammer because stopping feels good. LOL. 



tippykayak said:


> That's using semantic terms to blur a very real distinction. R+ works because the dog learns how to make pleasure happen.


Nope, it's just a different (but equally accurate) way of saying it. 



tippykayak said:


> R- works because the dog learns to avoid something unpleasant.


And by doing so he is rewarded. Hence the name REINFORCEMENT. 



tippykayak said:


> Both cause tension in the sense that they cause the animal to desire to change his behavior, but one causes fear/avoidance tension and one causes pleasure/pursuit tension.


AGAIN, you're wrong. BOTH cause fear/avoidance and BOTH cause pleasure/pursuit. 



tippykayak said:


> I did answer. You just didn't like the answer. But I'll answer again.


No, you didn't. You want to pretend that you did, but you did not. Instead you used some classic evasive behavior, as you do again. 



tippykayak said:


> You wouldn't go to "some studies" for the difference between avoidance and pleasure. You'd go to basic books on behavior and neurochemistry. You could do Myers or Schacter (psych texts). You could also try Behavioral Endocrinology if you're interested in the chemical side. From there, you'd have studies cited you could continue to read if you were so inclined.


You are the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Since you've chosen to appear to answer, but not to really do so, we can assume that you do not have the proof requested and therefore, there's no reason to accept your beliefs. I've stated my views as my opinion. You've countered with what you state are facts. I don't need proof for my opinion but if you're going to pretend that the facts are on your side you need to support your statements with some science. 

Let's review. You wrote


> The "stress" the aversively trained dogs experience is pretty different from the "stress" the rewarded dogs experience.


And I responded,


> Pray tell us exactly how this is different?


Still waiting for the answer to that question. 



tippykayak said:


> If you want to know what's covered in basic freshman psych, you can take Yale Psych 110 on iTunes U. I believe some of these topics are still covered, even though Salovey's not teaching it anymore.


I ask for some supporting scientific evidence for a statement that you've made and you suggest that I take a Psych course. No that's not an evasion. ROFLMFAO



tippykayak said:


> I marked multiple instances in blue in which you insulted my intelligence (which is exceedingly rude). Also, any time you say that somebody's comment makes you "LOL" or any variation thereon, that's rude too.


Someone needs to take a sensitivity pill. This is nothing short of absurd. You were not only NOT insulted you told us VERY CLEARLY that you were _"amused."_ Need I supply your statement to remind you? 



tippykayak said:


> Any other straightforward questions you have, please ask, and I'll give the best answers I can.


You have yet to answer the questions that I've repeated for you. You did not supply a single study or an online reference to support your assertions. Surely they MUST exist somewhere other than textbooks that are only available in hard copy, right? 



tippykayak said:


> I reserve the right to ignore rhetorical questions or anything that involves "LOL," sarcasm, or other silliness.


Thereby setting up further evasion. ROFL. 



tippykayak said:


> I did not make statements about bad e-collar training in comparison to good reward training. What you quoted was a comparison between bad e-collar training and bad reward-based training. No straw man.


WOW! You have spoken of the so−called "kinder gentler methods" ONLY as when they are used correctly. You have spoken about Ecollars ONLY as they're used poorly or misused. It's not necessary that you juxtapose those statements to make the comparison. EXACTLY a straw man. 



tippykayak said:


> Bad e-collar training is more harmful to the dog and to the human/dog relationship than bad reward-based training, hands down.


AGAIN, you're wrong. Sometimes it's worse and sometimes the badly applied so−called "kinder gentler methods" methods are worse. It depends on the dog and how the methods were applied. Any absolute statement, and yours is certainly that, is wrong. Wait ... isn't that an absolute statement. 



tippykayak said:


> Source?


I don't need to cite a source when I express an opinion. You OTOH are stating that my opinion is wrong and claiming that science backs you up. The burden is on you to support such a claim. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Clicker advocates tells us that it's best if we use a clicker because it marks "The precise moment in time" that the dog is correct. Some will say that using a verbal marker such as "yes" throws off the timing because it's not as precise as the clicker. I once attended a seminar on clicker training where the instructor said that even a clicker was imprecise because each press had TWO clicks to it and only one of them could be marking "the precise moment in time." he advocated using a "click" of the tongue because that had only "one click."





tippykayak said:


> I'm really not interested in defending with straw man versions of people you say you've met or things you say you've heard.


Anyone else notice that tippykayak COMPLETELY ignores the meat of my statement, that clicker trainers use the device because it marks "The precise moment in time" that the dog is correct. If you're late in marking it, you'll be marking the wrong behavior and the dog will learn the wrong behavior. Instead the focus is placed on what I heard a clicker trainer say at a seminar. 

ANOTHER nice evasion, but an evasion nonetheless. 

Earlier I wrote,


> If someone is 2 seconds behind "the precise moment in time" that the dog is correct, he'll be marking whatever behavior has come after the one that should be reinforced, the one that occurred at "the precise moment in time." And so instead of marking the correct behavior, he'll be marking the behavior that came just after it.





tippykayak said:


> Can you please explain why shocking a dog imprecisely is better than doing it at the precise moment of the undesired behavior?


If you can show anywhere that I've said that _"shocking a dog imprecisely is better than doing it at the precise moment of the undesired behavior."_ then I might give it a try. but since I've never said such a thing, this is ANOTHER straw man argument from you. 

To set you straight, I was talking about two trainers, equally unskilled who are 2 seconds behind the dog's actions. One is training with an Ecollar and one is training with a clicker. The dog being trained with the Ecollar will figure out what he's being punished for. The dog being trained with the clicker will be rewarded for the wrong behavior and so, that's what he'll learn. ANOTHER DIVERSION. lol

Earlier I wrote,


> Rather than "stretching credibility" I'm using the language and the fact of why clicker training works, when it works, that is. It requires much more precision than my method of using the Ecollar. My methods have owners doing (for example) two things at once. In teaching the recall the trainer presses the button at the exact moment that he pulls on the leash. That's easy for just about anyone to do.





tippykayak said:


> But isn't he supposed to push it 2 or 3 seconds later? Can you explain, please?


No, he's not. No idea where this information comes from. 



tippykayak said:


> And how is doing two things at once easier than doing one thing at a time?


I know that you're not this stupid. Let's just say that you're a bit confused and I'll take responsibility for that confusion. I'm comparing my method of using the Ecollar with clicker training. In the latter the trainer is required to see the desired behavior, recognize it as such and then click the dog to mark the behavior. There are problems, especially with the average pet owner in recognizing the proper behavior and then in quickly clicking it. Often these people are several seconds too late and so they'll be reinforcing the wrong behavior. It's not, as you try to simplify it, _"doing one thing at a time."_ Seeing is involved. Recognition is involved. Judgment is involved. All things that slow down the process. And finally, pressing the button on the clicker is involved. Think of the reaction time of a driver who is confronted with a dangerous situation. He must see it, judge it, recognize it as a dangerous situation and then he must respond by moving his foot from the gas to the brake. All of this takes time. And timing is critical. 

Now to my use of the Ecollar to (for example) teach the recall. No seeing is necessary except that the dog should be away from the handler. Timing is not involved in that and when the next operation happens it's not time critical. The handler presses the button on the Ecollar at the same moment that he pulls the dog towards him. This can be rehearsed without the dog even present so that even the most uncoordinated owner can do it. No recognition is necessary. No judgment is necessary. The owner simply does these two things. 

Earlier I wrote,


> And here we have you AGAIN doing what you said I could not do. You're comparing poorly executed Ecollar training to well executed so−called "kinder gentler methods" Yessiree, no straw man here. ROFL.





tippykayak said:


> There is no mention of reward-based training in the section you quoted, well executed or otherwise.


AGAIN, It's not necessary that you juxtapose the two situations for you to make this comparison. It the entire thrust of your argument and it's therefore understood that this is a comparison that you're making. 

Earlier I wrote,


> If you base your comments, as you've done a couple of time, on your "personal experience." you'll be quite limited. I've never seen the other side of the moon, but I'll assume that it exists.





tippykayak said:


> Personal experience, like book learnin', is just one kind of way to learn.


Yes, I know. You keep denying things that I say with the comment (to the effect) that _"[you've] not seen it."_ That hardly means that it hasn't happened, just that since your experience on this is limited (as is everyone's) that it's beyond you. It's not beyond my experience. 



tippykayak said:


> But if you want to talk about the far side of the moon, you're gonna need some science


Not really. Astronauts have been there and they report that it exists. I'm able to learn, not only from my own experience, but that of others as well. You seem to pick and choose whose experience you are capable of learning from. 



tippykayak said:


> and you're a little thin on that credential.


Tell me again how I'm insulting you! ROFLMFAO. I've cited at least one scientific study to support what I've said. You've not cited even one. So which one of us would be _"thin on that credential?"_ 

Earlier I wrote,


> I'll set you straight then. this is just basic OC (operant conditioning) when the button of an Ecollar is pressed discomfort is applied to the dog. If he'll work to make it stop, it's +P. when the button is released and the discomfort is removed, that's –R. Throw in treats, praise, toys, petting, etc. and you have +R. Using treat to lure a dog into (for example) a heel position and then withholding it, is –R. ALL four phases of OC are in use in my use of the Ecollar.. Training is best when it's balanced between reinforcement and punishment. Training that uses only the reinforcement side (actually that's impossible – but let's pretend for a moment that it can be done) is not as effective.





tippykayak said:


> Withholding a treat is -P, not -R.


Yep you're right. I blew that one. Too many P's and R's. In any case, the summing−up statement is accurate, _"ALL four phases of OC are in use in my use of the Ecollar.. Training is best when it's balanced between reinforcement and punishment. Training that uses only the reinforcement side (actually that's impossible – but let's pretend for a moment that it can be done) is not as effective."_ 



tippykayak said:


> Withholding of something desired is the basic definition of -P (according to Skinner). Again you want to blur the definitions a bit so you can pretend that a shock and a treat are essentially the same in their effects, but they patently are not.


No, you've got it wrong now. I've never said that _" a shock and a treat are essentially the same in their effects,"_ that's an obvious misstatement of what I've said. They are OPPOSITE in their effects. Giving a stim is +P and giving a treat is +R. what I have said is that giving a stim is +P and that WITHHOLDING a treat is –P. Both are punishment because they tend to make a behavior not repeat. Both cause stress and the dog will work to avoid them. They ARE essentially the same *in their effects. * 



tippykayak said:


> "This is just basic OC," you say, but you're not using the terms correctly.


I made a typo, that's all. 



tippykayak said:


> Is this going to be like when you set me straight on batteries by making up stuff that wasn't true and then bulling on past it when I had to stop and explain how batteries work?


You've still got it wrong. But there's no need to go into it again. I've asked you to stay on topic a couple of times, but based on results it's beyond you. 



tippykayak said:


> You do use punishment in a reward based system


Yes I know. 



tippykayak said:


> just not positive punishment (addition of undesired stimulus in order to reduce undesired behavior) You use negative punishment (withholding of desired stimulus in order to reduce undesired behavior).


And many of you like to pretend that it's different. Yet such differentiation does not exist anywhere except in your minds. 



tippykayak said:


> And, most of us who are reward-based still do use some real positive punishment and negative reinforcement. We just try to avoid it wherever it's feasible because we recognize that it carries higher risks than negative punishment and positive reinforcement.


Trying to avoid it is NOT avoiding it. I've been involved many times in arguments with trainers who used the so−called "kinder gentler methods" who insist that they don't use punishment in their training. Earlier in this discussion we spoke about one of those folks who claim that they don't use aversives. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Here's another question that you'll probably pretend wasn't asked. Please show us some of those textbook statements complete with links so that we can verify them.





tippykayak said:


> I gave you titles. It's not my job to provide you with the level of education you're pretending to have on this subject.


I'm not _"pretending to have"_ any level of education. You said that something was a certain way and I asked for support for this position. You've avoided providing it and now you do so again, and add another insult. 



tippykayak said:


> I'm sorry I wasn't clear first time around, but if you can guess what I mean, you don't need to "correct" me.


I’m not going to try and guess what you mean, just as you didn't try to guess that I made a typo and said that something was –R when actually it was –P. 



tippykayak said:


> I sometimes say "negative stimulus" in order to use a dry, non-inflammatory term that doesn't conjure a sense of abusiveness.


Interestingly you avoid using a _" dry non-inflammatory term that doesn’t conjure a sense of abusiveness"_ in referring to the so−called "kinder gentler methods" but you don't do so when referring to the Ecollar. There's that double standard again. 



tippykayak said:


> It would be more accurate to say "add an unpleasant stimulus." If you want to get technical about it


I don't like to _"get technical"_ It often confuses pet owners who aren't familiar with the terms. Heck, I even made a typo and got it wrong. But since you went down this road, I followed. 



tippykayak said:


> "an aversive" also isn't a traditional OC term. It's an informal one we kick around in dog training.


Yes, I know. And that's what we're talking about, dog training, on a list populated mainly by pet owners, not scientists. 



tippykayak said:


> And if you want to get super technical, "negative stimulus" (or more commonly, "negative condition") is frequently used in OC literature.


Really? I checked a few sites looking for such a reference. I Googled "operant conditioning" and got these results. 

Operant Conditioning - Introduction to Operant Conditioning
I checked just about every page of this site and could not find such a reference. 

Ditto here. Operant Conditioning Basics

Ditto here. Operant conditioning - Scholarpedia

I only checked the first page of this site, but Ditto again. Operant conditioning - Scholarpedia

Ditto here. Operant conditioning - Scholarpedia

So it seems that you might be wrong about this. Can you show us some sites that mention it please. 



tippykayak said:


> "Negative" only means "removal" when you talk about the four quadrants.


Yes, I know. And since we are bouncing back and forth your use of both the scientific language and the traditional training jargon, it's bound to confuse. 



tippykayak said:


> When it's not directly paired with "reinforcement" or "punishment," it's often used as a synonym for "unpleasant." You would learn things like this if you read those books or took that course.


I've read those books. In Karen Pryor's _Don't Shoot the Dog _ she makes it clear that she's going to start out by confusing the terms forever for the average pet owner. Disgusting that she doesn't give people credit for their intelligence. People have been confused ever since. And all you do in this, is make it worse. A great deal of this language is propaganda, including the very name, "positive training." 

Earlier you wrote,


> The "stress" my dog feels when he has to give a sit before being allowed to run out the door is very different than the "stress" a dog feels when he's trying to escape an unpleasant feeling.


And I responded,


> Please tell us how you know exactly what the dog feels? Please tell us how you know exactly what is in his mind? Please tell us how you know that he thinks that "the stress" is different. What you might say if you wanted to be accurate is that YOU THINK that it's different. But, in reality, that's as far as you can go.





tippykayak said:


> None of us can get in a dog's head, not me, and not you.


And yet you just told us that you know how your dog feels in a couple of situations. Lol Notice that you didn't answer my question! 



tippykayak said:


> -P does create a kind of stress, but it's not avoidance stress.


Of course it is. The dog wants to escape or avoid the stimulus that is creating the punishment. If it's an Ecollar stim (+P) he wants to make it stop. If it's the stress of wanting to get a withheld treat (-P) he'll perform a behavior to get it. EITHER way he's trying to escape or avoid the situation.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

sameli102 said:


> What about a dog reactive or a super high prey dog.
> ... If I could be sure an e-collar could control that I would do it in a heartbeat as I have no right to allow my animal to harm someone elses. While I haven't used one it is in the back of my mind to try.



There no guarantees in training a dog, especially in this situation. But I've had lots of success with a protocol I developed to stop police dogs from chasing cats. PM for details.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Tally RAE leg, Copley won the big Novice B class; invisible leash guru? NQ. His dog grabbed the toy in the distraction dish and hightailed it out of the ring. There's too little relationship there. If I had to use a shock collar to train something easy like Rally O or CD, or basic like come when called, then yes, I think it is a lazy shortcut to building good skills in handling and a good relationship in which the dog is motivated to work with you. It is like teaching a kid to say please and thank you by hitting him in the head with a baseball bat. More to the point, it is simply more effective to train the basics with positive reinforcement and reward- based training with high criteria. Why would a dog not feel ambivalent at best toward someone who hits or shocks him, or gives huge collar corrections. I watched all kinds of trainers at the big show yesterday with this thread in mind from Utility B to beginner Novice, Rally and the breed- watching the different spirits/ body languages in which dogs work toward the same titles. I simply do not admire the ones that slink front with a dumbbell and do not want to approach their owners, yet have learned they must. It turns my stomach and I feel sorry for the dog, not impressed by the title.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> And based on your view of ecollars, you seem to be saying that those who use them consider their dogs subordinants. punching bags, breeding stock, a subject for bragging rights (which you do your share of and I think that is cool...) personal property ... in other words, the negatives.
> And only those who don't use them have dogs that are partners, friends, or anything lovely and positive? think the yahoos at
> 
> This is grossyly unfair.


That's too big a leap/inference. There are several trainers I deeply and dearly respect who do use them. However, none use them for the OP' situation. 

It is good to look at the ethos/ethics in our methods of training that talk more about about who we are rather than who the dog is. Our methods are a mirror for us to look into, and should prompt us to look into ourselves as well as into our dogs. 

Obviously, some people think E collars represent the best, most ethical practice in dog training basic commands or low level obedience. Others do not, and think it is at best a shortcut and at worse inhumane treatment of a dog or puppy. That's a pretty big clash in perspectives and paradigms.

These threads may be educational to those who come to research bc they are truly undecided, but they are rough on the members who have already firmly made up minds one way or another.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

And that truly sums up the difference in the approaches! The dogs that want to be working and playing with their owners and those that must. 

The dogs that have a beautiful trust in the world and those that lash out because they don't.

There are certainly situations (field training for one) where an eCollar can be fair and efficient, but I think people tend to forget that they are correction collars - long distance correction collars. Behaviors must be trained at close range, including proofing, regardless of your training approach. 





Ljilly28 said:


> Tally RAE leg, Copley won the big Novice B class; invisible leash guru? NQ. His dog grabbed the toy in the distraction dish and hightailed it out of the ring. There's too little relationship there. If I had to use a shock collar to train something easy like Rally O or CD, or basic like come when called, then yes, I think it is a lazy shortcut to building good skills in handling and a good relationship in which the dog is motivated to work with you. It is like teaching a kid to say please and thank you by hitting him in the head with a baseball bat. More to the point, it is simply more effective to train the basics with positive reinforcement and reward- based training with high criteria. Why would a dog not feel ambivalent at best toward someone who hits or shocks him, or gives huge collar corrections. I watched all kinds of trainers at the big show yesterday with this thread in mind from Utility B to beginner Novice, Rally and the breed- watching the different spirits/ body languages in which dogs work toward the same titles. I simply do not admire the ones that slink front with a dumbbell and do not want to approach their owners, yet have learned they must. It turns my stomach and I feel sorry for the dog, not impressed by the title.


----------



## marsh mop (Mar 13, 2009)

"And only those who don't use them have dogs that are partners, friends, or anything lovely and positive? think the yahoos at"



Pointgold said:


> And based on your view of ecollars, you seem to be saying that those who use them consider their dogs subordinants. punching bags, breeding stock, a subject for bragging rights (which you do your share of and I think that is cool...) personal property ... in other words, the negatives.
> And only those who don't use them have dogs that are partners, friends, or anything lovely and positive?
> 
> This is grossyly unfair.


Ljilly, did you add the yahoos stuff to her quote? If so why?
Jim


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I have thought the better of this post. Have a good one, Lou!


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Sunrise said:


> And that truly sums up the difference in the approaches! The dogs that want to be working and playing with their owners and those that must.


But why does it have to be one or the other? I put the "have to" in my training, but I also strive to make sure my dogs are having fun and enjoying what they are doing. 

My dogs don't "slink" into front with their dumbbells, the joy they have for working with me shows very clearly in their work, yet at the same time they know that doing otherwise in not an option. If my dogs didn't enjoy working with me I don't think they would continually jostle each other out of heel position when we're in the backyard so they can have their "turn" with me.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you thoroughly and completely _teach _your dogs and proof your dogs  And that your dogs love their training.

That is the point I was attempting to make - that collars are for correction and do not take the place of teaching. That the collars are not a short cut, nor are they the go-to method especially not when not paired with reward -

Yes, 'have to' comes into it but only after what they know they have to do and are confident that wrong choices are not bad, just wrong. 
That they are rewarded by more than just not being punished, that right choices lead to games, rewards and play.




Loisiana said:


> But why does it have to be one or the other? I put the "have to" in my training, but I also strive to make sure my dogs are having fun and enjoying what they are doing.
> 
> My dogs don't "slink" into front with their dumbbells, the joy they have for working with me shows very clearly in their work, yet at the same time they know that doing otherwise in not an option. If my dogs didn't enjoy working with me I don't think they would continually jostle each other out of heel position when we're in the backyard so they can have their "turn" with me.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> Tally RAE leg, Copley won the big Novice B class; invisible leash guru? NQ. His dog grabbed the toy in the distraction dish and hightailed it out of the ring. There's too little relationship there. If I had to use a shock collar to train something easy like Rally O or CD, or basic like come when called, then yes, I think it is a lazy shortcut to building good skills in handling and a good relationship in which the dog is motivated to work with you. It is like teaching a kid to say please and thank you by hitting him in the head with a baseball bat. More to the point, it is simply more effective to train the basics with positive reinforcement and reward- based training with high criteria. Why would a dog not feel ambivalent at best toward someone who hits or shocks him, or gives huge collar corrections. I watched all kinds of trainers at the big show yesterday with this thread in mind from Utility B to beginner Novice, Rally and the breed- watching the different spirits/ body languages in which dogs work toward the same titles. I simply do not admire the ones that slink front with a dumbbell and do not want to approach their owners, yet have learned they must. It turns my stomach and I feel sorry for the dog, not impressed by the title.


 
Not one advocate of ecollars has not spoken about MISUSE of them. Obviously, this guy is someone who I would consider misusing the tool. However, ONE IDIOT doesn't make the tool or those who use them judiciously and correctly, bad or uncaring or mean that there is too little or no relationship. I've seen plenty of people at trials who don't use ecollars for anything who do a lousy job. You cannot assume that every dog who slinks or has poor recalls or whatever, has been trained with an ecollar. It simply is not true.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

marsh mop said:


> "And only those who don't use them have dogs that are partners, friends, or anything lovely and positive? think the yahoos at"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I sure didn't write that...


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup (Aug 23, 2008)

I have found this to be the best deterrent to Penny's 'stalling' and sit down strikes. Knowing your dog's body language will tip you off as to what they are about to do.

I know when Penny starts to get the 'look'...a little hesitant, head off to the side...but still on her feet that THAT's the time to say "C'mon, walkies" and pick up the pace into a more determined walk. She ALWAYS gives up and comes along, and quite happily with tail wagging. 

Doing this also puts more emphasis on the 'tug' when she does manage to slip in a sit down. I just tell her "Oh now, just stop it" and get into that determined walk. She always gets up and resumes walking.

I think that is the best solution.



baumgartml16 said:


> I also try to anticipate her about to lay down and distract her before we get to that point.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> Why would a dog not feel ambivalent at best toward someone who hits or shocks him, or gives huge collar corrections. I watched all kinds of trainers at the big show yesterday with this thread in mind from Utility B to beginner Novice, Rally and the breed- watching the different spirits/ body languages in which dogs work toward the same titles. I simply do not admire the ones that slink front with a dumbbell and do not want to approach their owners, yet have learned they must. It turns my stomach and I feel sorry for the dog, not impressed by the title.


So I never understand why you come across so adamantly against certain tools, yet I have seen you post about big name trainers who use them...buying their dvds, admiring their accomplishments, posting videos of them...but then if anyone else wants to use them it is wrong? Bad for the human-dog relationship? It is one thing to say a tool is not for you and you won't use it (but are ok with others doing it fairly)...but if you adamantly believe that these tools are so detrimental to the dog and relationship and inhumane (i.e. prong collar, ecollar, force fetch) why do you patronize trainers that do it? Even if you aren't using those elements? Why post videos of their accomplishments? Why admire them?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> So I never understand why you come across so adamantly against certain tools, yet I have seen you post about big name trainers who use them...buying their dvds, admiring their accomplishments, posting videos of them...but then if anyone else wants to use them it is wrong? Bad for the human-dog relationship? It is one thing to say a tool is not for you and you won't use it (but are ok with others doing it fairly)...but if you adamantly believe that these tools are so detrimental to the dog and relationship and inhumane (i.e. prong collar, ecollar, force fetch) why do you patronize trainers that do it? Even if you aren't using those elements? Why post videos of their accomplishments? Why admire them?


Many of those trainers are very talented and use many clever positive techniques. I learn the useful part, and adapt the rest. I admire trainers who have lovely timing and are natural and motivating to dogs even if not 100 percent positve. What I don't like is heavy handed trainers who whale on dogs in the name of results. What I don't like even more if OPs just learning to train their first puppies being advised to use e collars and prong collars.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> When a dog sees an e-collar, he has no idea that it's the thing that delivers shocks (or stims, or tickles, or whatever you want to call it). He associates it with working, going outside, etc.* I find it strange that so many posters use their dog's reaction to the sight of the collar as proof that he doesn't mind what it does. *If he didn't mind the stim, nick, or burn, he wouldn't change his behavior in response to it.
> 
> Use the tool; it doesn't make you abusive. *But don't rationalize that dogs enjoy being stimmed because they see the big picture*.


It is in response to others saying an ecollar turns dogs into puddles of fear. Nobody and I mean nobody said dogs enjoy being stimmed.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

sameli102 said:


> What about a dog reactive or a super high prey dog. I have one that has been through so much training, including a professional trainer. Under usual circumstances he has great recall over and over again, but when it comes to a strange dog, a cat or prey, there is no stopping him, he just glazes over and he becomes a danger to not only the other animal but to himself. While he has never gotten anything but a bird or a rabbit, he is bent on trying. I read a post on here where someones golden killed a small dog and he is a very powerful dog. If I could be sure an e-collar could control that I would do it in a heartbeat as I have no right to allow my animal to harm someone elses. While I haven't used one it is in the back of my mind to try.
> 
> Whether this is acceptable golden behavior or not, he is mine and he is what he is and aside from that problem he is wonderful. I consider him my responsibility and not allow an accident.


I have a highly prey driven dog also. And I can tell you first hand the ecollar is a great tool for exactly what you are talking about.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> It is in response to others saying an ecollar turns dogs into puddles of fear. Nobody and I mean nobody said dogs enjoy being stimmed.


Even dramatically misused, it wouldn't typically turn them into puddles of fear at the sight of it, so saying they get happy at the _sight_ of the collar tells you essentially nothing about what the collar is or isn't doing to them.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> That's too big a leap/inference. There are several trainers I deeply and dearly respect who do use them. *However, none use them for the OP' situation. *
> 
> It is good to look at the ethos/ethics in our methods of training that talk more about about who we are rather than who the dog is. Our methods are a mirror for us to look into, and should prompt us to look into ourselves as well as into our dogs.
> 
> ...


I don't believe any ecollar users here said an ecollar was right for the OP's situation. Unless I missed it.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

marsh mop said:


> "And only those who don't use them have dogs that are partners, friends, or anything lovely and positive? think the yahoos at"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OMG! Seriously?:no:


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Even dramatically misused, it wouldn't typically turn them into puddles of fear at the sight of it, so saying they get happy at the _sight_ of the collar tells you essentially nothing about what the collar is or isn't doing to them.


I simply told you why people respond with that answer. To show that their dogs have not been abused into puddles of fear. You don't have to like the answer.


----------



## Tuckers Mom (Nov 12, 2010)

Every Single Time I see a Thread like this I "CRINGE" ..... 40 freakin' pages of arguing mostly by those that have ZERO KNOWLEDGE and ZERO EXPERIENCE with an E-Collar.... and FYI: SHOCK COLLAR is a Stupid name for them. 

People successfully train with them, I trained my dog with one. He's the most well behaved, most obedient dog in our dog park. I have recall at 400 yds with a "beep" not a SHOCK. He sleeps on my legs on the sofa every night, He kisses me so much in the face that I need to keep baby wipes close by to clean his sweet slober. Yep, My dog HATES me for training him with a SHOCK COLLAR. 

It's YOUR BUSINESS how you train a dog..... those who come to ask for opinions and advise are constantly belittled, and it's digusting to me. If you don't like e-collars, who ever told you that you had to use one? If you don't use one GREAT. Good for you. How about not giving your opinion about their PROPER USE unless you have used one??? Sheesh..... Another Thread, Another Rant. I am done now.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> OMG! Seriously?:no:


 
My post that Ljilly28 quoted was #354. I did not write "yahoo" anything. And it can be seen that I did not edit post #354, either.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Tuckers Mom said:


> It's YOUR BUSINESS how you train a dog..... those who come to ask for opinions and advise are constantly belittled, and it's digusting to me. If you don't like e-collars, who ever told you that you had to use one? If you don't use one GREAT. Good for you. How about not giving your opinion about their PROPER USE unless you have used one???


The OP's question was whether or not to use one, not _how_ to use one.


----------



## LifeOfRiley (Nov 2, 2007)

Cowtown said:


> *Collar conditioning takes 1-2 weeks max. Once it's done, it's done for life.* There are bad people out there that do bad things to animals but most that use a collar do so with the mantra of "least amount of pressure to get the desired response". *After a dog is ecollar conditioned the saying is "always on, seldom used".*


 
I fear for anyone who believes that.

My uncle's father-in-law, for as long as I can remember, has trained his Springers using an ecollar. Used it for everything - hunting, border training, etc. His dogs have always been, by any account, _very_ well-trained dogs.
Until one day when his girl was, I believe, about 10 years old. She walked out to the mailbox with him like she'd done a million times before. No collar. She refused to listen to his voice command, ran out into the road and was hit by a FedEx truck.

If the saying is, as you mentioned, "Always on, seldom used" then the training isn't for life. And having to rely on _any_ piece of equipment, whether you're talking about an ecollar or a Gentle Leader, is a recipe for disaster. Equipment fails.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Pointgold said:


> My post that Ljilly28 quoted was #354. I did not write "yahoo" anything. And it can be seen that I did not edit post #354, either.


I hope it was some weird mistake. I never thought to proof read when people quote me I guess I need to pay more attention. I could be saying something entirely different by the end of the thread without knowing it lol!


----------



## Tuckers Mom (Nov 12, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> The OP's question was whether or not to use one, not _how_ to use one.


 
Whatever..... 

The point still remains that most of those that get involved in these highly emotionally charged threads have ZERO personal experience with them, therefore should refrain from posting and getting all of this crap started in the first place.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Sorry the yahoo thing. It was unintentional bc I meant to quote a different post, and was up early getting the dogs ready to leave for the show. Just a rushing mistake with no meaning intended.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

FYI. I have used an eCollar - I no longer use one. I may use one in the future, but I doubt it. 

You have been successful using one apparently, but I think you can agree they can be dangerous - in the past few weeks I have seen a few honest mistakes made with eCollars that may have set the dogs back in their training .. and these mistakes happened with experienced field people used to working with the collars - they were not angry, but did not know why their dogs were not responding (the dogs had good reasons that put them in a state of confusion).

This is an open forum, so I would guess we all have the right to post; have you read a rule update that says only some people should post?


Tuckers Mom said:


> Whatever.....
> 
> The point still remains that most of those that get involved in these highly emotionally charged threads have ZERO personal experience with them, therefore should refrain from posting and getting all of this crap started in the first place.


----------



## Capt Jack (Dec 29, 2011)

I agree with Tuckers mom about the fact that e-collors are not just shock collars those of you that use "clickers" are no different than those that use the beep except ours work at 400 yards.I can get Jack to return with a beep from a ways up the beach allowing him to run I'm not an exspert but I love my dog & have no wish to hurt him but I do want him to come when he goes too far or where he shouldn't be.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I think several people on this thread are confused about how a clicker works.


----------



## Capt Jack (Dec 29, 2011)

Loisiana said:


> I think several people on this thread are confused about how a clicker works.


 I may be as like many on here are about e-collars.If I have offended anyone I am sorry


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Capt Jack said:


> I may be as like many on here are about e-collars.If I have offended anyone I am sorry


Didn't offend me, just don't think many people use the beep of a collar in the same way as a clicker. A click means "yes you are right.". So when used correctly, it wouldn't be used to _cause_ the dog to come, but instead to tell him he is correct for doing so.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

And a click is also frequently used as a bridge between the correct action and the reward - it marks the action that will be earning the reward.



Loisiana said:


> Didn't offend me, just don't think many people use the beep of a collar in the same way as a clicker. A click means "yes you are right.". So when used correctly, it wouldn't be used to _cause_ the dog to come, but instead to tell him he is correct for doing so.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Loisiana said:


> Didn't offend me, just don't think many people use the beep of a collar in the same way as a clicker. A click means "yes you are right.". So when used correctly, it wouldn't be used to _*cause*_ the dog to come, but instead to tell him he is correct for doing so.


A beep of the collar does not _cause_ the dog to come either. It is however used to get their attention when out of focus.


----------



## Pixies_big_sister (Apr 13, 2012)

I'm really not a fan of shock collars, though I will say, my grandmother had one for her Borzoi, she only ever used it once and then she never turned it on again, because just having the collar on was enough

and the reason she used it that one time was because the borzoi had run across about 4 acres in 7 strides, which included jumping over a fence after a coyote. she fully intended on killing the coyote, and the only thing that stopped her was the collar. my grandmother does not like shock collars but in this instance with a dog with such a strong prey drive it was a valuable training tool.

I don't recommend using a shock collar, it was okay in this instance, but i don't think they're useful in most cases, I think there are better ways of training then using a shock collar, sure they may take longer and more work, but I think it's more worth it that way.


----------



## Pixies_big_sister (Apr 13, 2012)

my grandmother has been trying to figure out how to turn a shock or beep collar into a collar that will vibrate, for her deaf boarder collie(he's 12, and has been going deaf for years) he knows all his hand signals(showed in obedience until him not being able to hear caused problems)
But when he's running in the field or down in the lower woods he's not looking for hand signals, so she wants a "buzz collar" that she can "buzz" when she's trying to get his attention. but it has to be able to handle a distance of at LEAST 200 feet away.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> A beep of the collar does not _cause_ the dog to come either. It is however used to get their attention when out of focus.


"I can get Jack to return with a beep"

Sounds like thats how this person is using it at least. I've never used a beep myself.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Loisiana said:


> "I* can get Jack to return with a beep"*
> 
> Sounds like thats how this person is using it at least. I've never used a beep myself.


Do you mean without a beep?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Tuckers Mom said:


> Whatever.....
> 
> The point still remains that most of those that get involved in these highly emotionally charged threads have ZERO personal experience with them, therefore should refrain from posting and getting all of this crap started in the first place.


If an OP asks whether or not to use a controversial tool, and only hears from people who use that tool, the OP is going to get advice to use it. That's lopsided. There are lots of us who've taken the time to learn quite a bit about it, watched people use it, done lots of reading, pro and con, and have chosen not to use it on our own dogs. We have a right to speak in this debate, and we have a valid viewpoint.

You can't just shut up people you disagree with because they're making your thread controversial instead of cheerleading your viewpoint.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> Tally RAE leg, Copley won the big Novice B class; invisible leash guru? NQ. His dog grabbed the toy in the distraction dish and hightailed it out of the ring. There's too little relationship there.


Quite a stretch to say that this had anything to do with the relationship between the dog and the handler. Have you see much of their work together to be able to make such a statement? 

Fact is, that in just about every venue of competition where precision and control are rewarded, the top finishers have almost always used Ecollars. 



Ljilly28 said:


> If I had to use a shock collar to train something easy like Rally O or CD, or basic like come when called, then yes, I think it is a lazy shortcut to building good skills in handling and a good relationship in which the dog is motivated to work with you.


And here's the _"lazy trainer"_ rudeness and insult. BTW not every dog comes with a _"motivation"_ to work with the owner. And many come as adults, who could not care less about working with an owner. 



Ljilly28 said:


> It is like teaching a kid to say please and thank you by hitting him in the head with a baseball bat.


Such a statement just tells us that you have no idea of how a modern Ecollar is used. In reality, it's more like tapping the kid on the shoulder with a finger. It's the worst kind of scare tactics combined with emotion. 



Ljilly28 said:


> More to the point, it is simply more effective to train the basics with positive reinforcement and reward- based training with high criteria.


This may be true with some dogs. It's NOT true with all. And it's not true for all behaviors. Take a look at the training section of this, or any forum, and see how many posts there are that begin with something like "HELP, Fido runs away and won't come back no matter what I do." These are not people who can wait for weeks for training to take hold. They have an emergency and need help and a recall NOW. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Why would a dog not feel ambivalent at best toward someone who hits or shocks him, or gives huge collar corrections.


Who here is advocating _"hit[ting"_ a dog? Can you show us ONE post where someone talks about that? Here's ANOTHER great example of what some anti's do in these discussions. Typical straw man argument. 

One of the great things about the Ecollar is that, when used properly, the dog does not know that it's the handler who's causing the discomfort. He associates it with the environment and his behavior. 



Ljilly28 said:


> I watched all kinds of trainers at the big show yesterday with this thread in mind from Utility B to beginner Novice, Rally and the breed- watching the different spirits/ body languages in which dogs work toward the same titles. I simply do not admire the ones that slink front with a dumbbell and do not want to approach their owners, yet have learned they must. It turns my stomach and I feel sorry for the dog, not impressed by the title.


Truth is you have no idea why these dogs _"slink with a dumbbell?"_ I bet that you're guessing and assuming. But I welcome you to straighten me out on this.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> It is good to look at the ethos/ethics in our methods of training that talk more about about who we are rather than who the dog is.
> 
> Our methods are a mirror for us to look into, and should prompt us to look into ourselves as well as into our dogs.


I think such introspection is a waste of time. Abusers will be abusers no matter what tool they choose, and they don't _"look into [them]selves."_ Abuse is NOT inherent in any tool, it's in the user. I think it's essential to consider the dog and his needs when choosing a training tool/method. It's all well and good to sit around contemplating our navels, but the fact is that dogs need to be trained. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Obviously, some people think E collars represent the best, most ethical practice in dog training basic commands or low level obedience.


Let's not forget advanced commands and high level OB. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Others do not, and think it is at best a shortcut and at worse inhumane treatment of a dog or puppy. That's a pretty big clash in perspectives and paradigms.


Inhumane treatment of animals is against the law in every state in the US. If you think that an Ecollar is _"inhumane"_ I bet that you have a long string of having people arrested and then getting them convicted for using them. Can you tell us of some of these cases please? Or is this just more empty rhetoric?


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Sunrise said:


> There are certainly situations (field training for one) where an eCollar can be fair and efficient, but I think people tend to forget that they are correction collars - long distance correction collars. Behaviors must be trained at close range, including proofing, regardless of your training approach.


It's not that people _"forget"_ this. It's that it's not the only way that an Ecollar can be used. I'd suggest that some education is in order here.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Sunrise said:


> That is the point I was attempting to make - that collars are for correction


I'm sorry but you're wrong. An Ecollar is not just _"for correction."_ They are also great tools for teaching new behaviors. 



Sunrise said:


> ... and do not take the place of teaching.


Nothing can take the place of _"teaching."_ 



Sunrise said:


> That the collars are not a short cut


They certainly are not. But then I haven't seen anyone in this discussion who uses them say that they are. 



Sunrise said:


> nor are they the go-to method especially not when not paired with reward


Every time that the button on an Ecollar is pressed, there's punishment. Every time the button is released, there's reinforcement and the dog is rewarded. So you can see that the tool DOES _"pair with reward."_ They are a great "go to tool/method" when others have failed. But I guess there may be some semantics at play there.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> If an OP asks whether or not to use a controversial tool, and only hears from people who use that tool, the OP is going to get advice to use it. That's lopsided. There are lots of us who've taken the time to learn quite a bit about it, watched people use it, done lots of reading, pro and con, and have chosen not to use it on our own dogs. We have a right to speak in this debate, and we have a valid viewpoint.


I have no problem with people expressing a contrary viewpoint. 

I do have a problem when they 


cite poor studies that support their side and ignore good studies that don't. 
cite myths and misconceptions about the Ecollar as if they were facts. 
grossly exaggerate the risks that are associated with the tool, all the while pretending that there are no risks associated with their tools/methods. 
use emotional arguments rather than logic and reason. 
play semantic games in apparent efforts to dilute the flow of information to people who requested it. 
make assumptions about how a dog was trained based on his appearance, when they have no idea how the dog was trained. 
commit personal attacks on Ecollar users, based on their use of the tool. 
have done little or no research on ways that the tool can be used and instead, make assumptions about it and then pretend that's "how it's done." 
see the results of misuse or abuse and assume that's how the all results of use of the tool look. 
talk about Ecollars when the tool is used poorly and/or they only talk about their tools/methods when they're properly used. 
equate use of an Ecollar to hitting, kicking or otherwise abusing a dog. 
anthropomorphize into the ludicrous. 
pretend to have risen to some moral high ground and adopt a "holier than thou" attitude. 
Members here have done ALL of those things in just this one discussion.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Whew. 
I shall now take my dogs to yoga class, and we have meditation afterwards. 
_Om......om.......om....._


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

To all,

This "hot topic" thread is on the verge of being closed. 

It seems to me everyone already has an opinion one way or another on this issue and no matter what is said after 43 pages ( and sometimes not in the best manner) everyone is sticking to their guns. So if nothing more can be said, other than to bicker back and forth, I will see no more need in keeping this thread open.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

Wow - okay. 

To repeat. I have used eCollars back in the 80's. I have actually purchased and later given away several eCollars since then - I can teach & proof without them - period. 

I work with many people who use eCollars; rarely outside of field though. With 1 exception, all the people I know who train with eCollars limit it to field where the distances can be considerable. The person who tried it in obedience & agility - their dogs pees & poops in the ring - infer what you;d like..

I show in obedience, agility, rally and hunt tests. I am not an uneducated person when it comes to dog training. So please do not make assumptions - you will also notice I made mention dogs IMO needed more of a reward than the cessation of positive punishment. Yes the stopping of pain/punishment can be very re-inforcing but first you need to inflict the pain/punishment. 

The choice of whether to use an eCollar or not is not always about a lack of education, but sometimes the result of exploring different viewpoints and being open to change. 

ETA: If I had a dog that was at risk of danger and training without a collar was not working, yes, I would hire a professional and use an eCollar - if my dog starts heading for the hills while field training, I will use an eCollar if I choose to continue in field work. If my dog ever developed a habit that occurred only at distance, an eCollar would be a valuable tool if I choose to continue in whatever that venue is. But again, this would be for long distance correction. I would then be using this tool as intended, a long distance corrective tool.




Lou Castle said:


> It's not that people _"forget"_ this. It's that it's not the only way that an Ecollar can be used. I'd suggest that some education is in order here.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Motivating a dog to work _with_ you is a lot more fun and rewarding when you don't substantially rely on teaching him that his "environment" or his trainer is delivering negative consequences in response to his behavior. What you're describing is quite different than the way most of the people on GRF talk about e-collars. They teach dogs without the collar and only use it later in the process to proof the skills by providing consequences when he blows a known skill. I think the less you end up using aversives, the better, and a lot of e-collar users here work according to that philosophy. I still have concerns about what it does to a dog in the long run when he gets stimmed as a regular part of training, even in a pro's hands, but I can certainly respect that it falls within the realm of good dog training.

I also think that negatively punished (i.e., through omission/withholding) behaviors disappear more durably than positively punished (i.e., through adding aversive stimuli) behavior, even though positive punishment sometimes yields faster results up front. There's lots of healthy debate in behavioral science on these issues, though.

Here are some interesting papers on the relative properties of pleasant and aversive stimuli. I tried to pick stuff that had at least an abstract available online and full text where possible:

This one has a nice discussion of the competing theories, including the one that Lou seems to endorse, the symmetrical law of effect/common-impact hypothesis, though Lou will have to tell us himself if that's actually what he means when he talks about two sides of the coin.
Here's a paper that supports the theory that positive and aversive stimuli are equally powerful in their effect to shape behavior. Notice that he uses "positive stimulus" to mean "pleasant stimulus" despite Lou's insistence that positive and negative only mean one thing in behavioral lit.
Here's one on how the brain processes loss and gain differently. The authors here attempted to make the positive and negative stimuli as equivalent as possible in order to study them directly against each other. A big problem in comparing the two is that it's often food vs. shock in behavioral experiments, and it's very hard to measure the size of the impact of one against the other in order to compare effects and side effects.
Here's a really interesting one on the way adverse events are processed in a different way than other events. It uses "negative event," by the way to mean "adverse or threatening." What's interesting to me is that it explores the way negative events are processed in a more powerful but less durable fashion than other kinds of events.
Here's a paper on how aversive stimulus can create displaced aggression. This issue is particularly concerning to me, since I do worry, based on findings like these, that a dog stimmed in one context may show aggression in another context. When an e-collar worked dog shows snarkiness towards another dog or another anxious, unconfident, or aggressive behavior, it's certainly hard to say for sure that he wouldn't have if he'd been trained in a different way, but it's a legitimate concern.

And because Lou decided to double down on trying to catch me on a technicality on which he's woefully wrong, and posted scholarpedia and overview articles as examples of real behavioral literature, here's some more _actual behavioral literature_ that uses "negative stimulus" to mean "aversive stimulus" or some variation on that.

Age-related Alterations in Simple Declarative Memory and the Effect of Negative Stimulus Valence
Negative Emotion Impairs Conflict-Driven Executive Control
Dynamic Integration of Reward and Stimulus Information in Perceptual Decision-Making

You could also Google scholarly articles for the phrase "negative stimulus" and "behavior" and see dozens more.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I think that's a fairly balanced list of papers, but if somebody has some that demonstrate aversive stimuli have low side-effect risks, particularly relative to positive stimuli, please post them. I don't think you'll really find that, though. I made an honest effort to find some and came up empty handed.

If you make any kind of review of the literature, you'll find some papers that support the equivalence of pleasant and aversive stimuli in their ability to shape behavior, studies that examine how different they are in the way the brain processes them, and studies that show undesired displaced side effects for negative stimuli. The most consistently observed side effect of positive stimuli is that the animal tends to be energetic and creative (i.e., trying new, previously unseen behaviors) in pursuit of more rewards. That can be inconvenient in some dog training contexts, but it's also one of the most powerful teaching tools for trainers who rely primarily on rewards for shaping behavior.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Sunrise said:


> I am not an uneducated person when it comes to dog training.


Understatement of the year, right there.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

No time to write bc dropping dogs off and heading back to the show. Just put an obedience leg on a big black Newfie in 80 degree sun, lol. That's my plug for positive training as I trained her for her owner with a clicker. As for the e collar, there's not much empty rhetoric about saying I am unsure how I feel about it for field training in expert hands, that I am against it for pet owners bc I see many dogs ruined by them, and that I think it is a lame way to train obedience. There's not much more to say about my opinion, so that's that. Other people will do as they will do, just not at my training center or with my dogs. People researching e collars on this forum certainly will see how controversial and divisive they are, which is good because they will give lots of thought to why they choose the methods they choose, what they stand for and what they stand against.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I found using the collar for Flip was quite successful for him with a lot of his obedience work. Flip is an interesting combination of being a very tough dog both physically and emotionally, but is also a major momma's boy that does not like to be away from me at all. So here is an example of when an ecollar came in handy in his training:

Flip went through a phase as a youngster where he would stand up when I would leave him in a sit to go do a recall. Now my first reaction when a dog does this is to say "nope," go back and resit him, and either completely redo or just take a few steps then go back and reward. But Flip figured out that standing up got him exactly what he wanted: me to come back to him. So I began putting some pressure up on the collar to resit him and putting some firmness into my voice. But that was where my "tough dog" thought we were playing a game. It didn't phase him in the least. My next option could have been to really up the level of correction and really get into his face until I reached a level that he found not worth it. But that's not the direction I wanted to go. So I pulled out the ecollar, set it at a very low level so it was enough to bother him but not to actually hurt him, and now I could explain to him that standing up was not the correct option while keeping me out of the picture. It worked wonderfully.

I'm sure there are some reading who could come up with dozens of other ways they think I could have trained it. But I don't have a problem with what I did, I feel like it was the perfect technique for that dog and that situation. And in no way do I feel like I harmed my dog or our relationship.


----------



## Tennyson (Mar 26, 2011)

Started Mick out on voice commands. Using vocal tonalities Mick quickly understood play, praise, disappointment, sadness and the all important "knock it off."
Never had a problem where a vocal correction didn't work.
During my summers in college I worked as an electrician's helper. I've been zapped so many times then I could remember. I have the utmost respect for electrical currents. I would never consider using them on any living creature let alone Mick. I can also see how some would abuse the collar out of anger and desperation.
It's just my opinion. The e-collar isn't for us.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Dog training the fun and easy way, that works for _your dog? _

_OR_

Over-analyzing/intellectualizing/complicating training your dog?








​Hmmmm... I've done okay all these years. I own/have trained/have taught people how to have *HAPPY, *willing, obedient (oh - maybe it isn't PC to use that term anymore - kinda brings to mind subservience rather than a "partnership". Maybe AKC etc oughta work on that and start sanctioning Partnership Trials...) and reliable dogs who I have a really REALLY good time with, and who certainly _seem _to have a really REALLY good time with me, too. 
SO, that said, I'll just leave all the bickering/"I _know_ Method XXX is horrific/wonderful (whether I've used it or not)", he said/she said, blah blah blah up to whoever.
I'M off to the lake with a lot of dogs. ​


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I think science can frequently teach us better ways to do things. Many, many times, behavioral science has helped people learn that some things that are intuitive to people are counterproductive in dog training. So many of the things we take for granted in contemporary dog training were first pioneered by people who took cues from the science of animal behavior.

Many things that were normal in dog training fifty years ago (or at least normal according to some of the older dog training books I've read) have been completely abandoned as ineffective or counterproductive. Many of those advances can be traced right to advances in behavioral science. I'm thinking in particular of the way that hitting dogs has been completely abandoned as part of good training.

My point is not to compare stimming to hitting—they're worlds apart—but rather to say that ignoring animal behavior because it's too complicated means missing out on huge opportunities to improve oneself as a trainer.

The day we stop challenging ourselves to improve as trainers and only rely on that what's worked in the past is a sad, sad day for the dogs.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Lou Castle said:


> I think such introspection is a waste of time. *Abusers will be abusers no matter what tool they choose, and they don't "look into [them]selves." Abuse is NOT inherent in any tool, it's in the user.* I think it's essential to consider the dog and his needs when choosing a training tool/method. It's all well and good to sit around contemplating our navels, but the fact is that dogs need to be trained.


I don't know how many times I have said this. The tool is not the abuser the user is. If there were no ecollars there still will be abusers. Any tool can be used to abuse, heck even the computer you are typing on right now. How many abusers use it to lure their victims? Should we ban this tool because it can be used to abuse? And insunuating that using an ecollar is like hitting your dog with a bat, or will ruin the relationship is downright absurd to say the least. If the concern is abuse, I believe the focus should be ON ABUSE, not the tool. Help stop abuse not technology. Let's move forward not backwards people. Just my not so humble opinion


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Tennyson said:


> Started Mick out on voice commands. Using vocal tonalities Mick quickly understood play, praise, disappointment, sadness and the all important "knock it off."
> Never had a problem where a vocal correction didn't work.
> During my summers in college I worked as an electrician's helper. I've been zapped so many times then I could remember. I have the utmost respect for electrical currents. I would never consider using them on any living creature let alone Mick. I can also see how some would abuse the collar out of anger and desperation.
> It's just my opinion. The e-collar isn't for us.


That's cool if the ecollar isn't for you. I respect that. But would like to let you know the stim is not the same as the electrical currents you have been shocked by I got zapped at home by electricity and I agree I have total respect for it also.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

*s*

Every dog is an individual, and treated as an individual. I learn as much or more from those individuals as they do from me. I simply don't feel the need to impress with verbosity. I prefer the results do the talking.

No need to lament over the sad sad state that my poor dogs must be in due to my ignorance, lack of scientific knowlege, or inability to eloquently present myself as expert in everything. There is something to be said for "keep it simple stupid", when the proof is in the willingness, happiness, and reliability of 30 plus years. But, it's probably just dumb luck. Whatever, I'll take it.


----------



## Tuckers Mom (Nov 12, 2010)

Again,

too many pages, nothing accomplished except ridiculous bickering. I agree this thread needs to close.

Train your dog how YOU believe it is best to train YOUR DOG. 
Stop accusing people of animal cruelty unless you know FOR FACT that the animal is being abused.
Unless you have personally used an e-collar, trained with one, and can provide feedback both positive or negative to your experience, Don't respond to the OP as they are looking for advice from people whom actually use them.

Why must we have 10 threads a year to argue this? really? REALLY??

Play with your dog's and enjoy the weekend. This is pointless at this juncture.


----------



## Florabora22 (Nov 30, 2008)

Tuckers Mom said:


> Again,
> 
> too many pages, nothing accomplished except ridiculous bickering. I agree this thread needs to close.
> 
> ...


That's asinine. Why shouldn't people who have had success with other training methods chime in? I would like to think that you would support the notion of training a PUPPY without the use of an ecollar if it was possible.

Everyone has a right to voice their opinions. Just because you may disagree with a poster does not mean you can tell them what threads he/she can and cannot participate in.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

Telling people the positive & negative experiences that I have had with an eCollar is a different request, but here goes:

I had a highly driven golden and no prior experience training such a dog; we always had german shepards and rescues who have different drives. My golden and I were kicked out of a few obedience schools since King was so out of control (he became a high scoring UD dog BTW). So I hired a professional dog trainer to teach me how to teach my dog - this trainer was a schuzthund trainer so while he was very strict about praising and rewarding after a correction, all of the training was correction /compulsion based.

I live on the side of a mountain and across the street was a horse farm with chickens, cows etc. Now King would set his sights on those chickens and drive down the embankments I call my front yard moving faster and faster, not responding to my calls. Did I mention I also live on a major thoroughfare?

So my trainer agreed, after much discussion, to use the eCollar - my dog was literally screaming when stimmed (he was a very tough dog who could ram into a tree, shake out and continue on his way without a sound) and that collar was cranked as high as it could go!! He finally stopped within 10 feet of the road. We attempted it a few more times with a dragline and an assistant at the bottom level of my yard. We finally went back to using a long line and building up the response to recall. Did the collar help? Perhaps it did but cranking up his training in highly stimulating environments helped more. Building our relationship also helped - if he would rather be with me than chasing chickens, well life is good! This, btw, was a compulsion trained dog.

I have not had such issues with any of my next 4 goldens - 3 of whom were primarily trained in a positive reward manner, one (Rowdy) was my cross over dog who taught me so very much about how you can shut a dog down using correction before a dog truly understands. Casey, btw, taught me that it is a good thing to take the phrase 'positive is not permissive' to heart since he could have used more structure and proofing in his training. 

Can you relate some experiences that you have had with and without the use of the eCollar please?



Tuckers Mom said:


> Again,
> 
> too many pages, nothing accomplished except ridiculous bickering. I agree this thread needs to close.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tuckers Mom (Nov 12, 2010)

For Sunrise:

My dog is a rescue, adopted at roughly 1 year of age, and based on his energy level, body composition, and insane prey drive, I believe his lineage was from field lines. The dog could retrieve for HOURS. HOURS. Insane. 

Basic Obedience: He had none when we got him, other than potty training. Enrolled in basic obedience and he was impossible to handle. The trauma of his prior life was evident, he was so afraid of his surroundings, he tried to attack other dogs without warrant at our dog park. I could not walk him on a leash without it looking like I was water skiing. 

Surroundings: We live on a rural country road that sees a fair amount of local delivery traffic as well as semi tractor trailers that make deliveries. We also have an amazing amount of wildlife on our property. Our fencing system is split rail, and our previous resident golden ( RIP Frazier) roamed our yard freely without any issues, then again, he was a VERY different dog. Tucker whines, paces, and cries at the site of squirrels, rabbits, possums, racoons, all that live around our home. It was truly a matter of time before Tucker was going to bolt and my greatest fears would be realized, he would bolt out into oncoming traffic. Would.Not.let.that.happen.

Advanced Training: worked with a highly recommended obedience trainer that also is a behaviorist, and evaluated Tucker. He agreed that Tucker's young age, previous living environment and High energy all made him an incredibly challenging dog. He lacked confidence, and affection. I had the affection part down from day one, the Confidence that I had to have to be able to lead him was lacking. I cried what felt like buckets of tears over how to proceed with training, and came to the decision to use an e-collar. My trainer put me in touch with a Field Trainer and helped me to get Tucker into a training class right away. With ONE TRAINING SESSION, I was able to:

Walk him on a lead
Recall him to me
Have him drop and wait on my command- most important should he ever get away from my Husband or I at home and try to run after a critter, and we need him to freeze. 

All achieved with use of clicker, reward, e-collar training by a qualified trainer who can not SHOCK YOUR DOG, but show YOU how to have your dog recognize your command, and obey your command. Dogs need leadership. In a perfect world they are easily trained, and the job is easy with basic obedience. Tucker was not the case. The scared dog that had no confidence and wanted to fight every dog that he came in contact with, did those things because he was in survival mode with No leader. No Alpha. I became his alpha with some strong training, ALOT of love, ALOT of praising his accomplishments, and yes, the help of an E-collar. He now proudly struts into the park and is one of the most well known dogs in our local park for his pure AWESOMENESS. He retrieves, will proudly " drop" his beloved orange ball for anyone as long as they will play with him, and he is the most gentle playmate for all dogs that wish to engage in friendly battle. It was a long road, and I would do it all over again.

E-Collars don't hurt a dog. They give you a dog that you can handle when you risk losing them. They also give you a GREAT Field Dog. People Hurt Dogs with e-collars when they are ignorant to how and when they should be used.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Motivating a dog to work with you is a lot more fun and rewarding when you don't substantially rely on teaching him that his "environment" or his trainer is delivering negative consequences in response to his behavior.


Thanks for sharing your opinion. Mine is quite different. What's _"fun and rewarding"_ in dog training is when you can see the results of your work quickly. I get dramatic changes in behavior in each session, including the first ones. 



tippykayak said:


> What you're describing is quite different than the way most of the people on GRF talk about e-collars. They teach dogs without the collar and only use it later in the process to proof the skills by providing consequences when he blows a known skill.


Yes, I know. That's the case most of the world over. So what? Some people even think that the dog MUST know the behaviors before an Ecollar is used. They're simply wrong, as I've proven repeatedly. That may be the case with their method, it's not so with mine. 



tippykayak said:


> I think the less you end up using aversives, the better


I know that when you use aversive properly, that how many you use, makes no difference. The dog decides whether he'll perform or not. If he does not, he knows that an aversive will follow. If he does then a reward will follow. Training is best when it's balanced between reinforcement and punishment. 



tippykayak said:


> I still have concerns about what it does to a dog in the long run when he gets stimmed as a regular part of training, even in a pro's hands, but I can certainly respect that it falls within the realm of good dog training.


Most Ecollar users have these same concerns. Most of them are aware that NOT ONE SINGLE STUDY has shown an adverse effect to a dog _"in the long run."_ If you disagree, please show us a study that shows it. Several, usually those done by antis, will find some issue in the short run, often those results, as in Schilder, are COMPLETELY subjective, and they will then, based on that "conclude" that in the long run something may be afoot. But not one study shows that there's any more than this vague insinuation. 

And there are some studies that show that when a dog can make an association between the stim and a behavior, there's either no measurable stress or it exists only on the first day. One of these studies use cortisol measure to objectively evaluate the dog's stress levels. 



tippykayak said:


> I also think that negatively punished (i.e., through omission/withholding) behaviors disappear more durably than positively punished (i.e., through adding aversive stimuli) behavior, even though positive punishment sometimes yields faster results up front. There's lots of healthy debate in behavioral science on these issues, though.


It's good that you admit that there are arguments counter to your opinion. My personal experience bears out the fact that your opinion is wrong. One of the dogs that I trained for LE for my department did not need a correction for the last two years of his working life. That's pretty durable in my book. This was a dog that was worked off-leash almost all the time. He did off leash walk-throughs of what was at that time, the third busiest mall in California. He did building and area search off leash as well. 



tippykayak said:


> Here are some interesting papers on the relative properties of pleasant and aversive stimuli.


Thanks for the papers. Interesting reading. I didn't see anything that supported your position with any certainty. In fact the first link contains this,


> Further research is needed to reconcile this outcome with apparently robust findings in other literatures of superior behavior control by aversive events.


This study contains the fact that there is much support for the theory that one gets *"superior behavior control by aversive events." * 

I tried to pick stuff that had at least an abstract available online and full text where possible:



tippykayak said:


> Notice that he uses "positive stimulus" to mean "pleasant stimulus" despite Lou's insistence that positive and negative only mean one thing in behavioral lit.


Quite the *MIS*statement of facts there. I said that * in OC * there is no such thing as _"negative stimulus."_ the issue, as I've said before, is that "you are mixing up the scientific language with the popular literature and that is sure to result in confusion. I think that's part of your plan. To confuse the readers into believing that you have some fount of knowledge that you really don't have." 

Had you not deleted your post #387, my response (which I didn't post because of your deletion) would have included this, negating what you just wrote. 

There, you had written,


> Hmm...let's google scholarly articles that use the phrase "negative stimulus," shall we?


OK lets. That search reveals ONLY 4,190 hits, not very many by Google standards. I looked at the first one, no mention made of the term _"negative stimulus."_ Ditto for the third, or the fourth. I've already said, _"By "negative stimulus" I'd guess that you mean an aversive, something the dog does not like and will work to avoid."_ Thanks for showing us those sites. The issue arose because you have a habit of mixing OC in with your common language, adding to the confusion that people have with OC. It appeared to me that you were speaking in OC terms. When you're not speaking in OC terms, the term is in use. Better now? 



tippykayak said:


> Here's a paper on how aversive stimulus can create displaced aggression. This issue is particularly concerning to me, since I do worry, based on findings like these, that a dog stimmed in one context may show aggression in another context. When an e-collar worked dog shows snarkiness towards another dog or another anxious, unconfident, or aggressive behavior, it's certainly hard to say for sure that he wouldn't have if he'd been trained in a different way, but it's a legitimate concern.


AGAIN, you're wrong. It's NOT a legitimate concern and here's why. As is almost always the case in these studies, VERY HIGH LEVELS OF SHOCK WERE USED AND THERE WAS NO CONTEXT TO IT. The animals were shocked (here the term is very appropriate) for no reason (other than to measure their responses). Proper Ecollar training allows the dog to make a clear association between the stim and behaviors. This study did not involve Ecollars but AGAIN it's a clear attempt by someone to use bad training as an example of what happens with Ecollars. These tactics never stop. 



tippykayak said:


> And because Lou decided to double down on trying to catch me on a technicality on which he's woefully wrong ...


You're really way behind on this. When you deleted your post, I decided not to post my response which, as I've shown, would have covered this. AGAIN it was due to your habit of mixing of common language with the terms of OC. As you sometimes do, you try to change the context of the discussion in order to make yourself right. 



tippykayak said:


> and posted scholarpedia and overview articles as examples of real behavioral literature


Again I'll refer to my message that I didn't post. Earlier you wrote,


> Check the actual scholarly articles I googled for you. Things like "scholarpedia" and other encyclopedia-type overview pages for * college freshmen * aren't generally considered part of the literature.


Haven't you been telling me to read _" Psych 101 or Animal Behavior 101 textbook"_ Aren't those _"college freshman"_ textbooks?


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> The most consistently observed side effect of positive stimuli is that the animal tends to be energetic and creative (i.e., trying new, previously unseen behaviors) in pursuit of more rewards. * That can be inconvenient in some dog training contexts, * but it's also one of the most powerful teaching tools for trainers who rely primarily on rewards for shaping behavior. [Emphasis Added]


_"Inconvenient"_ is a very "convenient" way to say that these dogs become so _"energetic and creative"_ (the last word is sometimes a politically correct euphemism for "destructive") resulting in their owners sometimes taking them to the shelter and having them killed.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> Just put an obedience leg on a big black Newfie in 80 degree sun, lol. That's my plug for positive training as I trained her for her owner with a clicker.


Congratulations, great news. 

My plug for BALANCED TRAINING that uses all sorts of tools and methods, including the Ecollar, is that for about 20 years dogs I trained found hiding felons in all sorts of weather, hot, cold, light sprinkles to thunderstorms; barking at them when appropriate and biting them when appropriate. Rather than doing this in an OB ring where the distractions are predictable, it occurred in public, in back yards, on the road and in fields. The distractions ranged from people shooting guns to animals of all kinds and sizes – from mice to deer. Wondering which the forum members would think was harder, provided more distractions, and required greater reliability? 



Ljilly28 said:


> As for the e collar, there's not much empty rhetoric about saying I am unsure how I feel about it for field training in expert hands, that I am against it for pet owners bc I see many dogs ruined by them, and that I think it is a *lame way * to train obedience. [Emphasis Added]


Gotta get that insult in there, huh? Anyway. I've seen many dogs _"ruined"_ by people who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods." The difference between us? I realize that it's not the tool or the method. It's how they're applied. This seems painfully obvious to me but it's something that the antis miss rather consistently, as you've just done. 



Ljilly28 said:


> People researching e collars on this forum certainly will see how controversial and divisive they are, which is good because they will give lots of thought to why they choose the methods they choose, what they stand for and what they stand against.


Ecollar are not controversial among people who use them properly. It's only among those who have never used one or who those who have used one poorly or those who have some emotional baggage that prevents them from being logical and reasonable on the topic. 

I stand for effective, reliable dog training, while being humane at all times. And so I use an Ecollar.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Tennyson said:


> Started Mick out on voice commands. Using vocal tonalities Mick quickly understood play, praise, disappointment, sadness and the all important "knock it off."
> 
> Never had a problem where a vocal correction didn't work.


Thanks for making one of my points. You dog is not everyone's dog. Just because your dog responded to these methods hardly means that all dogs will. These forum are full of "Help Me Please" posts from people whose dogs DO NOT RESPOND to what you've described. 

It's very common in these discussion for people to make statements as you've just made, insinuating that what works for one dog, will work for another, or worse yet, for all dogs. 



Tennyson said:


> During my summers in college I worked as an electrician's helper. I've been zapped so many times then I could remember. I have the utmost respect for electrical currents. I would never consider using them on any living creature let alone Mick.


Thanks for making ANOTHER of my points in these discussions. You have generalized the shocks you got while working as an electrician's helper, comparing it with the stim that an Ecollar puts out. Having some people use the word "shock" to describe that feeling hasn't helped you with the reality that the feeling produced by an Ecollar set at low levels where all the basic work is done, is better described as "a tingle, a buzz, or a tap." 

Lindsay says this very well in Volume 3 of his _Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training. _ Emphases are mine.


> First, at low levels, the term shock is hardly fitting to describe the effect produced by electronic training collars, since *there is virtually no effect beyond a pulsing tingling or tickling sensation on the surface of the skin. * Second, * the word shock is loaded with biased connotations, images of convulsions spasms and burns, and implications associated with extreme physical pain, emotional trauma, physiological collapse, and laboratory abuses. *





Tennyson said:


> I can also see how some would abuse the collar out of anger and desperation.


If someone can see this, it tells us more about them, than it does about the tool. 



Tennyson said:


> It's just my opinion. The e-collar isn't for us.


I've had MANY people say this. For some it was just a matter of time until they got the wrong (for their methods) dog.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I think science can frequently teach us better ways to do things.


It can also mislead, misinform and frighten us. Remember the studies several years ago that said that the artificial sweetener "Saccharine" causes cancer? Only after this statement was headlines around the world, was it revealed that one would have to ingest 600 times the usual dose that someone put into their coffee, for this to occur. And THIS only if you were a lab rat. Yet the link was made to humans by the media because it was sensational. 


Not one of the studies that you've cited will _"teach us better ways"_ to train a dog. 



tippykayak said:


> Many, many times, behavioral science has helped people learn that some things that are intuitive to people are counterproductive in dog training. So many of the things we take for granted in contemporary dog training were first pioneered by people who took cues from the science of animal behavior.


Can you give us a concrete example of this please? 



tippykayak said:


> Many things that were normal in dog training fifty years ago (or at least normal according to some of the older dog training books I've read) have been completely abandoned as ineffective or counterproductive.


Ditto. 



tippykayak said:


> Many of those advances can be traced right to advances in behavioral science. I'm thinking in particular of the way that hitting dogs has been completely abandoned as part of good training.


Well, if this is one such example. AGAIN, you're wrong. Hitting dogs occurs in MUCH dog training. It depends on what's being trained and what the dog is being trained for. 



tippykayak said:


> My point is not to compare stimming to hitting—they're worlds apart—but rather to say that ignoring animal behavior because it's too complicated means missing out on huge opportunities to improve oneself as a trainer.


Can you give us an example of someone in this discussion who is _"ignoring animal behavior because it's too complicated"_ and how they're doing this _"ignoring."_ please. 



tippykayak said:


> The day we stop challenging ourselves to improve as trainers and only rely on that what's worked in the past is a sad, sad day for the dogs.


Well we can at least agree on this.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Can't everyone agree that not one method is the best to train all dogs? One of the many reasons I have only Goldens is that I did own beagles. I was tired of owning a breed of dog that was like hitting your head against the wall in training... I wanted a breed of dog that could be reliably house trained and trained in general....But after having had nine Goldens, they are not all created equal. I had one golden that was like a machine ... You could repeat exercises over and over and she would keep on coming. My Cookie who was a gorgeous heeler and attained a CDX ( as far as I bothered to train her), had a shut off point. When she was done, it seemed she that she couldn't even comprehend the basics like sit. So my goal was not to train her to that point... Other than Invisible Fence, I have no e collar experience. If I felt it was necessary, I would engage a trainer whose knowledge I respected.... I used a micro prong collar on my training machine and instead of being a downer for her, it brightened her and made her heel better. Whatever methods you use, it matters how good your timing is and how you reward the dog....


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> Training is best when it's balanced between reinforcement and punishment.


That's your opinion, and it clearly drives your training style. Mine is that training is best when you minimize the number of times you need to do something your dog finds unpleasant. There are other things that make it 'best' for me, but that's one of the fundamental ones.



Lou Castle said:


> Most Ecollar users have these same concerns. Most of them are aware that NOT ONE SINGLE STUDY has shown an adverse effect to a dog _"in the long run."_ If you disagree, please show us a study that shows it.


The fact that somebody hasn't studied something doesn't make the opposite true. I haven't seen any studies proving that long term use of adverse stimuli doesn't have side effects, but that's probably just because it would be nigh impossible to prove conclusively or to even set up such a study. I do, however, notice the scarcity of behavioral science literature you offer in support of your theories.



Lou Castle said:


> One of these studies use cortisol measure to objectively evaluate the dog's stress levels.


Cortisol is _one_ objective measurement of stress, but salivary cortisol levels alone don't tell the whole story of stress.



Lou Castle said:


> My personal experience bears out the fact that your opinion is wrong. One of the dogs that I trained for LE for my department did not need a correction for the last two years of his working life. That's pretty durable in my book. This was a dog that was worked off-leash almost all the time. He did off leash walk-throughs of what was at that time, the third busiest mall in California. He did building and area search off leash as well.


Presumably this dog wasn't only punished by was also positively reinforced for his work? 



Lou Castle said:


> Thanks for the papers. Interesting reading. I didn't see anything that supported your position with any certainty. In fact the first link contains this,
> 
> This study contains the fact that there is much support for the theory that one gets *"superior behavior control by aversive events." *


That's because I tried to give an overview of what different theories are out there. Read more of that paper, though. It doesn't end up buying that conclusion. It also completely contradicts your "coin" theory (I notice you're quite silent on that) and questions the idea that aversive events are as powerful as some other literature seems to indicate. That paper does not support any of your theories about coins or the role of negative reinforcement and contradicts quite a bit of you've said. I notice that you're not quoting any of those parts. And that you're really silent on whether your coin theory holds water in the face of this research. Did you just skim down and quote the first sentence that appeared to support you while ignoring the pages and pages that don't?



Lou Castle said:


> I said that * in OC * there is no such thing as _"negative stimulus."_


Which is incorrect, since OC papers since Skinner use the term interchangeably with "aversive stimulus." I showed you dozens and dozens, not just in the search, but in the list I posted. You don't seem interested in those. You are wrong. You are wrong because you haven't done your homework, and then, when I did the homework for you, you decided to double down on being wrong instead of reading.



Lou Castle said:


> I think that's part of your plan. To confuse the readers into believing that you have some fount of knowledge that you really don't have."


I'm so nefarious! Let me stop stroking this bald cat for a minute and type. My credentials are just fine, though they're not what my argument rests on anyway. I've never said "I'm right because I took such and such a class at Such and Such University." I'm right on this particular point because I've seen the term used that way lots of times and was able to provide lots and lots of examples of it. 



Lou Castle said:


> OK lets. That search reveals ONLY 4,190 hits, not very many by Google standards.


Do you know what Google Scholar is? It only searches scholarly articles, not the whole web. 4000+ hits is an enormous number of papers for such a specific term. And here's the Google Scholar search for "negative stimulus" paired with "operant." Still having trouble finding it?



Lou Castle said:


> I looked at the first one, no mention made of the term _"negative stimulus."_ Ditto for the third, or the fourth.


Then you aren't reading the papers. They only come up in the search because they include the term.



Lou Castle said:


> It appeared to me that you were speaking in OC terms. When you're not speaking in OC terms, the term is in use. Better now?


The term appears all the time in behavioral science papers, many of which deal directly with Skinnerian Operant Conditioning, and most of which are well past it (though ultimately based on Skinner's work). If you're going to ignore the ones I showed you, I can't help you. You gave up after skimming a couple (hint: it's in the title of one of them). Anybody who's curious can do the reading you're not willing to do. 



Lou Castle said:


> AGAIN, you're wrong. It's NOT a legitimate concern and here's why. As is almost always the case in these studies, VERY HIGH LEVELS OF SHOCK WERE USED AND THERE WAS NO CONTEXT TO IT. The animals were shocked (here the term is very appropriate) for no reason (other than to measure their responses). Proper Ecollar training allows the dog to make a clear association between the stim and behaviors. This study did not involve Ecollars but AGAIN it's a clear attempt by someone to use bad training as an example of what happens with Ecollars. These tactics never stop.


I didn't say it was proof. I said that displaced aggression was a demonstrated side effect of aversive behavioral shaping and that I worried about it when dogs were trained with aversives. And I posted a paper on it. And how do you measure VERY HIGH LEVELS OF SHOCK vs. what you give a dog in an e-collar? E-collar product documentation is surprisingly light in giving units for the level of shock the collar actually delivers. I know because I read a bunch of product manuals trying to find a benchmark to compare the tail shocks against and couldn't find any numbers.

It certainly raises questions, as do many other studies on displaced aggression. I'm sure you're happy to brush it off, but I think people should decide for themselves.



Lou Castle said:


> Haven't you been telling me to read _" Psych 101 or Animal Behavior 101 textbook"_ Aren't those _"college freshman"_ textbooks?




A brief overview for freshmen who haven't taken a class is a lot less legitimate than the course materials for a class. The overviews you posted are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "behavioral science literature," unlike the several articles I posted and wrote précis for, as well as the 4,000 I found via Google Scholar. Even if you didn't feel like reading the search list, also ignored the short list I posted of articles that use variations on "negative stimulus."


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> _"Inconvenient"_ is a very "convenient" way to say that these dogs become so _"energetic and creative"_ (the last word is sometimes a politically correct euphemism for "destructive") resulting in their owners sometimes taking them to the shelter and having them killed.


This is just ridiculous. Creative behavior when a dog is trying to please a person does not include aggressing. An unintentionally harsh correction, on the other hand...

And yes, we've heard of all these dogs that you have personal experience who, based on the desire not to feel the pain of not having a cookie, attacked their owners and were put down. So please don't trot out that tired canard again.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> It can also mislead, misinform and frighten us. Remember the studies several years ago that said that the artificial sweetener "Saccharine" causes cancer? Only after this statement was headlines around the world, was it revealed that one would have to ingest 600 times the usual dose that someone put into their coffee, for this to occur. And THIS only if you were a lab rat. Yet the link was made to humans by the media because it was sensational.


First of all, you mean saccharin, not saccharine (another typo, I know). Secondly, I know that the media often sees one study and writes a sensationalist headline. Lastly, the reason the substance no longer carries a warning is not because of your "600 times" number (care to cite it?) but because rats were found to have different bladder cancer mechanisms than people, so the cancer that saccharin was causing in rats was happening through a mechanism that doesn't occur in people. It was banned for a good reason, and it was unbanned when more was understood. Science at work!



Lou Castle said:


> Not one of the studies that you've cited will _"teach us better ways"_ to train a dog.


I think they do. I think they teach us your "coin" theory is bunk, among other things. I think they teach us to be respectful of what we don't understand about the role of aversives in producing displaced behaviors. I think if you actually read "Concurrent Schedules" all the way through, you wouldn't be so simplistic in your "two sides of the coin" pronouncements.



Lou Castle said:


> Can you give us a concrete example of this please?


Low settings on e-collars. Clicker training. Dominance theory. Alpha rolls. Physical compulsion vs. choice. Lots of things.



Lou Castle said:


> Well, if this is one such example. AGAIN, you're wrong. Hitting dogs occurs in MUCH dog training. It depends on what's being trained and what the dog is being trained for.


I said it didn't occur in _good_ training. If you want to expound to us on the virtues of hitting dogs during training, go for it. And don't come up with some contrived example of training a police dog to take a punch or something. I'm obviously talking about hitting dogs to shape behavior.



Lou Castle said:


> Can you give us an example of someone in this discussion who is _"ignoring animal behavior because it's too complicated"_ and how they're doing this _"ignoring."_ please.


No. I'm not going to call individual people out who aren't calling me out. Read the thread if you're curious. However, you've demonstrated a lack of interest in actually reading the papers I've posted, so I guess you'd count.


----------



## aerolor (May 27, 2011)

*Sally's Mom said*
_Whatever methods you use, it matters how good your *timing* is and how you reward the dog...._

In a nutshell Sally's Mom.

What I don't grasp about the effectiveness of e-collars is what people do to achieve compliance when the e-collar is removed. What happens then?


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

Deleted - sorry I posted this.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Do the ends justify the means? If I can have a happy, confident, willing worker with whatever tool I am using I say absolutely. And I live that every day when I take my dog field training. Seriously have to be careful when charging the darn thing because when I'm not looking the dog will try to pull the collar from its charger and bring it to me.

I don't deny that the ecollar can cause serious harm and any method--positive or not--that creates a slinky, urinating, unhappy dog is one where the ends don't justify the means. Who wants that? However, I know that some of the accusations or presumptions about it posted on this thread (i.e. hurts the relationship between handler, etc) are false because I live it. I see others use it and live it. I do not wish for everyone to use it, but I do wish people could respect others choices without judgment or condemnation.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

artbuc said:


> My wife volunteers at Canine Partners for Life. They train service dogs to do incredible things. CPL would never consider using e-collars or hitting.
> 
> I believe shocking and hitting a dog would be useful in preparing a pit bull for the fighting ring. It is also a good way for the owner to satisfy his sado-masochistic urges.
> 
> My nephew's dogs were perfectly trained. They watched him like a hawk and never went astray. It was "rewarding" to see these wonderful results, right Lou? He accomplished this by giving them a forceful kick in the ribs. Only downside was that his dogs always urinated when anyone walked up to pet them.


 
Your nephew is an animal abuser. This is in no way a scenario that can be equated to the _vast _majority of people who utilize ecollars, and it is beyond insulting. It is, quite frankly ignorant. 
Those of you who are so anti would have everyone believe that those who use them have them on their dogs 24/7 and are shocking them for every blink of their eye. It's just not so. 
It is postings like this that are so out there, and paint everyone who uses one with a broad brush and does nothingsed but show that you have no idea how they are used properly and their benefit when they are. 


I have an ecollar, I know how to use it, and HAVE used it. Judiciously. I in fact just dug it out of the cupboard a few weeks ago from where it had been tucked away for several years, to be used recently for a specific purpose. The dog remains HAPPY, social, silly, and is reliable. Did I mention *HAPPY????????*

My dogs are not "shocked" or hit and I am hardly a sado-mashochist. My dogs don't urinate when anyone approaches or pets them. 
It's ridiculous to suggest that everyone who uses an ecollar would only have dogs like that. Your nephew is a jerk. (A jerk who, by the way, you did not say uses an ecollar, rather he himself KICKS his dog.)


----------



## artbuc (Apr 12, 2009)

You are right. I deleted my post.


----------



## akgolden (Jun 18, 2011)

Holy heck. Lou and Tippy need their own thread... how many times can you tell the other person they are wrong before you just run out of breath??


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

artbuc said:


> You are right. I deleted my post.


 
Thank you.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> Ecollars are not controversial among people who use them properly. It's only among those who have never used one or who those who have used one poorly or those who have some emotional baggage that prevents them from being logical and reasonable on the topic.


I can't believe I actually found this little gem in one of Lou's posts. Talk about succinct! LOL


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> No time to write bc dropping dogs off and heading back to the show. Just put an obedience leg on a big black Newfie in 80 degree sun, lol. That's my plug for positive training as I trained her for her owner with a clicker.


What class was it and what was your score?



> As for the e collar, there's not much empty rhetoric about saying I am unsure how I feel about it for field training in expert hands


Why are you unsure about your opinion of ecollars in a modern retriever training program?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> I can't believe I actually found this little gem in one of Lou's posts. Talk about succinct! LOL


Talk about inaccurate. Did you read Sunrise's post?


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

K9-Design said:


> What class was it and what was your score?


Rally Novice B.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> That's your opinion, and it clearly drives your training style. Mine is that training is best when you minimize the number of times you need to do something your dog finds unpleasant. There are other things that make it 'best' for me, but that's one of the fundamental ones.


The problem with this ethos is that there's no way to correct undesired behavior, without the use of an aversive. Training is about communication and only aversives tell a dog, "I don't want you to do that again." I'm sure that it makes you "feel good." But I'm more about getting behavior, and the dog learning, than about making myself feel good. 



tippykayak said:


> The fact that somebody hasn't studied something doesn't make the opposite true.


Oh but they claim to. Look at the title of the here−cited Schilder Study. _"Training dogs with help of the shock collar: * short and long term behavioural effects * _ [Emphasis Added] 

They pretend to draw conclusions about the "long term" but they have no evidence to support any of them. As Lindsay said,


> The authors suggest that a goal of their study was to determine the short-term and long-term effects of shocks, *yet they fail to provide any data relevant to the determination of long-term effects. * [Emphasis Added]





tippykayak said:


> There aren't any studies proving that long term use of adverse stimuli don't have side effects, but that's probably just because it would be nigh impossible to prove conclusively or to even set up such a study.


Yet, per the title, Schilder pretend to do just this! You're very good at making up excuses why studies against the Ecollar don't show what you wished they'd show! Lol. And you have no hesitation in proposing that such things MAY result as a use of Ecollars. 



tippykayak said:


> I notice the scarcity of behavioral science literature you offer in support of your theories.


Well here's one. http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/upload...vior-in-Dogs-Wearing-Bark-Control-Collars.pdf

In 2003 a team led by Janet Steiss, D.V.M, PhD, of the Tuskegee University College of Veterinary Medicine, conducted a 4-week study of adult shelter dogs’ physiological and behavioral responses to bark control collars. *At the conclusion of the study, Dr. Steiss and her team concluded that electronic bark collars ... did not cause any lingering adverse physiological effects. * 

And here's another. Schalke, E., Stichnoth, J., Ott, S., Jones-Baade, R., 2007, Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 105, pp. 369-380. 

Per the study,


> This led to the conclusion that animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, * did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators. *


And BTW the Schalke study used Ecollars set AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF STIM THAT THE ECOLLAR AFFORDED! Per the study,


> This level was chosen in order to investigate the dogs’ reactions * under the highest electric pulse and as such the worst condition possible. *


 [Emphasis Added in both quotations] 

ALSO BTW, BOTH of these studies measured cortisol to obtain objective readings of the dog's stress levels. UNLIKE the Schilder study that used completely subjective measures that allowed the bias of the researchers to enter the picture. 

Interestingly the formal "Conclusion" of this study somehow completely omitted the fact that when the dogs were able associate a behavior, touching the prey" they DID NOT show considerable or persistent stress indicators. Instead they recommended against Ecollar use by pet owners. Their anti−Ecollar bias was obvious. 



tippykayak said:


> Cortisol is one objective measurement of stress, but salivary cortisol levels alone don't tell the whole story of stress.


What cortisol measurement does is to remove the possibility that bias of the researchers will affect the outcome as it did with Schilder. There they used such things as ear carriage and lip licking as measurements of stress. However they somehow forgot to mention that such things are influenced by a myriad of things, NOT JUST STRESS. Using cortisol provides a way of measuring stress that can't be influenced by bias. And since most of these studies are done by those who oppose their use, such a lack of objectivity affects many of them. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Thanks for the papers. Interesting reading. I didn't see anything that supported your position with any certainty. In fact the first link contains this,
> 
> This study contains the fact that there is much support for the theory that one gets "superior behavior control by aversive events."





tippykayak said:


> Read more of that paper, though. It doesn't end up buying that conclusion.


Not unusual. The formal conclusions reached in Ecollar studies don't match what the studies actually showed. The bias of the researchers doesn't allow it. I showed this above with the Schalke study. 



tippykayak said:


> It also completely contradicts your "coin" theory (I notice you're quite silent on that) and questions the idea that aversive events are as powerful as some other literature seems to indicate. That paper does not support any of your theories about coins or the role of negative reinforcement and contradicts quite a bit of you've said. I notice that you're not quoting any of those parts. And that you're really silent on whether your coin theory holds water in the face of this research.


No it does not. It doesn't address it at all. And my "coin statements" are not a "theory." It's merely another way of stating what's going with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." 

Earlier I wrote,


> I said that in OC there is no such thing as "negative stimulus."





tippykayak said:


> Which is incorrect, since OC papers since Skinner use the term interchangeably with "aversive stimulus." I showed you dozens and dozens, not just in the search, but in the list I posted. You don't seem interested in those.


OK. I'll modify my statement, "In the definitions of the four phases of Operant Conditioning, there is no such thing as 'negative stimulus.' " Better? 

Earlier I wrote,


> I think that's part of your plan. To confuse the readers into believing that you have some fount of knowledge that you really don't have.





tippykayak said:


> I'm so nefarious!


Not really. "Misleading" and "attempting to confuse" are terms that I'd apply though. 



tippykayak said:


> My credentials are just fine


Interestingly I never said ANYTHING about your academic credentials. They have nothing to do with this discussion about dog training. It's fascinating that you keep trying to twist the discussion this way. 



tippykayak said:


> though they're not what my argument rests on anyway. I've never said "I'm right because I took such and such a class at Such and Such University." I don't think you should really get into the game of holding up your academic background against mine, though.


If this was a contest measuring our academic background, you'd win. But it's not. It's a discussion of dog training methods. There, I win. 



tippykayak said:


> Do you know what Google Scholar is? It only searches scholarly articles, not the whole web. 4000+ hits is an enormous number of papers for such a specific term. And here's the Google Scholar search for "negative stimulus" paired with "operant." Still having trouble finding it?


Are you blind or are you purposefully NOT reading what I've said about this. You are right. The term does exist. It does NOT exist in the definitions of the phases of OC and due to your habit of mixing the scientific language with the common, I thought you were talking only about OC when I made the initial statement. It's clear that in this context, the phrase does exist. This constant harping on this minutae AFTER I've conceded the point just makes you look rooted in one of the few positions that you've succeeded in showing. 

As to the rest of the discussion, the part about actual dog training, you're wrong for the most part. 



tippykayak said:


> Can we put this to bed, please?


I've tried to do so several times, and just did so again. But you won't get off it. 



tippykayak said:


> I didn't say it was proof. I said that displaced aggression was a demonstrated side effect of aversive behavioral shaping and that I worried about it when dogs were trained with aversives. And I posted a paper on it.


And I knocked a hole in how the paper applies in the real world. 



tippykayak said:


> And how do you measure VERY HIGH LEVELS OF SHOCK vs. what you give a dog in an e-collar?


I suggest that you reread what the Schalke study says. 



tippykayak said:


> E-collar product documentation is surprisingly light in explaining what level of shock the collar actually delivers.


Of course it is. It has nothing to do with training dogs. That information is useful for those who are trying to scare people because they have no idea of what it means. 



tippykayak said:


> It certainly raises questions, as do many other studies on displaced aggression. I'm sure you're happy to brush it off, but I think people should decide for themselves.


I think that people should decide for themselves too. And I'm perfectly happy that the members do that. And to make informed decisions about it they need to know the things that I pointed out. NONE of the things that this study investigated occur with the use of low level stim. It's not painful, only uncomfortable and so aggression NEVER, yes that's right I said, NEVER, occurs. 

Here is what happens when a dog feels the stim for the first time, at the level that he can first perceive. Notice the aggressive behavior? Testing The Working Level If E-Collar On Lab


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> _"Inconvenient"_ is a very "convenient" way to say that these dogs become so _"energetic and creative"_ (the last word is sometimes a politically correct euphemism for "destructive") resulting in their owners sometimes taking them to the shelter and having them killed.





tippykayak said:


> This is just ridiculous. Creative behavior when a dog is trying to please a person does not include aggressing.


What you really mean is that _your definition _ of _"creative behavior"_ is when a dog is trying to please a person. The term, when used by shelter personnel is, AS I SAID, _"sometimes a politically correct euphemism for "destructive. "_ I said nothing about _"aggressing."_ And so I wonder why you bring it up? 



tippykayak said:


> And yes, we've heard of all these dogs that you have personal experience who, based on the desire not to feel the pain of not having a cookie, attacked their owners and were put down. So please don't trot out that tired canard again.


I don't need to. You just did. Except that in your weak effort to minimize the effectiveness of my statement, you deliberately *MIS*quoted me. I've said NOTHING about _"the 'pain' of not having a cookie."_ I've ONLY used the word "discomfort," Nowhere near the same thing. Typical of what you do. I've also NEVER said anything about a dog _"attack[ing] their owners."_ I have said that sometimes dogs will bite because they want a treat and it's being withheld, but you AGAIN deliberately distorted my words. AGAIN, typical of what you do. Only under the guise of political correctness is a single bite called _"an attack."_ Talk about _"tired canards."_ You're really overboard AGAIN.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> First of all, you mean saccharin, not saccharine (another typo, I know).


Good grief. I that the depth you've descended too, correcting my spelling? A clear breach of Netiquette and done rudely too. I have little doubt that if I wanted to find some spelling errors that you'd committed, it wouldn't be too hard. But this is about the biggest waste of time that could ever be. It just shows us how trivial you really are. 



tippykayak said:


> Lastly, the reason the substance no longer carries a warning is not because of your "600 times" number (care to cite it?)


No need, common knowledge



tippykayak said:


> but because rats were found to have different bladder cancer mechanisms than people, so the cancer that saccharin was causing in rats was happening through a mechanism that doesn't occur in people.


It was "unbanned" because of public demand for the product AND the fact that the original study was found to be flawed. But really all of this is nothing but another of your attempts to sidetrack the discussion about dog training, your apparenl fascination with minutiae an d your desperate attempt to show that I'm wrong about something because you've been shown to be wrong so many times in this discussion about dog training. 

BTW Brian, it's occurred to me that we know little of your dog training skills or history. Can you tells us a bit about them. How many dogs have you personally trained. Do any of the dogs that you've personally trained have any titles to their credit. Do you compete in any venues with your dogs? 



tippykayak said:


> It was banned for a good reason


It was banned because a government entity had too much power and didn't do a thorough study. 



tippykayak said:


> and it was unbanned when more was understood.


It was unbanned due to popular demand combined with the discovery that the original studies on it were highly flawed. 



tippykayak said:


> Science at work!


Science at its worst! But again, this is just a diversion from the topic of Ecollars and dog training. I only brought it up to show the truth to your statement _"I think science can frequently teach us better ways to do things. _ as a way of showing that sometimes science can lead us down the wrong path, when it's done poorly. But you took it to a completely new level! lol

Earlier I wrote,


> Not one of the studies that you've cited will "teach us better ways" to train a dog.





tippykayak said:


> I think they do.


Yours is not the only opinion. Mine is different. Looking at these studies is a bit like looking at the initial studies done on saccharin that were later shown to be highly flawed. They MAY point to an issue, but then again, they may not. And in many cases they point to a problem ONLY when the highest levels of stim are used. You'd like it if people would generalize to ALL levels of stim, but that's very misleading, one of your favorite tactics. 



tippykayak said:


> I think they teach us your "coin" theory is bunk


AGAIN, it's NOT a _"theory."_ It's simply another way of stating what's at play when (for example) a trainer withholds an offered treat. One might say that the road distance from NYC to Miami, FL is about 1,300 miles. One could ALSO say that the road distance from Miami to NYC is 1,300 miles, the other side of the coin. You can whine about this all you like but it's just another way to view the situation. And NONE of your studies has either addressed it or shown it to be _"bunk."_ 



tippykayak said:


> among other things. I think they teach us to be respectful of what we don't understand about the role of aversives in producing displaced behaviors.


Like the saccharin ban, all they do is serve to scare people, that's enough for many of the antis. The results of properly applied training that uses aversives is best judged by the results and the dogs. If you want to use them to scare yourself away from using some tools that have proven themselves repeatedly, and continue to do so, that's fine with me. 

Earlier you wrote,


> Many, many times, behavioral science has helped people learn that some things that are intuitive to people are counterproductive in dog training. So many of the things we take for granted in contemporary dog training were first pioneered by people who took cues from the science of animal behavior.


And I responded,


> Can you give us a concrete example of this please?





tippykayak said:


> Low settings on e-collars. Clicker training. Dominance theory. Alpha rolls. Physical compulsion vs. choice. Lots of things.


Lol. I was looking for a _"concrete example"_ of where _"behavioral science has helped people learn that some things that are intuitive to people are counterproductive in dog training."_ 

Instead you supplied _"... things we take for granted in contemporary dog training [that] were pioneered by people who took cues from the science of animal behavior."_ I'll take responsibility for not asking the question as well as I might have. 

In any case AGAIN, you're wrong. Low settings on Ecollars came from dog trainers and the makers of Ecollars who wanted to expend their sales, NOT from _"behavioral science."_ If you disagree please show us the studies that examined low level stim that led to these low settings. Clicker−like devices (and the use of markers) were being used by animal trainers in circuses long before they were "discovered" by the behavioral sciences. Dominance theory has largely been dumped, especially since it's come to mean among some, that "all dogs want to take over the world." Alpha rolls, while still at use in some arenas, have largely been discounted as a good training device. The question of which is better as far as results go, _"physical compulsion vs. choice"_ has never been proven. Still lots of argument there, as we can see. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Well, if this is one such example. AGAIN, you're wrong. Hitting dogs occurs in MUCH dog training. It depends on what's being trained and what the dog is being trained for.





tippykayak said:


> I said it didn't occur in good training.


Ah the old semantics shell game again. It's only _"good training"_ if you say that it is. I'd say that it's training that gives results while remaining humane. Here's some video of Bart Bellon, many−times world−champion in Ring Sport, doing some training. Notice what he's holding? It's a stick that is used to hit the dog to move him into the right position while the handler stands straight up, rather than having to bend over to move the dog. He doesn't demonstrate this on the video because the film is to show something else, but that's what it's there for. 




The stick is used extensively in Ring sport, SchH, PSA and other biting sports to threaten the dog with. During training for those sports it's used to desensitize the dog so that when it happens during the trials, the dog ignores it. Here's some video showing typical use in a trial. 




A stick should be used during the training of personal protection dogs for the same reason. An attacker may use something similar and the dog needs to learn to ignore it. 

I've also seen guide dogs for the blind trained by hitting them with sticks to teach them that something that may appear benign, is dangerous. I've also seen Ecollars used by the same trainers for the same thing BTW. Stick hits for this purpose are done quite hard and the stims from an Ecollar are done at high levels. 



tippykayak said:


> If you want to expound to us on the virtues of hitting dogs during training, go for it.


Just did. 



tippykayak said:


> And don't come up with some contrived example of training a police dog to take a punch or something.


I'd suggest that you stay away from discussions involving the training of police dogs. You have no idea what you're talking about. One doesn't train a police dog to _"take a punch"_ by punching him. During initial selection the dog's tolerance to this is tested to see if he'll stand up to it, when it happens on the street. Occasionally, during maintenance training, his level of tolerance is tested to ensure that it's remained high. 



tippykayak said:


> I'm obviously talking about hitting dogs to shape behavior.


Yes, I know. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Can you give us an example of someone in this discussion who is "ignoring animal behavior because it's too complicated" and how they're doing this "ignoring." please.





tippykayak said:


> No. I'm not going to call individual people out who aren't calling me out.


Of course you're not. Nice evasion. Lol. I'll have to say that AGAIN, you're wrong. Previously you've ranted about how I mention people who are not here. And here we have you doing the same thing. Of course, when you do it, it's perfectly OK. 



tippykayak said:


> However, you've demonstrated a lack of interest in actually reading the papers I've posted, so I guess you'd count.


Truth is, you have no idea of what I have or have not read.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

aerolor said:


> What I don't grasp about the effectiveness of e-collars is what people do to achieve compliance when the e-collar is removed. What happens then?


I'll answer your question with a question that may give you some insight. What happens when a dog that's trained with treats doesn't get the treat? What happens when a dog that's been trained with a clicker, doesn't get the click? 

All of these tools, in properly applied training, are weaned away.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier K9−Design asked,


> What class was it and *what was your score? *





Pointgold said:


> Rally Novice B.


Didja notice that it was a two part question? Could you please answer the second part, that I've emphasized for your attention.


----------



## Tennyson (Mar 26, 2011)

baumgartml16 said:


> Hello,
> 
> So I had taken Koda's stubborness issues to facebook too yesterday to see if anyone (specifically her breeder) had anything to say. One of her littermates mommy's came on and said that their pup had been doing the exact same thing and became too hard for the mom to get her up which is my problem since I am a little girl, Koda is very very very heavy for me esp at dead weight. She said they started using a shock collar on a very low setting. They didn't use it just because. They would use when she was doing the bad behaviour and then release the shock when she would get up out of her bad behaviour and praise her like crazy. They suggested if we do it to find a trainer for it to teach us how to use it properly. With Koda being so unreliable on recalls I have actually started to consider this..am I crazy? Do people have opinions on this stuff? I am usually not a proponent of this stuff and I am willing to try the methods that were suggested to me first but I wanted to get opinions on here about this option as I value your input very much.
> 
> Thanks.


Aren't ya glad you asked?


----------



## Tuckers Mom (Nov 12, 2010)

@ Tennyson.....

*PERFECT. *


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Lol, Rally Novice B, score 98 for Ruffian Newfie. Copley score 99, Tally RAE leg number 7- Rally is fun and not so hard, except with a huge newfie puppy in the burning sun. She won a time run off, and it was fun bc the judge commented that it was wonderful to see a newfoundland puppy do this with such obvious enjoyment for her work. It made my day. Certainly far from UDX, but very, very fun for a puppy to get this title in 3 days. 

I've spoken my peace for this thread about the e collars, and I don't want to get tempted to reply to any individuals personally rather than about the topic. Since I've had more than enough chance to make my opinion clear about e collars for the OP and other pet or new puppy owners, I am going to sign off.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Lou Castle said:


> Earlier K9−Design asked,
> 
> 
> 
> Didja notice that it was a two part question? Could you please answer the second part, that I've emphasized for your attention.


Sorry. I could only access the catalogue. Results had not been posted.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> Lol, Rally Novice B, score 98 for Ruffian Newfie. Copley score 99, Tally RAE leg number 7- Rally is fun and not so hard, except with a huge newfie puppy in the burning sun. She won a time run off, and it was fun bc the judge commented that it was wonderful to see a newfoundland puppy do this with such obvious enjoyment for her work. It made my day. Certainly far from UDX, but very, very fun for a puppy to get this title in 3 days.
> 
> I've spoken my peace for this thread about the e collars, and I don't want to get tempted to reply to any individuals personally rather than about the topic. Since I've had more than enough chance to make my opinion clear about e collars for the OP and other pet or new puppy owners, I am going to sign off.


Congrats.
Rally is a very fun game. I'd be really surprised if anyone used ecollars to train for it. Ditto CD or even CDX
We show a Ch Berner who has a plethora of agility and obedience (including the rally game) and weight pull titles/drafting and certificates (CGC,TDI,CCA, TT etc are not titles but certificates). The owner trains/competes, and I'm DELIGHTED because he is in AWESOME condition because of it! I personally am thrilled when people earn these certs because it means they are DOING stuff with their dogs - purebred or otherwise. It's a good thing! It is not "obedience titles" technically, but again, I'm all for it. It says a lot. We usually see owners doing these runs as opposed to handlers/agents, which make it even more meaningful IMO.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I was staying out of this because I've posted this in the previous many threads about e-collars, but here it is again. It's the only way my dog can do the thing he loves best, which is hunting/field stuff. 
Tito is a very well trained, obedient, accomplished dog. 
But when he gets around the live birds, his instinct is so strong he becomes very hard to control. Last weekend at the hunt test quite a few people were laughing at him as he FRANTICALLY tried to get at the pen of live birds sitting in the parking lot. He was vibrating, whining, teeth chattering, jumping around, pawing at the crate, ripping at the crate with his teeth, and so on. If you've ever seen how an intact male dog who has been bred acts around a bitch in full standing season, that's how Tito acts around the birds. (you should have heard the comments about "the fluffy", but that's a topic for another day).
If you don't have a dog that acts that way, you don't know what it's like to try to control them at a distance without the e-collar. His brain is completely gone and nature has taken over his body. It's not that he's ignoring me, it's that he truly doesn't hear me. 
Twice now the e-collar has literally saved his life when he flushed a bird, the shot was missed, and both dog and bird took off as fast as possible. Dogs can run 35 mph over a short sprint, and I'm sure he was moving that fast. Once toward a steep, deep, rocky gully which would have broken his back or neck had he continued on, and he had no idea it was there. The other time into a rocky creek, similar situation. 
If I didn't have the "safety net" of knowing I can turn him back with the e-collar if I have to, I could not allow him to go out in the field. 
He lives to hunt birds. I can't explain it to anyone whose dog doesn't feel that way about it, and to those whose dog does, you know what I'm talking about. It's a small price for him to pay, wearing an e-collar, in order to be allowed to do hunt and field.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

So today, I showed my one month shy of ten years Mantha in Novice B obedience. She has been clicker trained. She had many years showing in conformation before obedience. She has never had an e collar or a prong collar, she shows with a " choke chain" in conformation... So she heeled at attention today without the benefit of something painful to,make her do it... Again just my two cents...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Pointgold said:


> Congrats.
> Rally is a very fun game. I'd be really surprised if anyone used ecollars to train for it. Ditto CD or even CDX
> .


To follow up... I know people who use force fetch and ecollars in training their dogs_ for field_. When it comes to obedience training though, I can't think of any instances where they would be necessary. Maybe force fetch, but even there it's not _necessary_ as there are a variety of methods that work just as well. 

These people who use ecollars - I would consider them very good trainers. They know how to use those ecollars and remember that these people spend the majority of their time going out with friends to train or going to classes. They know what they are doing. They know what responses they want in their dogs. They are not going to make any harmful mistakes with their dogs. 

And one golden I'm thinking of in particular (she's a Tanbark so very fieldy) is the most delightful DOLL of a golden. And she is what I'd consider needy and soft to a certain extent. If her handler used harsh methods to train her (anything to cause real pain), it would turn this dog into a cowering mess. But this dog is very well trained and she LOVES training whether it's obedience or field. 

Where I have an issue with ecollars is threads like this and when people are recommending ecollars across the board, particularly to people who are not attending the classes or have a mentor and trainer WORKING with them. 

That's why people constantly bring up the worst case scenarios, because all of those happen to be people who are training on their own and have nobody correcting THEM when they are using too much correction for their particular dog. It's people who have no guidance and no idea of what they are doing. 

I know people who use ecollars are pretty defensive because there are people on the other side who equate them with animal abusers because they use an ecollar. 

But at the same time, I would hope people are reserving ecollars, prongs, chokes, and any training collar for those dogs who need them and those owners who are training under a good instructor. 

Otherwise, you are just putting an OK stamp on those people that I've seen walking their dogs and holding down the button for the zap collar the entire time they pass my dog. So their dog is squeaking and yelping the entire time. Seriously, way to go in making that dog "happy" to see other dogs.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

hotel4dogs said:


> I was staying out of this because I've posted this in the previous many threads about e-collars, but here it is again. It's the only way my dog can do the thing he loves best, which is hunting/field stuff.


Thanks for participating. Please don't let the contention that these discussions become keep you away. That's part of the reason that the antis do what they do, in the hopes of either scaring off people like you, or making it so unpleasant to post, that you stop doing so. 



hotel4dogs said:


> Twice now the e-collar has literally saved his life when he flushed a bird, the shot was missed, and both dog and bird took off as fast as possible. Dogs can run 35 mph over a short sprint, and I'm sure he was moving that fast. Once toward a steep, deep, rocky gully which would have broken his back or neck had he continued on, and he had no idea it was there. The other time into a rocky creek, similar situation.
> 
> If I didn't have the "safety net" of knowing I can turn him back with the e-collar if I have to, I could not allow him to go out in the field.


I love stories like this.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Sally's Mom said:


> So today, I showed my one month shy of ten years Mantha in Novice B obedience. She has been clicker trained. She had many years showing in conformation before obedience. She has never had an e collar or a prong collar, she shows with a " choke chain" in conformation... So she heeled at attention today * without the benefit of something painful to,make her do it... * Again just my two cents... [Emphasis Added]


Thanks for ANOTHER illustration of what the antis do ... exaggerate the effect of an Ecollar, using the "P word" to scare people. It's not only an unfair debate technique, it's another myth, and comes from ignorance of how an Ecollar can be used. It's not necessary that an Ecollar cause pain, to train a dog.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

What??? I am not anti anything. This is one example of one of my dogs shown to a title .


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

If you, Lou Castle, has read anything I have written, you would not have responded like you did ...


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Sally's Mom said:


> If you, Lou Castle, has read anything I have written, you would not have responded like you did ...


 
I think he did... and I think he responded appropriately.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> Lol, Rally Novice B, score 98 for Ruffian Newfie. Copley score 99, Tally RAE leg number 7- Rally is fun and not so hard, except with a huge newfie puppy in the burning sun. She won a time run off, and it was fun bc the judge commented that it was wonderful to see a newfoundland puppy do this with such obvious enjoyment for her work. It made my day. Certainly far from UDX, but very, very fun for a puppy to get this title in 3 days.


Sounds like a fun time was had by all. Rally is not obedience, though.



> I've spoken my peace for this thread about the e collars, and I don't want to get tempted to reply to any individuals personally rather than about the topic. Since I've had more than enough chance to make my opinion clear about e collars for the OP and other pet or new puppy owners, I am going to sign off.


Oh darn, right before you were about to explain why you are on the fence about ecollars in a retriever training program, yet vehemently oppose them outside of that realm.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm not going to play the quote splicing game this time around.

Typos are usually irrelevant, and we all make them, so I wouldn't typically point one out, _unless_ it demonstrates that the poster is pretending a level of expertise he lacks. Saccharin vs. saccharine shows yet again that you don't know the basics of what you're talking about. You just bluster on through and hope nobody looks at your facts. Given that you called your OC mistake earlier a "typo" too, it's relevant. And I like how, when called on the fact that you were giving us the urban legend about what happened (OMG 600 times the human dose!) instead of what _actually_ happened, you just bulled on through and said it was "common knowledge," despite the fact that the _record_ disagrees with you. Spend five minutes on the freaking wikipedia article on things before you post about them. 

I love how you manage to accuse me of side tracking the discussion into the minutiae of saccharin. I wasn't the one who brought it up, amigo. Your uninformed points require a level of detail to disprove that's sadly time consuming. If you wouldn't make partly-true claims, I wouldn't have to go and painstakingly pull them apart. And don't worry, since I'm losing interest in it since you aren't proving to be a well researched debate partner.

You tell us your academic background in behavioral psychology, and I'll tell you how many dogs I've trained. I've never pretended to be a professional dog trainer. I've trained a few for people and taught a few more families. Nothing special. I've probably worked with a larger number of dogs than the majority of the thread, but nothing like as many as the professional trainers like LJilly have.

You apparently didn't read the studies you yourself posted. The Steiss study (I actually read it, unlike you, apparently) didn't test "long term" effects and only measured cortisol and no other stress factors. Definitely an interesting and useful study. Definitely doesn't prove what you'd like it to, and the authors themselves don't extend it to conclusions anything like yours. How long did the dogs wear the collars, Lou? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't fit anybody's definition of "long term." That's your best defense for e-collar safety?

The Schalke study is even worse for your point! It shows that dogs shocked in response to blowing a command DID show elevated cortisol! Why are you posting these? Do you not read them? One group didn't show elevated cortisol, so I get why you like the study, but a group that was shocked in response to blowing a command (probably the most common use of the e-collar) _did_ show elevated cortisol. If you wanted to cherrypick studies that support you, you should probably avoid those that show elevated stress hormones in some of the groups that receive non-random shocks. Do you just post these and hope nobody reads them all the way through?

You even admit that they recommend against e-collars for pet owners, but that's when you decide to take issue with their methods and bias. When part of a study supports your wacky theories, you're happy to cite it as science. When part doesn't, you suddenly turn on the author or the very idea of science. You're happy to go on rants about how terrible science is, but you love to ask for studies, and you even post a few so you can cherrypick the three or four words at a time that seem to support you. I'm sure it works on people that don't read the papers, but I like to learn, so I tend to read all the way through.

When I posted articles, I posted lots of different viewpoints and let the authors speak for themselves. When you interact with science, you just pick a quote that supports you and ignore or dismiss everything else (or the very concept of the scientific method). That's neither honest nor scientific.

As far as eliminating undesired behavior, you don't have to use an aversive, (i.e., adding something "uncomfortable, since I know you hate the "P" word so much). You can teach the dog an alternative behavior to substitute. If I don't want my dog to jump on me, I don't have to show him that jumping is unpleasant. I just have to remove the rewards for jumping and train an alternative behavior (i.e., show him that keeping all fours on the ground successfully gives him what he he's trying to get with the jumping). 

And lastly, the "negative stimulus" thing. According to my memory, it's not the term that Skinner uses in his original definition of the four quadrants, but I never claimed that, and it's not what you tried to call me out on. You wanted a cute little technicality to show that I was pretending more knowledge than I had, so you claimed it was OMG SO CONFUSING because I was using a term that wasn't used in OC lit. You were wrong, and instead of your cute little technicality, you got a deluge of real behavioral lit. So you switched over to saying I was mixing common language with scientific, but the proof I provided is all scientific lit! I know you'll never admit that you're only familiar with the very basics Skinner and the work that builds on his theories, but you really, really demonstrated it here, along with the dishonest way you argue. I just hope other people see the utter fraud you're perpetrating when you pretend to "dispel myths" and to be less emotional and better educated than the rest of us. You're as or more biased than any other poster in this conversation.

Keep posting away, and see if you can write anything glaringly uninformed enough to get me to post again, but my interest is waning. It was amusing for a while, but the combination of being uninformed and utterly confident makes you not so fun to discuss things with.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Well I know a CDX newfie working on his UD that they have used the ecollar on for a few select things that has really helped him out. He has beautiful heeling too when you catch him in the right mood. I really commend his owner for the work she has put into him...but I don't know that this proves anything.


----------



## 2Retrievers222 (Sep 5, 2007)

I burnt one side of Hamburgers on BBQ reading his post. lol


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Sally's Mom said:


> What??? I am not anti anything. This is one example of one of my dogs shown to a title .





Sally's Mom said:


> If you, Lou Castle, has read anything I have written, you would not have responded like you did ...


OK, I'll bite. Do you have an explanation for what seems to be a gratuitous cheap shot? _"... She has never had an e collar or a prong collar, she shows with a " choke chain" in conformation... So she heeled at attention today * without the benefit of something painful to,make her do it... * Again just my two cents... "_ [Emphasis Added]


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Typos are usually irrelevant


Yep, typos are almost always irrelevant. 



tippykayak said:


> and we all make them


Yes we do. That's why it's considered a violation of the rules of Netiquette to point them out. I could go back through your posts and do the same thing. But it's off topic and rude and I really don't care. But, as we've seen you don't let little things like that bother you. Making points is what you're about and you think that you've made a few. AGAIN, you're wrong. All you've done is to display to all, what a small man you are. 



tippykayak said:


> so I wouldn't typically point one out, unless it demonstrates that the poster is pretending a level of expertise he lacks. Saccharin vs. saccharine shows yet again that you don't know the basics of what you're talking about.


AGAIN, you're wrong. All it shows is that I misspelled a word. You've latched onto this misspelling and are desperately trying to pretend that it means something. It does not. 



tippykayak said:


> And I like how, when called on the fact that you were giving us the urban legend about what happened (OMG 600 times the human dose!)


Oh look, the big−strong−man just used the _"teenage girl acronym."_ Odd isn't it how you tried to attribute it to me but when I asked you to show anywhere that I'd done so, the sound of the crickets was deafening! But now YOU use it. Earlier when you thought that I had, you called it the _"teenage girl acronym."_ Problem is, I HAD NOT USED IT, but now you do. 



tippykayak said:


> instead of what actually happened, you just bulled on through and said it was "common knowledge," despite the fact that the record disagrees with you.


Oddly you haven't presented any evidence to support such a statement. That was the figure presented by the news back then. But really who cares. AGAIN it's an example of you going completely off topic and trying to make more points. Oddly when we stick to dog training and especially Ecollars, you have NO POINTS. You know little about either topic. 



tippykayak said:


> I love how you manage to accuse me of side tracking the discussion into the minutiae of saccharin. I wasn't the one who brought it up, amigo.


Still not your amigo. Lol. Conveniently you forget that it was brought up when you made the statement _"I think science can frequently teach us better ways to do things."_ I brought it up as an example of the fact that sometimes science misleads. It was just an example of how science is not perfect. It wasn't the main part of the discussion that you've tried to make it. And everyone, (I'd bet) knew that I was talking about the artificial sweetener, in spite of my misspelling. And no one (I'd bet) cared at all whether it took 100 times the "rat dosage" to make one sick or the "600" that I stated. But keep it up, I think this diversion makes you look even more foolish than the discussion on Ecollars does! 



tippykayak said:


> You tell us your academic background in behavioral psychology,


I have none and have never pretended that I did. Why you think that I need to have a background in behavioral psych, to train dogs is another mystery. I took a few psych courses in college as electives, that's about it. 



tippykayak said:


> and I'll tell you how many dogs I've trained.


Great, except that you tell us later that you're going to leave the thread unless I post something that interests you. No worries I'll extrapolate from your later comments. We'll see that you have VERY little experience in dog training. Most of what you know comes out of books. 



tippykayak said:


> I've never pretended to be a professional dog trainer.


Me either. 



tippykayak said:


> I've trained a few for people and taught a few more families. Nothing special. I've probably worked with a larger number of dogs than the majority of the thread,


_"Train[ing] a few for people"_ would be 3-5 dogs and _"taught a few more families"_ would be 5-8. So in the best possible world, you've worked with about 13 dogs. I've already spoken about my experience in this thread, but since it was a looooooooong time ago, to compare our relative levels of experience, I'll do it again. About ten years back I stopped counting the number of dogs that I've worked with. At that point I'd put Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs. That does not include the dogs I've worked with that I didn't use Ecollars on. That's probably another 1,000 or so. I've personally fixed hundreds of dogs brought to me by folks who had tried the so−called "kinder gentler methods" and had failed. For many of those dogs, I was the last stop before the shelter. None of those dogs wound up in the shelter and I've never suggested that a dog be PTS. I spent 5 1/2 years working a police dog on the streets of a medium sized city surrounded by the city of Los Angeles and then was the in−house trainer for my department for the next 15 years or so. Now I work mostly with police and SAR dogs and do seminars around the world. I also have a few private clients. I'm just back from my 54th seminar and have two more scheduled for later this year. I've been to 40 cities and three foreign countries doing them. I've been using Ecollars for about 20- 25 years now. 

Again, I'm happy to let the forum members decide which of us has the most experience and knowledge on this topic. 



tippykayak said:


> You apparently didn't read the studies you yourself posted.


AGAIN, you're wrong. LOL



tippykayak said:


> The Steiss study (I actually read it, unlike you, apparently)


Still wrong. 



tippykayak said:


> didn't test "long term" effects and only measured cortisol and no other stress factors.


The study found


> ... with dogs wearing bark control collars intermittently over a 2 week period, the collars effectively deterred barking without statistically significant elevations in plasma cortisol.


 Common sense (which really isn't too common) tells us that if there's no increase in the stress level as measured by the cortisol levels, over the period of the study, there's not going to be any "long term effects." This rather obvious point is lost on you. 



tippykayak said:


> Definitely an interesting and useful study. Definitely doesn't prove what you'd like it to


Sure it does. No short term stress effects, means no long term stress effects. Do you think that dogs suffer from PTSD? Do you think that they're gonna flash back to _the horror of wearing a bark collar _while they were in the lab at Tuskegee? 



tippykayak said:


> and the authors themselves don't extend it to conclusions anything like yours. How long did the dogs wear the collars, Lou? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't fit anybody's definition of "long term."


What a great *MIS*statement of the situation! You're getting REALLY good at them. A dog would not have to wear an Ecollar for a long time to have long term effects from the use of the tool. According to some of the discussion here, the effects last LONG after the collar has been removed, except that they don't. 



tippykayak said:


> That's your best defense for e-collar safety?


No, of course not. The best defense for the use of Ecollars is the millions of happy dogs trained with them. 



tippykayak said:


> The Schalke study is even worse for your point!


AGAIN, you're wrong. 



tippykayak said:


> It shows that dogs shocked in response to blowing a command DID show elevated cortisol! Why are you posting these?


It clearly shows that when a dog is able to associate the stim with their action, they "did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators." 



tippykayak said:


> Do you not read them?


Sure did. Your read of this study shows how your bias has blinded you to the facts. EVEN with the highest level of stim that the Ecollar afforded, if the dog could make the proper association, they "did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators." 



tippykayak said:


> One group didn't show elevated cortisol, so I get why you like the study, but a group that was shocked in response to blowing a command (probably the most common use of the e-collar) did show elevated cortisol.


Are you sure that you read the study? I ask because either you didn't, or you didn't read it carefully. It said,


> [the dogs] received the electric shock when they did not obey a previously trained recall command during hunting.


 Notice that it DID NOT say that they had been trained with the Ecollar. It DID NOT say that they had been shown the association between the stim and the behavior. It very clearly said that they were stimmed when they disobeyed a previously trained command. THAT IS NOT PROPER ECOLLAR USE, as I've said many times. And I'm about teaching people proper Ecollar use. This study clearly shows stress is one of the results of IMPROPER use. AND it shows that proper use does "not show considerable or persistent stress indicators." Understand it now? 



tippykayak said:


> If you wanted to cherrypick studies that support you, you should probably avoid those that show elevated stress hormones in some of the groups that receive non-random shocks.


Except the stims WERE random. You are blind to this fact! AMAZING! I've said in the past that doing what these researchers did, just stimming a dog for disobedience without showing him what the stim means or how to shut it off, DOES result in stress and that it should not be done. All that happened in the study is that dogs received stim for previously trained commands. It DOES NOT SAY that they ever were trained that the Ecollar stim meant that they should obey. They were left to guess on their own. Sometimes that works but often it does not. The study showed EXACTLY what I'd predicted it would. 



tippykayak said:


> Do you just post these and hope nobody reads them all the way through?


I guess that you're too smart to realize that AGAIN, you're wrong. ROFL



tippykayak said:


> When part of a study supports your wacky theories


Oddly people pay me huge sums of money for my _"wacky theories."_ I’m in the highest tier of pay for trainers in this area, and LA ain't cheap. I guess that some don't agree with you that my theories are _"wacky."_ And BTW I don't advertise. All of my business comes from word−of−mouth from previous clients who are happy with the training that I gave them. 



tippykayak said:


> you're happy to cite it as science. When part doesn't, you suddenly turn on the author or the very idea of science.


AGAIN, you're wrong. It's clear that the study showed that when the dogs made the proper association between the stim and their actions EVEN WITH HIGH LEVELS OF STIM, there were no considerable or persistent stress indicators. They simply did not do this with the (H) group, They just just stimmed for disobedience WITHOUT showing them the association between the stim and their behavior. I didn't _"turn on the author"_ as you state, I pointed out where the researchers' bias colored their findings. 



tippykayak said:


> You're happy to go on rants about how terrible science is


False on its face. Show us one of those rants. I'm a big believer in science. The problem comes when people try to twist the findings to suit their own ends as you've done repeatedly. 



tippykayak said:


> but you love to ask for studies


Yes, I do. People, LOVE to make claims about the horror show that they claim that Ecollars are. But somehow the studies don't support those claims. 



tippykayak said:


> and you even post a few so you can cherrypick the three or four words at a time that seem to support you.


Parts of some studies, Schalke for example, DIRECTLY support my use of Ecollars. My methods are ALL ABOUT clearly showing the dog the association between the stim and the desired behavior. Then, they clearly show him how to make the stim stop. Some of the Schalke study INDIRECTLY supports my methods by showing that training that does not show the dog this association, DOES this causes stress. You're just so blind that you can't see this. It's really quite funny. 



tippykayak said:


> I'm sure it works on people that don't read the papers, but I like to learn, so I tend to read all the way through.


And still, you missed the very obvious facts. Just "reading" isn't enough. One has to have an open mind. 



tippykayak said:


> When I posted articles, I posted lots of different viewpoints and let the authors speak for themselves. When you interact with science, you just pick a quote that supports you and ignore or dismiss everything else (or the very concept of the scientific method). That's neither honest nor scientific.


AGAIN, you're wrong. I support every part of the studies that I cited with the exception being that their conclusion OBVIOUSLY is not supported by their findings. Since you disagree, let's look at the conclusion of the Schalke study. Emphases are mine.


> The results of this study suggest that *poor timing *in the application of *high level electric pulses, *such as those used in this study, * means there is a high risk that dogs will show severe and persistent stress symptoms. *


Note a couple of things. 

Poor timing
High level electrical pulses
high risk of stress symptoms

I've already mentioned that "poor timing" is not a factor in my method of using the Ecollar and shown why. I've said repeatedly that I don't use high level stim, that I use stim at the level that the dogs first perceive. I've also said that there's stress in any training method, including mine. 

They continue,


> We recommend that the use of these devices should be restricted with proof of theoretical and practical qualification required and then the use of these devices should only be allowed in strictly specified situations.


If Ecollars could only be used without showing the dogs how to associate the stim with a behavior ,and without showing them how to shut the stim off, and they could only be used at high levels, I'd be opposed to them. Since these things are very easily accomplished, I'm for them. 



tippykayak said:


> As far as eliminating undesired behavior, you don't have to use an aversive, (i.e., adding something "uncomfortable, since I know you hate the "P" word so much). You can teach the dog an alternative behavior to substitute.


This is one of the lies that those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" repeat over and over. Teaching an alternate behavior does NOT stop the undesired behavior. Since most of them are self−rewarding they come back. Teaching a dog who likes to jump up, to sit instead, does not stop the jumping up. It just puts it on hold. 



tippykayak said:


> If I don't want my dog to jump on me, I don't have to show him that jumping is unpleasant. I just have to remove the rewards for jumping and train an alternative behavior


Except that the reward is that the dog gets his face closer to the owner's. You can't remove that reward, it's inherent in the activity. Training an alternate behavior doesn't stop the jumping up. It may in the short term, but as soon as the rewarding of it stops (and an owner should not have to keep rewarding for the rest of a dog's life) the jumping up comes right back. I'm sure that we'll hear of your many successes with it, so I'll tell you now of the many dozens of times I've been called in to stop the jumping when this method has failed completely. Your very limited experience with 13 dogs (and it's doubtful that all of them had this issue, but again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) shows nothing. Your sample is too small to be significant. Perhaps if you had done this with many dozens, as I have, it might mean something. 



tippykayak said:


> And lastly, the "negative stimulus" thing. According to my memory, it's not the term that Skinner uses in his original definition of the four quadrants, but I never claimed that


And I never claimed that you did. You told us that you want to _"put this to bed."_ but that's a lie. You keep bringing it up. 



tippykayak said:


> and it's not what you tried to call me out on.


Yes it is. You're so wrapped up in your argument that you can't see it. You've been using the terms of OC and common language intertwined for so long that you can't even see it. 



tippykayak said:


> You wanted a cute little technicality to show that I was pretending more knowledge than I had


As you are. 



tippykayak said:


> so you claimed it was OMG SO CONFUSING


Oh look. The "_ teenage girl"_ is back. 



tippykayak said:


> I just hope other people see the utter fraud you're perpetrating when you pretend to "dispel myths" and to be less emotional and better educated than the rest of us.


I'm always happy in these discussions to let the forum members decide who is right, who is wrong, who is more or less emotional and all the rest. 



tippykayak said:


> Keep posting away


Rest assured that I will. And when you're wrong, which is quite often on important points, if I see it, I'll be happy to point it out. 



tippykayak said:


> and see if you can write anything glaringly uninformed enough to get me to post again, but my interest is waning. It was amusing for a while, but if you're not going to do your homework, don't pretend that the science backs you.


The science does back me. You're just too ignorant on the topic of Ecollars and too biased to see it. Thanks for AGAIN letting me show the members how little you know about Ecollars or the topic of dog training in general. Thanks for the rudeness that allows me to point out your inability (or perhaps lack of desire) to remain polite and professional and your emotional state.


----------



## aerolor (May 27, 2011)

Lou Castle said:


> I'll answer your question with a question that may give you some insight. What happens when a dog that's trained with treats doesn't get the treat? What happens when a dog that's been trained with a clicker, doesn't get the click?
> 
> All of these tools, in properly applied training, are weaned away.


Thank you for your response. 
I think a huge difference between the training methods is that dog and trainer don't have drect contact with each other when an e-collar stim/shock is applied - i.e. the dog does not know where or from whom the unpleasant feeling/shock/pain (whatever anyone wants to call it) is coming from and doesn't connect it witht the trainer. It just happens to it out of the blue. I don't think that this can be a good thing. Granted it will stop a dog from doing something, but it does not teach it or show it what is actually wanted. Also, it is not much use when a dog is out of sight. 
I freely admit I would not wish to use an e-collar and they are not widely favoured and used in this country, so I have no experience with them. It's just an instinctive feeling with me that it is wrong to use them when there are other ways. If I had a dog who was an incorrigible sheep chaser then maybe I would consider an e-collar for the specific purpose of deterrent which would prevent it being destroyed.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> I have none and have never pretended that I did. Why you think that I need to have a background in behavioral psych, to train dogs is another mystery.


I don't think you need a background in behavioral psych to train dogs. I _do_ think you need a background in behavioral psych if you're going to lecture people on behavioral psych.



Lou Castle said:


> No short term stress effects, means no long term stress effects.


Interesting. So as long as you don't see side effects in two weeks of using the e-collar, it's therefore safe for all dogs to use indefinitely.



Lou Castle said:


> It clearly shows that when a dog is able to associate the stim with their action, they "did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators."


Not exactly (which is why the authors didn't come to the same conclusion as you did). It showed with the dogs were able to associate an object with the action, they didn't show elevated cortisol. It also showed that they weren't able to do that when it came to being shocked for disobedience.



Lou Castle said:


> Oddly people pay me huge sums of money for my _"wacky theories."_


Sadly, the world does work this way.



Lou Castle said:


> Parts of some studies, Schalke for example, DIRECTLY support my use of Ecollars.


Just the part you cherrypicked. The authors' own conclusion disagrees with the fundamental principle of everything you have to say about e-collars.



Lou Castle said:


> This is one of the lies that those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" repeat over and over. Teaching an alternate behavior does NOT stop the undesired behavior. Since most of them are self−rewarding they come back. Teaching a dog who likes to jump up, to sit instead, does not stop the jumping up. It just puts it on hold.


When you remove the reward for the behavior (-P), the behavior begins to decrease in frequency. When you reward an alternate behavior, you can replace it. I'm astounded that you don't know how to teach a dog to stop jumping without an e-collar. I thought you embraced all methods?



Lou Castle said:


> Except that the reward is that the dog gets his face closer to the owner's. You can't remove that reward, it's inherent in the activity.


Can you really think of no way to remove this reward?




Lou Castle said:


> It may in the short term, but as soon as the rewarding of it stops (and an owner should not have to keep rewarding for the rest of a dog's life) the jumping up comes right back.


Why do you think that you have to keep rewarding for a dog's whole life when you don't think you have to keep punishing for a dog's whole life? Positively reinforced behavior is notoriously durable. Plus, you naturally end up rewarding a dog his whole life, since you've shown him how to get praise and attention.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

oh, I was only staying out of it because everyone already knows my views and Tito's history with and without the collar from the previous 10 times this has gone around and around.
Just for the record, for anyone new, Tito was trained to a UDX at a young age (3) with mostly positive training. No prong collar, no force fetch, no ear pinch, no e-collar. Lots of praise, lots of treats.
But for field, he was trained with all of the above except no treats.
Every dog is different, every venue has different requirements and training methods, and no one thing works for every dog in every situation. I believe in using what works for that dog, and that trainer, keeping your personal goals in mind.
And here's just an interesting footnote.
In Utility, Tito has a very annoying habit of slinking back with the scent articles, which I call the "death march". He only does it in the ring, never in training. To anyone ringside, it might appear that he has been heavily pressured, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. He just worries in the obedience show ring.
In the field, he has outstanding attitude, always. That's the venue in which he HAS been pressured. He has been shown clearly, black and white, what is right _and what is wrong_, and he has loads of confidence that he is always right. 
Things are not always what they seem.


----------



## Reward That Puppy (May 21, 2012)

*Training Humanely*

Hello, just caught this board and thread by chance. I have 2 Goldens, 10 years old and a 3 year old rescue.
I am also a CPDT-KA (Certified Professional Dog Trainer) OSCT (Operation Socialization Certified Trainer) specializing in puppies. I train many Goldens starting at 8 weeks of age.

All the things suggested above, I did try with my 10 year old Golden Simon, for the first 2 years of his life. Prong, Choke chain, shake can, alpha rolls, horn.....what I ended up with was a neurotic golden, reactive/aggressive to other dogs. Everything was going perfect and I thought these methods were working or seemed to work. He was 75 lbs, I couldn't control him on walks (since he was walking me). All the trainers, at the time, used aversive methods. Many dogs get to a point of frustration, distrust, not knowing what we want, and at an older age these methods may produce worse behaviors then you originally had. He would act aggressively when he saw a dog at 100ft. I researched and studied learning theory in dogs, how to train without force, fear or intimidation nor pain. When I changed my method it produced a champion dog who shows successfully in AKC Obedience, Rally, and Agility, along with CGC and Certified therapy Dog. It is a long story and when I have time I will post it in my profile.

I then was committed in teaching others how to train their dogs in a humane way to build the relationship and bond and have a mannerly dog.

Do shock collars work YES, Do prong and choke collars work, SOMETIMES, does shocking a can with stones work, SOMETIMES but produce fear. I do not use anything that may affect the human/canine bond, which is the first thing you must achieve with your dog, void of fear and pain.

What some don't realize is that any breathing organism learns the same way. Be it dog, child, elephant, or chicken. "What is rewarded will become behavior, what is ignored will become extinct". That is it in a nutshell. Now some behavior you can't ignore, but you use a human interrupter
to distract the dog from what the are doing.

Although you might have momentary success is stopping the behavior, the fall out from using force, fear intimidation can build and reveal itself immediatlely or later in a dog's life. Using force-free. reward based, methods will not cause this fall out.

Please don't use shock, prongs, choke chains. Train the dog to walk on a loose leash, train the dog to sit for greetings. train the dog to look at your face with undivided attention. 

Train don't Restrain...........

Ada Simms
CPDT-KA, OSCT,
Reward That Puppy! inc. Dog Training
W. Henrietta, NY

Mystique's Mighty Simon (golden Ret)
CGC, TDI, CD, RE, and a host of agility titles.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

hotel4dogs said:


> And here's just an interesting footnote.
> In Utility, Tito has a very annoying habit of slinking back with the scent articles, which I call the "death march". He only does it in the ring, never in training. To anyone ringside, it might appear that he has been heavily pressured, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. He just worries in the obedience show ring.
> In the field, he has outstanding attitude, always. That's the venue in which he HAS been pressured. He has been shown clearly, black and white, what is right _and what is wrong_, and he has loads of confidence that he is always right.
> Things are not always what they seem.


I don't get why so many people usually associate the "slinking around" behavior with a dog that has had too much pressure or force. I've seen plenty of dogs do that and I've never thought it was because they must be "beat" (and I don't literally mean beat). I find the most common cause is a dog that is lacking confidence. And confidence comes from knowing _exactly_ what it is supposed to do in that situation. There are good trainers who train with clickers, there are bad ones, there are good trainers who train with prong collars or ecollars, there are bad ones, and then there are the majority of trainers, those who are doing the best they can but don't have the natural "gift" of being a truly great trainer. I do think one more often has to be a stronger trainer as far as timing, etc to go the clicker, all positive route and reach the same level of competence as one would in a more balanced approach. Kind of like someone who decides they want to go through Calculus without a calculator...they would have to be a strong math person to limit their resources in the class. I personally don't choose to limit my resources and take advantage of whatever I feel useful to explain the rules of the game to the dog.


----------



## my4goldens (Jan 21, 2009)

Reward That Puppy said:


> Do shock collars work YES, Do prong and choke collars work, SOMETIMES, does shocking a can with stones work, SOMETIMES but produce fear. I do not use anything that may affect the human/canine bond, which is the first thing you must achieve with your dog, void of fear and pain.
> 
> 
> Please don't use shock, prongs, choke chains. Train the dog to walk on a loose leash, train the dog to sit for greetings. train the dog to look at your face with undivided attention.
> ...



Umm, I have used prong collars, have not used an e-collar yet, but if and when I decide to train my puppy for field it will be part of my training protocol. My dogs are not fearful, are not traumatized by the evil prong collar, are happy, healthy, and I am sure Barb (Tito's mom) can tell you I am a good dog mom and a good dog trainer. Geez, enough already with the bashing of those of us who do use these training tools.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Reward That Puppy said:


> Hello, just caught this board and thread by chance. I have 2 Goldens, 10 years old and a 3 year old rescue.
> I am also a CPDT-KA (Certified Professional Dog Trainer) OSCT (Operation Socialization Certified Trainer) specializing in puppies. I train many Goldens starting at 8 weeks of age.
> 
> All the things suggested above, I did try with my 10 year old Golden Simon, for the first 2 years of his life. Prong, Choke chain, shake can, alpha rolls, horn.....what I ended up with was a neurotic golden, reactive/aggressive to other dogs. Everything was going perfect and I thought these methods were working or seemed to work. He was 75 lbs, I couldn't control him on walks (since he was walking me). All the trainers, at the time, used aversive methods. Many dogs get to a point of frustration, distrust, not knowing what we want, and at an older age these methods may produce worse behaviors then you originally had. He would act aggressively when he saw a dog at 100ft. I researched and studied learning theory in dogs, how to train without force, fear or intimidation nor pain. When I changed my method it produced a champion dog who shows successfully in AKC Obedience, Rally, and Agility, along with CGC and Certified therapy Dog. It is a long story and when I have time I will post it in my profile.
> ...


 

Ecollars, choke collars, prong collars, etc do NOT "produce fear" when used correctly. Period.
(CGC, TDI are not titles but certificates and easily trained. I don't know anyone who would use an ecollar or even a prong to train for CD, RE, or agility.)


----------



## Titan1 (Jan 19, 2010)

I train with a pinch and show with a choke....Yep looks like my dog is traumatized and does not have a good relationship with me...


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I don't get why people are starting to belittle the accomplishments of successful trainers in this thread.

I get if you feel insulted when you use an e-collar and somebody says an e-collar may have side effects and may hurt a dog's relationship with his trainer, but at least nobody's coming after your dogs and your accomplishments specifically. What's being characterized as attacks on trainers that use e-collars are aimed squarely at the equipment, not at anybody in the thread. So to turn around and nitpick or put down somebody else's accomplishments with their own dogs just seems like an attempt to make the argument personal instead of about issues.

I admire the pro trainers who can not just train their own dogs to meaningful certifications and titles but can also help other people do it. Those joyful accomplishments and relationships are something to be celebrated, not undermined, particularly if you really care more about happy, well-trained dogs than about carrying out a personal vendetta.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I should say that I do love all the pictures and stories of happy working dogs, regardless of the equipment used. Despite all my more general reservations, I do believe that there are lots of wonderful relationships between dogs and trainers who use e-collars.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

This is going to veer a bit off topic, sort of, but I do believe (as do some big name people I've consulted and/or taken private lessons from) that the slinking behavior was caused by TOO MUCH PRAISE when he was learning articles.
When I withhold the praise (in the ring), he isn't certain he is *right*, and he melts. Which is why he never does it in training....
Could it be fixed? Absolutely, but it wouldn't be a "quick fix". It would take a lot of time, practice, and patience if I did it with positive methods, as I've always done his obedience. We've tried a few different things with no real success. With him already having his UDX and UUD, basically retired from obedience, I opt to leave it alone.
Believe it or not, I think it could be fixed VERY quickly with the e-collar, but I choose not to because I really don't care about it. All I would have to do is give him a low-level nick (vibration) every time he picked up a wrong article (although at this point, it would hard to get him to pick up a wrong article without *tricking* him, which would be unfair) and he would quickly learn that no nick means he's right. Then in the ring, he would not get nicked, and would know he's right, and would come bouncing back like he does in training. 






Loisiana said:


> I don't get why so many people usually associate the "slinking around" behavior with a dog that has had too much pressure or force. I've seen plenty of dogs do that and I've never thought it was because they must be "beat" (and I don't literally mean beat). I find the most common cause is a dog that is lacking confidence. And confidence comes from knowing _exactly_ what it is supposed to do in that situation. There are good trainers who train with clickers, there are bad ones, there are good trainers who train with prong collars or ecollars, there are bad ones, and then there are the majority of trainers, those who are doing the best they can but don't have the natural "gift" of being a truly great trainer. I do think one more often has to be a stronger trainer as far as timing, etc to go the clicker, all positive route and reach the same level of competence as one would in a more balanced approach. Kind of like someone who decides they want to go through Calculus without a calculator...they would have to be a strong math person to limit their resources in the class. I personally don't choose to limit my resources and take advantage of whatever I feel useful to explain the rules of the game to the dog.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> I don't get why people are starting to belittle the accomplishments of successful trainers in this thread.
> 
> I get if you feel insulted when you use an e-collar and somebody says an e-collar may have side effects and may hurt a dog's relationship with his trainer, but at least nobody's coming after your dogs and your accomplishments specifically. What's being characterized as attacks on trainers that use e-collars are aimed squarely at the equipment, not at anybody in the thread.


You cannot make blanket statements about the equipment (or allude to it) without others becoming on the defensive. It is one thing to say that these tools *may* cause harm to saying that they *will* cause some degree of harm. Once you say or allude to the fact that they always cause harm and are inhumane or unacceptable then you are attacking those that use them even if you do not single them out. Don't think for one minute that those of us who have used these controversial tools successfully and still have great relationships with our happy dogs will let that falsehood pass. 

As I've said before I do not participate with the vendetta that I want everyone to magically convert their methods...I really don't care. What I do care about is the accusations that the tool causes the harm. It does not...this is completely on the owner. Kind of like saying guns kill people. No, people kill people.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I want to make it VERY CLEAR that I am in no way "belittling" any accomplishments that anyone achieves with their dog. I love CGC and TDI for pet owners - doing ANYthing with your dog is _great_. BUT, in the context of this discussion it is important to note that they are in fact certificates, not "titles", relatively easy to attain, and they, along with the lower level obedience titles r_arely _if _ever _would require an ecollar or even prong collar to train for. Additionally, the new poster, Reward That Puppy, said that she produced a "champion dog". Not true. The certificates and titles achieved are wonderful, but do not make up a champion.
It's about accuracy. If people are going to come into these discussions as experts, they need to be accurate at least.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> This is going to veer a bit off topic, sort of, but I do believe (as do some big name people I've consulted and/or taken private lessons from) that the slinking behavior was caused by TOO MUCH PRAISE when he was learning articles.
> When I withhold the praise (in the ring), he isn't certain he is *right*, and he melts. Which is why he never does it in training....
> Could it be fixed? Absolutely, but it wouldn't be a "quick fix". It would take a lot of time, practice, and patience. With him already having his UDX and UUD, basically retired from obedience, I opt to leave it alone.


I can see that. I think that is where us humans and all our thinking gets in the way of dog training. You think you are praising him for coming back or for selecting the right article, where he might think he is being praised on his slow return


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> Once you say or allude to the fact that they always cause harm and are inhumane or unacceptable then you are attacking those that use them even if you do not single them out.


I think it's a fair point to come back and disagree with blanket statements about what e-collars _will_ do, and you have a good point about the fairness of those statements. What I take issue with is responding by tearing other trainers down personally or belittling their accomplishments.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

That's why I start right off the bat teaching young dogs that silence means he's right, keep going, and let him know I'll immediately tell him if he's wrong.
that way the dog doesn't stress out about not getting feedback in the ring.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

And I can tell you already that your little boy is going to NEED an e-collar for safety if and when you do field with him! Having seen him with his first bird, he's going to be VERY birdy. Any 13 week old puppy who will retrieve a huge rooster pheasant with no encouragement the first time he has ever even seen a bird, and strut off with it proud as can be, is going to have a lot of bird drive  .



my4goldens said:


> Umm, I have used prong collars, have not used an e-collar yet, but if and when I decide to train my puppy for field it will be part of my training protocol. My dogs are not fearful, are not traumatized by the evil prong collar, are happy, healthy, and I am sure Barb (Tito's mom) can tell you I am a good dog mom and a good dog trainer. Geez, enough already with the bashing of those of us who do use these training tools.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Yes, and I will do that with the next dog for sure. I used praise to mean he was right, and didn't say anything if he was wrong until he got back to me, then it was, "ooops, try again" in a happy voice (you can see exactly why he reacts the way he does in the ring...DUH). Tito is my first dog beyond Novice A (and that was 15 years ago!) and I've made more mistakes than I can count, let alone list.




Loisiana said:


> That's why I start right off the bat teaching young dogs that silence means he's right, keep going, and let him know I'll immediately tell him if he's wrong.
> that way the dog doesn't stress out about not getting feedback in the ring.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Totally! Another example of where timing is absolutely critical!



GoldenSail said:


> I can see that. I think that is where us humans and all our thinking gets in the way of dog training. You think you are praising him for coming back or for selecting the right article, where he might think he is being praised on his slow return


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Here the relevant context of the thread: the OP, who is not anywhere near the CGC/TDI yet, and those would be wonderful goals for her. The thread is about a pet owner. 



> Hello,
> 
> So I had taken Koda's stubborness issues to facebook too yesterday to see if anyone (specifically her breeder) had anything to say. One of her littermates mommy's came on and said that their pup had been doing the exact same thing and became too hard for the mom to get her up which is my problem since I am a little girl, Koda is very very very heavy for me esp at dead weight. She said they started using a shock collar on a very low setting. They didn't use it just because. They would use when she was doing the bad behaviour and then release the shock when she would get up out of her bad behaviour and praise her like crazy. They suggested if we do it to find a trainer for it to teach us how to use it properly. With Koda being so unreliable on recalls I have actually started to consider this..am I crazy? Do people have opinions on this stuff? I am usually not a proponent of this stuff and I am willing to try the methods that were suggested to me first but I wanted to get opinions on here about this option as I value your input very much.
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

People who know me from the forum over the years know that I always applaude any efforts people make with their dogs, be it rally, beginner novice, therapy work, anything. I am a huge believer in the human/canine bond.

However, I don't see anything in your dogs' accomplishments that would qualify either as a champion and I take issue with you saying so. I do not see any CH, OTCH, MACH, CT, FC, AFC on either of your dogs. To compare a CD or RE (the only titles listed) with a championship is like comparing kindergarten with graduate school. Of course, maybe your dog has a MACH in agility and you just didn't mention it, in which case I stand corrected. That IS a championship.

There is a huge difference between teaching a dog to walk nicely on a leash, or to do very basic obedience/agility in an enclosed ring only 40 feet across versus taking the dog to the level of a Master Hunter or Qualified All age, let alone Field Trial champion, working 450 yards away from you out in the open, often with roads etc. nearby. 

Until you have successfully trained to a very high level in all of those venues, please do not categorically and emphatically tell people not to use tools that are perfectly legitimate in those situations, in the hands of a good trainer.




Reward That Puppy said:


> *When I changed my method it produced a champion dog* who shows successfully in AKC Obedience, Rally, and Agility, along with CGC and Certified therapy Dog. It is a long story and when I have time I will post it in my profile.
> 
> 
> *Please don't use shock, prongs, choke chains.* Train the dog to walk on a loose leash, train the dog to sit for greetings. train the dog to look at your face with undivided attention.
> ...


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Ljilly28 said:


> Here the relevant context of the thread: the OP, who is not anywhere near the CGC/TDI yet, and those would be wonderful goals for her. The thread is about a pet owner.


And, as the discussion has evolved, my comment was valid.

I agree that CGC/TDI is wonderful.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

The OP said a long time ago that she has bowed out of this thread, having gotten the information she was looking for. It has evolved into an entirely different discussion.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> I don't get why so many people usually associate the "slinking around" behavior with a dog that has had too much pressure or force.


^ Seconds this. When I read Barb's post a couple seconds ago, I immediately thought of the only time I see Jacks slinking around. It's usually when he has something he shouldn't have and he's sashaying around the room in front of me teasing me. It's his way of antagonizing me enough so I get up and get something to trade with him. As you can see who is the trainer in our house... :uhoh: I can just imagine him doing the same in field if he got a bloody bird in his mouth. 

When Jacks has received a correction or handling that spooks him (we aren't talking about pain, we are talking about something that affects him negatively), he will rear his head up and go overboard with the "appeasing" behavior.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Pointgold said:


> Ecollars, choke collars, prong collars, etc do NOT "produce fear" when used correctly. Period.
> (CGC, TDI are not titles but certificates and easily trained. I don't know anyone who would use an ecollar or even a prong to train for CD, RE, or agility.)


Come south a little bit, Laura. Plenty of people using prongs to train for CD and RE. 

ETA - this is probably just me reacting to what I saw at a trial a couple weeks ago, but I would really hope people do not equate a CD with an RE. The level and amount of training that often goes into getting a RE leg is miniscule compared to what most people do to attain a CD. 

And as somebody who really was EXCITED to get a CD on her first golden (very shy and not food motivated), I feel somewhat upset when I see people downplaying that title. 

And something to keep in mind - most people with novice dogs lose 10-15 points from the heeling portion (on leash, figure 8, off leash) alone. That's because every leash tightening, lag, forge, wide, slow sit, bump, or seperation from heel position gets marked off. Add to that the points they lose on moving feet on the stands, slow fronts, crooked fronts, bumps on the fronts, failure to finish, crooked finishes, dog wiggling on the stays, etc... and it is VERY EASY to NQ if you do not thoroughly train and polish your dogs.

With rally, I've seen a lot of mostly unpolished dogs and trainers go into the ring, but sometimes it doesn't matter because the dog or handler would have to do something drastic to NQ.


----------



## Charliethree (Jul 18, 2010)

*This is one of the lies that those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" repeat over and over. Teaching an alternate behavior does NOT stop the undesired behavior. *


Teaching an alternate behavior (one you want) is the basis of reward based training- ie: if a dog is sitting, it can not jump on you, (physically impossible to do both at once).
If you give the ANY type of attention for jumping up (or any attention seeking behavior) - the dog is rewarded - whether you pet, praise, yell or physically punish. If you consistently ignore the attention seeking behavior and only give the dog attention when it is sitting - the dog will learn to sit for attention - effectively stopping the jumping up.

*Since most of them are self-rewarding they come back.*
If you are consistent and never reward the attention seeking behavior you don't like, it disappears completely. IF you reward unwanted behavior after you have trained the alternate behavior, yes, chances are it will return. Not because the training method was necessarily wrong but because it was applied inconsistently. 
One of my dogs is 12 yrs old, as a pup I trained her to sit instead of jumping up, to receive attention.Once she understood that the ONLY way she was going get any attention, (or go outside, or go for a walk) was to sit, the jumping behavior was gone -and it has not returned in 11 1/2 years. I also have 5 other dogs, ranging from age 1 thru 10 (three of which I adopted as adult dogs) that have been trained the same way - and without fail - the behavior has not returned.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> I think it's a fair point to come back and disagree with blanket statements about what e-collars _will_ do, and you have a good point about the fairness of those statements. What I take issue with is responding by tearing other trainers down personally or belittling their accomplishments.


I don't think they were belittling their accomplishments, but rather, clarifying them. It could be said that having certificates equated to a title is belittling to those people who have put forth the hard work and effort to receive actual higher end titles (like a real championship) because they are not the same. Not even in the same category.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> I don't think they were belittling their accomplishments, but rather, clarifying them. It could be said that having certificates equated to a title is belittling to those people who have put forth the hard work and effort to receive actual higher end titles (like a real championship) because they are not the same. Not even in the same category.


I get clarifying what constitutes a "champion" in terms of titles, as I said. Calling titles or certs "easy," however, especially when you've never gotten those titles, much less "higher end titles," is belittling and clearly an attempt to shoot a person down instead of discussing the issue.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

(Trimmed)


Megora said:


> And as somebody who really was EXCITED to get a CD on her first golden (very shy and not food motivated), I feel somewhat upset when I see people downplaying that title.
> 
> 
> 
> With rally, I've seen a lot of mostly unpolished dogs and trainers go into the ring, but sometimes it doesn't matter because the dog or handler would have to do something drastic to NQ.


 
And anyone who earns a CD _should _be excited. It's great. I hav_e NOT _downplayed it, and most certainly not for pet owners. I've said it a million times.

And rally is a fun game, for sure, and as you just said, to NQ is hard to do.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Pointgold said:


> And rally is a fun game, for sure, and as you just said, to NQ is hard to do.


my Lhasa Apso and I are in a very special category of rare handlers and dogs who managed to go High in Trial in obedience and NQ in rally on the same day :doh:


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

Well Jodie if NQing in Rally is hard to do, and you did it, you must be very accomplished


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

What is easy for some is not always easy for others. Certainly a CD on a tough dog is more work than one on an easy dog. But by design, I think it is fair to say that a CD is easier than a UD, is easier than an OTCH. That Rally is generally easier than obedience. That certificates are often easier than those. By design. You work your way up.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> my Lhasa Apso and I are in a very special category of rare handlers and dogs who managed to go High in Trial in obedience and NQ in rally on the same day :doh:


Was it you or him who did something drastic? Or both? :wave:

@Laura - thanks. It wasn't just your comment or even comments on this thread. CD's are _special_.  I know a nice golden lady who finally got a CD on her 8 year old BISS Am/CH female (this was a conformation and agility dog who hates the obedience ring). The scores were not the best, but that title still sent her owner to the moon because it was hard won.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

FWIW I have also NQ'd in Rally. Back when I had my sheltie and we tried it a few times. She barked her way to that NQ. And it was a happy bark...for anyone that is familiar with the breed they are very barky.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Megora said:


> The level and amount of training that often goes into getting a RE leg is miniscule compared to what most people do to attain a CD.


I don't know, I think it is probably easier to _pass_ rally excellent than novice obedience in a dog not fully prepared, but I think for many dogs it would require more training to do a truly great run in rally excellent than novice obedience. A rally excellent course requires knowledge of many more skills than a novice obedience course.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Megora said:


> Was it you or him who did something drastic? Or both.


my Lhasa had amazing natural heads up attention in heeling. For the most part that was a wonderful benefit, but in this instance it caused him not to notice the jump coming up. I cued it too late for him and he smashed himself right into the jump. We tried again but at that point he said there was no way he was going over that thing and went around it instead. Back then you were allowed two retries, but you were also required to _run_ past the jump, so he ran right around on both retries.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Loisiana said:


> I don't know, I think it is probably easier to _pass_ rally excellent than novice obedience in a dog not fully prepared, but I think for many dogs it would require more training to do a truly great run in rally excellent than novice obedience. A rally excellent course requires knowledge of many more skills than a novice obedience course.


Yep... I completely agree.

Unfortunately there _are_ people who don't feel that actual classes and training time beyond learning exercises is necessary. I think I read something where somebody was saying that showing her dog was a _form_ of training. And getting a truly great run (high scores) in Rally isn't their object. :doh:

The only difference that I've seen between RA and RE with some judges is RE has two jumps. You do have moving stands and moving downs, but I've seen people fudge those and still qualify. Even with the 2012 changes, I've only seen the new jump at one show (none of the call to heel exercises). And nobody at the trial did that jump correctly. And still qualified.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

We had the new jump and call-to-heel ( stand, leave, sit dog. . .) this weekend for RAE.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

It is interesting to compare the titles on our Thursday Novice B class dogs with those of the Rally Excellent class. The RE class had by far more advanced dogs- that black lab Bella Donna picked up her UD this weekend and won the RE class one of the days (what an awesome little black girl!) and the Sunfire dog already has his UD and also won two of the days- he was truly gorgeous to watch. Tally also won once. You don't think this is obedience? I don't mind what you call it, bc it is fun, but I think the level of competition here was pretty nice for a Thursday in Maine.

OBEDIENCE TRIAL CLASSES. Rally Excellent Class B.JUDGE: Mrs. Phyllis Broderick

46DREW WOODS HALLIE OF WELLS CDX RE. SR 19570702. 08-01-04
By Ch Daybreak Varsity Jump - Drew Woods Triple Play. Retrievers (Golden). 
Owner: Naomi F Smith., Wells, ME 040900523. Breeder: Constance & Robert MacIntosh.

48SUNFIRE TYDAVENT'S MR WOODS UD RE NA TD. SN 90166202. 01-27-02
By OTCH Sunfire's Valiant Apollo UDX JH - Sunfire Cheerio Eye Of Storm. Retrievers (Golden). 
Owner: Kathryn Hoppe., Portage Lake, ME 04768. Breeder: Michael Book & Wendy Biewer & Barb Biewer.

49GOLDIVA RALEIGH TANGLED UP IN BLUE CD RE. SR 44475103. 06-01-07
By Ch Nautilus Goldiva's Good N Plenty - Ch Goldiva's Play N Hard To Get. Retrievers (Golden). 
Owner: Laura Jill Simmons., Falmouth, ME 041052060. Breeder: Mary Dickinson Wood.

50KLOUD BURST'S BROWN EYED GIRL BN RE. WS 31593304. 09-01-09
By Ch Kloud Burst's Strait From The Heart - Ch Kloud Burst's Sweet Intoxication. Alaskan Malamutes. 
Owner: Sarah E Todd., Kittery, ME 039041625. Breeder: Roseann Deutsch & Richard L Deutsch.

52MAC PAK'S TROT TROT TO BOSTON CD. SR 10602409. 08-25-03
By Ch Cidermill River Run - My Daisy Of Shepherds Knoll. Retrievers (Golden). 
Owner: Mary Jo McCormack., Gorham, ME 040381381. Breeder: Mary Jo McCormack.

53KETTLE COVE FIRE IN THE SKY CDX RE. WS 15583005. 11-12-05
By Ch Foxfire's Ain't That Right - Ch Cambria's Caracas Of Kettle Cove. Doberman Pinschers. 
Owner: CJ Grote & Karen Malatesta., Georgetown, MA 018331823. Breeder: Sharon Duval & David Karam & Diane Duval.

61SOUTHERN CREEK'S FIND IT. RN 11958805. 08-23-06
By Mr Pooh Bear Allen - Stoney Brooks Calender Girl. Cairn Terriers. 
Owner: Brooke Corson., North Berwick, ME 03906. Breeder: Traci M Dow.

63GRA-LEMOR ALL JAZZED UP CD RA. WS 28135508. 10-11-08
By Ch Wyndem N Rahdys Lucky Strike - Gra-Lemor Snapdragon Glenayr. Doberman Pinschers. 
Owner: C J Grote & Karen Malatesta., Georgetown, MA 018331823. Breeder: Grace I Moore & Barbara A Duklis.

64DEMERARA'S BELLA DONNA CDX. SR55530001. 05-10-07
By Somers Isles Diver - Black Chiffon. Retrievers (Labrador). 
Owner: Catherine Gosling., Bermuda CR01, . Breeder: Catherine Gosling.




OBEDIENCE TRIAL CLASSES. Novice Class B.
JUDGE: Mrs. Marilou McCloskey

12 PAMELOT'S OGELTHORPE. WS 10508601. 10-18-04
By Ch Briariwood Storms A Brewin - Pamelot's Kimahari. Doberman Pinschers. 
Owner: Robin Rubin. Breeder: Pamela De Hetre.

15 TROWSNEST TANGLEWOOD ANDRE SH. SR 16643201. 04-05-04
By Cheek To Cheek Steve McQueen - Trowsnest Symphony At Tangewood. Retrievers (Golden). 
Owner: Marjory P Trowbridge. Breeder: Marjory Trowbridge & J A Cava.

17 CHANTILLY'S BRIGHT LIGHTS BIG CITY. SR 63915202. 11-05-09
By Ch Hytree's Ryd-N-Out The Storm SDHF - Premiere She's Da Bomb. Retrievers (Golden). 
Owner: Laura Jill Simmons. Breeder: Ashleigh Chimiuk.

18 CLARE'S FIONA BN RE. RN 17989902. 08-13-08
By Ch Rockledge Rory Ridire - Clare's Niamh Of Longtail. Irish Terriers. 
Owner: Susan C Moller & Janet C Moller. Breeder: Pauline A Kelly.

19 ROJAN'S RING OF STEELE V WISTERIA RN. WS 30167005. 01-23-09
By Rojan's Pirates Gold - Wisteria's One For The Money V Rojan. Rottweilers. 
Owner: Margaret Bryan. Breeder: Janet Mester & Valerie Vigesaa.

20 MUTTS WITH A MISSION WATCH ME. PAL257110. 12-08-09
By Jukno V. Haus Bernhart-Mader - Prima Ze Stribrneho Kamene. German Shepherd Dogs. 
Owner: Brooke Corson. Breeder: Adriana Gurtlerova.

21 KLOUD BURST'S BROWN EYED GIRL BN RE. WS 31593304. 09-01-09
By Ch Kloud Burst's Strait From The Heart - Ch Kloud Burst's Sweet Intoxication. Alaskan Malamutes. 
Owner: Sarah E Todd. Breeder: Roseann Deutsch & Richard L Deutsch.

23 SOUTHERN CREEK'S FIND IT. RN 11958805. 08-23-06
By Mr Pooh Bear Allen - Stoney Brooks Calender Girl. Cairn Terriers. 
Owner: Brooke Corson. Breeder: Traci M Dow.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Ljilly28 said:


> It is interesting to compare the titles on our Thursday Novice B class dogs with those of the Rally Excellent class. The RE class had by far more advanced dogs- that black lab Bella Donna picked up her UD this weekend and won the RE class one of the days (what an awesome little black girl!) and the Sunfire dog already has his UD and also won two of the days- he was truly gorgeous to watch. Tally also won once. You don't think this is obedience? I don't mind what you call it, bc it is fun, but I think the level of competition here was pretty nice for a Thursday in Maine.


I really don't know what point you're trying to make here (I also thought you were bowing out of the conversation as of a few pages ago).
By definition Rally is NOT Obedience. It is called a RALLY Trial, not an OBEDIENCE trial, and AKC gives them different event numbers and charges separate entry fees. Rally is no more obedience than agility or hunt tests are. 
I've been-there-done-that with Rally and won't be back. I don't deny that some people have fun with it and if they enjoy that activity with their dog, then more power to them. I happily accepted my rally ribbons and am proud of Fisher's puppies with rally titles. But don't make Rally out to be something more than it is. Rally is somewhere between CGC and a CD, that's where AKC wants it to be and that's about right as far as level of training necessary.
The relevancy to this thread? Don't tout your training chops on a few Rally passes, it won't fly with most serious trainers.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Well, it says OBEDIENCE TRIAL CLASSES: RALLY EXCELLENT B right here in my catalog, so I think this is splitting hairs. However, having done a CD and then RE, the CD was easier. Neither are especially difficult, I agree. 

"Serious trainer" is one of those eye of the beholder terms. We just SAFER tested shelter dogs, and many there have a low opinion of people who pursue AKC titles with a pedigreed dog or two, but think they know how to train. It all depends what your goals are, to say if you are skillful enough to meet them. For us, in terms of making a living, serious trainer means great people skills, lots of patience with basics, exemplary cognitive understanding of positive training and belief in it too, excellent mechanics, great dog-reading skills, and a knack for helping humans solvie the problems of rescues, puppies, and shelter dogs in new homes so they can stay in their homes. To me, titles are not that relevant to what makes a good trainer, but it is fun to try them with the goldens in whatever free time is there for hobbies.

About this issue of how various people view Rally though, I am merely curious. I have fun with Rally O and have no desire to achieve any titles in particular, except those that are fun to do with my dog ( except breed CH- a different story). I have no desire to claim it is hard for me or my dogs, because it isnt. It is not easy to win though either, bc the competition is pretty proficient. It's fine with me if it either is or isnt "real" obedience. It's fun. I just thought it was interesting and noteworthy that the dogs in Rally were maybe a little more accomplished than people had thought who do not participate in it.


I did bow out of the E collar discussion, since my thoughts re something other than pet dogs like the OP owns, are all on the other thread from earlier in the year, and I don't want yet another banning incident to happen to anyone or to give the moderators tylenol headaches again by rehashing what is already there and already caused its own fighting. 

Off to meet a litter of puppies. . .


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> Don't tout your training chops on a few Rally passes, it won't fly with most serious trainers.


Now it's OK to tear each other down because our personal dogs don't have enough letters after their names? Is there any rule about number of dogs? Like, if you have lots of letters but only one or two dogs, do you still have chops? What about if you're a professional and you help your clients get titles? Do those count? What if a dog has lots of titles but a reputation for inappropriate behavior (e.g., aggressing)? Does that undermine a trainer's credibility? What if the trainer is successful but well known for being very harsh with corrections? Should we still allow him or her to tout his or her training chops?

I'd just like to know how "serious trainers" evaluate us and our opinions.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> I don't know, I think it is probably easier to _pass_ rally excellent than novice obedience in a dog not fully prepared, but I think for many dogs it would require more training to do a truly great run in rally excellent than novice obedience. A rally excellent course requires knowledge of many more skills than a novice obedience course.


I completely agree.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I get clarifying what constitutes a "champion" in terms of titles, as I said. Calling titles or certs "easy," however, especially when you've never gotten those titles, much less "higher end titles," is belittling and clearly an attempt to shoot a person down instead of discussing the issue.


Not true. I was clearly not attempting to shoot anyone down. PERIOD.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

aerolor said:


> Thank you for your response.
> 
> I think a huge difference between the training methods is that dog and trainer don't have drect contact with each other when an e-collar stim/shock is applied - i.e. the dog does not know where or from whom the unpleasant feeling/shock/pain (whatever anyone wants to call it) is coming from and doesn't connect it witht the trainer. It just happens to it out of the blue. I don't think that this can be a good thing.


I think that it's a GREAT thing and a definite advantage to the Ecollar over other tools. A dog is much more likely to perform properly, whether it's to obey a command or not to do something, such as not to chase game, if he thinks that any correction that he receives comes from the environment. If he thinks it comes from the handler he'll soon realize that he can disobey or chase the game if the handler doesn't see him do it. The handler is not "always there." The environment is. 



aerolor said:


> Granted it will stop a dog from doing something, but it does not teach it or show it what is actually wanted.


That _"teaching"_ is done before the dog is allowed off leash. He knows that when given a sit command he's supposed to put his butt on the ground whether he's next to the handler or far away from him. I suggest that training be set up with an assistant who can tell the handler if the dog has nor complied. Then the handler can correct the dog if he does not sit when commanded, even though the handler is not in the dog's view. Some people set this up with mirrors, so they can see if the dog is complying. 



aerolor said:


> Also, it is not much use when a dog is out of sight.


I developed a protocol to stop police dogs from chasing cats on yard to yard searches in urban areas. Turns out that it also works to stop dogs from chasing all kinds of game and it has the dog doing the work even if the handler is out of sight. Since the dog thinks that the correction comes from the environment it has nothing to do with the handler. It's between the dog and the critter. 



aerolor said:


> I freely admit I would not wish to use an e-collar and they are not widely favoured and used in this country, so I have no experience with them. It's just an instinctive feeling with me that it is wrong to use them when there are other ways. If I had a dog who was an incorrigible sheep chaser then maybe I would consider an e-collar for the specific purpose of deterrent which would prevent it being destroyed.


In many parts of the world a dog can be shot by the owner of a flock that the dog is harassing. If sheep are lambing, even the sight of a dog away from the owner, can be considered "harassing." The old method of using an Ecollar, simply waiting for the chase to start and then blasting the dog with the Ecollar, usually stops the chasing but it sometimes does not. Sometimes the dogs are so much in drive, that they power right through the stim. Sometimes, instead of making the association between the chasing and the stim, they make the association with being away from the handler. That can result in a dog that won't leave your side. 

The protocol that I mentioned above works very well to stop this chasing. It's done at low levels of stim and it stop the chasing even when the handler is not present. It does not result in the dog either being afraid of the sheep (or other animal that he likes to chase) and it does not make the dog want to stick to the handler. If you're interested in learning more PM and I'll send you the link.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> No short term stress effects, means no long term stress effects.





tippykayak said:


> Interesting. So as long as you don't see side effects in two weeks of using the e-collar, * it's therefore safe for all dogs to use indefinitely. * [Emphasis Added]


If problems are going to show up, they'll do so early in the work with the Ecollar. Somehow I don't recall saying the words (in bold) that you're now trying to put into my mouth. A clever debate technique until I show folks what you're trying to do. If you disagree, please show us where I've made such a statement. 

I said earlier that I've put Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs. They all learned. I'm sure that somewhere out there is a dog that won't respond to the tool, I just haven't come across him yet. I've been told that greyhounds, Sibes, and bloodhounds can't be taught to recall when off leash. I've never had any problem training this. I've been told that some breeds, Sibes, and some other northern breeds can't be taught to do OB because they're too independent. I've never had any problem training them either. 

Earlier I wrote,


> It clearly shows that when a dog is able to associate the stim with their action, they "did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators."





tippykayak said:


> Not exactly


Close enough for the average bear. The researchers chose as their measure of stress to measure the heart rate and salivary cortisol of dogs in the test. Their conclusion had to do with _"considerable or persistent stress indicators"_ based on these criteria. 



tippykayak said:


> It showed with the dogs were able to associate an object with the action, they didn't show elevated cortisol. It also showed that they weren't able to do that when it came to being shocked for disobedience.


Clearly they were not able to make an association with the behavior and so when they were _"shocked for disobedience"_ they were stressed. Thanks for AGAIN making my point for me. Training that does not make this association, causes stress. My methods DO show the dog this association. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Oddly people pay me huge sums of money for my "wacky theories."





tippykayak said:


> Sadly, the world does work this way.


It's hardly _"sad."_ It's the free enterprise system at its best! If my theories were as you characterize them _"wacky"_ then no one would be paying me at all. Since I don't advertise anywhere, all of my private clients come from word of mouth, the folks who are recommending me must think highly of my work or they wouldn't be spreading the word. The clients who come to me after hearing the lectures on dog training that I do for local SAR or LE, have heard the theories in those lectures. They too wouldn't be coming to me if they thought they were _"wacky."_ I’m in demand to do seminars all over the place. Sponsors of those seminars pay hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars to get me to come talk to their groups and train with them. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Parts of some studies, Schalke for example, DIRECTLY support my use of Ecollars. ... Some of the Schalke study INDIRECTLY supports my methods by showing that training that does not show the dog this association, DOES this causes stress.





tippykayak said:


> Just the part you cherrypicked.


AGAIN, you're wrong. AND you conveniently omitted the full context of my statement. Fortunately I'm here to show people what kind of person you are and how low that you'll stoop in an effort to win an argument. The part in blue, above is the part that you "somehow" left out. 

The Schalke study used three groups of dogs. ALL stim was delivered at the highest setting that the Ecollar afforded. 

Group A (Aversion) was shocked when they touched the prey object, a rabbit dummy. 

Group H (Here) was shocked when they did not obey a previously trained recall command while hunting. 

Group R (Random) was shocked arbitrarily. 

Group A did not show a significant rise in salivary cortisol levels, while group R and group H did show a significant rise. 

This is EXACTLY as I would have predicted. Group R dogs who were shocked randomly, where the dogs could not make any association between being shocked and anything (because no such association was possible) were stressed. In the pet world, this would be abuse, not dog training. This *DIRECTLY *supports my theory and my methods. 

Group A dogs who were shocked when they touched the prey object could make an association with what was causing the shock, were not stressed. My training shows the dog the association between the stim and the behavior, similar to the effect in this study. I'd expect the same results, no stress. This * DIRECTLY *supports my methods. 

Group H dogs, who were shocked for not obeying a command previously taught * had not made an association between the shock and the disobedience. * They were stressed. This is exactly what I'd expect. Since the dogs had not made the association it appeared to them to be random, as in Group R. I'd expect the same results, stressed dogs. My methods were developed specifically to show the dogs the association that existed with the Group A dogs who were not stressed. This *INDIRECTLY * support my methods. 

You'll probably whine that I'm saying that the dogs were or weren't stressed when in fact their salivary cortisol was measured. Since the researchers used this as their indictor for stress, so did I. 



tippykayak said:


> The authors' own conclusion disagrees with the fundamental principle of everything you have to say about e-collars.


AGAIN, you're wrong. First, their conclusion is not supported by any of the research they did. What their research showed was that dogs who can make an association between their behavior and the stim are not stressed. Dogs that cannot make this association are stressed. Had they been honest THAT is what their conclusion should have been. Nothing else is possible from their research. 

Second, Their conclusion had to do with _"poor timing."_ something that WAS NOT even examined. Instead they drew inferences from their work. It would be easy to set up such research, but it wasn't part of this study. Yet, it appears in their conclusion. 

Third, one thing they were honest about that ALSO support my methods is that their conclusions had to do ONLY with _"high level electric pulses,"_ e.g. high levels of stim. My methods use the lowest level of stim that a dog can feel. 

Earlier I wrote,


> This is one of the lies that those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" repeat over and over. Teaching an alternate behavior does NOT stop the undesired behavior. Since most of them are self−rewarding they come back. Teaching a dog who likes to jump up, to sit instead, does not stop the jumping up. It just puts it on hold.





tippykayak said:


> When you remove the reward for the behavior (-P), the behavior begins to decrease in frequency.


The frequency decreases because you're distracting the dog with the training, NOT because you're having any effect on the jumping up. 



tippykayak said:


> When you reward an alternate behavior, you can replace it.


You're not replacing it. IF you were to supply the reward that the dog wants, face to face contact, some other way THEN you'd be replacing it. but merely teaching an alternate behavior does NOT _"replace it."_ 



tippykayak said:


> I'm astounded that you don't know how to teach a dog to stop jumping without an e-collar.


Oh look. ANOTHER ASSUMPTION. I've never said that I use an Ecollar to stop jumping up. If you disagree, please show where I've made such a statement. You really make this too easy. LOL. 



tippykayak said:


> I thought you embraced all methods?


I do. Some are appropriate for some behaviors with some dogs and some are not. 



tippykayak said:


> Can you really think of no way to remove this reward?


The reward for a dog jumping up is that he reduces the distance between the owner's face and his own. That's inherent in the behavior. It can't be removed. A substitution can be made but the reward is there any time this occurs. Dogs instinctively want to engage their owners in greeting behavior, that includes face and lip licking. Teaching a dog to sit does not satisfy that instinct. 



tippykayak said:


> Why do you think that you have to keep rewarding for a dog's whole life when you don't think you have to keep punishing for a dog's whole life?


Teaching a sit does not stop a dog's instinct to lick the owner's face and lips. If you supply that AFTER teaching the alternate behavior, THEN teaching the alternate behavior may have some effect. but since you said nothing about it, I'll have to assume that you know nothing of it and so, don't do it. This is one of the problems with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." They don't deal with a dog's instincts, only his behavior. Good dog training takes BOTH into account. 



tippykayak said:


> Positively reinforced behavior is notoriously durable.


Nowhere near as durable as training that uses balanced methods and includes consideration for the dog's instincts. As proof of this divergence of our opinions, I'll remind you that it's very rare for someone to consistently finish at the top of the podium when they've tried to use only behavior that's been trained with +R. OTOH, MOST top finishers in MOST venues, especially ones that reward precision and control, have used an Ecollar and/or other aversives. 

If +R training was better or even as good as balanced methods, there would be MORE top finishers in competition than those who were trained with balanced methods. Yet this is not the case. 



tippykayak said:


> Plus, you naturally end up rewarding a dog his whole life, since you've shown him how to get praise and attention.


Praise and attention are but one part of a dog's needs. It tries to substitute for another of his needs. It's only part of the answer.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

hotel4dogs said:


> oh, I was only staying out of it because everyone already knows my views and Tito's history with and without the collar from the previous 10 times this has gone around and around.


Often these discussions become a "piling on" of the antis against the few of us who are willing to speak up about the use of the Ecollar. Then it becomes a sheer numbers game. So all help is welcome, especially when it comes as polite and reasoned, as your statements do. 

You are rare in that you've used the so−called "kinder gentler methods," and had great success with them. AND you are able to see their limitations. When you weren't getting the results that you needed you added to them other tools/methods. 

Many in these discussion would just keep plodding along, following some artificial ethos that makes them feel good about themselves, but does not provide good results. I've been in these arguments with some who say that they'd rather kill their dog, than use an Ecollar on him.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Reward That Puppy said:


> I train many Goldens starting at 8 weeks of age.


When the so−called "kinder gentler methods" are applied at this young an age, they have a much better chance of success. 



Reward That Puppy said:


> What some don't realize is that any breathing organism learns the same way. Be it dog, child, elephant, or chicken. "What is rewarded will become behavior, what is ignored will become extinct". That is it in a nutshell.


You left out some vital parts from the equation, "What is punished fades from behavior." And behavior that is self−rewarding does not _"become extinct"_ if ignored. 



Reward That Puppy said:


> Although you might have momentary success is stopping the behavior, the fall out from using force, fear intimidation can build and reveal itself immediatlely or later in a dog's life. Using force-free. reward based, methods will not cause this fall out.


I use choke chains, pinch collars and Ecollars properly, so there is no _"fear, [or] intimidation."_ At some point in training there is force. There's a reason that we talk about giving "commands." There's a reason that it's called "obedience." Compliance with commands is not optional. 



Reward That Puppy said:


> Please don't use shock, prongs, choke chains. Train the dog to walk on a loose leash, train the dog to sit for greetings. train the dog to look at your face with undivided attention.


There are way of getting some of these behaviors with all of the tools you mention that don't give the results that you got. It's simply a matter of using those tools correctly. Based on your results you were never trained to use the tools you mention properly. And so AGAIN we have someone comparing one tool/method as used improperly with another tool/method that's been used properly. 

But I really don't want a dog that _"look at [my] face with undivided attention."_ I'd much prefer that he be a dog.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> This is one of the lies that those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" repeat over and over. Teaching an alternate behavior does NOT stop the undesired behavior.





Charliethree said:


> Teaching an alternate behavior (one you want) is the basis of reward based training- ie: if a dog is sitting, it can not jump on you, (physically impossible to do both at once).


I don't think that's "stopping a behavior." That's only delaying it. You can stop a dog from eating by having him sit too far from his bowl to reach it. Similarly, you're only delaying the eating. 



Charliethree said:


> If you give the ANY type of attention for jumping up (or any attention seeking behavior) - the dog is rewarded - whether you pet, praise, yell or physically punish. If you consistently ignore the attention seeking behavior and only give the dog attention when it is sitting - the dog will learn to sit for attention - effectively stopping the jumping up.


I'm sorry but this may work for some dogs. IT DOES NOT WORK FOR ALL DOGS. Not sure if I've told the story about being at the vet's office some time ago and saw a family of four, all of whom had multiple scratches on their lower legs. Their trainer had told them about extinction and said that if they just ignored the jumping up behavior and turned their back on the dog, it would stop. It did not. Instead the dog just jumped up on their legs so that they all had scratches from the knees down. In fact, with the youngest child an infection had developed that required IV antibiotics. I went over to their house and showed them how to stop the behavior in a very short time. The jumping up stopped just about immediately, because it was punished. That's the only way to clearly tell a dog, "I want you to stop doing that." 

Earlier I wrote,


> Since most of them are self-rewarding they come back.





Charliethree said:


> If you are consistent and never reward the attention seeking behavior you don't like, it disappears completely.


The reward in this behavior is that the dog gets his face closer to the owners. Ignoring this behavior does not stop the reward. It's incremental. It's not always attention seeking, most often it's greeting behavior. And it's a dog's instinct to lick the face and lip of the dominant animals. 



Charliethree said:


> IF you reward unwanted behavior after you have trained the alternate behavior, yes, chances are it will return. Not because the training method was necessarily wrong but because it was applied inconsistently.


You can be as consistent as is possible for a human and still anytime the dog gets his face closer to the human's he's rewarded. It make no different what you do. 



Charliethree said:


> One of my dogs is 12 yrs old, as a pup I trained her to sit instead of jumping up, to receive attention.Once she understood that the ONLY way she was going get any attention, (or go outside, or go for a walk) was to sit, the jumping behavior was gone


Ahh here's the issue. I said previously that training if the so−called "kinder gentler methods" are started with puppies they have a better chance of getting results. Most people with the jumping up issues don't start with puppies. They either have adults or adolescents. And really your experience with your small group of dogs, really doesn't tell us much about the value of this method of training. Perhaps when you've done it with a couple of hundred dogs of all ages, breeds, and temperaments, you can come back and tell us of your 100% success rate. Until then ...


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou, I'm sure everybody here is just as impressed as I am at how much you're paid, but people still send Peter Popoff checks too. Being competent and getting paid sadly do not always go hand in hand. It's perfectly possible that you're competent, but your speaking fee is no proof of it.

-P is absolutely documented as a way to reduce undesired behavior. It wouldn't be called P if it weren't. You can ignore the basics of OP all you want. It doesn't change them. You can extinguish behavior by removing reward, and it works beautifully on many jumping dogs. Teaching alternative behaviors accelerates the process.

You can rewrite studies as much as you like, but if your best defense is a study in which you have to completely controvert the authors' conclusions, you really can't expect people to take that study as proof of your methods' safety. It's utterly clear, both in the research itself and in the conclusion, that the dogs who were able to associate the stim with an _actual object_ were the ones who experienced less stress. It's a big leap (and one that's totally unsupported) to generalize that to a _behavior_ rather than a physical object, especially when the H-group dogs shocked for non-compliance showed the same stress indicators as the dogs shocked at random.

At the very least, it should cause major concerns in people who use e-collars the way they're often discussed here on GRF, as a way of delivering punishment for non-compliance at a distance.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> I went over to their house and showed them how to stop the behavior in a very short time. The jumping up stopped just about immediately, because it was punished.


Please share.




Lou Castle said:


> If he thinks it comes from the handler he'll soon realize that he can disobey or chase the game if the handler doesn't see him do it. The handler is not "always there." The environment is.


Yes, the environment is always there so why must the dog continue to wear the e-collar. If the behavior is truly stopped and the dog thinks that the correction came from the environment, then the collar should no longer be necessary. Unless, of course, the dog thinks the environment isn't looking...


----------



## jluke (Nov 18, 2011)

*Compressed Air Can*

Michelle -- think I've mentioned that I've used a compressed air can (looks like a can of hair spray) with Maisie to get her to stop digging. It worked wonderfully. She started to dig, I zzzz'ed with the can (just a moderately loud noise), she stopped because she was interrupted and curious and I redirected her to something fun -- usually playing with a ball. Now I'm trying it when she starts jumping up and biting her leash while loose leash walking. When I disrupt her, I'm just going to walk on.

We worked with a trainer with our first rescued adult GR. We had a cat and had been told the GR was fine with cats -- not true. We tried everything with Sadie to get her used to the cat, working with the trainer and nothing worked. She finally suggested a shock collar -- it didn't work either and I really didn't like what it did to Sadie's reaction to the trainer. She became very fearful. I wouldn't choose to use one.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Lou, I'm sure everybody here is just as impressed as I am at how much you're paid ...





tippykayak said:


> but people still send Peter Popoff checks too. Being competent and getting paid sadly do not always go hand in hand. It's perfectly possible that you're competent, but your speaking fee is no proof of it.




Oddly I didn't mention a _"speaking fee."_ I was talking about my fees for one−on−one training. It's in the top tier of trainers in this area. Did I mention that I offer my clients a money back guarantee? Either they're satisfied or they get a full refund. Most trainers that I know offer more classes if a client isn't satisfied. If their methods didn't work the first time around MORE OF THE SAME is the answer? I don't think so. Anyone else here offer a full refund if a client isn't satisfied? BTW, I've never been asked to refund anyone their money. 

If that was the only evidence that I presented, you might have a point. Conveniently you overlook the fact that I also mentioned that I've done 54 seminars with more on the books, that I work with local LE and SAR K−9's, and that I've worked with over 3,000 dogs. It might also interest the readers to know that of my seminars, 17 of them have been "repeats" (the same or similar material presented for the seminar host a second time) and that one of them has been repeated for the last five years at the largest SAR seminar that's done in California. It's booked again for later this year and that will be the SIXTH repeat at that seminar. So it would appear that people who have actually seen my work or heard me talk, DON'T agree with you that my theories are _"wacky."_ 

Wondering how many seminars you've done Brian? 

I also noticed that you didn't correct me on my guess that you'd trained about 13 dogs. I'd suppose the my number was too high, and you'd like to let that stand. 




tippykayak said:


> -P is absolutely documented as a way to reduce undesired behavior. It wouldn't be called P if it weren't. You can ignore the basics of OP all you want.


 
_"The basics of OP?"_ Do you mean OC? That wouldn't be a "typo" would it? 

In any case, I know that you can punish behavior with –P. The problem is that you can't remove the reward from jumping up. And you've told us that you don't do this. You've told us that you teach an alternate behavior. 




tippykayak said:


> It doesn't change them. You can extinguish behavior by removing reward


 
You can't remove the reward from jumping up. If the dog manages to get his face closer to the owner's face, he's rewarded. 

, and it works beautifully on many jumping dogs. Teaching alternative behaviors accelerates the process.




tippykayak said:


> You can rewrite studies as much as you like , but if your best defense is a study in which you have to completely controvert the authors' conclusions, you really can't expect people to take that study as proof of your methods' safety.


 
Except that, as we've seen, the author's conclusions are not supported by anything in the study. This is not uncommon with researchers that are biased against the Ecollar. they find ways to ignore the actual findings of their study and sometimes they even structure the study to they can have any outcome that they want. 

But it looks as if you missed a post. You wrote something quite similar in post #482 except then you were referring to the Steiss study. Now you make a similar comment about the Schalke study. My response now, is the same as it was then ... "No, of course not. The best defense for the use of Ecollars is the millions of happy dogs trained with them." 

No study ever done, has shown any long term or short term damage from an Ecollar. If people claim that the tool isn't "safe" then the burden is on them to prove it. It's impossible for Ecollar users to prove that they are safe, because the argument could be made that the very next dog trained with one, might be damaged. And so the burden is on the antis. In spite of quite a few attempts to prove their case, they've failed every time. 




tippykayak said:


> It's utterly clear, both in the research itself and in the conclusion, that the dogs who were able to associate the stim with an actual object were the ones who experienced less stress. It's a big leap (and one that's totally unsupported) to generalize that to a behavior rather than a physical object


 
HOW ABSURD! My methods clearly show the dog what makes the stim start and what makes the stim stop, just as did the "touching of the prey object" in Schalke. So you're saying that a dog can make an association between a click and a behavior but he can't make the connection between an Ecollar stim and a behavior. You're really grasping at straws now. 




tippykayak said:


> especially when the H-group dogs shocked for non-compliance showed the same stress indicators as the dogs shocked at random.


 
Of course they did. They were not shown what made the stim start or how to make it stop. 




tippykayak said:


> At the very least, it should cause major concerns in people who use e-collars the way they're often discussed here on GRF, as a way of delivering punishment for non-compliance at a distance.


 
I've long said that that's a poor way to use an Ecollar. Doing it that way doesn't teach the dog what makes the stim start or what makes it stop. Those folks think (and hope) that the dog makes the association between the stim and the lack of compliance with the command. I've seen many instances where, instead the dog made some other association. I know of dogs that aren't comfortable going into the back yard, or they're afraid of a certain part of the yard, or they're afraid of "the garbage cans." In the absence of being shown the desired association, dogs may guess wrong. I'm not about just using the Ecollar. I'm about using the Ecollar PROPERLY so that the dog makes the desired association, and that the lowest level of stim that is effective, is the level that's used.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

kwhit said:


> Please share.


Happy to. There's an article about it on my website. PM me for the link please. 



kwhit said:


> Yes, the environment is always there so why must the dog continue to wear the e-collar.


There's a vast difference between a dog that has to wear the Ecollar for the purpose of management and one who wears it for insurance. The first happens when people don't train their dog. Instead they just zap the dog for doing the wrong thing or for noncompliance with commands. That's management, not training, and management always breaks down. I oppose using an Ecollar this. 

The second group uses the tool to train with. Their dogs know what makes the stim start and what makes it stop. Since any dog can make a mistake and do the wrong thing, if that behavior creates danger, for example, running towards a busy street, the Ecollar is there for insurance, if the dog does not comply. 

The first group is pressing the button very frequently to manage their dog's behavior. The second group is pressing the button only during an emergency, when the dog does not comply. Those who don't used Ecollars, when they find themselves in a dangerous situation, e.g. the one I described, they can only repeat their commands, and hope for compliance. If the dog does not comply, they're done. 



kwhit said:


> If the behavior is truly stopped and the dog thinks that the correction came from the environment, then the collar should no longer be necessary. Unless, of course, the dog thinks the environment isn't looking...


No tool/method of training is 100%. These are living, breathing, thinking (I think so anyway) creatures who, like us, sometimes make the wrong decision.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

So a dog has to wear the e-collar for life?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou, what's your hourly for private lessons?


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> Happy to. There's an article about it on my website. PM me for the link please.


That's okay...I found it. Found the one on puppy biting, too.


----------



## 2Retrievers222 (Sep 5, 2007)

Originally Posted by *Lou Castle*  
_Happy to. There's an article about it on my website. PM me for the link please_


Sounds like advertising to me.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

2Retrievers222 said:


> Originally Posted by *Lou Castle*
> _Happy to. There's an article about it on my website. PM me for the link please_
> 
> 
> Sounds like advertising to me.


Because when asked to share information they offer to send a link through pm? I might not agree with everything Lou says, but that doesn't mean the man needs to be criticized for offering to provide a link to information that was _asked for_, and sharing it through a pm at that.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

So let's get this straight...

When you post about ecollars causing harm to the human-dog relationship it is an opinon, but when you post about Rally not being obedience or being easier to get it's an attack? How does that work?


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

GoldenSail said:


> So let's get this straight...
> 
> When you post about ecollars causing harm to the human-dog relationship it is an opinon, but when you post about Rally not being obedience or being easier to get it's an attack? How does that work?


Just depends on who is posting it...


----------



## 2Retrievers222 (Sep 5, 2007)

Loisiana said:


> Because when asked to share information they offer to send a link through pm? I might not agree with everything Lou says, but that doesn't mean the man needs to be criticized for offering to provide a link to information that was _asked for_, and sharing it through a pm at that.


 
His signature has his website,s email on it. Same one on his site.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> So let's get this straight...
> 
> When you post about ecollars causing harm to the human-dog relationship it is an opinon, but when you post about Rally not being obedience or being easier to get it's an attack? How does that work?


Well, yeah. The stuff about e-collars wasn't directly in response to anybody's story about their own dogs. It's always about the equipment and the general relationship. It wasn't a deliberate attempt to belittle and tear down an individual poster. When you talk about a piece of equipment in general, that's one thing. When somebody makes a direct response to a poster in order to belittle them and their accomplishments, that's clearly just personal. It wasn't a general conversation about the relative difficulty of different venues; that would have been fine. It was a direct assault on a poster's accomplishments. I do see a real difference.

And yes, it is absolutely about a personal vendetta for some people.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

He has an aol address listed, how is that advertising?


----------



## 2Retrievers222 (Sep 5, 2007)

Check out his post. It would be the same if I come on here and say my Litters are better than everyone else. PM for more info. And heres my Email.



http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com...26-using-ecollar-stop-dog-dog-aggression.html


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> Well, yeah. The stuff about e-collars wasn't directly in response to anybody's story about their own dogs. It's always about the equipment and the general relationship. It wasn't a deliberate attempt to belittle and tear down an individual poster. When you talk about a piece of equipment in general, that's one thing. When somebody makes a direct response to a poster in order to belittle them and their accomplishments, that's clearly just personal. It wasn't a general conversation about the relative difficulty of different venues; that would have been fine. It was a direct assault on a poster's accomplishments. I do see a real difference.
> 
> And yes, it is absolutely about a personal vendetta for some people.


How do you know what the motive is? And don't you put yourself up for scrutiny by posting your titles and accomplishments (and even sometimes inaccurately) and trying to put forth some meaning to it? Or is it not allowed to think critically about it and have differing opinions and want to put things into perspective.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> How do you know what the motive is? And don't you put yourself up for scrutiny by posting your titles and accomplishments (and even sometimes inaccurately) and trying to put forth some meaning to it? Or is it not allowed to think critically about it and have differing opinions and want to put things into perspective.


Thinking critically is great. Making it about tearing somebody down isn't. I made it clear that I wasn't talking about the clarification of "champion" earlier. It was the "try doing something harder" attitude from some posters that was clearly about personalities rather than issues.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

Still not seeing the advertising, although every time I've pointed that out you haven't explained how it's advertising, you've just gone looking for something else.


----------



## 2Retrievers222 (Sep 5, 2007)

It would be the same if I come on here and say my Litters are better than everyone else. PM for more info. And heres my Email.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

So is it the email in the sig that you have a problem with?


----------



## 2Retrievers222 (Sep 5, 2007)

Loisiana said:


> Still not seeing the advertising, although every time I've pointed that out you haven't explained how it's advertising, you've just gone looking for something else.


 
*Here you go. Breaking Advertising rule.*

Originally Posted by *Lou Castle*  
_Happy to. There's an article about it on my website. PM me for the link please_


*4. GoldenRetrieverForum.com Members are not to engage in spamming or any advertising without permission. *– Unsolicited advertising which will also include links to sales oriented websites. This applies not only to the body of a posting but also to signatures, titles, PMs, emails through the website, etc. No advertising for any kind of breeding or stud services will be allowed as well. Announcements of new litters of puppies by forum members and accompanying pictures are considered the sharing of joyfulness… except when it’s taken to the point of becoming excessive and overwhelming with the obvious intention of ‘trolling’ for puppy buyers. The two points to be emphasized with this rule are the unsolicited nature of the advertisements and that it is done without prior permission.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

*Unsolicited*advertising which will also include links to sales oriented websites. This applies not only to the body of a posting but also to signatures, titles, PMs, emails through the website


And it was a link to a page with an article, not a product for sale


----------



## 2Retrievers222 (Sep 5, 2007)

Loisiana said:


> *Unsolicited*advertising which will also include links to sales oriented websites. This applies not only to the body of a posting but also to signatures, titles, PMs, emails through the website
> 
> 
> And it was a link to a page with an article, not a product for sale


Website is for people to pay him for seminars. That would be SALES


----------



## Rob's GRs (Feb 25, 2007)

Well after 56 pages this thread has run its course.....................



It is now closed.


----------

