# e-collar using vibrate only



## RedDogs

Are you wanting to use the vibration as a "correction" or as a cue to come back? 

I have friends with deaf dogs and they use vibration settings for the recall cue.... it takes JUST as much training as a verbal or a whistle recall, if not more as many dogs initially find the vibration unpleasant. 

A good recall training protocol is a good starting place.

If you are planning to have him off leash<, I would not have a pack on him. There are too many things for it to get caught up on.


----------



## AmberSunrise

Just out of curiousity, why use the e-collar?

Why not voice or whistle?


----------



## Bender

I would put it on if you're going to use it and have any question about him not listening/running off.

If you're using it as a cue, then you need to do some training where you vibrate it, then call him and reward, lots of times, then drop the verbal. Or, if you're using it as a correction, then call him, give him time to respond, then vibrate, then correct, so he learns that the vibrate is a cue to come before he's corrected.

Lana


----------



## Macallan's_dad

I don't plan on using it as a correction, just an attention getter. personally i'm not a very verbal person and i kind of feel foolish "yelling" after my dog and feel a wistle could be disturbing to others. So for the most part if Macallan has eyes on me, i use hand signals that he has learned to respond to. suchas which direction to go or to come to me. so i was thinking the vibrate on the remote collar would be a good "silent" way to get his attention.


----------



## AmberSunrise

Macallan's_dad said:


> I don't plan on using it as a correction, just an attention getter. personally i'm not a very verbal person and i kind of feel foolish "yelling" after my dog and feel a wistle could be disturbing to others. So for the most part if Macallan has eyes on me, i use hand signals that he has learned to respond to. suchas which direction to go or to come to me. so i was thinking the vibrate on the remote collar would be a good "silent" way to get his attention.


Oh, thanks. I do know of people who use the collar on vibrate to signal 'go on' or 'good dog' so if you train a vibrate to mean 'look at me for direction' it can certainly be done.

Just to play devil's advocate here - what if your batteries go dead?


----------



## Macallan's_dad

that's a very good point, and i guess i would have to call out to him like i do now. although i don't plan on needing to use it all that much (so the battery should last quite a while), if i did i wouldn't think of letting him off leash... which i guess brings us back to your original point about just using voice commands.


----------



## Bender

you can get adaptors for the car/truck so you can plug in the charger. Or if you're lucky, the newer vans anyway have plug ins. Ours does, it's perfect (told my son we could make waffles while we drove and so the first time we went somewhere he was all happy about waffles...).

Lana


----------



## Swampcollie

Unleashed Technology makes collars that are primarily for vibration use. You should be able to find them on line.


----------



## K9-Design

I think it's a nice idea but probably not terribly effective if used "only once in a while" "not that often" or -- more significantly -- if the dog does has not been conditioned that noncompliance after the vibration = correction from the collar.


----------



## paula bedard

I use an e-collar with a beep function, never the shock function, to signal Ike that he's to return to me. It works great. We have a radio fence so he's familiar with a beep signaling 'stop'. When we're away from home and he's loose in an area, I just beep him and he stops in his tracks and looks to me for direction. 

I'd suggest that even if your collar says it's water proof, to remove it anyway. I found that beeping Ike while he was swimming, left scorch marks on his throat.

Ike's is an Innotek training collar and was a bit costly. His is able to control two collars, so if you have more than one dog, it would come in very handy.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

New here. First post. Jumping right in.

The thing about vibe collars is that the dog may not share your opinion that it is non-corrective. Some dogs react as--if not more--negatively to vibration than to e-stim. If you are going to use a vibe collar, you'll want to get one with multiple levels--like the UT collars. They are not cheap, so it might be wise to see if you can borrow one for a few days, to try out.

I use the traditional e-collar on my boy because I consider a reliable off-leash recall to be one of the non-negotiable commands. Especially when in an area where there are deer to be chased and skunks and porcupines to be harassed.


----------



## FeatherRiverSam

It sounds to me like you're not comfortable with your recall and are looking for something that you feel will give 100% recall when he's off lead just in case something comes up.

Without using the corrective feature of an e-collar and just relying on the beep or vibration you're back to square one. Which means extensive training with positive rewards, consistency on recall commands and teaching your dog a reflex recall.

It would be better to have a verbal recall particularly for the situation you're going to put yourself in while out camping and hiking. You never know when something is going to come up that will make your dog bolt. And if you train with the collar only, this means he's got to have it on almost 24 /7 to be effective. That's not very realistic. With a well trained verbal recall you're never without a means to get your dog back and out of any dangers which may arise.

I think what most people think even when they say they just are going to use the beep or vibration to get the dog back "just in case" they're really thinking I've always got the shock value as a last resort to save my dog.

If you choose to use the collar be sure and get an experienced trainer to guide you through its use. I think there are many people that get them as a "safety" device and use them without any training and just figure if I shock the dog he'll come. Unfortunately you can really unintentionally damage your dog.

You could certainly do both use the collar beep or vibration and a recall word but again the positive reflex recall training is the same.

I hope this helps.

Pete


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Before you use any kind of correction--and the dog may view the vibe collar as such--you have to teach the dog the desired behavior, and that obedience allows him to avoid the negative consequences. IMO, the dog should be reliably recall-trained, to at least moderate distractions, before correction is introduced. Without the foundation work, the dog may head for the horizon the first time you buzz him.

Regardless of whether you want to use the vibe or e-stim, you have more work to do on his recall. The same thing can be accomplished (with most dogs) without correction, but the e-collar makes it go quicker. E-collars are not, however, a substitute for training. There are a bunch of ways to screw it up.


----------



## Lou Castle

paula bedard said:


> I'd suggest that even if your collar says it's water proof, to remove it anyway. I found that beeping Ike while he was swimming, left scorch marks on his throat.


 
Sorry but it's impossible for this to happen. Neither vibration nor beeping has anything to do with the contact points and electricity. You may have seen places on the dog's neck where the contact points sat and perhaps some sores associated with either having it on too tightly to too loosely. But "scorching" is impossible with any brand or model of these tools, whether they're used in water or not.


----------



## Lou Castle

Macallan's_dad said:


> I plan on going camping and hiking with him this summer and was looking for some tips with using the e-collar for recall... but i would like to only use the vibrate setting. I'm thinking i might even go as far as just putting it in his saddle bag so that he'll feel the vibrations through that and know to come back to me. Has anyone tried anything like this? Will the vibrate be enough stimuli to get his attention?
> 
> Any tips or alternate suggestions would be appriciated.


You may be able to train the recall with the vibe. Whether or not it can be done depends on how the dog reacts to it. Some dogs ignore it and some dogs panic. If you get either of these responses you probably won't be able to use the vibe. I've never seen a dog panic when he felt the lowest level of stim that he can perceive. 

If you follow THIS ARTICLE - http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94724-teaching-recall-ecollar.html you'll be able to use either the vibe (if he reacts to it as if it was slightly aversive) or the stim to train the recall. The problem may arise though that if he is highly distracted and does not feel the vibration, you're stuck. Even with a collar that allows for adjustable stim, you probably will not be able to "reach out and touch him" with a reminder. If you train with the stim, you probably will be able to.


----------



## Tuckers Mom

I would agree with K-9 design's post, If you are going to train with an e-collar, it has to be a consistent training, so that the Dog knows and understands at all times. I have my Tucker trained on an e-collar. we go to the off leash dog park everyday, and with this method of training, I have hime trained to "Come" with a quick pulse from up to 1/2 mile away range. Be very dilligent in the training, and be conisistent. Tucker was fully trained and conditioned to his e-collar in less than 2 weeks. Most days I no longer have to pulse him, he now clearly responds to my voice.


----------



## K9-Design

paula bedard said:


> I use an e-collar with a beep function, never the shock function, to signal Ike that he's to return to me. It works great. We have a radio fence so he's familiar with a beep signaling 'stop'. When we're away from home and he's loose in an area, I just beep him and he stops in his tracks and looks to me for direction.
> 
> I'd suggest that even if your collar says it's water proof, to remove it anyway. I found that beeping Ike while he was swimming, left scorch marks on his throat.
> 
> Ike's is an Innotek training collar and was a bit costly. His is able to control two collars, so if you have more than one dog, it would come in very handy.


This is an old post but I just read it. The above shows a clear misunderstanding of how the ecollar works. 
Ike knows that the beep proceeds a correction from the ecollar which encourages his compliance to avoid the correction. He learned this from his electric fence training = negative reinforcement. Very powerful and even though it happened unintentionally (from the owner's point of view), he's trained himself quite nicely to respond to a simple beep! Genius! Won't work so well with a dog not conditioned to negative reinforcement from the collar!
Most modern collars ARE waterproof.
The contact points and/or electricity will NOT EVER cause scorch marks or burns on a dog's neck. 
Going back and reading the original poster's question, I thought, well he should just invest in a set of walkie talkies and tape one to his dog's collar 
Would be about as effective as a vibration-only collar! LOL


----------



## hotel4dogs

E-collars, on any setting, do not teach or train. They merely reinforce that which the dog already knows.


----------



## Lou Castle

Since I've been using Ecollars to teach and train with for well over 20 years I'll have to disagree. What you describe is only one way of using the Ecollar. As the article I linked to in a previous post shows, an Ecollar can be used to BOTH teach and train new behaviors. It can also be used, as you say, to reinforce behaviors that the dog already knows, but that's not the only way the tool can be used.


----------



## Charliethree

hotel4dogs said:


> E-collars, on any setting, do not teach or train. They merely reinforce that which the dog already knows.


I have to agree with this. What the dog 'already knows' is -- if he does not respond to your command he is going to be punished. 

There have been cases of e-collars malfunctioning and causing severe and almost fatal burns to the dog's neck! Technology is not 100% foolproof, and I wouldn't bet my dog's life on it!!


----------



## tippykayak

Stepping aside from the whole correction debate for a second...

It would be totally possible to use a sound or vibration remote to train a behavior in a dog without using positive punishment or negative reinforcement (assuming neither the sound nor the vibration is unpleasant to that particular dog), just the same way it is possible to teach a dog to sit for one whistle at a distance and recall for a different whistle.

If a dog didn't mind a vibration, you could simply train it as the recall cue almost the same way you'd train "come." Or you could strap a walkie to the dog's neck and use a verbal cue (though you'd still have to train it from scratch, since the dog almost certainly would not translate "come" when you say it to "come" when it plays from a device on the neck). You certainly would not need to follow up with a shock for noncompliance, any more than you would have to follow up with a shock when your dog didn't come back for a yell or whistle. Reliability does not require positive punishment or negative reinforcement. 

The e-collar enthusiasts you'll hear from on the board are generally using it to punish undesired behavior or to teach or proof behaviors through negative reinforcement. The OP's question is about something else entirely.


----------



## tippykayak

Charliethree said:


> There have been cases of e-collars malfunctioning and causing severe and almost fatal burns to the dog's neck! Technology is not 100% foolproof, and I wouldn't bet my dog's life on it!!


You're going to need to provide some evidence for this claim if you want anybody to believe it. After all, you can see that people are even denying that what Paula saw on her own dog's neck.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Let me word my comment differently.
IMO, an e-collar properly used is used only to reinforce a command that you are certain the dog already knows, not to teach or train a new behavior. IMO.


----------



## Swampcollie

Charliethree said:


> I
> 
> There have been cases of e-collars malfunctioning and causing severe and almost fatal burns to the dog's neck!


There are often misrepresentations on this board and then there are out and out bold faced lies. This is a outright lie. If you have documented proof of such an allegation I would love to see it. 

Time for a little dose of fact. There is no modern E-collar with a receiver (the part that goes on the dog) that contains enough energy (battery) to physically get hot enough to "Burn" a dog. The laws of chemistry and physics don't suddenly change because you have a personal prejudice against E-collars. 

Most of the horror pictures that the anti-Ecollar crowd pull out and show off are "wear abrasions" caused by an owner that A. didn't fasten the collar tight enough, or B. left the collar on way too long. (On rare occasions some dogs react to the type of metal used in the contact probes.) This is the result of an owner who failed to follow the instructions that came with the product. 

Abrasions on a dog are often prone to developing "Hot Spots" i.e. acute moist dermatitis. Most golden owners know what hot spots are and they have nothing to do with physical heat. The anti-Ecollar crowd lets the uninformed believe that hot spots are physical burns caused by the E-collar. This is NOT the case.


All of the receiver units for "training" collars are waterproof. They were developed for hunting dogs and hunting dogs are going to be wet. It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to make a receiver that wasn't waterproof. This has been the case for over 50 years. 
(This may not be the case for underground fence system collars which are different than remote training collars.)


----------



## Lou Castle

Charliethree said:


> I have to agree with this. What the dog 'already knows' is -- if he does not respond to your command he is going to be punished.


 
I guess that you haven't read the article I linked to. This simply is not always the case. 




Charliethree said:


> There have been cases of e-collars malfunctioning and causing severe and almost fatal burns to the dog's neck!


 
This is the stuff of urban legend and myth. Please show us even ONE verifiable incident where it's happened. No modern Ecollar is capable of delivering _"severe"_ or _"almost fatal burns"_ to a dog. They don't put out enough power. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But they are not entitled to their own facts. 




Charliethree said:


> Technology is not 100% foolproof, and I wouldn't bet my dog's life on it!!


 
You won't be if you're using any commercially manufactured Ecollar.


----------



## Lou Castle

hotel4dogs said:


> Let me word my comment differently. IMO, an e-collar properly used is used only to reinforce a command that you are certain the dog already knows, not to teach or train a new behavior. IMO.


 
Much better. You are certainly entitled to this opinion. Can you tell us why you feel this way? 

In my experience doing it as you describe often leads to problems. Since the Ecollar stim is completely foreign to a dog he has no idea what it means. Dogs often associate the discomfort with "the ground being hot" being "bitten by an insect" or "bumping into something." If people don't use some guidance along with the Ecollar to show the dog what is desired, they can make all sorts of "superstitious" associations that may include fear and aggression.


----------



## Swampcollie

Lou Castle said:


> Dogs often associate the discomfort with "the ground being hot" being "bitten by an insect" or "bumping into something." If people don't use some guidance along with the Ecollar to show the dog what is desired, they can make all sorts of "superstitious" associations that may include fear and aggression.


That's why a complete, thorough training program including collar conditioning, is necessary if you're going the E-collar route. 

You don't just strap on an E-collar out of the blue and start pushing buttons. That would be a recipe for disaster.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Sheeesh, let me reword this yet again.....IMO, an e-collar properly used is used only to reinforce a command that you are certain the dog already knows, not to teach or train a new behavior, AND THEN ONLY AFTER THE DOG HAS BEEN PROPERLY COLLAR CONDITIONED AS PART OF A COMPLETE TRAINING PROGRAM. IMO.

If I do it a few more times, I just might get it right. 

To answer your question, I feel that way because I feel that way about all negative stimulus, whether it's a collar correction, a strong verbal correction, or an e-collar. It is properly used only after the dog already knows a behavior. IMO.




Lou Castle said:


> Much better. You are certainly entitled to this opinion. Can you tell us why you feel this way?
> 
> In my experience doing it as you describe often leads to problems. Since the Ecollar stim is completely foreign to a dog he has no idea what it means. Dogs often associate the discomfort with "the ground being hot" being "bitten by an insect" or "bumping into something." If people don't use some guidance along with the Ecollar to show the dog what is desired, they can make all sorts of "superstitious" associations that may include fear and aggression.


----------



## hotel4dogs

Lou, you're putting words in my mouth. No where did I say that you should use a collar before conditioning the dog to it. All I said is that IMO it shouldn't be used to correct behaviors the dog doesn't already know. 
Very different.




Lou Castle said:


> In my experience doing it as you describe often leads to problems. Since the Ecollar stim is completely foreign to a dog he has no idea what it means. Dogs often associate the discomfort with "the ground being hot" being "bitten by an insect" or "bumping into something." If people don't use some guidance along with the Ecollar to show the dog what is desired, they can make all sorts of "superstitious" associations that may include fear and aggression.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> Stepping aside from the whole correction debate for a second...
> 
> It would be totally possible to use a sound or vibration remote to train a behavior in a dog without using positive punishment or negative reinforcement (assuming neither the sound nor the vibration is unpleasant to that particular dog), just the same way it is possible to teach a dog to sit for one whistle at a distance and recall for a different whistle.
> 
> If a dog didn't mind a vibration, you could simply train it as the recall cue almost the same way you'd train "come." Or you could strap a walkie to the dog's neck and use a verbal cue (though you'd still have to train it from scratch, since the dog almost certainly would not translate "come" when you say it to "come" when it plays from a device on the neck). You certainly would not need to follow up with a shock for noncompliance, any more than you would have to follow up with a shock when your dog didn't come back for a yell or whistle. Reliability does not require positive punishment or negative reinforcement.
> 
> The e-collar enthusiasts you'll hear from on the board are generally using it to punish undesired behavior or to teach or proof behaviors through negative reinforcement. The OP's question is about something else entirely.


Hi Tippy, I completely agree, although we are talking about apples and oranges between what the original poster wants (dog to respond to beep = come) and what the other poster with "Ike" demonstrated (and what I remarked on). Because Ike was trained with collar corrections to avoid the electric fence barrier, which was preceded by an audible beep, he trained himself that the beep means "stop and move away" by virtue of wanting to avoid the collar correction. Although the owner didn't connect these dots the dog then responded quite well to the beep outside of the yard. Very well collar conditioned dog via negative reinforcement.
What the original poster wants is totally different in method although the same response. I absolutely agree that with some very consistent positive-only training (linking beep with treats/fun/recalls) you can easily get the same result, although I would argue, if the dog is chasing a rabbit or something equally stimulating, something that is better than the layers of positive reinforcement ingrained in the behavior, you are out of luck. You may not think so but I do, thus our differences meet!
Please see Swampcollie's above post regarding marks on a dog's neck from an ecollar. The electricity from an ecollar CAN NOT physically burn a dog. However the mere contact points from the collar rubbing on the dog's neck can cause irritation, just like the wire of my bra is digging into me at the moment! No electricity there though, haha


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Hi Tippy, I completely agree, although we are talking about apples and oranges between what the original poster wants (dog to respond to beep = come) and what the other poster with "Ike" demonstrated (and what I remarked on). Because Ike was trained with collar corrections to avoid the electric fence barrier, which was preceded by an audible beep, he trained himself that the beep means "stop and move away" by virtue of wanting to avoid the collar correction. Although the owner didn't connect these dots the dog then responded quite well to the beep outside of the yard. Very well collar conditioned dog via negative reinforcement.


Yup! If the beep or vibration is associated with punishment, it becomes a tool in itself for positive punishment and/or negative reinforcement. I was, as you rightly identified, addressing the OPs original question. 



K9-Design said:


> What the original poster wants is totally different in method although the same response. I absolutely agree that with some very consistent positive-only training (linking beep with treats/fun/recalls) you can easily get the same result, although I would argue, if the dog is chasing a rabbit or something equally stimulating, something that is better than the layers of positive reinforcement ingrained in the behavior, you are out of luck. You may not think so but I do, thus our differences meet!


I would only add that I can get two rather driven dogs off chasing a duck or rabbit, and have done so many times, without ever having delivered a correction at a distance. I have used positive punishment (mostly voice) with them on very infrequent occasions in other contexts, since I'm not an ideological purist when it comes to punishment, but in my experience, voice is an a ineffective correction at distance, so I don't integrate it into my technique.

I do not compete in the sports that many of you guys do, but I will put my dogs' distance recall up against anybody's. Lots of repetition, positive reinforcement, and avoidance of failed commands can all combine into an incredibly strong behavior without ever applying a correction for non-compliance.

I realize that some of you don't believe this is possible, but I've trained three dogs to absolute rock-solid recall this way, and I therefore know that it can be done. Saying that something could be "better than the layers of positive reinforcement ingrained in the behavior" is like saying something could be better than the layers of negative reinforcement ingrained by the shock collar. Does your dog take off after rabbits when he's not wearing his collar? Presumably not. Mine wheel off the chase and come back when whistled for, solely because of the strength of the positively reinforced habit. Is there something better than deer, rabbits, and ducks? Because their recall is stronger than that.



K9-Design said:


> Please see Swampcollie's above post regarding marks on a dog's neck from an ecollar. The electricity from an ecollar CAN NOT physically burn a dog. However the mere contact points from the collar rubbing on the dog's neck can cause irritation, just like the wire of my bra is digging into me at the moment! No electricity there though, haha


Under normal operation, I would agree, though I hold it rude to tell Paula that what she says she saw with her own eyes is impossible.

However, since basic physics and chemistry were brought up, a battery _can_ cause a serious chemical burn if the casing is compromised or a serious heat burn if it malfunctions. You can burn somebody with a AAA if you really want to, and if your collar runs on Li-ion cells, it can definitely generate the heat necessary to cause a burn if it malfunctions. Ni-MH batteries, while less prone to overheating than Li-ion, still have this potential.

Now, I've never heard of even one confirmed instance of a collar battery melting through the casing and causing a burn like this, and SC is right, so far as I know, that under any kind of normal operation it's hard to see how it could cause physical damage. But to say that it's impossible, well, I wouldn't agree, simply based on the physical principles of the technology.


----------



## Lou Castle

hotel4dogs said:


> To answer your question, I feel that way because I feel that way about all negative stimulus, whether it's a collar correction, a strong verbal correction, or an e-collar. It is properly used only after the dog already knows a behavior. IMO.




Thanks for answering. If I was using stim at the level that many people do when proofing known behaviors I'd probably agree with you. But I'm using it at the level that makes a dog do such things as look at the ground, flick an ear or merely blink; so I don't have a problem causing such a minor degree of discomfort in order to train a behavior. Especially since doing it this way gives me many advantages that make communication very clear between dog and owner. I know that for most dogs it's much less harsh than the lightest of leash or voice corrections.


----------



## Lou Castle

hotel4dogs said:


> Lou, you're putting words in my mouth. No where did I say that you should use a collar before conditioning the dog to it. All I said is that IMO it shouldn't be used to correct behaviors the dog doesn't already know. Very different.


 
I’m not putting words into your mouth hotel4dogs. Rather I'm just expanding on what you said, giving a more complete explanation of it. (At least that was my intent). Because relatively so few people know much about Ecollars I didn't want anyone to get the wrong impression. It's easy to do when there are so many myths and misconceptions flying around.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> I do not compete in the sports that many of you guys do, but I will put my dogs' distance recall up against anybody's. Lots of repetition, positive reinforcement, and avoidance of failed commands can all combine into an incredibly strong behavior without ever applying a correction for non-compliance.
> 
> I realize that some of you don't believe this is possible, but I've trained three dogs to absolute rock-solid recall this way, and I therefore know that it can be done. Saying that something could be "better than the layers of positive reinforcement ingrained in the behavior" is like saying something could be better than the layers of negative reinforcement ingrained by the shock collar. Does your dog take off after rabbits when he's not wearing his collar? Presumably not. Mine wheel off the chase and come back when whistled for, solely because of the strength of the positively reinforced habit. Is there something better than deer, rabbits, and ducks? Because their recall is stronger than that.


Actually I do think it's possible. I've done it. I teach a very solid recall way before I ever use an ecollar to back it up, and really very rarely need to use an ecollar to reinforce "here." The only instances I can think I correct with the collar on "here" are during field training for either stopping to mark on the way back from a retrieve, dropping the duck on the way back from a retrieve, or refusing to re-enter water on the way back from a retrieve. All violations of coming directly to "here" and understood quite well by the dog. In our every day comings and goings, hikes and walks through fields and that sort of thing, I don't use a collar and like yourself, am able to recall the dogs off of animals, stray dogs, and the like. All done with treats and consistently not allowing them to ignore my command. With someone with a nice sense of timing, consistency, authority and awareness it's a snap.



> Now, I've never heard of even one confirmed instance of a collar battery melting through the casing and causing a burn like this, and SC is right, so far as I know, that under any kind of normal operation it's hard to see how it could cause physical damage. But to say that it's impossible, well, I wouldn't agree, simply based on the physical principles of the technology.


Gotcha. One of those, worst case scenarios, it could happen. Frankly I've never heard of it and I run in the ecollar crowd  I've certainly seen hotspots from collar contact points but not actual burns. The only burn I've encountered is the 3rd degree rope burn on my ankle from a 30 foot leash! No electricity required!


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Actually I do think it's possible. I've done it. I teach a very solid recall way before I ever use an ecollar to back it up, and really very rarely need to use an ecollar to reinforce "here." The only instances I can think I correct with the collar on "here" are during field training for either stopping to mark on the way back from a retrieve, dropping the duck on the way back from a retrieve, or refusing to re-enter water on the way back from a retrieve. All violations of coming directly to "here" and understood quite well by the dog. In our every day comings and goings, hikes and walks through fields and that sort of thing, I don't use a collar and like yourself, am able to recall the dogs off of animals, stray dogs, and the like. All done with treats and consistently not allowing them to ignore my command. With someone with a nice sense of timing, consistency, authority and awareness it's a snap.


Agreed. I don't need that level of precision (though dogs are not allowed to mark between a command and the behavior). I do want speed and an instant turn on recall, so when the behavior is being shaped, those are rewarded.



K9-Design said:


> Gotcha. One of those, worst case scenarios, it could happen. Frankly I've never heard of it and I run in the ecollar crowd  I've certainly seen hotspots from collar contact points but not actual burns. The only burn I've encountered is the 3rd degree rope burn on my ankle from a 30 foot leash! No electricity required!


I agree. That's why I wanted an actual, demonstrable instance. If a dog were badly burned by a failed battery, the proof should be fairly easy to come by. In its absence, I'd have to agree that it has probably never happened. It's just not impossible.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> Agreed. I don't need that level of precision (though dogs are not allowed to mark between a command and the behavior). I do want speed and an instant turn on recall, so when the behavior is being shaped, those are rewarded.


Right. And I was thinking about it -- as far as, in the absence of punishment (ecollar) we are at the mercy of the dog thinking it'd rather do what we ask rather than what he wants.....
I am at that same mercy when it comes to competition obedience training, where I do not use the ecollar. The only backup I have in that setting in terms of force is force fetch, so if I get a refusal to retrieve I have that. But in competition obedience, beyond that I am at the mercy of convincing the dog that my idea is a good one and hopefully, he chooses that over the variety of sometimes more attractive options. In fact that is the hardest part of training for competition obedience, getting that precision and repetition (sans negative punishers like an ecollar) along with a happy attitude. It's hard. If my dog fubs up a go-out or grabs the wrong article, there's not a whole lot I choose to do to punish that, rather I try to stop it in it's tracks and go out of my way to reward the RIGHT response and hope the dog chooses that the next time. Competition obedience doesn't have the history of ecollar use like field does, which I'm not sure is good or a hindrance. Either way, it is what it is, so I can see it -- and practice it -- from both sides.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> Yup! If the beep or vibration is associated with punishment, it becomes a tool in itself for positive punishment and/or negative reinforcement.


 
Sometimes, with some dogs the vibrations (and even sometimes the beep) does not have to be _"associated with punishment."_ By itself it is punishing because it scares the dog. Sometimes to such a degree (especially the vibration) that it's virtually useless to train with. Of course one can embark on a course of desensitization or introduce it in such a way as to minimize the chance for this. 




tippykayak said:


> I would only add that I can get two rather driven dogs off chasing a duck or rabbit, and have done so many times, without ever having delivered a correction at a distance. I have used positive punishment (mostly voice) with them on very infrequent occasions in other contexts, since I'm not an ideological purist when it comes to punishment, but in my experience, voice is an a ineffective correction at distance, so I don't integrate it into my technique.


 
What people think of as _"rather driven"_ varies quite a bit. I've found that most pet owners think that their dogs are _"rather driven"_ but when compared to a dog that has pronounced drives, they're not even on the same scale. In any case unless people have worked with many dogs with all sorts of issues, the fact that they can get their own dogs to behave while highly commendable, has little to do with being able to get the dogs of others, who have serious problems, to perform. 




tippykayak said:


> Under normal operation, I would agree, though I hold it rude to tell Paula that what she says she saw with her own eyes is impossible.


 
Paula said, _"I found that *beeping *Ike while he was swimming, left *scorch marks *on his throat."_ I will maintain that this is impossible. I doubt that she's lying but rather, she's mistaken. Using the beep function on an Ecollar has nothing to do with the contact points. No electricity flows through them when the beep feature is activated. Additionally if the dog was _"swimming"_ as we're told was the case, the water would have carried away any heat that could have been generated, if the stim was in use. Out of curiosity I just tested an Ecollar I have here. It's a Dogtra 3500, one of their "professional" models that has low to high levels of stim. I set the stim on the highest setting and turned it on, using the continuous setting. By "bouncing on the button" (getting off and then quickly getting back on the button) every ten seconds I was able to keep it going virtually continuously for three minutes, something that would never happen in training. The temperature of the contact points went from 70.5 degrees F to 71.5 degrees F. A change that could be attributed to my handling of the unit. Nowhere near what it would take to cause _"scorch marks."_ 




tippykayak said:


> However, since basic physics and chemistry were brought up, a battery can cause a serious chemical burn if the casing is compromised or a serious heat burn if it malfunctions. You can burn somebody with a AAA if you really want to, and if your collar runs on Li-ion cells, it can definitely generate the heat necessary to cause a burn if it malfunctions. Ni-MH batteries, while less prone to overheating than Li-ion, still have this potential.


 
Since we have no such report from Paula, and I have no doubt that if her case had been compromised we would have heard of it, it's a non issue. I've been using Ecollars for over 20 years and I've been around hundreds, perhaps thousands of others who use them as well. I've never heard of the waterproof case of any unit of any manufacturer leaking and causing injuries from the batteries. I won't say that it's never going to happen but I will say that one has a better chance of winning a state lottery.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> Sometimes, with some dogs the vibrations (and even sometimes the beep) does not have to be _"associated with punishment."_ By itself it is punishing because it scares the dog.


I was very clear about this in an earlier post. I don't quite see why you quoted me and then wrote a reply that was essentially identical to something I wrote in a different post.



Lou Castle said:


> What people think of as _"rather driven"_ varies quite a bit. I've found that most pet owners think that their dogs are _"rather driven"_ but when compared to a dog that has pronounced drives, they're not even on the same scale. In any case unless people have worked with many dogs with all sorts of issues, the fact that they can get their own dogs to behave while highly commendable, has little to do with being able to get the dogs of others, who have serious problems, to perform.


And I've found that some trainers believe their personal experience allows them to deny that "just a pet" owners can be correct in their assertions. I cited my dogs merely as an example that one could train a dog to an extraordinary level of reliability without distance corrections. Their existence proves that it can be done. I never said it would work for all dogs in all situations. And I think it's safe to say that I've both seen and owned Goldens with "pronounced drives" and can tell the difference between a Golden with high drive and one with average or low drive.



Lou Castle said:


> Paula said, _"I found that *beeping *Ike while he was swimming, left *scorch marks *on his throat."_ I will maintain that this is impossible. I doubt that she's lying but rather, she's mistaken.


It's certainly possible that she was mistaken. It's also possible that her unit malfunctioned and shorted in some way. An electrical short could certainly blacken fur or create a sort of soot within the unit that could escape and get on the fur. 



Lou Castle said:


> I've never heard of the waterproof case of any unit of any manufacturer leaking and causing injuries from the batteries. I won't say that it's never going to happen but I will say that one has a better chance of winning a state lottery.


I was quite clear that I thought it was possible but unlikely and that I had never heard a single confirmed instance of such a malfunction. We are in agreement on this, so I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## paula bedard

I'd forgotten about this thread. 
As for the marks on Ike's neck that I saw, they sure looked like burns but they may have been irritation from sand getting under the collar's points. The skin was dark, not red or bleeding, which was why I assumed it was scorched. It didn't look bruised either and he wasn't in any pain. ?

I have since stopped using the collar as I no longer need it. It was convenient at that time though, I could let Ike run in an open area and just a beep would get his attention. Don't know if his hearing has improved or he's grown out of his mischievousness, but now he comes when called.


----------



## Maxs Mom

Macallan's_dad said:


> So Macallan is 2 years old now. He is very well trained as far as i'm conserned. Sure he can get excited at times and jump on people and his recall could still use some work.
> 
> I plan on going camping and hiking with him this summer and was looking for some tips with using the e-collar for recall... but i would like to only use the vibrate setting. I'm thinking i might even go as far as just putting it in his saddle bag so that he'll feel the vibrations through that and know to come back to me. Has anyone tried anything like this? Will the vibrate be enough stimuli to get his attention?
> 
> Any tips or alternate suggestions would be appriciated.


Ok old thread and I scanned through it... Did anyone mention ever to the OP that putting the collar in the dogs "saddle bags" would not be sufficient stimuli. The dog MUST wear the collar in order to feel anything. 

As for the other comments.... carry on.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> What people think of as "rather driven" varies quite a bit. I've found that most pet owners think that their dogs are "rather driven" but when compared to a dog that has pronounced drives, they're not even on the same scale. In any case unless people have worked with many dogs with all sorts of issues, the fact that they can get their own dogs to behave while highly commendable, has little to do with being able to get the dogs of others, who have serious problems, to perform.


 



tippykayak said:


> And I've found that some trainers believe their personal experience allows them to deny that "just a pet" owners can be correct in their assertions.




You'll never see me write the phrase "just a pet owner" without including the disclaimer, "Whatever that means." I've come across many pet owners that know far more than many trainers about training dogs. But it's VERY rare that when someone tells me that their dog is "highly driven" (even a higher standard than your phrase, _"rather driven"_ that the dog actually fills the bill. 




tippykayak said:


> I cited my dogs merely as an example that one could train a dog to an extraordinary level of reliability without distance corrections.


 
We also don't know what your standard of "extraordinary level of reliability" means. I remember another discussion I had with someone who told me that her dog was "very reliable." I then heard from some of her team members who described an incident where she had to call the dog 37 times (yes, really) and even then the dog did not respond. She finally had to go get the dog herself. 

For many years I've had a challenge on the Net that addresses those who claim 100% reliability on their OB. I know that you've not made any such claim but if you're interested, just let me know. You could be $1,000 richer. Of course, there's a catch. 




tippykayak said:


> Their existence proves that it can be done.


 
Not sure why you make this statement. I'm pretty sure that NO ONE has said that it could not be done. I'm positive that I've not said it. I'd say OF COURSE it can be done. If someone has the right dog and has the skill and the time, I've no doubt that it can be done. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Paula said, _"I found that *beeping *Ike while he was swimming, left *scorch marks *on his throat."_ I will maintain that this is impossible.


 




tippykayak said:


> It's certainly possible that she was mistaken. It's also possible that her unit malfunctioned and shorted in some way. An electrical short could certainly blacken fur or create a sort of soot within the unit that could escape and get on the fur.


 
You can try and twist and turn all you like to try and make Paula's statement true, but it's not. Soot can't escape from a waterproof unit. And now we have a new statement from her that I'll comment on later. 




tippykayak said:


> I was quite clear that I thought it was possible but unlikely and that I had never heard a single confirmed instance of such a malfunction. We are in agreement on this, so I'm not sure what your point is.


 
My point is that what she claimed occurred is impossible, given the circumstances that we have at hand. Statements like this one are one reason that Ecollars have a bad reputation with some. Urban legends, misconceptions and outright lies abound! I refute them whenever I come across them. I have a collection of myths on my site and I'll be happy to supply the link to anyone who asks privately.


----------



## Lou Castle

paula bedard said:


> As for the marks on Ike's neck that I saw, they sure looked like burns but they may have been irritation from sand getting under the collar's points. The skin was dark, not red or bleeding, which was why I assumed it was scorched. It didn't look bruised either and he wasn't in any pain. ?




What you observed did not come from anything electrical. It may have been, as you said, from sand but I doubt it. It's difficult to conceive of sand getting caught under the points. More than likely it's from "friction sores" aka "pressure necrosis." There are various other names for this as well. When a land animal's skin gets wet it softens. This allows the contact points to penetrate into the skin a bit more than when the skin is dry. This compromises the circulation under the points and if this lasts long enough it can injure the skin under the points. 

I'd suggest, based on this, that the contact points you were using were too long. If they're the proper length and the owner moves the collar around on the dog's neck every 3-4 hours, these injuries don't occur, even if the dog goes swimming. If you decide to use the collar again I suggest, that since you're not using the stim at all that you simply remove the contact points and cap the studs with plastic acorn nuts that you can get at a home store. This will completely eliminate the possibility of any sores developing. You could also go to the extreme of cutting the studs off and painting what's left of them with "liquid electrical tape" that you can find at the home store.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> But it's VERY rare that when someone tells me that their dog is "highly driven" (even a higher standard than your phrase, _"rather driven"_ that the dog actually fills the bill.


Then your point is irrelevant. My dogs are high drive Goldens, and I'm well aware of what it means. I guess I'm just one of those rare pet owners who knows what he's talking about in this instance. If you believe it to be otherwise, please tell me straight out instead of tap dancing around what happens with most people.



Lou Castle said:


> We also don't know what your standard of "extraordinary level of reliability" means. I remember another discussion I had with someone who told me that her dog was "very reliable." I then heard from some of her team members who described an incident where she had to call the dog 37 times (yes, really) and even then the dog did not respond. She finally had to go get the dog herself.


"Extraordinary level of reliability" means that neither dog has blown off a recall since puppyhood (a year old or so). Let's arbitrarily set "extraordinary level of reliability" at a 99% or more success rate on the first recall command. I whistle, dog turns right around and moves at reasonable speed to touch a nose to my open palm. Currently, my dogs are batting higher than that, but let's set it there.

I'm not sure why you bring up a self-delusional person in the context of this conversation. Either I'm lying or I'm not. If you're implying I'm lying or deluding myself, please come out and say it instead of insinuating.



Lou Castle said:


> For many years I've had a challenge on the Net that addresses those who claim 100% reliability on their OB. I know that you've not made any such claim but if you're interested, just let me know. You could be $1,000 richer. Of course, there's a catch.


I'm claiming a 99%+ success rate with two individual dogs. Three, actually, but one died. I guess that doesn't count? What's the catch?



Lou Castle said:


> Not sure why you make this statement. I'm pretty sure that NO ONE has said that it could not be done. I'm positive that I've not said it. I'd say OF COURSE it can be done. If someone has the right dog and has the skill and the time, I've no doubt that it can be done.


That person just isn't me? Do you believe me when I say that I can call two drivey Goldens off a deer with one whistle, even though neither dog has ever been corrected at a distance? Yes or no answers would be nice. If you do believe me, what is the point of your statements? I made my statement because I said my dogs had high drive and highly reliable recall and you decided to make the point that my experience would not work for everyone (which I didn't claim), that some people don't know what they're talking about when they talk about drive (which is sort of insulting because you made that comment in the context of my claim about my own dogs), and that this one person you once heard of was delusional when he talked about his dog's reliability (which is rather insulting when you bring it up in the context of my claim of my dogs' reliability). Since I had never said my method would work for every dog, I decided to clarify for you that my point is simply that it is _possible_ to eschew the e-collar and still train a GR, even one with relatively high drive, to return to hand with great consistency and reliability. Would it work for every dog? I dunno. I haven't trained every dog ever. Has it worked for every dog I've personally trained? Yes. 



Lou Castle said:


> You can try and twist and turn all you like to try and make Paula's statement true, but it's not. Soot can't escape from a waterproof unit. And now we have a new statement from her that I'll comment on later.


I just thought it was more likely that the unit cracked or malfunctioned than that Paula had lost her mind, so I was speculating as to ways those marks could have appeared. I have no idea what caused the black marks on her dog's throat, and neither do you. Is your faith in e-collars so extreme that you contend there's no possible way for them to malfunction and and leave a black mark? I believe that it's very unlikely and that, in fact, there may be no verified instances of an e-collar that malfunctioned and burned a dog. But is it truly impossible?



Lou Castle said:


> My point is that what she claimed occurred is impossible, given the circumstances that we have at hand. Statements like this one are one reason that Ecollars have a bad reputation with some. Urban legends, misconceptions and outright lies abound! I refute them whenever I come across them. I have a collection of myths on my site and I'll be happy to supply the link to anyone who asks privately.


We're not talking about an urban legend. We're talking about taking a person who says something and then telling her that what she saw with her own eyes is impossible. It seemed rude to me, though Paula is perfectly capable of defending herself. It also seemed incorrect to use the term "impossible" as you've used it. You don't know what made those marks, but if it involved the e-collar malfunctioning, that's no good for your agenda, so you're excluding that possibility from the get-go. I have no such agenda, so I'm allowing for the possibility that that the collar broke. Maybe it didn't and the contact points simply trapped some blank gunk that the dog swam through. Maybe, as you say, the contact points damaged the tissue underneath them so badly that it died and turned black. But to say that any scorching is physically impossible denies the basic principles of electricity and chemical batteries. Unlikely? Sure. Very unlikely? Sure. Impossible? Well, no.


----------



## Swampcollie

TK,
It isn't possible for a battery failure to burn a dog. For that to happen a battery would have to short out, heat up, and remain hot long enough to burn through the case (Polycarbonate or Aluminum) and potting material of the receiver unit. The NiMH battery isn't capable of storing that much energy. 

Chemical burns from a leaky battery are a wild goose chase too. For battery chemicals to escape the case and potting material, the receiver unit would have to be visibly severely damaged, so why would you even consider putting it on a dog? Additionally, If the battery was in such poor condition that it was leaking chemicals, the collar wouldn't function so again you would not have it on a dog because it couldn't function. 

The black marks previously mentioned can occur when a dog reacts to the metal the contact probes are made from. (Just as some people react to some types of metal jewelery.) Most of the collar mfgrs offer alternative contact probes made of a different alloy if you experience this problem.


----------



## tippykayak

Swampcollie said:


> TK,
> It isn't possible for a battery failure to burn a dog. For that to happen a battery would have to short out, heat up, and remain hot long enough to burn through the case (Polycarbonate or Aluminum) and potting material of the receiver unit. The NiMH battery isn't capable of storing that much energy.


This is a totally academic argument, since none of us believe it's ever actually happened, but you can absolutely create a short with an NiMH battery that would generate enough heat to cause a burn. The short wouldn't have to melt the whole unit. If it were concentrated in a particular area, it could absolutely generate the heat necessary to get through to the coat. The collar is of course designed to minimize the possibility, and as I've said all along, it would be very unlikely. I was simply addressing the term "impossible."

NiMHs are vastly safer than Li-ion batteries in this regard. A Li-ion can absolutely heat up and explode on its own if it is incorrectly manufactured, and there are lots of documented, verified cases of this happening. I don't know of an e-collar that uses Li-ion technology, though.

EDIT: I did a quick search and found that there's at least one brand of e-collar that uses Li-ion batteries.

For context, we all seem to feel perfectly safe with putting the Li-ion batteries in our cell phones right next to our heads, and we feel safe putting the large Li-ion batteries in our laptops in our laps, so I still think claiming battery explosion is a significant danger in e-collar use is somewhat disingenuous. 



Swampcollie said:


> Chemical burns from a leaky battery are a wild goose chase too. For battery chemicals to escape the case and potting material, the receiver unit would have to be visibly severely damaged, so why would you even consider putting it on a dog? Additionally, If the battery was in such poor condition that it was leaking chemicals, the collar wouldn't function so again you would not have it on a dog because it couldn't function.


Unless it failed or cracked during use, yes. Or if the crack were small enough not to be noticed (though you're right that the collar probably wouldn't function properly if the battery were leaking).



Swampcollie said:


> The black marks previously mentioned can occur when a dog reacts to the metal the contact probes are made from. (Just as some people react to some types of metal jewelery.) Most of the collar mfgrs offer alternative contact probes made of a different alloy if you experience this problem.


That's probably the most likely explanation. I just wanted to qualify the term "impossible" in this context.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> My dogs are high drive Goldens, and I'm well aware of what it means. I guess I'm just one of those rare pet owners who knows what he's talking about in this instance. If you believe it to be otherwise, please tell me straight out instead of tap dancing around what happens with most people.


 
I have no idea if your dogs are _"high drive Goldens"_ or not. You could claim to be a superhero and on the Net there's no way for me to disprove it. You don't claim any OB degrees or titles of any other kind, you don't give us your name, preferring instead to be completely anonymous. You could claim to be an OB champion with hundreds of OTCH's. Since I can't prove anything one way or the other, and you've not provided anything to support the claim that your recall is 99% reliable I can't make any definitive statements one way or the other. 




tippykayak said:


> "Extraordinary level of reliability" means that neither dog has blown off a recall since puppyhood (a year old or so). Let's arbitrarily set "extraordinary level of reliability" at a 99% or more success rate on the first recall command. I whistle, dog turns right around and moves at reasonable speed to touch a nose to my open palm. Currently, my dogs are batting higher than that, but let's set it there.


 
It's very easy to make such a statement but considerably harder to prove it. I'm not denying the possibility. I'm simply saying that if you want to be believed then there are ways of getting that done. 




tippykayak said:


> I'm not sure why you bring up a self-delusional person in the context of this conversation.


 
Because they're all over the Net, making the same sort of claims that you are now making. Perhaps you're the exception. I don't know. 




tippykayak said:


> Either I'm lying or I'm not. If you're implying I'm lying or deluding myself, please come out and say it instead of insinuating.


 
I'm not insinuating anything and I wonder why you are taking this so personally. You seem to think that those of us who use Ecollars don't believe that a reliable recall can be obtained with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" or _"without ever having delivered a correction at a distance."_ You seem to be overlooking what I've said, _"I'd say *OF COURSE it can be done. *If someone has the right dog and has the skill and the time, *I've no doubt that it can be done."*_ 




tippykayak said:


> I'm claiming a 99%+ success rate with two individual dogs. Three, actually, but one died. I guess that doesn't count? What's the catch?


 
The catch is that if your dog does not meet the claimed standard that you owe me $1,000 plus whatever it cost me to get to your location. 




tippykayak said:


> That person just isn't me?


 
I don't know if it is or if it isn't. I prefer not to blindly accept every claim made on the Internet, especially from people who are anonymous. I've gotten into these sorts of discussions before when people made the claim of 100% reliable OB (or in this case 99%). Some people posted a video as their proof. Only problem was that the video showed the dog doing OB in the complete absence of any serious distractions. Some were in an empty park. Some were in the person's back yard. Some were in the living room. 

If you'd like to submit a video showing several dozen recalls in a place where there were high level distractions as proof of your training ability, I'd be happy to look at it. References from people who had seen your work would probably do it too, except for the fact that you're anonymous here. If your references were also anonymous, that would not constitute a believable base. I'll be happy to send you details of the challenge if you like. 




tippykayak said:


> Do you believe me when I say that I can call two drivey Goldens off a deer with one whistle, even though neither dog has ever been corrected at a distance? Yes or no answers would be nice. If you do believe me, what is the point of your statements?


 
The point is that the Internet allows people who are anonymous to make any sort of claim that they like. 




tippykayak said:


> I just thought it was more likely that the unit cracked or malfunctioned than that Paula had lost her mind


 
I haven't said that Paula _"lost her mind"_ only that she was mistaken about the cause of what she saw. If the unit cracked it would have leaked water into the electronics and they'd have stopped working. If that was the case I'm sure that we'd have heard about it from her. Since we haven't, I've reasonably assumed that no such thing happened. You seem to prefer making excuse after excuse for her statement that the dog received _"scorch marks"_ on his throat. 




tippykayak said:


> so I was speculating as to ways those marks could have appeared.


 
You could _"speculate"_ that they were caused by sunspots or a ghost. It wouldn't change the facts or the laws of physics. 




tippykayak said:


> I have no idea what caused the black marks on her dog's throat, and neither do you.


 
I accept that you have no idea what caused the black marks on her dog's throat. I'm 100% positive that it had nothing to do with the electrical current that an Ecollar puts out. 




tippykayak said:


> Is your faith in e-collars so extreme that you contend there's no possible way for them to malfunction and and leave a black mark?


 
It's not my faith in Ecollars that leads me to make this statement. It's my belief in the laws of physics. They're not going to change because someone has a personal dislike of Ecollars. 




tippykayak said:


> I believe that it's very unlikely and that, in fact, there may be no verified instances of an e-collar that malfunctioned and burned a dog. But is it truly impossible?


 
Yes, it's truly impossible for a dog to be burned by the electrical current put out by any commercially manufactured Ecollar made in the past 20 years or so. I've made an assumption that Paula was using such a collar. It's impossible for a battery to put out more current than it's capable of putting out. Circular isn't it? "Shorting out," one of the possibilities you suggested, doesn't increase the output. A battery can put out LESS power than it's rated for, but not more. 




tippykayak said:


> We're not talking about an urban legend. We're talking about taking a person who says something and then telling her that what she saw with her own eyes is impossible.


 
AGAIN, no one is saying that what Paula did not see what she _"saw with her own eyes."_ What is under discussion is the causation for it and her characterization of the marks as _"scorch marks."_ 




tippykayak said:


> It seemed rude to me


 
Correcting someone when they're wrong is rude? I'll disagree. 




tippykayak said:


> though Paula is perfectly capable of defending herself.


 
Yes, she is and her update on the marks pretty much covers it. You seem to have missed her post. 




tippykayak said:


> You don't know what made those marks


 
There are only a few possibilities. None of them have to do with the electrical current that an Ecollar puts out. 




tippykayak said:


> but if it involved the e-collar malfunctioning, that's no good for your agenda, so you're excluding that possibility from the get-go. I have no such agenda.


 

I guess you don't believe in the laws of physics. I do. And telling us that you don't have an agenda, is silly at this stage of the discussion. It's apparent that you do. 




tippykayak said:


> so I'm allowing for the possibility that that the collar broke.


 
That's because it fits your agenda. 




tippykayak said:


> Maybe it didn't and the contact points simply trapped some blank gunk that the dog swam through.


 
_"Blank gunk?"_ Do you mean "black gunk?" In any case, it would have either been washed away by the flow of water or Paula would have been able to remove it with a swipe of a finger. I have no doubt that the dog suffered an injury to its skin. (Wait, wouldn't such an admission go against "my agenda?") When skin dies from lack of blood flow, which can be caused by many things, including leaving the collar on for too long or not having it adjusted properly, it turns black. 

For reasons known only to you, in spite of the recent disclaimer from Paula that these were _"scorch marks"_ on her dog's throat, you now claim, that may have been some sort of internal short circuit in the Ecollar that caused a puff of soot to be leaked from a watertight case such that it landed ONLY on the dog's throat directly under the contact points, and not anywhere else. Then this previously water tight case miraculously healed itself and was now secure again. Ever heard of Ockham's Razor?


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> This is a totally academic argument, since none of us believe it's ever actually happened, but you can absolutely create a short with an NiMH battery that would generate enough heat to cause a burn. The short wouldn't have to melt the whole unit. If it were concentrated in a particular area, it could absolutely generate the heat necessary to get through to the coat. The collar is of course designed to minimize the possibility, and as I've said all along, it would be very unlikely. I was simply addressing the term "impossible."


 
Here's the _"impossible"_ part. It's *IMPOSSIBLE * for this to occur AND for it to create the two marks that Paula described. The only way for a short to occur outside the case would be for it to occur across the contact points. While that might create enough heat to generate a burn, it would not occur in two places, under each contact point. It would occur at one point, where the heat was being generated. It's possible that this could occur if a bit of metal (such as a choke chain) were to be against both contact points at the same time that a stim was being delivered. But since Paula tells us that she didn't use the stim side of the collar, it's impossible. If the short occurred inside the case, it WOULD have to melt the case for it to cause a burn on the dog. Not only are you going against the laws of physics, but denying the marks that Paula described. Are *you *now being rude in denying what she saw with her own eyes? 




tippykayak said:


> NiMHs are vastly safer than Li-ion batteries in this regard. A Li-ion can absolutely heat up and explode on its own if it is incorrectly manufactured, and there are lots of documented, verified cases of this happening. I don't know of an e-collar that uses Li-ion technology, though. EDIT: I did a quick search and found that there's at least one brand of e-collar that uses Li-ion batteries.


 
Dogtra has been using LI polymer batteries for several years. I'm not aware of any documented cases of either explosions or short circuits. 

Earlier Swampcollie wrote,


> Chemical burns from a leaky battery are a wild goose chase too. For battery chemicals to escape the case and potting material, the receiver unit would have to be visibly severely damaged, so why would you even consider putting it on a dog? Additionally, If the battery was in such poor condition that it was leaking chemicals, the collar wouldn't function so again you would not have it on a dog because it couldn't function.


 




tippykayak said:


> Unless it failed or cracked during use, yes. Or if the crack were small enough not to be noticed (though you're right that the collar probably wouldn't function properly if the battery were leaking).


 
If this were to occur then we wouldn't see marks under the contact points. They'd be under the crack. And since this occurred while the dog was swimming the crack would allow water to enter and short circuit the collar. I have no doubt that we'd have heard from Paula if this had occurred. Since we have not the theory that the case cracked is absurd. 

Earlier Swampcollie wrote,


> The black marks previously mentioned can occur when a dog reacts to the metal the contact probes are made from. (Just as some people react to some types of metal jewelery.) Most of the collar mfgrs offer alternative contact probes made of a different alloy if you experience this problem.


 




tippykayak said:


> That's probably the most likely explanation. I just wanted to qualify the term "impossible" in this context.


 
I don't think that this is _"the most likely explanation."_ If it was, the irritation (it's an allergy to the metal that's used in the contact points) would have continued every time the collar was put on the dog. Since Paula has not mentioned this happening, it's doubtful that it did.


----------



## K9-Design




----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> I have no idea if your dogs are _"high drive Goldens"_ or not. You could claim to be a superhero and on the Net there's no way for me to disprove it.


True. We could all be armchair fantasy trainers. A conversation like ours only really works under the assumption that we are sticking at least fairly close to the truth, though, so why participate if you're simply going to assume that anything you don't agree with is based on a lie? I do question why you would first acknowledge that what I describe is perfectly possible but then go out of your way to point out that I might be lying about accomplishing it myself. What's the point?



Lou Castle said:


> The catch is that if your dog does not meet the claimed standard that you owe me $1,000 plus whatever it cost me to get to your location.


Nice. Do you bring a dog too so you can prove that anything you say is true? Or do you already have the video posted somewhere of dozens of high distraction exercises with your dogs? Actually, I just realized that I don't even know if you own a dog at all. 



Lou Castle said:


> I don't know if it is or if it isn't. I prefer not to blindly accept every claim made on the Internet, especially from people who are anonymous.


Even though you agree that what I say is perfectly possible? I'm not asking you to blindly accept everything I say, but I am asking you not to rudely insinuate that I'm either lying or delusional.



Lou Castle said:


> If you'd like to submit a video showing several dozen recalls in a place where there were high level distractions as proof of your training ability, I'd be happy to look at it.


If you're seriously saying that all I have to do is go to the lake and call my dogs off the ducks a few dozen times in a row and you'll give me $1000, I'll think about it. I have a feeling that the conditions of your bet would somehow prevent me from winning, though.



Lou Castle said:


> It's not my faith in Ecollars that leads me to make this statement. It's my belief in the laws of physics. They're not going to change because someone has a personal dislike of Ecollars.





Lou Castle said:


> It's impossible for a battery to put out more current than it's capable of putting out. Circular isn't it? "Shorting out," one of the possibilities you suggested, doesn't increase the output. A battery can put out LESS power than it's rated for, but not more.


I don't believe that you are correct in your understanding of how batteries work, as reflected in the way you say that a battery "puts out" a fixed amount of current. A device is designed to draw a particular current from a battery, but shorting a battery could draw more current than it's designed for. That's precisely the problem with a short and precisely why they can cause burning. So while your tautology is true on its surface, it glosses over the difference between the maximum current drawn from a battery when it's being used as intended (limited by the design of the device and the design of the battery itself) and the maximum current released during a short (governed only by the maximum chemical reaction speed) which could cause high heat over a small surface area and a brief window of time. An NiMH battery is much harder to start a fire with than a Li-ion battery because of its slower reaction speed, but I think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that it the reaction speed is so slow that it could not create a high temperature over a small area for a short amount of time. 

To put it another way, if what you said were true, you wouldn't be able to light a fire with a AA battery. By shorting it, you pull much more energy from it much more quickly than it was designed for. 

If batteries worked the way you say, you wouldn't be able to do that, nor would a battery in a laptop be able to cause a fire, though that's been documented on a number of occasions. If "'Shorting out'...doesn't increase the output," then how do you explain it?



Lou Castle said:


> Correcting someone when they're wrong is rude? I'll disagree.


I do not believe that you have a clear sense of what is rude and what is not in your writing. Disagreeing with people and telling them they're wrong isn't the rude part.



Lou Castle said:


> There are only a few possibilities. None of them have to do with the electrical current that an Ecollar puts out.


For the bajillionth time, actual electrical scorching seems quite unlikely in the scenario Paula describes. I took issue with the use of the word "impossible," and your statements about batteries lead me to believe that you know significantly less about them than I do, so you can continue to claim the laws of physics on your side all you want, but what you've said seems to indicate that you don't really understand them as they apply to batteries.



Lou Castle said:


> And telling us that you don't have an agenda, is silly at this stage of the discussion. It's apparent that you do.


Unlike you, I don't have a business and a personal reputation built on claims about the e-collar. You have much more at stake than I do.

My agenda in the thread is this: to demonstrate that the battery in an e-collar can theoretically fail and burn a dog. Even a non-catastrophic failure could cause superficial scorching or "soot" (i.e., the byproducts of high heat inside the collar). There are no verified instances of a catastrophic burn happening, to my knowledge, and scorching doesn't appear to be what happened with Paula's dog. However, neither is _impossible_.

What I do not have is a general anti-e-collar agenda, or I would be exaggerating their dangers. I've been very clear about how dangerous the batteries _aren't._



Lou Castle said:


> Do you mean "black gunk?"


Obviously. 



Lou Castle said:


> In any case, it would have either been washed away by the flow of water or Paula would have been able to remove it with a swipe of a finger.


Just stating possibilities. I don't know how you can have classified all kinds of lake gunk and the ease with which they can be cleaned off. I have found all kinds of black gunk on my dogs over the years that did not wipe off very easily nor yield the secrets of their origins. And I think it's odd that you're so dead set on disagreeing with me that you take a speculation that doesn't blame the e-collar and go to such efforts to pick it apart.



Lou Castle said:


> I have no doubt that the dog suffered an injury to its skin. (Wait, wouldn't such an admission go against "my agenda?")


No. When you admit that an e-collar can cause injury, you immediately explain that it was because the owner did not use it properly. I do not think that you believe an e-collar can cause problems under any conditions, so long as it's used according to your methods.



Lou Castle said:


> For reasons known only to you, in spite of the recent disclaimer from Paula that these were _"scorch marks"_ on her dog's throat, you now claim, that may have been some sort of internal short circuit in the Ecollar that caused a puff of soot to be leaked from a watertight case such that it landed ONLY on the dog's throat directly under the contact points, and not anywhere else. Then this previously water tight case miraculously healed itself and was now secure again. Ever heard of Ockham's Razor?


You're well aware that you're intentionally mischaracterizing what I said by adding ridiculous extras I didn't put in. If you're wondering, this is a good example of the reason you are continually accused of twisting what people say. Why would you do this? For reasons known only to you. 

Also, in the interest of accuracy, I believe you either misunderstand or have intentionally mischaracterized Occam's Razor if you believe it applies to my speculation about the possible causes of the marks Paula saw.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> Here's the _"impossible"_ part. It's *IMPOSSIBLE * for this to occur AND for it to create the two marks that Paula described. The only way for a short to occur outside the case would be for it to occur across the contact points. While that might create enough heat to generate a burn, it would not occur in two places, under each contact point. It would occur at one point, where the heat was being generated.


This is true. I imagine it might be impossible to cause a burn by bridging the contacts. I mean, the whole way a stim works is by running current across the skin between the contacts, right? I don't see how you could have a battery working properly enough to run juice across the contacts but malfunctioning enough to be running enough to burn the dog.



Lou Castle said:


> If the short occurred inside the case, it WOULD have to melt the case for it to cause a burn on the dog. Not only are you going against the laws of physics, but denying the marks that Paula described. Are *you *now being rude in denying what she saw with her own eyes?


No, she said "scorch marks," not "burns," so I simply thought that it was possible that a short in the case could have released some burned material onto the dog that would not have washed off easily. It's sort of academic at this point, since she's clarified further since then.



Lou Castle said:


> Dogtra has been using LI polymer batteries for several years. I'm not aware of any documented cases of either explosions or short circuits.


As I've said many, many times at this point, neither am I. I'm not quite sure why you keep repeating things I've said as if they're contradictions to what I've said. There are many documented cases of Li-ion batteries exploding, shorting, and/or burning, but as I also said, to suggest that the possibility of this is the same thing as a real and present danger to the dog is disingenuous in my book.



Lou Castle said:


> If this were to occur then we wouldn't see marks under the contact points. They'd be under the crack. And since this occurred while the dog was swimming the crack would allow water to enter and short circuit the collar. I have no doubt that we'd have heard from Paula if this had occurred. Since we have not the theory that the case cracked is absurd.


Again, academic, but a case wouldn't have to have a visible crack for something to escape it.

Not sure what your goal is here.


----------



## Sally's Mom

I have nothing to add as the only electronic collar I have trained a dog with is Invisible Fence. However, as usual, I am entertained by Lou Castle and his ability to twist words that are not his own... it's keeping me laughing at work...


----------



## FinnTastic

:--big_grin:


Sally's Mom said:


> I have nothing to add as the only electronic collar I have trained a dog with is Invisible Fence. However, as usual, I am entertained by Lou Castle and his ability to twist words that are not his own... it's keeping me laughing at work...


I think he missed his calling . . . a politician.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> True. We could all be armchair fantasy trainers.


 
Except that I’m using my true name and have done dozens of seminars where I've shown my work in front of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. YOU _"could be [an] armchair fantasy trainer."_ 




tippykayak said:


> A conversation like ours only really works under the assumption that we are sticking at least fairly close to the truth, though, so why participate if you're simply going to assume that anything you don't agree with is based on a lie?


 
I’m perfectly happy to let your comments stand without disagreement until you start making claims of accomplishments that I know that relatively few people have actually done. When people start talking about reliable OB, often they have their own definition of what that means. I use the definitions that are common in various forms of competition and add "in the face of high level distractions." Many times I've had people make the same sort of claims that you're now making, only to go see them, and have their claims not be as advertised. You are insistent that your claims are true so perhaps you might want to accept the challenge. Is the rest of your OB as good as you claim that your recall is? 




tippykayak said:


> II do question why you would first acknowledge that what I describe is perfectly possible but then go out of your way to point out that I might be lying about accomplishing it myself. What's the point?


 
The point is that while it's possible I have yet to see many accomplish it. 

Earlier I wrote,


> The catch is that if your dog does not meet the claimed standard that you owe me $1,000 plus whatever it cost me to get to your location.


 




tippykayak said:


> Nice.


 
I think so. I find it interesting that this challenge has been put up on dozens of email lists and forums over the years and not one person who claims high degrees of reliability on the Net with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" has even tried to meet it. You might be the first !?




tippykayak said:


> Do you bring a dog too so you can prove that anything you say is true? Or do you already have the video posted somewhere of dozens of high distraction exercises with your dogs? Actually, I just realized that I don't even know if you own a dog at all.


 
I’m not the one making the claim of 99% reliability. 




tippykayak said:


> Even though you agree that what I say is perfectly possible? I'm not asking you to blindly accept everything I say, but I am asking you not to rudely insinuate that I'm either lying or delusional.


 
I've neither insinuated that you are lying or that you're delusional. But like the person who made the absurd claim that an Ecollar can kill a dog, it's reasonable to doubt until one has evidence. 




tippykayak said:


> If you're seriously saying that all I have to do is go to the lake and call my dogs off the ducks a few dozen times in a row and you'll give me $1000, I'll think about it. I have a feeling that the conditions of your bet would somehow prevent me from winning, though.


 
You've been invited to ask for the full challenge. You've not done so. I'm happy to have you take the challenge. 




tippykayak said:


> I don't believe that you are correct in your understanding of how batteries work, as reflected in the way you say that a battery "puts out" a fixed amount of current. A device is designed to draw a particular current from a battery, but shorting a battery could draw more current than it's designed for.


 
When a battery shorts out, it's not "working" any more. It's malfunctioning. I'd think that this would be obvious in this discussion, but apparently, it's not. 




tippykayak said:


> That's precisely the problem with a short and precisely why they can cause burning.


 
AGAIN, no commercially manufactured Ecollar made in the past 20 years or so can cause burns as a result of the electrical current they produce. You can try and twist the facts all you like about mysterious cracked cases that miraculously heal themselves as spontaneously as they cracked and leaked but it won't change a thing. There has never been anything but urban legends about dogs burned as a result of an Ecollar's electrical current. If you disagree then show us a link to such a verifiable incident. 




tippykayak said:


> So while your tautology is true on its surface, it glosses over the difference between the maximum current drawn from a battery when it's being used as intended (limited by the design of the device and the design of the battery itself) and the maximum current released during a short (governed only by the maximum chemical reaction speed) which could cause high heat over a small surface area and a brief window of time. An NiMH battery is much harder to start a fire with than a Li-ion battery because of its slower reaction speed, but I think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that it the reaction speed is so slow that it could not create a high temperature over a small area for a short amount of time.


 
A complete misstatement of the facts at hand. When this sort of thing happens there is ample evidence to show that a battery has malfunctioned. Heat is not concentrated in one place as you've hinted happened here, on the contact points on the dog's neck. Other parts will show evidence of this heat and the unit will no longer function. AGAIN, since we have not heard anything of this nature from Paula (it appears due to this lack of comment it seems that the collar was still functioning normally after this incident) it's reasonable to assume that nothing of this nature occurred. 




tippykayak said:


> I do not believe that you have a clear sense of what is rude and what is not in your writing.


 
This comment seems to me to be quite rude. Is it OK for you? 




tippykayak said:


> Disagreeing with people and telling them they're wrong isn't the rude part.


 
Pray tell, what you consider to be _"the rude part?"_ 




tippykayak said:


> For the bajillionth time, actual electrical scorching seems quite unlikely in the scenario Paula describes.


 
It's not _"quite unlikely."_ Based on the description of the incident and subsequent statements from Paula, it's impossible. 




tippykayak said:


> I took issue with the use of the word "impossible," and your statements about batteries lead me to believe that you know significantly less about them than I do


 
Think whatever makes you happy. Having spoken to quite a few electrical engineers on this topic, I know whereof I speak. 




tippykayak said:


> Unlike you, I don't have a business and a personal reputation built on claims about the e-collar. You have much more at stake than I do.


 
ROFL. My reputation is built on my ability to solve problems. Sometimes I use an Ecollar and sometimes I don't. You have NOTHING at stake. That's the advantage of being anonymous. 




tippykayak said:


> My agenda in the thread is this: to demonstrate that the battery in an e-collar can theoretically fail and burn a dog.


 
I prefer to stay rooted in reality. Millions of Ecollars being worn by millions of dogs around the world and NOT ONE verifiable incident documenting it happen. What I've said is _"impossible"_ is for Paula's dog to have been burned by the current coming from an Ecollar or for her incident to have been caused by anything even remotely (pun intended) having to do with the battery in her Ecollar. 




tippykayak said:


> Even a non-catastrophic failure could cause superficial scorching or "soot" (i.e., the byproducts of high heat inside the collar). There are no verified instances of a catastrophic burn happening, to my knowledge, and scorching doesn't appear to be what happened with Paula's dog. However, neither is impossible.


 
Soot is a by−product of something burning and this will easily be seen. AGAIN we have no report of anything of this nature from Paula making it reasonable to assume that it did not happen. 




tippykayak said:


> What I do not have is a general anti-e-collar agenda, or I would be exaggerating their dangers.


 
That's exactly what you are doing, exaggerating their dangers. I'd call that a _"general anti Ecollar agenda."_ 




tippykayak said:


> I've been very clear about how dangerous the batteries aren't.


 
You've completely discounted the obvious reasons for the injury, that Paula had the collar improperly fitted to the dog or that her contact points were too long. Instead you've talked about Ecollar cases that cracked and then miraculously healed themselves so that no one could detect this leak, or some other way that the battery could have failed and then also healed itself. 




tippykayak said:


> Just stating possibilities.


 
Your comments are about as far from _"possibilities"_ as one can get. They're more into the realm of fantasy or parallel universes where plastic cases somehow leak but then fix themselves. Perhaps sometime in the future we'll have such devices, right now we don't. 




tippykayak said:


> I don't know how you can have classified all kinds of lake gunk and the ease with which they can be cleaned off. I have found all kinds of black gunk on my dogs over the years that did not wipe off very easily nor yield the secrets of their origins.


 
Beautiful attempt to move the goalposts! Lol. You surmised that some _"the contact points simply trapped some blank gunk that the dog swam through."_ Paula described the marks as _"dark, not red or bleeding."_ Now you talk about how difficult it is to remove _"lake gunk"_ from your dog's *coat. * Some reason you're trying to make this complicated when in reality it's very simple? 

Probably the most common problem that Ecollar users have is getting the strap adjusted properly. Mostly they have it too loose and don't get consistent contact between the points and the dog's skin. But sometimes they put it on too tightly and get friction sores. Both are very common when discussing problems that people have with Ecollars. 




tippykayak said:


> And I think it's odd that you're so dead set on disagreeing with me that you take a speculation that doesn't blame the e-collar and go to such efforts to pick it apart.


 
That's because the Ecollar isn't responsible for these marks on the dog's neck. The owner is. The strap was improperly applied and resulted in some marks on the dog's neck. It's not unusual. 




tippykayak said:


> I do not think that you believe an e-collar can cause problems under any conditions, so long as it's used according to your methods.


 
You may be right. What problems do you think can occur? 




tippykayak said:


> You're well aware that you're intentionally mischaracterizing what I said by adding ridiculous extras I didn't put in.


 
I'm not aware of anything of the kind. I'm going to deny that this is the case. What are those _"ridiculous extras that [you] didn't put in? __




tippykayak said:



If you're wondering, this is a good example of the reason you are continually accused of twisting what people say.

Click to expand...

 
This is a fairly common comment from people who are losing arguments to make. It's a logical fallacy. If you think I'm "twisting" what you're saying you are welcome to show those twists. In fact, please do. SOMEHOW in all the times that people have made this comment they've never been able to show such a statement and have it be accurate. It's one of those accusations without support that make up much of the argument against me and against Ecollars. 




tippykayak said:



Also, in the interest of accuracy, I believe you either misunderstand or have intentionally mischaracterized Occam's Razor if you believe it applies to my speculation about the possible causes of the marks Paula saw.

Click to expand...

 
Discussions of Ockham's Razor take many forms but probably the most useful for our discussion is this one. *"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." * 

Marks such as the ones that Paula described are not unusual among new Ecollar users. They put the collar on with the strap either too loose or too tight and get these friction sores. THAT is the simplest (and best) explanation for these marks. 

OTOH you want to spend time talking about short circuits (when there is no evidence that one occurred), cracked cases that leak soot but then magically heal themselves so the crack is no longer detectable, heat being generated by malfunctioning batteries, fire starting with AAA batteries, whether NiMh batteries are less prone to overheating than Li-ion ones and other such nonsense. Along the way you want to toss in a couple of smoke screens such as whether or not your dogs have reliable recalls and that I'm being rude by even having this discussion. 

Ockham's Razor definitely applies and it knocks your theories into a cocked hat. As I've said, I prefer to stay rooted in reality. If you want to play in theory, what *might happen, * in some alternate universe that's fine with me. You've been invited several times to show us a verifiable incident describing what you're talking about. Since you've not done so, I'll have to say that they don't exist. While discussing "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" may be an interesting philosophical exercise it has no real application and after doing it once, there are better ways to spend time. 

I know that threads sometimes take a turn but this one isn't even remotely (pun intended again) related to the original topic. Any chance of getting back on topic in the foreseeable future? _


----------



## Lou Castle

FinnTastic said:


> I think he missed his calling . . . a politician.


 
I'd make a poor politician. I have an accurate BS meter and I'm too honest. When I see twaddle, I point it out.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> Except that I’m using my true name and have done dozens of seminars where I've shown my work in front of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. YOU _"could be [an] armchair fantasy trainer."_


_

Your claims can be as big as you want. I'm in no position to verify them. My real name wouldn't allow you to learn anything about my dogs' obedience.



Lou Castle said:



]I’m perfectly happy to let your comments stand without disagreement until you start making claims of accomplishments that I know that relatively few people have actually done. When people start talking about reliable OB, often they have their own definition of what that means. I use the definitions that are common in various forms of competition and add "in the face of high level distractions." Many times I've had people make the same sort of claims that you're now making, only to go see them, and have their claims not be as advertised. You are insistent that your claims are true so perhaps you might want to accept the challenge. Is the rest of your OB as good as you claim that your recall is?

Click to expand...

I don't compete in obedience, so I don't know what standard you're asking for. My dogs return to me when I call them, and they've done it multiple times during a chase. They sit when I say sit, and they stay and watch dogs, deer, ducks, and children run by if they're asked to stay. That's real world obedience to a standard that makes me happy. It's achievable without distance corrections, and frankly it only took consistency and good timing, no special genius. Don't make me out to be claiming more than I've claimed in my own words. 



Lou Castle said:



The point is that while it's possible I have yet to see many accomplish it.

Click to expand...

You're not going to see what you don't believe really exists.



Lou Castle said:



I think so. I find it interesting that this challenge has been put up on dozens of email lists and forums over the years and not one person who claims high degrees of reliability on the Net with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" has even tried to meet it. You might be the first !?

Click to expand...

I certainly didn't call them "kindler gentler methods," and I'm well aware that you've engaged in exactly this kind of behavior all over dog forums for years. I try to avoid positive punishment and negative reinforcement when I can, and since I choose not to use the e-collar, I can't correct my dogs at a distance even if I wanted to. Nothing special, no ideological purity to it.



Lou Castle said:



I’m not the one making the claim of 99% reliability.

Click to expand...

You appear to be making much, much larger claims, actually, of thousands of dogs trained to extraordinary standards. You continually say that you work with higher drive dogs than mine (though you haven't met my dogs) and that you can get these amazing results. The internet is littered with your claims.



Lou Castle said:



I've neither insinuated that you are lying or that you're delusional. But like the person who made the absurd claim that an Ecollar can kill a dog, it's reasonable to doubt until one has evidence.

Click to expand...

Yes you have, and the evidence is clear in the thread where I've already pointed it out. If you didn't recognize it then, I have little hope that pointing it out again will have any effect. Why not just reread my previous posts?



Lou Castle said:



You've been invited to ask for the full challenge. You've not done so. I'm happy to have you take the challenge.

Click to expand...

What's the challenge? Maybe I could earn $1000 this Saturday. 



Lou Castle said:



When a battery shorts out, it's not "working" any more. It's malfunctioning. I'd think that this would be obvious in this discussion, but apparently, it's not.

Click to expand...

LOL. You changed the terms of the discussion! You said it was IMPOSSIBLE for a battery to put out more current than it could put out and therefore it could not burn a dog. I posted a video of a battery starting a fire and explained the basic engineering facts that allow shorts to do this. Then you changed your tune and started talking about malfunctions. Malfunctions are possible, no?

Do you ever throw out your back running around with those goalposts? You were WRONG. Admit it.



Lou Castle said:



AGAIN, no commercially manufactured Ecollar made in the past 20 years or so can cause burns as a result of the electrical current they produce. You can try and twist the facts all you like about mysterious cracked cases that miraculously heal themselves as spontaneously as they cracked and leaked but it won't change a thing. There has never been anything but urban legends about dogs burned as a result of an Ecollar's electrical current. If you disagree then show us a link to such a verifiable incident.

Click to expand...

Do you even read my posts? Or are you too busy multi-quoting? I've literally said six times that there have been no verified instances of battery burns. And I've said just as many times that my point is that it is POSSIBLE, not that it has happened.



Lou Castle said:



A complete misstatement of the facts at hand. When this sort of thing happens there is ample evidence to show that a battery has malfunctioned.

Click to expand...

But that's not what you've said before. You said a battery couldn't put out that much current under any circumstances. I pointed out that you were factually incorrect, so you changed the game instead of acknowledging that you were wrong.



Lou Castle said:



Heat is not concentrated in one place as you've hinted happened here, on the contact points on the dog's neck. Other parts will show evidence of this heat and the unit will no longer function. AGAIN, since we have not heard anything of this nature from Paula (it appears due to this lack of comment it seems that the collar was still functioning normally after this incident) it's reasonable to assume that nothing of this nature occurred.

Click to expand...

Again, you're arguing against something I didn't say. I never said the heat was concentrated at the contact points. In fact, I said the opposite. If you're going to continue to discuss, please do me the courtesy of reading what I've written and replying to its substance, not to a different point than the one I've made.

And you don't know what the collar looked like after the incident in question. You're just assuming facts that fit your theory. If Paula says the unit was visibly intact after careful inspection, then we can strike one more of my theories off the list for sure.



Lou Castle said:



This comment seems to me to be quite rude. Is it OK for you?

Click to expand...

Yes. You're still being super-duper rude, but I'm OK.



Lou Castle said:



Pray tell, what you consider to be "the rude part?"

Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't think you can tell. Either that or you're rude on purpose and then you deny it. People point it out and you say that you're just honest or whatever it is that you like to say. Doesn't really matter. I know what I'm getting into when I discuss things with you, so it's no biggie. The rudest thing you do is ignore what people have said and argue against something sort of related to it that they didn't actually say or mean.



Lou Castle said:



It's not "quite unlikely." Based on the description of the incident and subsequent statements from Paula, it's impossible.

Click to expand...

I'm kinda done going back through Paula's statements to see what parts of your arguments are based on assumption and which based on what she actually said. Your theory is as good as any that have been spun in the thread, though I tend to favor SC's theory over yours, since I trust his experience. 



Lou Castle said:



Think whatever makes you happy. Having spoken to quite a few electrical engineers on this topic, I know whereof I speak.

Click to expand...

Ah, the argument from authority. A classic. You're wrong about the basics of the engineering, and claiming nebulous engineers doesn't change that. I'm hip deep in Ivy League scientists over here, if that has any bearing.



Lou Castle said:



ROFL. My reputation is built on my ability to solve problems. Sometimes I use an Ecollar and sometimes I don't. You have NOTHING at stake. That's the advantage of being anonymous.

Click to expand...

True, I have nothing at stake, but I do like to point out demonstrably false statements when I see them (just as I pointed out that the claim of battery burns was unsubstantiated). I don't have to give my full name. The laws of physics, as you pointed out earlier, don't change depending on who you are (or who you talk to, for that matter).



Lou Castle said:



I prefer to stay rooted in reality. Millions of Ecollars being worn by millions of dogs around the world and NOT ONE verifiable incident documenting it happen. What I've said is "impossible" is for Paula's dog to have been burned by the current coming from an Ecollar or for her incident to have been caused by anything even remotely (pun intended) having to do with the battery in her Ecollar.

Click to expand...

No, you repeatedly said it was impossible for a dog to get an electrical burn from a collar because of the way batteries work. You did not confine your comments to Ike. It is possible, and a minor burn would not make the news, so we cannot assume that it has never happened. Those goalposts have got to be getting heavy.



Lou Castle said:



That's exactly what you are doing, exaggerating their dangers. I'd call that a "general anti Ecollar agenda."

Click to expand...

Where did I exaggerate? I explained fundamental, demonstrable facts about how batteries work and how they can malfunction. I also included multiple statements that there are no verifiable instances of serious burns on dogs from them and I was clear that I thought that the risk of battery failure was no greater in an e-collar than it is in a cellphone next to my head or a laptop in my lap.



Lou Castle said:



Instead you've talked about Ecollar cases that cracked and then miraculously healed themselves so that no one could detect this leak, or some other way that the battery could have failed and then also healed itself.

Click to expand...

No I haven't, and if you had read my posts with any care, you would know that. This counts as twisting, FYI.



Lou Castle said:



That's because the Ecollar isn't responsible for these marks on the dog's neck. The owner is. The strap was improperly applied and resulted in some marks on the dog's neck. It's not unusual.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised you can say this with such certainty, given the dearth of evidence.



Lou Castle said:



You may be right. What problems do you think can occur?

Click to expand...

I don't feel I know your whole method well enough to provide a complete answer to this question.



Lou Castle said:



I'm not aware of anything of the kind. I'm going to deny that this is the case. What are those "ridiculous extras that [you] didn't put in? 

Click to expand...



The whole business of the cracked and healing case, self-repairing batteries, etc. I didn't say it, and you deliberately mischaracterized and twisted what I did say in order to make a straw man out of it. 



Lou Castle said:



This is a fairly common comment from people who are losing arguments to make. It's a logical fallacy. If you think I'm "twisting" what you're saying you are welcome to show those twists. In fact, please do. SOMEHOW in all the times that people have made this comment they've never been able to show such a statement and have it be accurate. It's one of those accusations without support that make up much of the argument against me and against Ecollars.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's far more likely that all these people are losing and making stuff up out of frustration...not because you're actually doing it but are unable to see it. It's not a logical fallacy to claim that you're twisting things around and moving the goal posts, so I don't know what you intend the word to mean.

Look back at the comments you made about what I said about Paula's collar. I said one thing, then you said whole different thing but acted as if it were my idea. That's twisting my words. 

You also did it to H4D in this thread by repeatedly taking what was said and then adding counterarguments to things that were obviously not intended in the original post. Can you not see that? Do you really think H4D just felt she was losing the argument and lashed out in desperation?



Lou Castle said:



Discussions of Ockham's Razor take many forms but probably the most useful for our discussion is this one. *"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." *

Click to expand...

*

And the more complex one is not impossible. And if you're going to quote, you should cite. Dirt (gunk, what have you) ground into the skin is the simplest. Discoloration from a reaction to the metal is probably the next simplest. Necrosis is probably next on the list after that, right? Regardless, it's immaterial at this point.



Lou Castle said:



OTOH you want to spend time talking about short circuits (when there is no evidence that one occurred), cracked cases that leak soot but then magically heal themselves so the crack is no longer detectable, heat being generated by malfunctioning batteries, fire starting with AAA batteries, whether NiMh batteries are less prone to overheating than Li-ion ones and other such nonsense. Along the way you want to toss in a couple of smoke screens such as whether or not your dogs have reliable recalls and that I'm being rude by even having this discussion.

Click to expand...

Hey, there's some more of those twists you asked me to point out. You say I "want to spend time talking about" things I didn't say and clearly didn't intend. 

But don't throw a "smoke screen" in front of your error. Admit you're wrong. You said a short couldn't burn a dog. I showed you it could, so now you're pretending you were saying a short couldn't have burned Ike. That's a whole different thing.

I had to go into that whole explanation of batteries because you were claiming the laws of physics made it impossible for one to malfunction and cause enough heat for a burn. Let's not forget what you actually said: "'Shorting out,' one of the possibilities you suggested, doesn't increase the output. A battery can put out LESS power than it's rated for, but not more."

That is false. I showed it, so you moved on and pretended that you weren't arguing it. Fortunately, the forum allows us to go back in time and see what you actually said.



Lou Castle said:



Ockham's Razor definitely applies and it knocks your theories into a cocked hat.

Click to expand...

Once again, that's not really how it works. 



Lou Castle said:



As I've said, I prefer to stay rooted in reality. If you want to play in theory, what might happen,  in some alternate universe that's fine with me. You've been invited several times to show us a verifiable incident describing what you're talking about. Since you've not done so, I'll have to say that they don't exist.

Click to expand...

This is getting tiring. Read my posts. I was the first person in the thread to say exactly what you're saying. So why are you phrasing it like it's a disagreement with me?

And we're talking about the laws of physics in this universe, as you so clearly pointed out when you thought they were on your side.



Lou Castle said:



I know that threads sometimes take a turn but this one isn't even remotely (pun intended again) related to the original topic. Any chance of getting back on topic in the foreseeable future?

Click to expand...

Sure. I certainly started out in this thread by addressing the OP. You could easily train a vibration (again, assuming that the dog didn't find it inherently aversive) as a recall cue, using whatever method you liked for training recall. If the dog did find it mildly aversive, I wouldn't personally think it was worth it to recondition the cue, but again, it would certainly be feasible.*_


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

Lou - if a dog can suffer a chemical burn from a mis-used electric fence collar (as you've posted about elsewhere on the internet) why argue that it is not theoretically possible (even if very unlikely) for a dog to be burned by an e-collar? (I don't think anyone thinks that was what happened with the dog discussed in this thread.) 

[Edit to add - I want to be clear that I don't actually think there is a real risk of chemical burn when using e-collars. I don't know a lot about them but I dont have a problem when they are used appropriately and humanely so I'm not trying to spread an anti-e-collar messege. And I don't really want to prolong a pointless debate - it just irked me for some reason]

Anyways, I wasn't going to bother posting since I noticed this thread was dragged up from a year ago, but in response to training the dog to recall based on a vibration cue - I was in an off-leash area not long ago, and suddenly a large dog was glued to my side walking along with me. Then I noticed a girl cracking up laughing. She told me she had trained him to return to heal position when the collar vibrated - apparently he thought I was her!


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I don't compete in obedience, so I don't know what standard you're asking for.


 
I'm not _"asking for"_ anything. You are the one making the claim that your recall is 99% reliable. 




tippykayak said:


> You're not going to see what you don't believe really exists.


 
If you accept the challenge and your OB is as good as you claim, it will be obvious. It's not really up for debate. Either your dog performs or he doesn't. 




tippykayak said:


> I certainly didn't call them "kindler gentler methods,"


 
Makes no difference what you call them. It makes no difference what tools or methods you've used to train your dog. 




tippykayak said:


> and I'm well aware that you've engaged in exactly this kind of behavior all over dog forums for years.


 
Yep. As I've said when people make claims about the near−perfection (or the perfection) of their training I call them on it. 




tippykayak said:


> You appear to be making much, much larger claims, actually, of thousands of dogs trained to extraordinary standards.


 
Please show us such a claim that I've made. 




tippykayak said:


> You continually say that you work with higher drive dogs than mine (though you haven't met my dogs)


 
Please show us such a statement that I've made. 




tippykayak said:


> ... and that you can get these amazing results. The internet is littered with your claims.


 
Show us some of those comments too. Notice that when I make such a statement about something you've said, I show your words. You however do not. This is nothing more than ANOTHER case of you making an accusation without anything to support it. It's a fairly common attempt at diversion from the facts in these debates. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I've neither insinuated that you are lying or that you're delusional. But like the person who made the absurd claim that an Ecollar can kill a dog, it's reasonable to doubt until one has evidence.


 




tippykayak said:


> Yes you have, and the evidence is clear in the thread where I've already pointed it out.


 
If you don't show us the statements, your accusations mean nothing. So far you've yet to do that. 




tippykayak said:


> What's the challenge? Maybe I could earn $1000 this Saturday.


 
No sorry you can't. I have to travel to your location and view and video the test. I've sent you the link in a PM. I've even modified the challenge to overcome your complaints about it! 

Earlier I wrote,


> When a battery shorts out, it's not "working" any more. It's malfunctioning. I'd think that this would be obvious in this discussion, but apparently, it's not.


 




tippykayak said:


> LOL. You changed the terms of the discussion!


 
Nope you just don't understand common terms or perhaps it's just that you'd rather twist them to make yourself right. When a battery is working, a term I've used, it's not shorting out. When it shorts out it's no longer working, * it's malfunctioning. * Shorting out is hardly a normal function of a battery. It's a failure in the system. Something has broken. And it's really irrelevant to this discussion. No matter how many times you try to take the conversation down that road, or to try and insinuate that this happened to Paula or that it's ever happened anywhere, there is absolutely no evidence that the battery in Paula's Ecollar shorted out or that any Ecollar ever made has ever resulted in such an injury. 




tippykayak said:


> You said it was IMPOSSIBLE for a battery to put out more current than it could put out and therefore it could not burn a dog.


 
Obviously I was talking about a properly functioning Ecollar. This is nothing but an attempt BY YOU to try and twist what I've said. 




tippykayak said:


> I posted a video of a battery starting a fire and explained the basic engineering facts that allow shorts to do this. Then you changed your tune and started talking about malfunctions.


 
Quite wrong. YOU were talking about malfunctions. I was talking about properly functioning Ecollars. By definition that would mean that the battery HAS NOT shorted out. When *I * started talking about shorted out batteries I made it clear that this was not happening with a properly functioning Ecollar, rather it was malfunctioning. *AND AGAIN, * there is absolutely no evidence that this happened with Paula's Ecollar. 




tippykayak said:


> Malfunctions are possible, no?


 
Of course they are and when they occur it's quite obvious. There's not, as you tried to pass off, a puff of soot that by some magic manages to escape from a waterproof case that somehow cracked. If this have occurred Paula would certainly have said something about it. 




tippykayak said:


> Do you ever throw out your back running around with those goalposts? You were WRONG. Admit it.


 
When I'm wrong, I'm quick to admit it. But that's not the case here. You're simply desperate to prove yourself to be right. It's not going to happen, not in this discussion. You are completely wrong about what caused the marks on Paula's dog's neck. 




tippykayak said:


> I've literally said six times that there have been no verified instances of battery burns. And I've said just as many times that my point is that it is POSSIBLE, not that it has happened.


 
Ya mean statements like this one where you waffle about as much as a person can? _"I believe that it's *very unlikely *and that, in fact, there *may be no verified instances *of an e-collar that malfunctioned and burned a dog."_ Emphases are mine. That's statement is full of weasel words that DO NOT make the statement that you just claimed. Truth is that you've made several statements that tend in the other direction. Even if you haven't applied it directly to the Ecollar issue. Here's one, _"... a battery can cause a serious chemical burn if the casing is compromised or a serious heat burn if it malfunctions. You can burn somebody with a AAA if you really want to, and if your collar runs on Li-ion cells, it can definitely generate the heat necessary to cause a burn if it malfunctions. Ni-MH batteries, while less prone to overheating than Li-ion, still have this potential."_ 

But now we have you saying it with no qualifications. FINALLY! ROFL. 




tippykayak said:


> But that's not what you've said before. You said a battery couldn't put out that much current under any circumstances.


 
No, I didn't. I said as long as an Ecollar was functioning properly it was impossible. I later added that in order for this to happen the Ecollar would have to malfunction. One of the consistent myths about Ecollars is that they can cause burns as a result of the current they put out and that this can occur when the collar is functioning normally. This is IMPOSSIBLE. In this thread we have one poster saying, _"There have been cases of e-collars malfunctioning and causing severe and almost fatal burns to the dog's neck!"_ Yet when asked to produce support for this statement there's no response. This leads a reasonable, logical person to believe that this statement is wrong at best and a lie at worst. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Heat is not concentrated in one place as you've hinted happened here, on the contact points on the dog's neck. Other parts will show evidence of this heat and the unit will no longer function. AGAIN, since we have not heard anything of this nature from Paula (it appears due to this lack of comment it seems that the collar was still functioning normally after this incident) it's reasonable to assume that nothing of this nature occurred.


 




tippykayak said:


> Again, you're arguing against something I didn't say. I never said the heat was concentrated at the contact points. In fact, I said the opposite. If you're going to continue to discuss, please do me the courtesy of reading what I've written and replying to its substance, not to a different point than the one I've made.


 
We're talking, at least in part, about the marks that Paula saw on her dog's neck. There were two of them, once where each contact point sat. Your contention was that the battery could have shorted out and caused the marks. This is absurd on its face. If a battery were to short out internally it wouldn't deliver its heat via the contact points. The heat would be localized at the location of the short circuit. 




tippykayak said:


> And you don't know what the collar looked like after the incident in question. You're just assuming facts that fit your theory. If Paula says the unit was visibly intact after careful inspection, then we can strike one more of my theories off the list for sure.


 
ROFL. Since we have no such statement from Paula it's reasonable to assume that no such damage exists to her collar. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make. We're talking about the possibility of injury to a dog from an Ecollar. If Paula's Ecollar was damaged she'd have said something about it. You're playing games with this; arguing for the sake of arguing. 

Earlier I wrote,


> This comment [referring to something you'd written] seems to me to be quite rude. Is it OK for you? [to be rude]


 



tippykayak said:


> Yes. You're still being super-duper rude, but I'm OK.


 
Glad to know that you have this double standard. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Pray tell, what you consider to be "the rude part?"


 



tippykayak said:


> Like I said, I don't think you can tell.


 
So, in other words, you CAN'T point out where you think I'm rude! Just like so many of your other accusations made but never supported. ROFLMFAO. 




tippykayak said:


> I'm kinda done going back through Paula's statements to see what parts of your arguments are based on assumption and which based on what she actually said.


 
ROFL! Why would anyone rely on the authentic statements made about the incident by the person that it actually happened to?! Except that those are the genuine facts in the case. FAR BETTER for your argument to rely on assumptions that are not support by any statements and faded memory. 




tippykayak said:


> Your theory is as good as any that have been spun in the thread, though I tend to favor SC's theory over yours, since I trust his experience.


 
Here's SC's theory in his own words.


> Chemical burns from a leaky battery are a wild goose chase too. [remember this was your theory] For battery chemicals to escape the case and potting material, the receiver unit would have to be visibly severely damaged, so why would you even consider putting it on a dog? Additionally, If the battery was in such poor condition that it was leaking chemicals, the collar wouldn't function so again you would not have it on a dog because it couldn't function.


 

Hmmm. Sound very familiar. LOL

And here's some more of his comments.


> The black marks previously mentioned can occur when a dog reacts to the metal the contact probes are made from. (Just as some people react to some types of metal jewelery.) Most of the collar mfgrs offer alternative contact probes made of a different alloy if you experience this problem.


 

Ask him which is more prevalent, this allergy reaction or people putting Ecollars on too tightly or from leaving them on for too long. He'll tell you it's the latter. Hmmm, this also sounds very familiar. ROFL. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Think whatever makes you happy. Having spoken to quite a few electrical engineers on this topic, I know whereof I speak.


 



tippykayak said:


> Ah, the argument from authority. A classic.


 
LMFAO. You berate me for this argument and then make the identical one yourself. But I guess when you do it, it's OK! There's that double standard again. 




tippykayak said:


> (just as I pointed out that the claim of battery burns was unsubstantiated).


 
Except that you didn't make this statement until this post. Rather you talked around the possibility that it could happen. 




tippykayak said:


> I don't have to give my full name.


 
I don't recall asking for it. I merely pointed out the advantage that being anonymous bring. Among them are the ability make any absurd statement that you like and not being responsible for it. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I prefer to stay rooted in reality. Millions of Ecollars being worn by millions of dogs around the world and NOT ONE verifiable incident documenting it happen. What I've said is "impossible" is for Paula's dog to have been burned by the current coming from an Ecollar or for her incident to have been caused by anything even remotely (pun intended) having to do with the battery in her Ecollar.


 




tippykayak said:


> No, you repeatedly said it was impossible for a dog to get an electrical burn from a collar because of the way batteries work. You did not confine your comments to Ike. It is possible, and a minor burn would not make the news


 
This last statement is laughable. If this had EVER occurred it would be headline news to the anti−Ecollar brigade. We'd never STOP hearing about it. 




tippykayak said:


> so we cannot assume that it has never happened.


 
You're saying that it could happen. I'm saying it can't. As always the burden of proof rests with the person saying that something could or has happened. I eagerly await you showing us those verifiable accounts of this happening. 




tippykayak said:


> Where did I exaggerate?


 
In your little tale about the battery that shorted out, heated up, created heat and somehow vented soot through a crack in the case. Of course if Paula's Ecollar was damaged in this fashion we'd have heard about it. Since we have not, a reasonable person would assume that no such damage had occurred to her collar. Either this didn't happen as you suggested was _"possible."_ (your word for this) or "somehow" the collar magically repaired itself after releasing the soot. 




tippykayak said:


> I explained fundamental, demonstrable facts about how batteries work and how they can malfunction.


 

More theory. No verifiable cases of it happening. 




tippykayak said:


> I also included multiple statements that there are no verifiable instances of serious burns on dogs from them and I was clear that I thought that the risk of battery failure was no greater in an e-collar than it is in a cellphone next to my head or a laptop in my lap.


 
You were clear that the possibility existed and have insinuated that it happened to Paula. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Instead you've talked about Ecollar cases that cracked and then miraculously healed themselves so that no one could detect this leak, or some other way that the battery could have failed and then also healed itself.


 



tippykayak said:


> No I haven't, and if you had read my posts with any care, you would know that. This counts as twisting, FYI.


 
Here's the truth. You wrote, _"It's also possible that her unit malfunctioned and shorted in some way. An electrical short could certainly blacken fur or create a sort of soot within the unit that could escape and get on the fur."_ 

How could soot escape from a waterproof case except via a crack in that case? Since Paula has not told us that her unit was cracked it's safe to assume that it was not. Therefore, the crack that allowed the soot to escape must have healed itself. If you have some other explanation for this "soot" statement, I'd love to hear it!?

Earlier I wrote,


> That's because the Ecollar isn't responsible for these marks on the dog's neck. The owner is. The strap was improperly applied and resulted in some marks on the dog's neck. It's not unusual.


 




tippykayak said:


> I'm surprised you can say this with such certainty, given the dearth of evidence.


 
There's plenty of evidence. Since your experience with Ecollars is so limited you just don't know about it. AS I'VE SAID, this is the most common problem that Ecollar users have, getting the strap adjusted properly. I've worked with thousands of people with Ecollars and this issue comes up most frequently. 

Earlier I wrote,


> You may be right. What problems do you think can occur?


 



tippykayak said:


> I don't feel I know your whole method well enough to provide a complete answer to this question.


 
So give us an incomplete answer based on what you DO know about my "whole method." You seem to know enough to make this statement, _"I do not think that you believe an e-collar can cause problems under any conditions, so long as it's used according to your methods."_ Surely you have some ideas on this?! Why else would you say such a thing? 

Earlier I wrote,


> I'm not aware of anything of the kind. I'm going to deny that this is the case. What are those _"ridiculous extras that [you] didn't put in? _


 _




tippykayak said:



The whole business of the cracked and healing case, self-repairing batteries, etc. I didn't say it, and you deliberately mischaracterized and twisted what I did say in order to make a straw man out of it.

Click to expand...

 

I said NOTHING of "self repairing batteries." I'll just say that your memory is faulty on this. I did talk about a "cracked and self healing case" but I never said that you said it. It was a conclusion drawn from your comment that "somehow" soot had leaked from a waterproof case and gotten on Paula's dog's neck. Since she did not report any such cracked case I've assumed (reasonably and logically that it does not exist) I jokingly suggest that it must have healed itself after leaking the soot. *There's no twist * as you've claimed. What *there is, *is your complete inability to tell us how soot could possibly escape from a waterproof case. It was one of your theories as to how the "dark" marks got on the dog's neck. You've been asked for that a couple of times now, I think. Still waiting for that explanation. 

Earlier I wrote,



This is a fairly common comment from people who are losing arguments to make. It's a logical fallacy. If you think I'm "twisting" what you're saying you are welcome to show those twists. In fact, please do. SOMEHOW in all the times that people have made this comment they've never been able to show such a statement and have it be accurate. It's one of those accusations without support that make up much of the argument against me and against Ecollars.

Click to expand...

 



tippykayak said:



Yes, it's far more likely that all these people are losing and making stuff up out of frustration

Click to expand...

 
We've just seen a perfect example of how what you claim as my twisting of your statement actually happens. I NEVER said that you made such a statement and you've yet to provide a quote from me saying it. You won't. You can't. It never happened. And so what he have in the end is *you * saying that I've twisted your statement when it's clear that nothing of the sort has happened. As I said, it's a common thing for people to say when they're losing an argument. 




tippykayak said:



...not because you're actually doing it but are unable to see it.

Click to expand...

 
If it was happening, you could quote me as saying that you said it. Since you've not it's as worthless as the rest of your unsupported accusations. 




tippykayak said:



Look back at the comments you made about what I said about Paula's collar. I said one thing, then you said whole different thing but acted as if it were my idea. That's twisting my words.

Click to expand...

 
I DID NOT ACT as if it was your idea. You asserted that soot somehow escaped from a waterproof case. This is impossible unless it developed a crack. (if you disagree, please let us know how this could happen).  Since we have no evidence of such a crack, I jokingly said that it must have "magically healed" itself. I NEVER said, nor did I insinuate that you made this comment. It was done to point out the absurdity of your allegation. 




tippykayak said:



You also did it to H4D in this thread by repeatedly taking what was said and then adding counterarguments to things that were obviously not intended in the original post. Can you not see that?

Click to expand...

 
No and it's obvious that you're wrong. Hotel4dogs was making statements that someone not familiar with Ecollar could easily misunderstand. AGAIN, as I said, "...I'm just expanding on what you said, giving a more complete explanation of it... Because relatively so few people know much about Ecollars I didn't want anyone to get the wrong impression. It's easy to do when there are so many myths and misconceptions flying around." 




tippykayak said:



Do you really think H4D just felt she was losing the argument and lashed out in desperation?

Click to expand...

 
Hotel4dogs "lashed out?" Somehow I missed that. 

Earlier I wrote,



Discussions of Ockham's Razor take many forms but probably the most useful for our discussion is this one. *"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." *

Click to expand...

 




tippykayak said:



And the more complex one is not impossible.

Click to expand...

 
No, but it's not likely either. 




tippykayak said:



And if you're going to quote, you should cite.

Click to expand...

 
If this forum wasn't so restrictive about citations that lead to other websites, I would have. 




tippykayak said:



Dirt (gunk, what have you) ground into the skin is the simplest.

Click to expand...

 
Nonsense. It would have been washed away. 




tippykayak said:



Discoloration from a reaction to the metal is probably the next simplest.

Click to expand...

 
More nonsense. This is extremely rare. In the thousands of dogs that I've put Ecollars on I've heard of it happening 3-4 times. 




tippykayak said:



Necrosis is probably next on the list after that, right?

Click to expand...

 
Nope. Pressure sores are MOST COMMONLY due to putting the strap on too tightly, too loosely or leaving it on too long. 

Earlier I wrote,



Marks such as the ones that Paula described are not unusual among new Ecollar users. They put the collar on with the strap either too loose or too tight and get these friction sores. THAT is the simplest (and best) explanation for these marks.

Click to expand...

 

But you only quoted this part,



OTOH you want to spend time talking about short circuits (when there is no evidence that one occurred), cracked cases that leak soot but then magically heal themselves so the crack is no longer detectable, heat being generated by malfunctioning batteries, fire starting with AAA batteries, whether NiMh batteries are less prone to overheating than Li-ion ones and other such nonsense. Along the way you want to toss in a couple of smoke screens such as whether or not your dogs have reliable recalls and that I'm being rude by even having this discussion.

Click to expand...

 




tippykayak said:



Hey, there's some more of those twists you asked me to point out. You say I "want to spend time talking about" things I didn't say and clearly didn't intend.

Click to expand...

 
ROFL. You're kidding right? * You are the one who brought up these nonsense topics, not me. * Any comments I made regarding them were IN RESPONSE to things you said. If you didn't want to spend time in talking about them why did you bring them up? 




tippykayak said:



But don't throw a "smoke screen" in front of your error. Admit you're wrong. You said a short couldn't burn a dog. I showed you it could, so now you're pretending you were saying a short couldn't have burned Ike. That's a whole different thing.

Click to expand...

 
A misstatement of the facts if ever there was one. I said that a properly functioning Ecollar could not cause a burn. Since there's no evidence of a short on Paula's Ecollar, there's no reason to even discuss it. So I didn't, except to respond to your silliness regarding it. 




tippykayak said:



I had to go into that whole explanation of batteries because you were claiming the laws of physics made it impossible for one to malfunction and cause enough heat for a burn.

Click to expand...

 
ANOTHER MISSTATEMENT of the facts. I NEVER said that a battery could not malfunction. Again, I invite you to provide such a statement that I made. 




tippykayak said:



Let's not forget what you actually said: "'Shorting out,' one of the possibilities you suggested, doesn't increase the output. A battery can put out LESS power than it's rated for, but not more."

Click to expand...

 
Let's also not forget the context in which this statement was made. I'm talking about the myth that an Ecollar can cause burns through its normal and proper function. Conveniently you leave out this context. It can't. It can only do so through a malfunction which would be obvious to even the novice. 




tippykayak said:



That is false. I showed it, so you moved on and pretended that you weren't arguing it.

Click to expand...

 
I don't have to "pretend" that I wasn't arguing it because I wasn't. It's clear that from the start I was talking about properly functioning Ecollars. I only started discussing malfunctions because you kept bringing them up. And still there's absolutely no evidence that Paula's Ecollar malfunctioned. 




tippykayak said:



Fortunately, the forum allows us to go back in time and see what you actually said.

Click to expand...

 
Yes it is fortunate. Notice how I frequently bring your words back to show the errors in them? Notice how you do not? Notice that you just make the accusation without showing any support when, according to you, "the forum allows us to go back in time ..." Hmmm_


----------



## Lou Castle

The_Artful_Dodger said:


> Lou - if a dog can suffer a chemical burn from a mis-used electric fence collar (as you've posted about elsewhere on the internet) why argue that it is not theoretically possible (even if very unlikely) for a dog to be burned by an e-collar? (I don't think anyone thinks that was what happened with the dog discussed in this thread.)


 
Great question Dodger. The difference is that every quality Ecollar receiver (the part the dog wears) manufactured today is a sealed unit. They're waterproof because dogs wearing them often go swimming. Unless the integrity of the case is breached, as could occur if it got cracked from physical damage, or if it was heated to a very high level, nothing gets in or gets out. Either kind of damage would be obvious. 

The IF (Invisible Fence) unit that was worn by Rufus, the dog in the incident you mention, was NOT waterproof. In fact, it's mentioned in the instructions provided with that unit, that it should not be allowed to get wet. In that incident, the owners left the dog out, it rained and the batteries leaked a corrosive substance on the dog, causing his injuries. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> [Edit to add - I want to be clear that I don't actually think there is a real risk of chemical burn when using e-collars. I don't know a lot about them but I dont have a problem when they are used appropriately and humanely so I'm not trying to spread an anti-e-collar messege. And I don't really want to prolong a pointless debate - it just irked me for some reason]


 

Understandable.


----------



## tippykayak

Hey Lou,

Thanks for your response. I think you proved every point I could have made far better than I could have without your help. The evidence of your twisting, prevaricating, and trying to reframe your mistakes so they don't seem like mistakes is plain as day to everybody but you, particularly in that last post. Thanks for your time.

Goodnight everybody! Thanks for all your funny and supportive PMs. Try the veal, and don't forget to tip your waitress.

PS to Lou - When you quote somebody and say "ROFL" or longer acronyms that include references to profanity, that's rude too.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> Thanks for your response. I think you proved every point I could have made far better than I could have without your help. The evidence of your twisting, prevaricating, and trying to reframe your mistakes so they don't seem like mistakes is plain as day to everybody but you, particularly in that last post. Thanks for your time.


My pleasure. ANOTHER version of "declaring victory and retreating" when you've been soundly thrashed. 



tippykayak said:


> PS to Lou - When you quote somebody and say "ROFL" or longer acronyms that include references to profanity, that's rude too.


I've not made any _"references to profanity."_ AGAIN, you're wrong. I know this is going to sound redundant ... *show us the post. *ROFL. 

I notice that you've crept out without telling us how that soot somehow magically managed to escape from the cracked Ecollar case and how that case, just−as−magically, repaired itself. Sad really. I was really looking forward to hearing this tale.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> Hey Lou,
> 
> Thanks for your response. I think you proved every point I could have made far better than I could have without your help. The evidence of your twisting, prevaricating, and trying to reframe your mistakes so they don't seem like mistakes is plain as day to everybody but you, particularly in that last post. Thanks for your time.


Clearly Lou has a masters degree in Internet Arguing from the Sit Means Sit School of Communication and Persuasive Writing. I really hope no one actually read through all of that, god knows I didn't. Yikes.


----------



## Lou Castle

K9-Design said:


> Clearly Lou has a masters degree in Internet Arguing from the Sit Means Sit School of Communication and Persuasive Writing.


Anyone who tries to link me to Sit Means Sit really has no idea what he's talking about. I oppose most of what's come out of the SMS school as anyone who's read any discussion about them where I've taken part knows. Apparently you're not one of them. 




K9-Design said:


> I really hope no one actually read through all of that, god knows I didn't. Yikes.


I find the degree to which the antis will go to scare people away from Ecollars quite enlightening. Shorting batteries and soot escaping from waterproof boxes, indeed!


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> I've not made any _"references to profanity."_ AGAIN, you're wrong. I know this is going to sound redundant ... *show us the post. *ROFL.


Sorry. You're right. It was in a PM, not in a post reply, and I misremembered. My apologies for mischaracterizing something you said to me privately as something you said publicly.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thanks for the apology. But I still have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## K9-Design

Lou Castle said:


> Anyone who tries to link me to Sit Means Sit really has no idea what he's talking about. I oppose most of what's come out of the SMS school as anyone who's read any discussion about them where I've taken part knows. Apparently you're not one of them.


First, Anney is a girl's name, not a "he."
Second, you are very right that I haven't read any discussion about them where you've taken part. However, your posting style is eerily similar to Fred on RTF and you subscribe to the same basic principle of teach with the ecollar that SMS does. Close enough.
If you think you are enlightening the anti-ecollar masses with your diatribes you are sorely mistaken.


----------



## FinnTastic

K9-Design said:


> Clearly Lou has a masters degree in Internet Arguing from the Sit Means Sit School of Communication and Persuasive Writing.


Nope, I'm pretty sure it is a PHD.


----------



## Lou Castle

K9-Design said:


> First, Anney is a girl's name, not a "he."


Apologies. I didn't notice your signature line. But, in any case, in such writings the masculine "he" includes both genders. 




K9-Design said:


> Second, you are very right that I haven't read any discussion about them where you've taken part.


Somehow I knew that. I you had, you'd probably not be making the comments that follow. I've feuded with Mr. Hassen quite a bit. If you're interested, (which I doubt, but I always have high hopes) I'll supply you with some links in PM's. 




K9-Design said:


> However, your posting style is eerily similar to Fred on RTF


I'll disagree. Mr. Hassen always turns arguments about Ecollars towards his sales figures. He knows little about a dog's drives, temperament, calming signals, or much else. He only knows how to force behavior from them. I've seen him work and based on that, I don't think he even likes dogs. They're just a means to the (money) end for him. OTOH, I love dogs, all dogs. I often do volunteer work with them and their handlers. Mr. Hassen has often said, when asked training questions, "Why should I tell you anything? You're not paying me." I love helping people with their training and answer such questions all the time. 

And on another note, I'm much more persistent than he is. lol




K9-Design said:


> and you subscribe to the same basic principle of teach with the ecollar that SMS does. Close enough.


Mr. Hassen and I are miles apart on our dog training philosophies. I prefer to work with a dog's drives. He just forces behavior. I work at the level that the dog can first perceive, he works just below where the dog screams in pain. It's easy to see when he's on the button, the dog's head jerks sharply and sometimes he vocalizes. Many times I've been working a dog at a seminar for 10-15 minutes and had someone ask when I was going to start using the Ecollar. I'd been using it since I started working the dog. 




K9-Design said:


> If you think you are enlightening the anti-ecollar masses with your diatribes you are sorely mistaken.


I know that I'm having little−to−no−effect on _"the anti−Ecollar masses."_ Those minds are closed, in fact just about locked shut. HOWEVER there are MANY people here whose minds are open and who are willing to learn. It's THOSE folks that I'm aiming at. And judging by the number of PM's and emails I've gotten as a result of this (and other) discussions here, I know that I'm making progress. Quite a few people from here have made inquiries about Ecollars and quite a few have joined my Ecollar forum. But even if there was only one who changed from "I don't know" to "I want to learn more" I'd be happy.


----------



## Lou Castle

FinnTastic said:


> Nope, I'm pretty sure it is a PHD.


When one first graduates from college you get a BS. Everyone knows what that stands for. The next degree is the MS, which is short for "more of the same." And then comes a PhD which means "Piled Higher and Deeper."


----------



## K9-Design

Lou Castle said:


> 've feuded with Mr. Hassen quite a bit.




This I have no doubt -- being that you have quite a skill at arguing with someone who is trying to agree with you.
 



> And on another note, I'm much more persistent than he is.


Now that would be an accomplishment!
 



> Quite a few people from here have made inquiries about Ecollars and quite a few have joined my Ecollar forum. But even if there was only one who changed from "I don't know" to "I want to learn more" I'd be happy.


Sure, right. Much like Fred, you are a lot of talk about ecollars in general but very little talk about what you are ACTUALLY DOING WHILE YOU ARE TRAINING. I cannot remember a thread on GRF where you describe precisely what you would do to train a particular thing. Fred is a master of this as well. At least with Fred it is understandable, he hopes to pique someone's interest so they will invest their money in his system to learn the nuts and bolts of it. With you, if you aren't selling something, I can't quite figure out why you are so closed about your actual methods. That's a much more interesting discussion than the why's and whatfors of ecollars, which really has been digested ad nausem on GRF without your input. Okay, I'm done here, talking with Lou really is like a dog chasing it's tail.


----------



## FinnTastic

Lou Castle said:


> When one first graduates from college you get a BS. Everyone knows what that stands for. The next degree is the MS, which is short for "more of the same." And then comes a PhD which means "Piled Higher and Deeper."


Well, I think my husband would fully disagree with that statement since he does have a PHD and worked VERY hard for that honor, which it is. If you have never attempted to get one or live with someone who has gotten one, you have no idea how hard it is to succeeded with that accomplishment.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> I've feuded with Mr. Hassen quite a bit.


 




K9-Design said:


> This I have no doubt -- being that you have quite a skill at arguing with someone who is trying to agree with you.


I can't think of anything that Mr. Hassen and I have agreed on. 




K9-Design said:


> Sure, right. Much like Fred, you are a lot of talk about ecollars in general but very little talk about what you are ACTUALLY DOING WHILE YOU ARE TRAINING. I cannot remember a thread on GRF where you describe precisely what you would do to train a particular thing.


Really? I'd suggest you read http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94724-teaching-recall-ecollar.html which has been up almost two months. It explains in detail EXACTLY what I'm _"ACTUALLY DOING WHILE [I'M] TRAINING."_ It seems that you missed it. 

Here's another one that I guess you missed. http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94826-using-ecollar-stop-dog-dog-aggression.html#post1395340 It's been up for nearly as long. 



K9-Design said:


> I can't quite figure out why you are so closed about your actual methods. That's a much more interesting discussion than the why's and whatfors of ecollars, which really has been digested ad nausem on GRF without your input. Okay, I'm done here, talking with Lou really is like a dog chasing it's tail.


I don't think that I can be much more open about what I do than to post adaptations of the articles that appear on my site. The directions are quite specific. Not like anything you'll get from Mr. Hassen.


----------



## Lou Castle

FinnTastic said:


> Well, I think my husband would fully disagree with that statement since he does have a PHD and worked VERY hard for that honor


He would if he had a sense of humor which you apparently lack. One moment you're trying to get over on me by saying that I have a PhD "in arguing" and when I make light of academic degrees in general, you get defensive. Arghhh. Too hot, must get out of kitchen! lol


----------



## FinnTastic

Sometimes people's voice or sarcasm doesn't always come across in written form. I didn't realize you were being funny. That is why I try to put smiles ( when I remember) so someone knows it was meant in jest or to be funny.
So, I apologize that I took what you meant the wrong way.


----------



## Radarsdad

I trained Radar and Missy to the vibrate means hear command for when I go to the cabin and mow and they wander into the woods to the creek where there is nice cool water (and mud which they enjoy). It works very well and my transmitter is good for up to a mile.
I do not use the vibrate for field training. And yes they know if they do not respond they will get a nick. All of this was done in the yard and proofed at distance.


> an Ecollar can be used to BOTH teach and train new behaviors. It can also be used, as you say, to reinforce behaviors that the dog already knows, but that's not the only way the tool can be used.


*Only by someone who knows exactly what they are doing!!!!!!!!!! NOT A NEW COLLAR OWNER*


----------



## Lou Castle

I appreciate the apology. I'll take responsibility for the misunderstanding. I shoulda thrown in an "lol" and maybe then my weak attempt at humor would have been more clear.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> I've not made any _"references to profanity."_ AGAIN, you're wrong. I know this is going to sound redundant ... *show us the post. *ROFL.


I take back my apology. I found it.



Lou Castle said:


> ROFLMFAO.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I take back my apology. I found it.


You're offended by me _Rolling On the Floor Laughing My Freaking Ass off? _Methinks you're a bit too sensitive for the Net dear. Even the forum software isn't tripped by this so−called _profanity. _I've used the phrase bajillons of times, no one was ever offended before that I'm aware of. 

Nonetheless, since you were offended I apologize. Unless I'm attacked first I never mean to offend. 

ON EDIT: I was puzzled by this so I did some poking around and figured it out. Since I've had kids I've used the "F" to mean "freaking." I was just reminded that there's another word commonly used for that letter that doesn't belong in polite conversation. 

I didn't mean it that way but now I deeply, deeply apologize.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> an Ecollar can be used to BOTH teach and train new behaviors. It can also be used, as you say, to reinforce behaviors that the dog already knows, but that's not the only way the tool can be used.


 



Radarsdad said:


> Only by someone who knows exactly what they are doing!!!!!!!!!! NOT A NEW COLLAR OWNER




An Ecollar is easy to learn to use, even for a _"a new collar owner."_ My articles tell people _"exactly what they [need to do]."_ My site has dozens of letter from people who have never before used an Ecollar, who followed my protocols and trained their dogs to their complete satisfaction. The methods are easy to follow. They're similar to what I've already posted, in this thread, but they're much more complete. This is an edited version. http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94724-teaching-recall-ecollar.html


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

Lou Castle said:


> You're offended by me _Rolling On the Floor Laughing My Freaking Ass off? _Methinks you're a bit too sensitive for the Net dear. Even the forum software isn't tripped by this so−called _profanity. _I've used the phrase bajillons of times, no one was ever offended before that I'm aware of.
> 
> Nonetheless, since you were offended I apologize. Unless I'm attacked first I never mean to offend.


I've been put off as well by seeing you use the accronyms on this forum - its about the context in which you use it. If someone states thier opinion and you quote them to say you are rolling on the floor laughing - that's offensive - unless of course they are telling a joke. And I don't read the second F as "freaking" when I see it.


----------



## Radarsdad

> More than likely he'll think that the ground over there was hot or that some bug bit him


That is your philosophy of CC??? I'm out, I am sure some valid points about this have already been brought up. I will leave departed equines alone.
Regards


----------



## Lou Castle

The_Artful_Dodger said:


> I've been put off as well by seeing you use the accronyms on this forum - its about the context in which you use it. If someone states thier opinion and you quote them to say you are rolling on the floor laughing - that's offensive - unless of course they are telling a joke.


 

When someone says something that literally has me busting out in laughter because it strikes me as funny or as highly absurd, especially when they have little knowledge of the topic under discussion, I hardly think it's rude to say that it's made me go a step beyond laughing out loud. I've used the phrase once in this discussion. That was when, after repeated requests for tippykayak to tell me where she thought I was rude, she said, _"Like I said, I don't think you can tell."_ Clearly it was an evasion, because I hadn't been rude and it was like the rest of her unsupported accusations. I found that (still do) hysterically funny. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> And I don't read the second F as "freaking" when I see it.


 
If you'll do some research you'll discover that it can be "freaking" as I used it, the common obscenity which the forum censoring software would certainly remove, AND "fat," which, in my case, would certainly apply. 

I've never been on a forum with such thin skinned people and I can't help but think that this is driven more by a personal dislike for my position and my choice of tools than any real offense that's been taken. The Internet is not a place for the faint of heart.


----------



## Lou Castle

Radarsdad said:


> That is your philosophy of CC??? I'm out, I am sure some valid points about this have already been brought up. I will leave departed equines alone.


 

Sorry, I have no idea what _"your philosophy of CC"_ means so I can't respond. If you'll let me know, I'll be happy to.


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

Lou Castle said:


> When someone says something that literally has me busting out in laughter because it strikes me as funny or as highly absurd, especially when they have little knowledge of the topic under discussion, I hardly think it's rude to say that it's made me go a step beyond laughing out loud. I've used the phrase once in this discussion. That was when, after repeated requests for tippykayak to tell me where she thought I was rude, she said, _"Like I said, I don't think you can tell."_ Clearly it was an evasion, because I hadn't been rude and it was like the rest of her unsupported accusations. I found that (still do) hysterically funny.


This is where we disagree. If someone says something that makes me laugh (especially if they have little knowledge of the topic under discussion) I would not feel a need to exclaim that I was laughing at what they said if they did not intend it to be funny. What is the point? I think it is rude. In my opinion, your posts often come off as very condescending and this is one of the reasons. 

It's actually interesting that you pointed out that the time you posted that phrase in this thread was in response to tippykayak saying he didn't think you would be able to tell when you're being rude. Just because you don't think something is rude does not mean that other people can't perceive it as rude - as in the example above. 

I don't need to research to learn that "F" might be used to mean different things. I was simply pointing out that when I read it, that is what I perceived it to mean. 

And yes, there are lots of rude people on the internet - and none of us are perfect - it wont keep me up at night. But wouldn't it be more pleasant if people on the net and in life try to be more polite to each other? 

My personal reaction to your posts has nothing to do with your stance on e-collars.


----------



## jackie_hubert

Lou Castle said:


> When one first graduates from college you get a BS. Everyone knows what that stands for. The next degree is the MS, which is short for "more of the same." And then comes a PhD which means "Piled Higher and Deeper."


I find this extremely offensive.


----------



## Lou Castle

The_Artful_Dodger said:


> This is where we disagree. If someone says something that makes me laugh (especially if they have little knowledge of the topic under discussion) I would not feel a need to exclaim that I was laughing at what they said if they did not intend it to be funny. What is the point? I think it is rude. In my opinion, your posts often come off as very condescending and this is one of the reasons.


I have a "no BS" approach to life. I say what I think. I try to keep it polite but if something makes me laugh, I laugh. I understand that some think that it's rude, but I've learned to live with it. I occasionally think that some of the things that are said to me are rude but I just suck it up and take responsibility. If others would do this too, the world would be a better place. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> It's actually interesting that you pointed out that the time you posted that phrase in this thread was in response to tippykayak saying he didn't think you would be able to tell when you're being rude. Just because you don't think something is rude does not mean that other people can't perceive it as rude - as in the example above.


I'm not responsible for what another adult feels. People should be responsible for what they do, what they say and how they live. If something I say offends someone and I didn't mean to, if they're polite in telling me about it, I have no problem apologizing, as I've shown. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> I don't need to research to learn that "F" might be used to mean different things. I was simply pointing out that when I read it, that is what I perceived it to mean.


I'm not going to live my life by your perceptions. When I write ROFLMFAO, I mean "freaking." If you get something else, that's on you. I think that a person's intent is all important when the feelings of being offended come over me. If they have intended to cause offense it's one thing. But if they have not and I've misinterpreted or taken something another way than they meant it, that's on me. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> And yes, there are lots of rude people on the internet - and none of us are perfect - it wont keep me up at night. But wouldn't it be more pleasant if people on the net and in life try to be more polite to each other?


I'm about the same on the Net as I am in person. Some people think that's fine and others are offended easily. I've learned to live with it. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> My personal reaction to your posts has nothing to do with your stance on e-collars.


That's gratifying but I find it interesting that people who agree with me about Ecollars don't accuse me of being rude; while the anti's frequently do. I think it's obvious that they're looking for any ***** in the armor, no matter whether it has to do with the topic or not. 

I spent nearly 30 years in LE and perhaps that has something to do with it but being the "popular guy" was never high on my agenda. I've heard the flies and vinegar metaphor and realize it's probably true but have no time in my life for walking on eggshells. It's one of my failings I realize.


----------



## Lou Castle

jackie_hubert said:


> I find this extremely offensive.


I find it rather humorous. Opinions will vary.


----------



## Sally's Mom

You have no memory retention.... last time around when I got involved, I told you Tippykayak is male. And I know that it really isn't salient for HIM, but it grates on me when you refer to him as "she." Pay attention.


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

Lou Castle said:


> I find it rather humorous. Opinions will vary.


In the post above you said if someone is offended by something you say, and you didn't mean to offend, you have no problem apologizing. 

You intended to be funny by reiterating this joke. However, some people find the joke to be offensive.


----------



## Lou Castle

Sally's Mom said:


> You have no memory retention....


I do for things that are important to me. The gender of people who choose androgynous user names and do not sign their posts does not rank very high on my list.


----------



## Lou Castle

The_Artful_Dodger said:


> In the post above you said if someone is offended by something you say, and you didn't mean to offend, you have no problem apologizing.


 
You omitted an important part. I wrote, _" If something I say offends someone and I didn't mean to, *if they're polite in telling me about it, * I have no problem apologizing ... "_ 

It seemed to me that Jackie Hubert was very "in my face" rather than being polite about it. I was offended by her approach but as I said, I just suck it up. I don't see any use in whining about it. Some will. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> You intended to be funny by reiterating this joke. However, some people find the joke to be offensive.


 
Something else I'll have to learn to live with. Some comedian wrote, "We all have freedom of speech but you don't have a right to be free of being offended." If someone can't stand my posts because they're offended, they're not required to read them. My feelings won't be hurt and their minds probably aren't open anyway. As I said, unless someone starts up with me I never mean to offend. If that's not good enough, it's just too bad. 

NEXT! lol


----------



## K9-Design

Lou Castle said:


> people who agree with me about Ecollars don't accuse me of being rude


You're right, the adjective I thought of was obnoxious.


----------



## tippykayak

Sally's Mom said:


> You have no memory retention.... last time around when I got involved, I told you Tippykayak is male. And I know that it really isn't salient for HIM, but it grates on me when you refer to him as "she." Pay attention.


I honestly think the guy just does not read what other people say very carefully beyond figuring out what his next tactic for arguing is. I spent half my time in this thread trying to point out to him that he was forgetting or ignoring all these things that he or I said, but it doesn't really work. I don't know if he can't remember or if he just doesn't care enough to try, but the result is the same, no?


----------



## Lou Castle

K9-Design said:


> You're right, the adjective I thought of was obnoxious.


 
Yeah, nothing rude there. Lol. Pot Kettle black.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I honestly think *the guy *just does not read what other people say very carefully beyond figuring out what his next tactic for arguing is. I spent half my time in this thread trying to point out to *him *that *he *was forgetting or ignoring all these things that he or I said, but it doesn't really work. I don't know if *he *can't remember or if *he *just doesn't care enough to try, but the result is the same, no?


 
It's considered rude to talk about someone who is present in the third person. OMG, the rampant discourtesy! lol 

And to address your comment, as I said, I remember things that are important to me and that includes things I said about Ecollars, such as how batteries work and what happens when they malfunction. You simply misunderstood and then, probably because it fits your agenda, refused to understand when I gave more in−depth explanations. Or perhaps it was simply because it was beyond your understanding, but I doubt that.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> It's considered rude to talk about someone who is present in the third person.


Last night in a reply to The Artful Dodger:



Lou Castle said:


> I've used the phrase once in this discussion. That was when, after repeated requests for tippykayak to tell me where she thought I was rude, she said, _"Like I said, I don't think you can tell."_ Clearly it was an evasion, because I hadn't been rude and it was like the rest of her unsupported accusations. I found that (still do) hysterically funny.


----------



## tippykayak

I had some time to think about the "thick-skinned" comment made earlier, and here's what came to me this morning:

The level of courtesy at GRF is higher than in many other places out there, and I remember during some of the more bitter political debates in '08 that even though some of us (myself included) wrote posts that came off as annoyed, bitter, angry, or insulting, we all could agree on our love for our dogs and this breed.

I realized something then that came back to me now: we have and love Golden Retrievers, and we're here because we believe that there's something unique about the breed, both in its form and in the personality of the dogs. And I think we take lessons from our dogs' gentleness and ability to let go of grudges. So while we might get rude or thoughtless with each other, we have those furry golden reminders that we should behave a little better. And even if we have Golden mixes or other breeds, those lessons are pretty much the same.

This is a special place, and yes, the standards for conduct are higher. I say that with full awareness that I haven't always lived up to those standards, but I try to, and I appreciate them even when I miss the mark. I also appreciate that while I might disagree very strongly with, for example, Anney over something and maybe even get a little heated about it, I can see at the bottom of her posts that she has beautiful, happy working dogs, and my admiration for her dogs and her commitment to them is a lot stronger than any frustration I have with our disagreements.

So yes, at GRF we try to treat each other a little better than they do in some other places. I like that. Maybe it's a little maudlin to say it, but I do think this is a nice little corner of the internet, and I'd like it to stay nice.


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

Lou Castle said:


> Something else I'll have to learn to live with. Some comedian wrote, "We all have freedom of speech but you don't have a right to be free of being offended." If someone can't stand my posts because they're offended, they're not required to read them. My feelings won't be hurt and their minds probably aren't open anyway. As I said, unless someone starts up with me I never mean to offend. If that's not good enough, it's just too bad.
> 
> NEXT! lol


Okie dokie. So it's not that you don't understand how you are being rude - it's just that you don't care. Or that only your opinion on the subject of rudeness matters with respect to something you say? 

If I told a racist joke that I thought was hillarious but someone else was offended - I would feel terrible. I guess I could just say it's their problem if they are offended. Where do we draw the line - or is there a line?

I generally don't go around telling people that they are rude. But since you seemed to repeatedly say that you weren't being rude - I thought I'd share my opinion on the subject. 

Honestly, I probably will keep reading your posts until this thread gets closed. I find the way you argue against everything said to you amusing in some weird guilty pleasure way - like watching a bad reality show. I suspect that you enjoy trying to prove other people wrong every chance you get. It seems to me like you feel a need to always have the last word and think you are "winning". If I box against a brick wall - eventually I will give up - but that doesn't mean the brick wall had any boxing skills.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> It's considered rude to talk about someone who is present in the third person. *OMG, the rampant discourtesy! lol *


 
Tippykayak then quoted me *but SOMEHOW *managed to leave off the part that I've highlighted now clearly showing that I was again joking. Hmmm.


----------



## Lou Castle

The_Artful_Dodger said:


> Okie dokie. So it's not that you don't understand how you are being rude - it's just that you don't care.


Oh no, I care, but when someone is overly sensitive and IMO too easily offended, (or it's my perception that they're pretending offense based on their dislike for my tool of choice) I'm not going to walk on eggshells just to appease them. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> Or that only your opinion on the subject of rudeness matters with respect to something you say?


 

Pretty much. My standards have always governed my behavior. Just like everyone else. Of course I'm guided by the standards of society but those vary considerably. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> If I told a racist joke that I thought was hillarious but someone else was offended - I would feel terrible.


I think jokes based on such things as race, religion, gender etc. are funny if they are funny. I tell them about my own condition all the time. I'm not very politically correct. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> I guess I could just say it's their problem if they are offended.


You are free to be as sensitive to others as you like. But I think that one should allow others the same freedom and not require that I (or anyone else) toe the same line. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> Where do we draw the line - or is there a line?


It's a constantly moving target. These days we have anyone who disagrees with the President of the US being called a racist by some extremists. The same can be said for those who favor laws that allow LEO's (Law Enforcement Officers) to ask people they stop if they're in the US legally. The same can be said for you, who saw an obscenity when I abbreviated the word "freaking" with the letter "F." Should such comments stop just because some claim it's rude or racist? Or are the people making "the rude (or racist) claim" over the line? 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> I generally don't go around telling people that they are rude. But since you seemed to repeatedly say that you weren't being rude - I thought I'd share my opinion on the subject.


Thanks for doing so. I think that rudeness can only be determined by the intent of the speaker/author. You saw obscenity in my use of the letter "F" yet that's not how I meant it. Who's responsible for your hurt feelings, you or me? If you look at the situation from my point, since I meant no offense, I'd say it's on you. I can say, "Gee, you're really smart." And mean it as a compliment or it can be meant as a slur. In this medium it's hard to tell. In person you could probably tell by my tone of voice and body language if I was being complimentary or if the comment was dripping with sarcasm. Without those clues, context become important. 

For example go back to my lame joke about college degrees. When I first posted it FinnTastic took offense. But after she learned that I was joking, she softened, apologized and realized that it was meant as a joke, albeit a weak one. But even with my clarification, we have jackie_hubert finding it _"extremely offensive."_ You can't please everyone and I've given up trying. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> Honestly, I probably will keep reading your posts until this thread gets closed. I find the way you argue against everything said to you amusing in some weird guilty pleasure way - like watching a bad reality show.


I don't argue against everything said to me. I only argue against things said against me. Occasionally it's not clear which is which. Some have me arguing against someone who was agreeing with me. I was not. Rather I was expanding on something they'd said that, to a novice Ecollar user, might not be complete. I was merely completing the thoughts. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> I suspect that you enjoy trying to prove other people wrong every chance you get.


Only when they ARE wrong. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> It seems to me like you feel a need to always have the last word and think you are "winning".


There's no question, I DO suffer from "last−word−itis." My cross to bear. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> If I box against a brick wall - eventually I will give up - but that doesn't mean the brick wall had any boxing skills.


As we know from boxing and other martial arts, using the brick wall like this will improve the power of your strikes, their accurately and your general effectiveness in those arts.


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

Lou Castle said:


> You are free to be as sensitive to others as you like. But I think that one should allow others the same freedom and not require that I (or anyone else) toe the same line.


I'm not requiring anything of you. You can be as rude as you want to be. I don't think it will help you communicate effectively - but thats just my opinion. You questioned how you were being rude and implied that people only accuse you as being rude to somehow undermine your opinion on e-collars. I expressed the reasons why I think you come off as rude - intentionally or not - even though I am not "an anti". 




Lou Castle said:


> Thanks for doing so. I think that rudeness can only be determined by the intent of the speaker/author. You saw obscenity in my use of the letter "F" yet that's not how I meant it. Who's responsible for your hurt feelings, you or me?


I've already stated that I only commented to point out that the F could be viewed as meaning something other than "freaking" by others, including myself. You had questioned why it would be considered profanity. I posted my comment before you edited your post to acknowledge that. My feelings weren't hurt. 



Lou Castle said:


> Only when they ARE wrong.


In your opinion. 




Lou Castle said:


> As we know from boxing and other martial arts, using the brick wall like this will improve the power of your strikes, their accurately and your general effectiveness in those arts.


 
Or break your hand and take you out of the game.


----------



## tippykayak

I kind of felt like breaking down this rewriting of history one more time:

I said (quoting you):



> Let's not forget what you actually said: "'Shorting out,' one of the possibilities you suggested, doesn't increase the output. A battery can put out LESS power than it's rated for, but not more."


In reply, you said:



Lou Castle said:


> Let's also not forget the context in which this statement was made. I'm talking about the myth that an Ecollar can cause burns through its normal and proper function. Conveniently you leave out this context. It can't. It can only do so through a malfunction which would be obvious to even the novice.


You can't have it both ways. Shorting out _is_ a malfunction. You can't say that you were talking about "normal and proper function" but also say that "shorting out...doesn't increase the output" in the same sentence.

Also, it's factually incorrect to state that a battery can't put out more power than its rated for during a short. No context necessary. The sentence's falsity is contained within the sentence itself.

Right? Can you understand that you appeared to be saying that a malfunction couldn't cause a burn, since you said that shorting out (definitely a kind of malfunction) couldn't cause a burn. I'm curious to see your explanation, 'cause I'm really, really sure that you'll come up with one.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I kind of felt like breaking down this rewriting of history one more time:


 

No _"rewriting of history"_ here. Just someone desperate to prove themselves right when they're not. I'm bored with this discussion and your constant failure/refusal to answer my questions while thinking, at the same time, that I should answer yours. No reason to cover the same ground again.


----------



## tippykayak

Yesterday, around noon, you wrote:


Lou Castle said:


> ANOTHER version of "declaring victory and retreating" when you've been soundly thrashed.


Tonight, you've written:



Lou Castle said:


> No _"rewriting of history"_ here. Just someone desperate to prove themselves right when they're not. I'm bored with this discussion and your constant failure/refusal to answer my questions while thinking, at the same time, that I should answer yours. No reason to cover the same ground again.


How am I wrong about your battery mistake? You've shown infinite patience in your willingness to go back through posts and figure out how to make yourself sound right, but now you give up?

And on the subject of unanswered questions, I don't see any questions from you to me at all since page 7 of the thread, and all you asked there was for me to explain how a crack in a case healed itself, which is obviously impossible and ridiculous and not a claim I made, so there was nothing to answer there. You also asked me to show you the profanity, which I did.

And then the page before that, you ask me to point out where you said a battery can't malfunction, and that's the question this post answers. You didn't say specifically that batteries never malfunctioned, but you did say that shorts cannot increase battery output, a statement which is false and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the engineering of common batteries. Normally, I wouldn't shove somebody's mistake in their face, but since you claim such extensive expertise in what batteries and e-collars do and don't do, I felt it necessary that readers understand that your expertise is falsely claimed.

The rest of your questions are about your version of my theory about Ike's collar marks (the magical battery, etc.), and I don't agree with your twisting about of what I said, so there's nothing to answer. Plus, I'm not interested in going on about Ike's collar anymore since it's all speculation based on a handful of incomplete statements by Paula and became totally unentertaining awhile ago. Obviously Paula is no longer interested in discussing it, so why bother? I never said my version was most likely, and some of what Paula later said made it sound even less likely, so I abandoned it. Remember: I acknowledged that your theory was a better explanation than mine quite some time ago.

And if you have any other simple, straightforward questions about what I think about batteries and e-collars, you're free to ask them. I don't always see the purpose in responding to twisted distortions of my own points, but I will happily answer straightforward questions (like the ones I'm asking you).

But seriously Lou, how was I wrong about the basic physical principles of a battery? And how were you right in your self-contradictory statements about those basics? They say contradictory things, so at least one of them is incorrect. Why not acknowledge that you didn't at the time really understand that aspect of how they worked but acted like you did anyway? Or at least claim that you misspoke? You could save some face that way without having to admit that you were wrong.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> How am I wrong about your battery mistake? You've shown infinite patience in your willingness to go back through posts and figure out how to make yourself sound right, but now you give up?




Hardly giving up. But this ground has been covered 2-3 times . I see no point in doing it again. Go back and read the posts. Maybe this time you'll get it. My patience for this part of the discussion isn't _"infinite."_ It's run out. 




tippykayak said:


> And on the subject of unanswered questions, I don't see any questions from you to me at all since page 7 of the thread, and all you asked there was for me to explain how a crack in a case healed itself, which is obviously impossible and ridiculous and not a claim I made, so there was nothing to answer there. You also asked me to show you the profanity, which I did.


 
There are at least a dozen questions that I've asked you. You've answered a few of them but most have NOT been answered. And as we've seen, you were wrong about the profanity. There was none, except in your mind. 




tippykayak said:


> And then the page before that, you ask me to point out where you said a battery can't malfunction


 
I've never said such a thing. Since you disagree, show us the post. 




tippykayak said:


> and that's the question this post answers. You didn't say specifically that batteries never malfunctioned


 
Yes, I know. 




tippykayak said:


> The rest of your questions are about your version of my theory about Ike's collar marks (the magical battery, etc.), and I don't agree with your twisting about of what I said, so there's nothing to answer.


 

I didn't twist anything you said as I've clearly shown. AGAIN show us the posts since you keep making this claim. ANOTHER of your now famous unsupported accusations. 




tippykayak said:


> Plus, I'm not interested in going on about Ike's collar anymore since it's all speculation based on a handful of incomplete statements by Paula and became totally unentertaining awhile ago.


 

I find this part of the conversation quite _"entertaining."_ Of course you're not interested, you've been proven wrong. Paula has added come clarification. Her case was NOT cracked as you alleged might have been the situation. Remember your "soot" escaping from a waterproof case theory? 




tippykayak said:


> Obviously Paula is no longer interested in discussing it, so why bother?


 
Because you keep denying the truth. 




tippykayak said:


> I never said my version was most likely


 
But you did say that that you _"favor[ed] SC's theory over mine."_ He too punched a hole in your "chemical burns from a leaky battery theory. He posited the "allergy to the contact points" theory which is very rare. AGAIN the most common reasons for these sorts of marks is that the owner has put the collar on too tightly and/or left it on too long. 




tippykayak said:


> Remember: I acknowledged that your theory was a better explanation than mine quite some time ago.


 
No I don't recall that. I DO recall that you preferred SC's theory to mine. Can you point us to the post wherein you said that my theory was a better explanation? 




tippykayak said:


> But seriously Lou, how was I wrong about the basic physical principles of a battery? And how were you right in your self-contradictory statements about those basics? They say contradictory things, so at least one of them is incorrect. Why not acknowledge that you didn't at the time really understand that aspect of how they worked but acted like you did anyway? Or at least claim that you misspoke? You could save some face that way without having to admit that you were wrong.


 
Already been covered. Go back and read the posts. You can keep asking if you like but I'll just keep responding the same way. Talk about _"unentertaining!"_


----------



## The_Artful_Dodger

Lou Castle said:


> No I don't recall that. I DO recall that you preferred SC's theory to mine. Can you point us to the post wherein you said that my theory was a better explanation?


 
You realize this debate was never about what actually caused the marks in question? It was about whether, based on the original description, the marks being caused by a burn from the ecollar was impossible or highly improbable (or more in general if the possibility exists for a dog to be burned by an ecollar). It was a theoretical argument. I remember Tippykayak saying multiple times that he didn't think they were caused by a burn. And at one point you conceded something along the lines of that you wont say it will never happen but the chances were less than winning the lottery. You added the conditions that there was no malfunction and that there could be no crack in the case to the argument after the fact, and then appeared to claim victory. Maybe it would be simpler to just agree to disagree?


----------



## paula bedard

Good Lord, Did I really start all this? Sorry guys.


----------



## Lou Castle

The_Artful_Dodger said:


> You realize this debate was never about what actually caused the marks in question?


Sure it was, at least in part. There was a great deal of conjecture on the part of both tippykayak and Swampcollie. 




The_Artful_Dodger said:


> It was about whether, based on the original description, the marks being caused by a burn from the ecollar was impossible or highly improbable (or more in general if the possibility exists for a dog to be burned by an ecollar). It was a theoretical argument.


Both were topics of discussion and debate. 



The_Artful_Dodger said:


> Maybe it would be simpler to just agree to disagree?


I'm perfectly happy to do so. But tippykayak keeps bringing it up.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> There are at least a dozen questions that I've asked you. You've answered a few of them but most have NOT been answered. And as we've seen, you were wrong about the profanity. There was none, except in your mind.


Then why did you apologize? Btw, "ass" is profanity too, though apparently below the threshold the software uses. And I don't know how most people read it, but the two who responded so far (Dodger and I) have thought that the "F" did not stand for "freaking." If you think we believe that you really honestly had no idea that the F could stand for something else, perhaps you'd like to claim that you intended to mean that you were laughing your donkey off?

And if there are all these unanswered questions that would prove you the superior trainer and intellectual, why not ask one simple one and see if I'll take the bait?



Lou Castle said:


> I've never said such a thing. Since you disagree, show us the post.


You quote my reply, delete the part where I show you, then ask for it. Here it is one more time:



> "Shorting out," one of the possibilities you suggested, doesn't increase the output. A battery can put out LESS power than it's rated for, but not more.


This statement is factually incorrect, no matter how many times you ignore, deny, or delete it. Shorting increases output. You said it doesn't. QED. 



Lou Castle said:


> I didn't twist anything you said as I've clearly shown. AGAIN show us the posts since you keep making this claim. ANOTHER of your now famous unsupported accusations.


I've shown it. You've proven that you're perfectly willing to ignore and remove statements that you can't explain away, so your credibility is strained when you say "I didn't twist anything you said." Every post you call a battery magical, self-healing, or anything else ridiculous counts as a twist. You may not agree, or you may have your blinders on, but taking what I've said and then writing a ridiculous, exaggerated version of it is a twist (an argumentative fallacy typically called a straw man fallacy, if you'd like me to be more precise about what I mean when I say "twist" in this context).



Lou Castle said:


> I find this part of the conversation quite _"entertaining."_ Of course you're not interested, you've been proven wrong.


I'm not interested because I've twice now conceded that my theory was weaker than others. There's nothing left to argue. I have no problem admitting when my ideas don't hold up under scrutiny and/or additional evidence, and I'm happy to re-admit that as many times as you like. Being wrong means you've learned something. I, for example, learned from you that the most common problem with e-collars is that they can cause sores if they're not properly rotated every few hours. 



Lou Castle said:


> Paula has added come clarification. Her case was NOT cracked as you alleged might have been the situation. Remember your "soot" escaping from a waterproof case theory?


I don't recall specific clarification that the case was carefully examined after the incident, but if it exists, it certainly moves my theory from improbable to impossible. Can you find that and quote it for us? Or just let it go, since I've repeatedly conceded that my theory wasn't the best one. You only continue to bring it up because it provides cover for you to argue about something other than my questions about your misstatements.



Lou Castle said:


> Because you keep denying the truth.


There's no definitive truth to be had here, since the whole argument is based on an incomplete series of statements made well after the incident. All we have is theories we can rank on likelihood. You're just obsessing over the one thing you might have been right about so you can draw attention away from the thing you were definitively, obviously, embarrassingly wrong about. I understand that it doesn't fit with your internet image as an expert with lots of experience, but there the statement stands, plain as day:



> "Shorting out," one of the possibilities you suggested, doesn't increase the output. A battery can put out LESS power than it's rated for, but not more.





Lou Castle said:


> But you did say that that you _"favor[ed] SC's theory over mine."_ He too punched a hole in your "chemical burns from a leaky battery theory. He posited the "allergy to the contact points" theory which is very rare. AGAIN the most common reasons for these sorts of marks is that the owner has put the collar on too tightly and/or left it on too long.


I hesitate to blame Paula's negligence, both because it is rude and because it seemed rather unlikely given Paula's conscientious care of her dogs. Nonetheless, let me state more clearly that given all the facts stated, I believe your theory about the common—according to you—problem of sores caused by e-collars is far more likely than my original theory. Both a leaky battery and burned material from a shorted battery would leave marks or cracks on the battery itself that would be found if the case were carefully examined.

I trust things SC says because I trust him. With you, we have an claim not even substantiated by trust, and belied by other, provably false statements, so why would I trust you that it's so common?



Lou Castle said:


> No I don't recall that. I DO recall that you preferred SC's theory to mine. Can you point us to the post wherein you said that my theory was a better explanation?


I implied it earlier when I was ranking theories by likelihood, but I've just done it more explicitly above, for clarity's sake.



Lou Castle said:


> Already been covered. Go back and read the posts. You can keep asking if you like but I'll just keep responding the same way. Talk about _"unentertaining!"_


I have to repeat myself because you ignore and delete what you can't explain away in each post. You have not explained your error because it is impossible for you to do so without admitting that your knowledge of electrical engineering does not match up to your claims.

I look forward to another post where you address fifty things I've said but don't address the substance of your error about batteries.


----------



## tippykayak

paula bedard said:


> Good Lord, Did I really start all this? Sorry guys.


Hey Paula,

You know me well enough to know that I can get into a long, arcane argument with very little help from anybody.


----------



## tippykayak

The_Artful_Dodger said:


> Maybe it would be simpler to just agree to disagree?


I'm happy to agree to disagree about Ike's collar, since it's all speculation anyway, but I have a harder time allowing a self-proclaimed e-collar expert make false statements about the basic engineering of an e-collar.


----------



## Radarsdad

paula bedard said:


> Good Lord, Did I really start all this? Sorry guys.


Don't let them discourage you it happens all the time. As I said before I taught the vibrate as a here command to my two pups. I use it at the cabin to call them in from the woods or wherever while I am mowing or working there. It works great.


----------



## tippykayak

I am reminded that hijacking is bad manners, and looking back over this thread and others, I realize that my enjoyment of my argument with Lou is interfering with other people's enjoyment of the forum more broadly, so I'm going to stop right here. If Lou needs the last word after this, he can have it. We can go back and forth as much as we like if it's relevant to the thread itself, but here we've created a thread with 10 responses about the OP's question and 100 of a meticulous back-and-forth on material only loosely related to the topic.

It was a bit selfish of me, and I'm sorry for that.


----------



## paula bedard

Radarsdad said:


> Don't let them discourage you it happens all the time. As I said before I taught the vibrate as a here command to my two pups. I use it at the cabin to call them in from the woods or wherever while I am mowing or working there. It works great.


Not discouraged, just surprised. 

I was using the beep function to call Ike back to me also. My collar does not have a vibration setting.

As for the 'incident', Ike was swimming in the Bay on a rough day, so he was getting pounded by the surf a bit. The collar's shock setting is always set to zero, just in case I hit the wrong button. I only beeped him a handful of times as we were not swimming very long, less than an hour. He never acted as if he were being shocked/injured in any way. I'd beep, he'd swim back. When drying him off to get in the car, I removed the collar and noticed the marks on his neck. They looked like scorch marks. One at each prong point. Very dark, not red or bleeding and leaving no indentations, which is why I don't think it was bruising. No fur marked, just the skin. 



> *I don't recall specific clarification that the case was carefully examined after the incident, but if it exists, it certainly moves my theory from improbable to impossible. Can you find that and quote it for us? Or just let it go, since I've repeatedly conceded that my theory wasn't the best one. You only continue to bring it up because it provides cover for you to argue about something other than my questions about your misstatements.*


This particular collar was returned because it stopped working. It would not keep a charge. Did I notice a crack or other obvious defect in the unit? I didn't. This collar was new, had gotten little use, and was returned for a new unit. I have the new collar but do not use it, as Ike doesn't need it any more. Were I to use it again, I still would not trust using it in water. Unwarranted? Maybe, but I only have my own experience to go on.

I hope this answers whatever other questions were left out there.


----------



## Radarsdad

There really only 2 brands that I would or have bought Dogtra or TT. I have owned 3 Dogtra Collars. Between them they have probably a couple of hundred hours in the water and giving corrections (yes shocks). None of them have failed or accidentally shocked my dogs. I have seen wear marks once when I left it on him too long. In ecollars you get what you pay for. 
The TT I am getting has the Beep I will be training Gunner to that for recall. NOT IN THE FIELD TRAINING though. 
Many more happy swims for Ike, (lucky dog!!!)


----------



## paula bedard

Thanks for the info. If we need another collar in the future, I'll give them a look.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> Then why did you apologize?


 
After looking around I was reminded of another word that the letter "F" in the acronym stood for. But then I rethought it and realize that since that's not how I've meant that phrase for years, the apology was not necessary. I'm not responsible for your misunderstanding. You could have asked. Instead you chose to be offended. I hereby retract it completely. 




tippykayak said:


> Btw, "ass" is profanity too, though apparently below the threshold the software uses.


 
I'll go with the software and the opinion of the list owner who can add words to the list that the software censors. He has not added "ass" to the list. BTW Since you've now used it and you consider it to be profanity, shouldn't you be apologizing, especially since you intended to use it? 




tippykayak said:


> And I don't know how most people read it, but the two who responded so far (Dodger and I) have thought that the "F" did not stand for "freaking."


 
I'm not responsible for what you folks infer. I suggest that you take responsibility for your own feelings and stop whining about this, you just look silly. Especially since you've now used what you've told us YOU consider to be profanity. 




tippykayak said:


> And if there are all these unanswered questions that would prove you the superior trainer and intellectual, why not ask one simple one and see if I'll take the bait?


 
A moment later you talk about straw man arguments and here you pose one yourself. ROFLMFAO. Please show us a post where I've said that I'm _"the superior trainer and intellectual."_ Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. No way to tell really. Want to compare resumes? lol 




tippykayak said:


> You quote my reply, delete the part where I show you, then ask for it. Here it is one more time:


 
Earlier I wrote,


> Yes, it's truly impossible for a dog to be burned by the electrical current put out by any commercially manufactured Ecollar made in the past 20 years or so. I've made an assumption that Paula was using such a collar. It's impossible for a battery to put out more current than it's capable of putting out. Circular isn't it? * "Shorting out," one of the possibilities you suggested, doesn't increase the output. A battery can put out LESS power than it's rated for, but not more. * [Emphasis Added]


 
Now I get it. You've AGAIN taken my statement out of context. And I see how my error and confusion occurred. You're correct, taken alone my statement isn't correct. But in the context of this discussion, using Paula's Ecollar which did not short out, the statement had nothing to do with what we were talking about. 

A battery that shorts out can put out more current than it's rated for. But since that didn't happen in this case, if it had it would be obvious, I dismissed your vague references to the statement and then the out of context quotation. I shouldn't have done so. See how easy it is when you are more specific in supplying a quotation? Looking back through our exchanges on this you supplied the quotation but because you'd not done so before I assumed that you'd not done it then either. This time I decided to read further and that's when my error became clear. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I didn't twist anything you said as I've clearly shown. AGAIN show us the posts since you keep making this claim. ANOTHER of your now famous unsupported accusations.


 



tippykayak said:


> I've shown it.


 
No, you’ve failed completely to do so. 




tippykayak said:


> Every post you call a battery magical, self-healing, or anything else ridiculous counts as a twist.


 
AGAIN you fail to show us the post, (part of the reason for the prolongation of the shorting battery dispute). I'm going to take up a collection and buy you a sense of humor. The self healing statement (regarding the battery case) was intended as satire to poke fun at your statement that soot had somehow managed to escape from a waterproof case. I've already said this but you continue to argue that I said that YOU said it. I never did. AGAIN, if you disagree and think that I've attributed this statement to you, show us the posts. 

At one point you wrote, _"The whole business of the cracked and healing case, *self-repairing batteries, *etc. I didn't say it... "_ [Emphasis Added] I've NEVER attributed anything to you about "self repairing batteries." 




tippykayak said:


> You may not agree, or you may have your blinders on, but taking what I've said and then writing a ridiculous, exaggerated version of it is a twist (an argumentative fallacy typically called a straw man fallacy, if you'd like me to be more precise about what I mean when I say "twist" in this context).


 

I can see that along with that sense of humor you might want some instruction in the difference between satire and twisting someone's statements with the intent to deceive, which is your accusation. I've never attributed such statements to you. YOU twisted my satire and then said that I'd done so. It's simply not true. Again, show us the posts where I've said that you said anything about a "self repairing case." 




tippykayak said:


> I don't recall specific clarification that the case was carefully examined after the incident, but if it exists, it certainly moves my theory from improbable to impossible. Can you find that and quote it for us?


 
It happened in a PM and since they're private, I won't quote it without permission from Paula. But you are free to ask her yourself. 




tippykayak said:


> I hesitate to blame Paula's negligence, both because it is rude


 
Are you in some Victorian time warp where the mere sight of a woman's ankle turns strong men to mush? Where a man doesn't use the word "ass" except over drinks and cigars at the speakeasy? You have the most sensitive "rude meter" of anyone I've ever come across. So sensitive as to make it worthless. It's another case of "the boy who cried wolf" and desensitizes people when actual rudeness occurs. 

Rather than call it "negligence" BTW a word I've not used, (wouldn't that make you guilty of twisting my words) I simply call it an error. It's not the end of the world, it's just a mistake. 




tippykayak said:


> and because it seemed rather unlikely given Paula's conscientious care of her dogs.


 
Anyone, no matter how conscientious, can make a mistake. It's the human condition. 




tippykayak said:


> Nonetheless, let me state more clearly that given all the facts stated, I believe your theory about the common—according to you—problem of sores caused by e-collars is far more likely than my original theory.


 
Thank you. 




tippykayak said:


> I trust things SC says because I trust him. With you, we have an claim not even substantiated by trust, and belied by other, provably false statements, so why would I trust you that it's so common?


 
I suggest that you simply ask him. But it's just a suggestion. 

Earlier I wrote,


> DO recall that you preferred SC's theory to mine. Can you point us to the post wherein you said that my theory was a better explanation?


 




tippykayak said:


> I implied it earlier when I was ranking theories by likelihood, but I've just done it more explicitly above, for clarity's sake.


 
I'll disagree that you _"implied it earlier"_ but now you've clarified. Thanks again. 




tippykayak said:


> I have to repeat myself because you ignore and delete what you can't explain away in each post. You have not explained your error because it is impossible for you to do so without admitting that your knowledge of electrical engineering does not match up to your claims.


 
I’m certainly no electrical engineer and have never laid claim to being one. This problem started because you quoted me out of context and by itself, the statement that I'd made, made no sense. This seems to be one of your debate tactics so I'll be more aware of it in the future. 




tippykayak said:


> I look forward to another post where you address fifty things I've said but don't address the substance of your error about batteries.


 
Sorry to disappoint you. 

And now to some of those questions that I've asked that you've not answered. 

* Question one: * You wrote


> I do not think that you believe an e-collar can cause problems under any conditions, so long as it's used according to your methods.


 
And I responded,


> You may be right. What problems do you think can occur?


 
* Question two: * You wrote,


> You appear to be making much, much larger claims, actually, of thousands of dogs trained to extraordinary standards.


 
And I responded,


> Please show us such a claim that I've made.


 And make sure that they're _"extraordinary."_ 

* Question three: * You wrote,


> ... and that you can get these amazing results. The internet is littered with your claims.


 
And I responded,


> Show us some of those comments too.


 And make sure that they are _"amazing."_


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I'm happy to agree to disagree about Ike's collar, since it's all speculation anyway, but I have a harder time allowing a self-proclaimed e-collar expert make false statements about the basic engineering of an e-collar.


 
I'm about as far as one gets from a "self proclaimed Ecollar expert." I'm often introduced that way at my seminars or ones that I'm taking part in. I quickly deny the "expert" part. I just know a few things. In fact my seminars are called _"Part of the Answer."_ 

And I've never made any false statements about anything. I made an error about a battery shorting out. Calling someone a liar when they've made a mistake is about as rude as it gets.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I am reminded that hijacking is bad manners, and looking back over this thread and others, I realize that my enjoyment of my argument with Lou is interfering with other people's enjoyment of the forum more broadly, *so I'm going to stop right here. *


 

Seeing as how you made a similar statement about leaving another thread only to come back with several more posts this morning, wouldn't that make YOU the dishonest one? Certainly those extras posts weren't mistakes as were my errors that you've called _"false statements"_ several times now. BTW isn't saying that someone is making _"false statements"_ a semi−polite way of calling them a liar? And wouldn't that be rude?


----------



## DNL2448

Elvis has left the building! 

This round (boxing theme) goes to Tippykayak.


----------



## FinnTastic

DNL2448 said:


> Elvis has left the building!
> 
> This round (boxing theme) goes to Tippykayak.


:appl::appl::appl::appl::appl: Congrats


----------



## paula bedard

tippykayak said:


> Hey Paula,
> 
> You know me well enough to know that I can get into a long, arcane argument with very little help from anybody.


I missed this earlier and YES, I do know. I think I might have wound my way into a few of those too.


----------

