# Electric Collar's



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

This battle has been fought so many times. Try searching for E Collar and Shock Collar for past arguments going back years. Almost all the threads get closed, and both sides get pretty personal at times. Like the political threads used to do, the e collar threads can leave lasting divisions between members. 

I am a dog trainer, and I know first hand the damage an e collar can do to a dog in novice hands. It is a serious tool, for those who deeply understand collar conditioning, and have split second timing. Even then, there is no way I would shock my dog. I have seen the electricity run through the bodies of labs & goldens when someone decides to "burn" a dog- it is horrific. At our training center, we see countless shut down dogs who do not dare move freely and many neurotic dogs like the rottie here who redirects aggression when the e collar is used. That is a source of my conviction that for most puppy or pet owners, it is a choice that can create worse problems than it solves. If collar conditioning is not achieved, the dog does not readily connect the shock to his own actions. 


After many forum battles, a bunch of us tried it on ourselves while doing math problems. Yup, it hurts. Not only that, but it is scary not knowing when the shock is coming and then knowing it is coming for a wrong answer. Anxiety is not conducive to learning.

Try to find an excellent trainer skilled in the current science of training in a reward-based way. Teach really reliable recall rather than go for the band aid of a "big gun" tool to hold over the dog. CPDT-KA can be a helpful certification to seek out in a trainer. Painful punishments have been studied, and they hurt the trusting relationship of the dog to the owner and world, even if it "sits" in the short term. Even some very accomplished dogs with big titles and skillful trainers work well at their tasks, but become known for fighting with other dogs, being snarky etc because there is a side effect to every training choice. 

This is combative issue and brings out the worst, at times, in the forum. Or sometimes the best bc the debate is passionate. There is such a canyon between schools of thought, and for a person to have a sea-change and join the other side is rare. It's impossible for me to imagine looking at the happy, trusting, willing-worker face of Miss Lushie or Tally, Finn, or Copley and then shocking her or him. Not going to ever happen. 

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retrievers-main-discussion/112370-shock-collars.html

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/14882-shock-training-collars.html


http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-hunt-field/107242-positive-training-field.html


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

Thank you for posting this.
When I first got Max and before 2011/2012 became years I'd like to forget, I'd planned to train Max in field. I also planned to train him for therapy dog. Those plans went away when real life took over and I had loads to deal with. Now that it's all past me and I'm on the other side of it, I want to go back to my original plans. 
When I first said on this forum that I would not put an e collar on Max because my grandfather trained his bird dogs without such methods, thank you very much, I got slammed. No, I didn't know anything about gun dogs. No, I'd never had a retriever. Yes, my experience in training was a totally different discipline with a totally different dog. When I said that I would take whatever time necessary to train Max without the use of an e collar, I got the "I can't wait to see how he does" comment, but in a decidedly snarky tone.
I don't believe that a dog trained under the threat of pain does anything willingly. I don't want my dog to do anything with me because he is threatened by the possibility of pain. I want him to partner up with me because he wants to, because there is joy in it. So it takes longer. Fine. I've got time, maybe, unless I die suddenly. So I don't set the dog world on fire with Max. Fine. No problem. I am not out to prove anythingl My life does not depend on me killing my own prey to cook it. After the zombie apocalypse maybe, but certainly not now.
I have seen border collies, german shepherds and Belgian Malinois ruined through the use of e collars. I have seen dogs cower and react to the shock. I cannot and will not do that to Max like I never did it to any of my border collies nor any other dog I've ever owned.
I want my dog doing what I ask of him with a smile on his face, not with his ears pinned back offering up a behaviour worrying what will happen if it's the wrong one.

My dog will *never* be trained this way.


----------



## Deber (Aug 23, 2011)

Thank you both for your responses and I couldn't agree more. My father was a member of a gun club back many years ago. The dogs were almost all birddogs and when the early shock collars came out, many found training easier with them. My Dad was one of the few who wouldn't go that route. He watched dogs move from happy and glad to be out running to fearful fighters, afraid of about everything and he felt lost the urge to hunt down fallen birds. He felt (rightly so) it ruined many a potential good dog. That said, I know collars have come a long way and in the area of our country place many are using for keeping their dogs in their property line. Most train for a week then the collar is turned off, but dog doesn't realize when he gets to the boundry and stops. Usually after a few months the collar was removed because dog had learned. Seems like a good way to keep dogs from the streets, but in my case, just went the long way and we built a huge chain link fence. Ours stay in the yard, don't get out and I didn't have to use shock collars, just wasn't what my DH and I felt was right in our case. 

If a dog is trained, step by step with a loving hand I feel they not only learn but become a more full, well rounded adult. Don't believe dogs can achieve this same level being zapped. If I ever get to the point that my dogs don't respond to a firm "No" and gentle guidance to show them the right way, then I guess I will have no pets. Feel we should save the "Shock" collars for child molesters, animal abusers, idiot politicians...the uncaring monsters, or idiots, who claim to be humans. For them I would get in line first and work my thumb off pushing the button!


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

I would offer this alternative. I'm hoping that a Pam Miller instructor is available in the OP's area.

This is where I went for puppy class. Max was "home schooled" after.

Peaceable Paws

Pam Millier's book

http://www.dogwise.com/itemdetails.cfm?id=dtb723


----------



## Jige (Mar 17, 2011)

I am training BaWaaJige in hunt without an e-collar. I to got the same responses when I said this was the route I was going. Jige and I are having fun he is a natural in the field. He loves what he is doing and I love working him. If money were different I would have taken him to most tests as it is we only did 3 UKC tests this year and I got one pass. I would have had 2 passes but my boy didnt see his duck land and he got hung up on a muskrat house ( his nose is so good he went with scent when he went out). I will never put an e-collar on my dog. 

I hope you can talk our husband out of using it and that you find a method of training that works for all 3 of you.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I do believe ecollars have a place in training, but I would never recommend a novice trainer run out to get one and slap it on the dog without major guidance.


----------



## Miaya's mom (Oct 27, 2011)

Miaya was a terrible jumper and would bite no matter who came in the door. My "so" borrowed a shock collar and put it on her. This was very much against what I thought we should do. Miaya was shocked once she was so scared she hid under the coffee table. My "so" was so upset she started crying. Needless to so we do not use it any more, but when Miaya is misbehaving all we have to do is say do you want your collar on.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

Miaya's mom said:


> Miaya was a terrible jumper and would bite no matter who came in the door. My "so" borrowed a shock collar and put it on her. This was very much against what I thought we should do. *Miaya was shocked once she was so scared she hid under the coffee table.* My "so" was so upset she started crying. Needless to so we do not use it any more, but when *Miaya is misbehaving all we have to do is say do you want your collar on*.


This is precisely the reason I don't use one and never will.
If I'm not willing to put one on my child, I won't put one on my dog.

I'm not slamming you, just using your experience as to the reason why I won't use one on my dogs.


----------



## MikaTallulah (Jul 19, 2006)

I use an invisible fence with Buddy and did the same with Lucky. That is as far as my comfort level and actual training of me goes. If is ever was to think about using an actual E-collar I would wan to be properly trained myself. In the wrong hands it could easily ruin the best of dogs- IMO.


----------



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

kjohnstone82 said:


> Hi all,
> What are people's views on electric training collars. We inadvertantly just bought one thinking it was a vibrate collar. My husband still wants to use it as a training tool for Jasper but I have always been very opposed to the idea of them. Does anybody here use them? So far it I have hidden it away in a cupboard to make sure my husband doesnt use it  I will take any view points on it but was interested to see what other peoples take on it were!
> thanks
> Kaye


Nobody should "inadvertantly" buy an e-collar or any type of training collar and slap it on their dog without any knowledge. This is what gives e collars a bad wrap. Get in touch with a professional e collar trainer. They will train you to condition your dog with the right collar (not the cheapy ones you find at pet stores). A good e collar also comes with vibrating and tone mode. If your husband is truely interested at least have a consultation with a professional. The trainer will show you the sensation it makes. It is an excellent tool IMHO.



Miaya's mom said:


> Miaya was a terrible jumper and would bite no matter who came in the door. My "so" borrowed a shock collar and put it on her. This was very much against what I thought we should do. Miaya was shocked once she was so scared she hid under the coffee table. My "so" was so upset she started crying. Needless to so we do not use it any more, but when Miaya is misbehaving all we have to do is say do you want your collar on.


This is what happens when they are not conditioned.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Even the people who use them for field work will typically say that they're not a good tool for teaching new behaviors and they're not a good tool for basic household obedience.

Work for a relationship with your dog where you are clear, generous, and consistent. Don't reward what you don't want, and realize that if you're seeing a consistent problem behavior, it's probably being accidentally rewarded somehow. The solution is to remove the wrong rewards and to provide the right ones.

We can argue up and down about whether it's a good tool in the hands of a skilled trainer working a dog with precision at a distance, but when it comes to the basics of recall, good citizenship skills, and polite behavior, it's a tool that carries more potential for harm than power to help build good relationships between dogs and handlers.

You will hear rationalizations that it's simply "uncomfortable" or "annoying" rather than painful or scary by trainers who advocate their use for basic household obedience. Even if they were 100% right, I don't think annoying a dog into obeying you is a strong training philosophy. Not when there are so many non-aversive methods available that shape behavior while teaching a dog that people are fair, clear, and generous.


----------



## kjohnstone82 (Sep 24, 2012)

Thank you for your responses everyone I have read them to my husband and I think he is accepting what people are saying. We did by a DVD when we bought the collar on how to use but I'm still not convinced. The collar cost a lot of money but I don't really care I'm not happy with the thought of shocking my little jasper!


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

kjohnstone82 said:


> Thank you for your responses everyone I have read them to my husband and I think he is accepting what people are saying. We did by a DVD when we bought the collar on how to use but I'm still not convinced. The collar cost a lot of money but I don't really care I'm not happy with the thought of shocking my little jasper!


Fantastic news!!!! 

Training dogs has come a long way from the days of coercion, force, and punishment. There is now a move towards partnering up with your dog through modeling, shaping and/or capturing desired behaviours. Try to find information on clicker training...it's fun for the dog, fun for you, and most important, since dogs want to please they will absolutely partner up with you. No punishment, no yelling, no harshness....your dog, loads of grilled chicken, and a clicker!!!!
Goldens are generally soft temperament dogs who will react extremely well to positive reinforcemet. It's part of their breed standard that they have a cooperative temperament, well suited for family and for training. You won't read a description of a golden as aloof, independent. They want to be with you, want their human's approval. Because they are so soft in terms of temperament they are easier to train than some other breeds. There are some decidedly harder breeds that take longer to train, and because of that people become impatient and resort to the harsher methods of training. Generally speaking, as a whole, you can clicker train a golden or a border collie faster than you can a rottweiler or a malinois. Some people think it's a matter of intelligence, but really it's a matter of temperamemt as a whole.
No reason to not take full advantage of that golden desire to partner up and to please....it is so much fun when you see your dog get that "AAHAAAA!!!!!" look, when they "get it." And the smile on their faces is worth every moment of the training.
Get yourself a clicker. Find yourself a good clicker training book. Look for videos on YouTube. There are many. You will see how easy it is and how much the dogs LOVE IT.
Best of luck....the fun is just about to start.

***I found a YouTube video so you can see how much fun clicker training can be. Notice the dogs' ears....no one is pinned back, no one is cowering. The're alert, overjoyed at the training.





 
And I couldn't help myself, I just had to include Nana. You can see how advanced you can get with using *only* positive reinforcement. But again, just look at the dog's J=O=Y.





 
Now...remember the video I had earlier on the first page of the dog being trained by pinching an ear and an e collar? Compare that to this. I prefer this, which is more cooperative and doesn't inflict pain or discomfort. And you get the same behaviour...picking up an object.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=n7t8WxAnDf0&NR=1


----------



## kjohnstone82 (Sep 24, 2012)

Thanks so much for your help Lilliam, my husband and I have bought a clicker and a book to go with it and we have 2 weeks off next week where we will have plenty of time to dedicate to training him on the lead and various other things. 

I agree with what you say that GR's just want your approval and even though I dont think Jasper is the smartest of GR's I think with time, patience and treats he will get there  Although I dont think we will every reach the dizzy heights of Nana, that is just awesome but I think a bit beyond my Jasper!


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

kjohnstone82 said:


> Thank you for your responses everyone I have read them to my husband and I think he is accepting what people are saying. We did by a DVD when we bought the collar on how to use but I'm still not convinced. The collar cost a lot of money but I don't really care I'm not happy with the thought of shocking my little jasper!


In the interest of fairness and learning, please read him my posts and show him the attached video as well. Getting only one side of an argument rarely gives one the ability to make an informed decision, and that's what making these decisions should be about. 

Please take a look here. 




In later posts I'll refute most of the comments that you've been reading against the Ecollar, but I wanted you to see the other side of the coin, right away.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> This battle has been fought so many times. Try searching for E Collar and Shock Collar for past arguments going back years. Almost all the threads get closed, and both sides get pretty personal at times. Like the political threads used to do, the e collar threads can leave lasting divisions between members.


This happens because some people are unable to remain polite and professional in discussions about the Ecollar. Instead they get emotional, start personal attacks, including name calling, and the discussion goes down the toilet. I think that sometimes this is done purposefully, to stop the flow of information about these tools. 



Ljilly28 said:


> I am a dog trainer , and I know first hand the damage an e collar can do to a dog in novice hands.


I'm a dog trainer too. The truth is that ANY tool can do _"damage ... in novice hands."_ One of the reasons that these discussion go the way that they do is that some people, and here a moderator is one who's doing it, show only one side of the discussion. Here the picture presented to the OP (original poster) that ONLY the Ecollar can cause _"damage"_ when the reality is that any tool/method can do this. Another FACT is that an Ecollar can not cause any physical _"damage."_ Only psychological harm can be done. But those opposed to the tool somehow forget to mention this little detail. MANY other tools, treats included can cause physical damage and injuries, up to the level of "life threatening." The Ecollar can't do this, it's impossible. 



Ljilly28 said:


> It is a serious tool, for those who deeply understand collar conditioning, and have split second timing.


In reality NEITHER is necessary. One only need to be able to read and follow simple instructions to use an Ecollar. This forum won't allow me to post links to my instructions for using the Ecollar, so if anyone is interested, contact me privately. As to _"split second timing"_ being required, this statement is nonsense. Here's part of an article I've written on this topic. It's one of the most common myths that are told about the Ecollar. 



> 1. * MYTH: * You must have perfect timing, be an "expert trainer" or a “professional” to use an Ecollar.
> 
> * FACT: * No one, not the best of trainers, has perfect timing all the time. Even the best trainer can only work for so long, usually a matter of minutes, before his concentration falls off and his “perfect timing” becomes merely “very good timing.”
> 
> If you have perfect timing, training progresses VERY quickly. If you have good timing, training takes a little longer. If you have so–so timing, training takes longer still. If you have HORRIBLE timing, either no training occurs, or the wrong training effect occurs. Just about anyone who can train a dog with a leash and collar can use an Ecollar effectively. Even many who aren't coordinated enough to give a correction, can learn to use an Ecollar effectively. If you have HORRIBLE timing, sell your dog and get a goldfish. Timing isn't important with them.





Ljilly28 said:


> Even then, there is no way I would shock my dog. I have seen the electricity run through the bodies of labs & goldens when someone decides to "burn" a dog- it is horrific.





Ljilly28 said:


> I am a dog trainer , and I know first hand the damage an e collar can do to a dog in novice hands.


I'm a dog trainer too. The truth is that ANY tool can do _"damage ... in novice hands."_ One of the reasons that these discussion go the way that they do is that some people, and here a moderator is one who's doing it, show only one side of the discussion. Here have the picture presented to the OP (original poster) that ONLY the Ecollar can cause _"damage"_ when AGAIN, the reality is that any tool/method can do this. Another FACT is that an Ecollar can not cause any physical _"damage."_ Only psychological harm can be done. But those opposed to the tool somehow forget to mention this little detail. MANY other tools, treats included can cause physical damage and injuries, up to the level of "life threatening." The Ecollar can't do this, it's impossible. 



Ljilly28 said:


> It is a serious tool, for those who deeply understand collar conditioning, and have split second timing.


In reality NEITHER is necessary. One only need to be able to read and follow simple instructions to use an Ecollar. This forum won't allow me to post links to such instructions, so if anyone is interested, contact me privately. As to _"split second timing"_ being required, this statement is nonsense. Here's an article I've written on this topic. It's one of the most common myths that are told about the Ecollar. 



> 1. * MYTH: * You must have perfect timing, be an "expert trainer" or a “professional” to use an Ecollar.
> 
> * FACT: * No one, not the best of trainers, has perfect timing all the time. Even the best trainer can only work for so long, usually a matter of minutes, before his concentration falls off and his “perfect timing” becomes merely “very good timing.”
> 
> If you have perfect timing, training progresses VERY quickly. If you have good timing, training takes a little longer. If you have so–so timing, training takes longer still. If you have HORRIBLE timing, either no training occurs, or the wrong training effect occurs. Just about anyone who can train a dog with a leash and collar can use an Ecollar effectively. Even many who aren't coordinated enough to give a correction, can learn to use an Ecollar effectively. If you have HORRIBLE timing, sell your dog and get a goldfish. Timing isn't important with them.





Ljilly28 said:


> Even then, there is no way I would shock my dog. I have seen the electricity run through the bodies of labs & goldens when someone decides to "burn" a dog- it is horrific.


Another myth, intended to scare people away from Ecollars. For all practical purposes, the current from an Ecollar runs through the skin that's between the contact points, a distance of about 1 1/4". Yes, _"the body"_ is involved, but statements like this one, lead people to believe that the current is running everywhere in a dog's body and that he's being electrocuted, this is simply not true. 

As to the the term _" 'burn' a dog,"_ no modern Ecollar puts out enough current to cause a burn. It's another myth. 



Ljilly28 said:


> At our training center, we see countless shut down dogs who do not dare move freely and many neurotic dogs like the rottie here who redirects aggression when the e collar is used.


I don't have a training center but I train all over the US. I've also done seminars in the UK, Spain and Canada, teaching the use of the Ecollar. I see MANY more dogs that are hopelessly confused by other training methods and, as a result, don't obey their owners, misbehave in every form imaginable and engage in dangerous, occasionally fatal, behavior such as running into the street and/or eating dangerous substances. Virtually any problem that someone has caused with an Ecollar I can fix, using that tool. Most of the time, it's a matter of the dog not having been shown the connection between the stim and his behavior. Instead, unknowing trainers have allowed the dog to guess at what's causing the discomfort, and they've guessed wrong. My methods were designed so that the dog is clearly shown why the stim is occurring. 



Ljilly28 said:


> That is a source of my conviction that for most puppy or pet owners, it is a choice that can create worse problems than it solves. If collar conditioning is not achieved, the dog does not readily connect the shock to his own actions.


It's extremely easy to an owner to set up training to enable a dog to _"readily connect the shock to his own actions."_ Here's a link to an article that's on this board, that demonstrates how easy this is. http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94724-teaching-recall-ecollar.html 



Ljilly28 said:


> After many forum battles, a bunch of us tried it on ourselves while doing math problems. Yup, it hurts.


Yes, it can. But it doesn’t have to, in order for it to have a training effect. All that's necessary is minor discomfort. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Not only that, but it is scary not knowing when the shock is coming and then knowing it is coming for a wrong answer. Anxiety is not conducive to learning.


Good points, except that they have NOTHING to do with how I teach using an Ecollar. My methods clearly show a dog that the minor discomfort that the dog feels is tied directly to his behavior. Then it's no longer _"scary."_ It's only scary when it comes randomly and it's set to a high enough level to cause pain, something that again, is unnecessary. Somehow those opposed to Ecollar conveniently leave out these little details in their efforts to scare people away from the tool. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Try to find an excellent trainer skilled in the current science of training in a reward-based way.


There are lots of these folks around. In fact, this forum has many of them. Almost universally, using those methods of training takes a great deal of skill, timing that is better than many people are capable of, and even when they give acceptable results, take an inordinate amount of time. Take a look at this forum and see how many people have numerous problems with these methods. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Painful punishments have been studied, and they hurt the trusting relationship of the dog to the owner and world


This is true. But since it's not necessary that an Ecollar be _"painful"_ it has no place in this discussion, except to scare people. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Or sometimes the best bc the debate is passionate. There is such a canyon between schools of thought, and for a person to have a sea-change and join the other side is rare.


It is rare. The emotional appeal combined with fear, is often very effective. But when logic and reason prevail, many people learn about new ways of doing things. 



Ljilly28 said:


> It's impossible for me to imagine looking at the happy, trusting, willing-worker face of Miss Lushie or Tally, Finn, or Copley and then shocking her or him. Not going to ever happen.


Thanks for the perfect example of the emotional appeal that these discussions usually include. lol


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> When I first said on this forum that I would not put an e collar on Max because my grandfather trained his bird dogs without such methods, thank you very much, I got slammed.


I doubt that your grandfather used a computer to discuss dog training on the Internet. But here you are. 




Lilliam said:


> I don't believe that a dog trained under the threat of pain does anything willingly.


Perhaps not. Since an Ecollar does not require _"pain"_ to give results, this statement has no bearing on the discussion. 



Lilliam said:


> I have seen border collies, german shepherds and Belgian Malinois ruined through the use of e collars. I have seen dogs cower and react to the shock. I cannot and will not do that to Max like I never did it to any of my border collies nor any other dog I've ever owned.


It's always amusing when people who have seen bad work, pretend that it's the only way that a given tool can be used. I think it's nothing more than a sign of a closed mind. No dog that I've ever trained with an Ecollar, and I stopped counting at 3,000, has EVER _"cower[ed]"_ from the shock put out by an Ecollar during that training. It seems that you, like many others, want people to believe that this is the normal result of Ecollar training. It's not. 

Here's an example of a dog feeling his first shock. Can you show please us where the _"cowering"_ that you refer to occurs? Testing The Working Level If E-Collar On Lab . I'm going to post some other videos in later posts. Please show us where it's occurring in them too, OK?


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Deber said:


> My father was a member of a gun club back many years ago. The dogs were almost all birddogs and when *the early shock collars *came out, many found training easier with them. My Dad was one of the few who wouldn't go that route. He watched dogs move from happy and glad to be out running to fearful fighters, afraid of about everything and he felt lost the urge to hunt down fallen birds. He felt (rightly so) it ruined many a potential good dog. [Emphasis Added]


Shock collars became available in the US in 1968. Try comparing some other electrical device of that era with what's available to day and you'll see how irrelevant this comment is. Today's units have adjustable stim levels, something that was not even considered back when they were invented. Today's units can be turned down so low that no dog (and no human) can even feel them. That means that they can be turned up, a little at a time, so that the dog can just barely perceive the sensation. When this is done with humans, they universally describe the sensation as "a tingle, a tap, or a buzz." When children feel the level of stim that they can first perceive, they giggle! 



Deber said:


> That said, I know collars have come a long way and in the area of our country place many are using for keeping their dogs in their property line.


This refers to another tool, the IF (invisible fence.) It's similar in that it uses electrical current but it's different in that it's activated by proximity to a buried wire. Ecollars are activated by the dog's owner/trainer by the press of a button. 



Deber said:


> If a dog is trained, step by step with a loving hand I feel they not only learn but become a more full, well rounded adult.


I have no idea why anyone would think that, just because someone uses an Ecollar that they don't have _"a loving hand."_ I certainly do. 



Deber said:


> Don't believe dogs can achieve this same level being zapped.


I know that they can. You'll find that as far as _"achieving ... level"_ MOST dogs that wind up on the top step of the podium at competitions that reward precision and reliability, have been trained with Ecollars. Some people will respond to this truth by name dropping a few trainers who have used the so−called "kinder gentler methods" and achieved those results, but they are few and far between. 



Deber said:


> If I ever get to the point that my dogs don't respond to a firm "No" and gentle guidance to show them the right way, then I guess I will have no pets. Feel we should save the "Shock" collars for child molesters, animal abusers, idiot politicians...the uncaring monsters, or idiots, who claim to be humans. For them I would get in line first and work my thumb off pushing the button!


Don't cause the doggies the slightest discomfort, but torment humans?! I'm sure that some will try to justify it, but shouldn't kindness and consideration be shown to all animals? I'm all for locking these criminals away so they can't hurt the rest of us, but torture? Sorry, count me out on this one. But I do find this ethos fascinating!


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Loisiana said:


> I do believe ecollars have a place in training, but I would never recommend a novice trainer run out to get one and slap it on the dog without major guidance.


I have no idea what _"major guidance"_ means. Thousands of people have trained their dogs with Ecollars using nothing more than my articles.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Even the people who use them for field work will typically say that they're not a good tool for teaching new behaviors and they're not a good tool for basic household obedience.


A misleading statement at best. Quite a few who _"use them for field work"_ advocate their use for _"teaching new behaviors."_ In fact, Ecollars are an EXCELLENT tool for _"basic household obedience,"_ (whatever that means) lol. 



tippykayak said:


> Work for a relationship with your dog where you are clear, generous, and consistent. Don't reward what you don't want, and realize that if you're seeing a consistent problem behavior, it's probably being accidentally rewarded somehow. The solution is to remove the wrong rewards and to provide the right ones.


The Ecollar is an excellent tool for this. It allows for BOTH rewarding desired behavior and punishing undesired behavior. 



tippykayak said:


> We can argue up and down about whether it's a good tool in the hands of a skilled trainer working a dog with precision at a distance, but when it comes to the basics of recall, good citizenship skills, and polite behavior, it's a tool that carries more potential for harm than power to help build good relationships between dogs and handlers.


Thanks for expressing your opinion. Mine is quite different and I have used just about ALL tools that exist for the purpose of training dogs. I recommend the Ecollar much of the time. I don't believe that you know much about using one, isn't that correct? Like some others, you have lots of opinions, but little, if any, real experience with the tool. 



tippykayak said:


> You will hear rationalizations that it's simply "uncomfortable" or "annoying" rather than painful or scary by trainers who advocate their use for basic household obedience.


Yes, some of us will tell you the truth and not engage in fearmongering, spreading rumors or misconceptions. 



tippykayak said:


> Even if they were 100% right, I don't think annoying a dog into obeying you is a strong training philosophy.


So many people want to pretend that there's no _"annoyance"_ at work when they hold up a treat and then DON'T give it to their dog, as is common with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." No doubt we'll hear from those who don't do it this way. They'll pretend that there's no _"annoyance"_ with their methods, but they're just trying to fool people. 



tippykayak said:


> Not when there are so many non-aversive methods available that shape behavior while teaching a dog that people are fair, clear, and generous.


The Ecollar is an excellent way to show a dog that people are _"fair, clear and generous."_ I worked with a highly reactive, fear aggressive dog with whom the so−called "kinder gentler methods" have failed completely. I was the last stop before the trip to doggie heaven. When I first met the dog she literally tried to kill me. About 25 minutes later the dog climbed into my lap and was licking my face. I'm happy to supply the complete information, contact me privately for the link.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> Training dogs has come a long way from the days of coercion, force, and punishment.


Using an Ecollar does not necessarily mean using _"coercion, force and punishment."_ BTW EVERYONE uses punishment, even if they deny it. 



Lilliam said:


> There is now a move towards partnering up with your dog through modeling, shaping and/or capturing desired behaviours. Try to find information on clicker training...it's fun for the dog, fun for you, and most important, since dogs want to please they will absolutely partner up with you. No punishment, no yelling, no harshness....your dog, loads of grilled chicken, and a clicker!!!!


We've been told by one poster that using an Ecollar requires _"split second timing."_ The truth is that using a clicker takes MUCH BETTER timing than does an Ecollar, if my methods are used. My test for a person's timing is to ask them to tap a foot and clap their hands. If they can do this simultaneously, their timing is good enough to use an Ecollar, as I teach it. 



Lilliam said:


> Goldens are generally soft temperament dogs who will react extremely well to positive reinforcemet.


Many are. Some are not. 



Lilliam said:


> No reason to not take full advantage of that golden desire to partner up and to please....


Some Goldens have this. Some don't. 



Lilliam said:


> ***I found a YouTube video so you can see how much fun clicker training can be. Notice the dogs' ears....no one is pinned back, no one is cowering. The're alert, overjoyed at the training.


I found a YouTube video so you can see how much fun *Ecollar *training can be. Notice the dog's ears....no one is pinned back, no one is cowering. They're alert, overjoyed at the training.


----------



## spruce (Mar 13, 2008)

I believe a person should undergo a background check before they are allowed to purchase one.

i've known dogs responsibly perimeter trained with them, but it's scarey that anyone can buy them (i've tried level 3 on myself)


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

kjohnstone82 said:


> Hi all,
> What are people's views on electric training collars. We inadvertantly just bought one thinking it was a vibrate collar. My husband still wants to use it as a training tool for Jasper but I have always been very opposed to the idea of them. Does anybody here use them? So far it I have hidden it away in a cupboard to make sure my husband doesnt use it  I will take any view points on it but was interested to see what other peoples take on it were!
> thanks
> Kaye


I use electronic collars regularly, they are a great tool. But, they are just a tool. They don't do anything by themselves and you need to have a reasonable, well thought out approach to using one. You don't just strap one on a dog and start pushing buttons and somehow expect that the dog is now instantantly trained.

What are your goals and expectations for the dog? You and your husband both have to be in agreement on what you want out of the dog. Once you've figured that out you can look into the various training programs that can get you there. Here's a critical point, you both have to follow the same program or the dog will become confused, and that's not fair to the dog. 

Hiding the collar away is not the answer. Having a serious conversation with your husband about goals and expectations is.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

I love it when proponents of aversive methods use euphemisms such as "stim." Or when they come into a discussion and always claim that *their* methods do not inflict pain. Or when they post on their website that 1) detractors of aversive methods are not to post on their forums 2) claim that detractors are lying or have fiscal interests on other methods, yet all the while 3) selling their own training, not seeing the irony and hypocrisy in that dichotomy. As expected, detractors are considered to lie as noted on their commercial websites and discount their observations as one-offs.

No, Lou, given that my grandfather was born in 1898 he never used a computer to research training methods on the Internet. I thought you were a proponent of civil discourse. Your sarcasm is failure number one.

I have observed hard dog breeds turn into neurotic, stressed animals. More than one dog. More than one handler. More than one occasion. I have stated that I have never owned a retriever, but I have extensive experience with border collies and sheep trials. I have seen the effects of these electric shock collars, let's call them what they are for the sake of clarity, on Belgian Malinois, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Australian Cattle dogs, Belgian Tervurens, and Bouviers des Flanders. And they always were mechanical, nonthinking dogs out of contact with the sheep unable to decide for themselves due to the expectation and fear if the shock....let's call it what it is, since an electric collar produces an electric shock. You may wish to discuss levels, and when you do, you are discussing levels if shock.

I have seen burned skin on a dog, I have seen scorched hair in a dog. I gave seen dogs who, when told to lie down, characteristically flattened themselves in the ground and looked up. It was the tell tale sign of a shocked dog. If your contention is to tell me that I did not in fact see that, then explain to me why no national level sheepdog trainer or clinician will allow the use of electric shock collars in their facilities, clinics, or trials. Take away the personal aversion to shocking a dog into submission; rather, it's the resulting mechanical, unthinking dog who has been shocked out of its natural ability to problem solve.

Now let us discuss your statement that ALL dogs are punished. Here failure number two. With my border collies, the so called punishment was to take the sheep away. Period. If they walked too fast, ran the sheep, took a cheap shot, they were taken out if the ring or field and brought back one level. In this manner, I was able to train my border collies to do a 550, 600 yard outrun, do cross drives at a distance if 300 yards away from me. Because foundations were built LONG before, with patience and care. Not one single shock was delivered to my national level dogs. Not one single electric so called "stim." Now, at home, for the training the OP needs, it is unnecessary to shock her dog into submission. Failure number two....believing that all trraining is as you espouse. Not all trainers use punishment. Some use the dog's instinct, natural abilities to reward and take what they want to do as so called punishment for bad behaviour.

So.....failure number three. You present an argument using euphemisms for the truth of what an electric shock collar is, showing one lab and attempt to discount my observations with several hard breeds. You ignored the video I had showing a dog forcibly handled into doing something that a retriever would do naturally or could be taught with fifteen minutes, some booked chicken, and a clicker. I could have had that lab picking up that bumper and dropping it in hand in one session, with no pinching, no electric shock, no punishment, and no avoidance.

None if my dogs will wear an electric collar for obedience or field work. I will not shove a bumper into my Dog's mouth and shock him to hold it. Retrievers WANT to do that. It's hard coded into them. And if one shows less interest, it can be taught without being shocked into it.

For the record, I visited your website, where you extoll the virtues of electric shock collars. You have, in fact, a vested interest in shock collar training and in extolling your opinions of its virtues. Therefore, you have a financial and commercial interest in this dicussion given that your website is dedicated to the use of electric shock collars for training. Conversely, I have no interest in clicker training nor do I have an interest in Pam Miller's Peaceable Paws training facility. My statements have no financial value and are my first hand observations of dogs trained using electric shock collars.

Please excuse the typos. This was typed on my iPhone and there are simply too many to correct. I believe you have the gist of what I intend to say.

Ah....I have just taken a look at your history on this forum. I understand your agenda. In previous threads you have repeatedly posted your own articles in a manner that is borderline spam. Were it not for the fact that this is a weekday morning and I need to go to work, I would research more deeply into your agenda. You are not simply presenting an opposing point of view, you are promoting your business on this forum, as evidenced by several separate posts. I will not link to them since you would be someone to whom I would never give my business. But for the sake of clarity and full disclosure, you are not interested in civcil discourse as evidenced by a thread which was subsequently closed, or by others in which you posted your materials. I understand. It's best if everyone in this thread and in this discussion knows your prior discussions, most of which, coincidentally, have been closed, and in which your behaviour was decidedly less than civil. 

I know now. I understand. I know who you are and your agenda. Enough said. I will not engage you again.


Sent from my iPhone using PG Free


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

kjohnstone82 said:


> Thanks so much for your help Lilliam, my husband and I have bought a clicker and a book to go with it and we have 2 weeks off next week where we will have plenty of time to dedicate to training him on the lead and various other things.
> 
> I agree with what you say that GR's just want your approval and even though I dont think Jasper is the smartest of GR's I think with time, patience and treats he will get there  *Although I dont think we will every reach the dizzy heights of Nana, that is just awesome but I think a bit beyond my Jasper! *


Oh lordy, I don't think ANY dog can reach Nana's level!!!!She is a goddess!!!! Do you know her trainer is her owner, a young teenage girl who started her on agility and then just took off from there? I believe that girl can train an animal to do anything! I just wanted you to see the fun to be had with patience and tons of broiled chicken!!!

Enjoy the ride with Jasper! Nothing in the world like a doggy smile...except maybe a baby's....


----------



## kjohnstone82 (Sep 24, 2012)

a teenage girl my goodness that makes my efforts with training look shameful!! :doh:
I think when we next go to the supermarket I need to get some extra special treats that we use just for training so its even more of a treat when he gets them.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

kjohnstone82 said:


> a teenage girl my goodness that makes my efforts with training look shameful!! :doh:
> I think when we next go to the supermarket I need to get some extra special treats that we use just for training so its even more of a treat when he gets them.


LOL!!!! Mine too!!!! She is a YouTube sensation, Nana is. 

For treats, I use two things...for regular training, I use broiled chicken. Not too much, small cubes. For something that I REALLY want to get him to pay attention to, I use chicken livers, just fried in a pan. Pretty disgusting, I know. But Max will work VERY WELL for a piece of chicken liver! 

Start off training a good recall at home. That's the first thing. That's the basis for everything else. And more than anything else, HAVE FUN.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> As to the the term _" 'burn' a dog,"_ no modern Ecollar puts out enough current to cause a burn. It's another myth.


"Burn" is a term used by some field trainers to refer to a long 'stim' as opposed to a nick. I believe that's what the poster was referring to, not an actual physical burn on the dog. Hence her quotation marks.

And it is pretty unpleasant to watch a dog get 'burned' by a handler in that context.


----------



## Deber (Aug 23, 2011)

Thank you Lilliam!


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> A misleading statement at best. Quite a few who _"use them for field work"_ advocate their use for _"teaching new behaviors."_ In fact, Ecollars are an EXCELLENT tool for _"basic household obedience,"_ (whatever that means) lol.


Well, then let's see some of our many accomplished field trainers come and back you up on that one. Most (maybe all, but I can't claim to have read every post in every thread) seem to say the opposite when you stop by.

And "basic household obedience" seems to be obvious to everybody else, lolcatsomgroflcopter, but I use it as a simple term to describe basic stuff for having a livable household companion, like sit, come, fetch, lie down, stay, stop licking my face, etc. An e-collar is totally unnecessary for those behaviors.

I realize that you've developed some methods for these behaviors that you feel are very successful. More power to you if you can help dogs and owners. I choose to use and to advocate for methods that avoid punishment wherever practical as opposed to using it as the go-to first stop, and I make that choice for a very good reason.



Lou Castle said:


> The Ecollar is an excellent tool for this. It allows for BOTH rewarding desired behavior and punishing undesired behavior.


The e-collar is incapable of delivering a reward. Depending on model, it is only capable of delivering sounds, vibrations, and sensations that range from mildly unpleasant to outright painful.

I suppose you could pair a primary reward with the tone and then use the tone as a secondary reward, but I doubt that's what you meant. Any rewarding you'd realistically do would be independent from the collar equipment itself.



Lou Castle said:


> Thanks for expressing your opinion. Mine is quite different and I have used just about ALL tools that exist for the purpose of training dogs. I recommend the Ecollar much of the time. I don't believe that you know much about using one, isn't that correct? Like some others, you have lots of opinions, but little, if any, real experience with the tool.


I don't have to beat a dog to know I don't want to beat a dog or to claim that beating a dog is ineffective training. It's specious to make the argument that you've had to use a tool in order to have a useful opinion on it. And when it comes to the e-collar, I've watched a lot more people use it effectively and ineffectively than I've ever seen beat a dog. You don't have to use a bad idea yourself in order to identify it as a bad idea. In fact, you hopefully don't use bad training concepts too many times before you learn that they're bad.



Lou Castle said:


> So many people want to pretend that there's no _"annoyance"_ at work when they hold up a treat and then DON'T give it to their dog, as is common with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." No doubt we'll hear from those who don't do it this way. They'll pretend that there's no _"annoyance"_ with their methods, but they're just trying to fool people.


Funny, 'cause when I hold up a treat—and I generally don't, because it's rare that you show a treat first when you use food rewards, my dog doesn't look annoyed. He looks super happy. A little different than when a dog feels even the mildest nick from an e-collar. No matter how "rewarding" people claim e-collar training can be, the dog never looks rewarded during any electrical stimulus applied to him.



Lou Castle said:


> The Ecollar is an excellent way to show a dog that people are _"fair, clear and generous."_ I worked with a highly reactive, fear aggressive dog with whom the so−called "kinder gentler methods" have failed completely. I was the last stop before the trip to doggie heaven. When I first met the dog she literally tried to kill me. About 25 minutes later the dog climbed into my lap and was licking my face. I'm happy to supply the complete information, contact me privately for the link.


I'm glad you were able to help a dog. That doesn't vindicate any of the concerns about the side-effects of e-collars used to train basic behaviors. And even in the absence of side effects, I'd rather teach a dog that coming is rewarding than annoy him into doing it and then praise him when he does it.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lilliam said:


> Now let us discuss your statement that ALL dogs are punished. Here failure number two.


FYI, Lou is fond if equating positive punishment (the addition of an aversive stimulus to lessen the occurrence of a behavior) with negative punishment (the removal of a rewarding stimulus in order to lessen the occurrence of a behavior). To any layperson, they're obviously different, but he likes to blur the distinctions so he can claim that we all use punishment.

Just like he will claim that the "stress" of not getting a cookie is essentially the same as the "stress" of being stimmed, since they're both "stress."


----------



## coffenut (Jan 3, 2012)

I have to admit that I have been tempted to go with an electronic collar only to train Káva of not jumping. I haven't been able to do it though because I am so against them. The real problem is that Káva loves my mother but she is so frail that even when Káva keeps all four paws on the ground and wiggles, she knocks my mother off of her feet. It scares me ... and yes, I keep her on a leash when we first see her. Ah well ...


----------



## Capt Jack (Dec 29, 2011)

I have an invisable fence for Jack & now Sweetie & I have an e-collor for Jack I don't use the shock button & I don't think vibrate would do anything to help.It is handy for beep if he gets too far when we're off leash training so he knows I'm looking for him.When he hears the beep he knows I'm looking for him & comes back.I don't let anyone handle the remote except me.I find it was a usefull tool to begin with but feel now I could have done just as well without it.Sweetie will never have it on her I'll just work a little harder.I would use the shock if I thought Jack was in danger & that was the only way I could do anything about it but I don't really think that's a problem at this stage


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> FYI, Lou is fond if equating positive punishment (the addition of an aversive stimulus to lessen the occurrence of a behavior) with negative punishment (the removal of a rewarding stimulus in order to lessen the occurrence of a behavior). To any layperson, they're obviously different, but he likes to blur the distinctions so he can claim that we all use punishment.
> 
> Just like he will claim that the "stress" of not getting a cookie is essentially the same as the "stress" of being stimmed, since they're both "stress."


Yes, I just ran through his previous posts in the forum.
And this is someone who is a trainer.
Right.
Anyone can be a trainer and have a qebsite and articles on the Internet. Doesn't mean their methods come from of a position of understanding basic concepts.
Further evidence that my zero respect and my abhorrence for this "trainer's" methods are justified.

After all, this "trainer" espouses the idea of using electrick shock collars on puppies. The age of the puppy is not mentioned. So according to this trainer, it is acceptable to shock a puppy. This does not link to his website, so I don't mind posting it.

http://www.schutzhund-training.net/obedience/ecollarwork.html


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> "Burn" is a term used by some field trainers to refer to a long 'stim' as opposed to a nick. I believe that's what the poster was referring to, not an actual physical burn on the dog. Hence her quotation marks.
> 
> And it is pretty unpleasant to watch a dog get 'burned' by a handler in that context.


 
Astonishing that I found several instances of dogs being burned by electronic shock collars. I wish I'd taken pictures of the four dogs I saw with burn marks and with burned coat. Of course, at the time, I was too shocked to even think of it. And I never knew that I would ever encounter anyone who would deny the veracity of what my eyes were telling me.

http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/Adobe/rufus.pdf

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IrxhQEEZDQw/TNORxiduIlI/AAAAAAAAAhk/RPCFKvaECzU/s1600/matthew+003.JPG

http://banshockcollars.ca/alerts.php

http://www.animal-rights-action.com/images/shock-dog-collar-1.jpg

http://caninecountrytualatin.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/shawn-riley/

Given the existence of these pictures it is evident that burns from electric shock collars do happen.


----------



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

kjohnstone82 said:


> Thank you for your responses everyone I have read them to my husband and I think he is accepting what people are saying. We did by a DVD when we bought the collar on how to use but I'm still not convinced. The collar cost a lot of money* but I don't really care I'm not happy with the thought of shocking my little jasper*!


And by seeking a professional you will learn it is not about SHOCKING your dog. I THOUGHT the same thing until I got educated.


----------



## Ripley16 (Jan 26, 2012)

We got a few noise complaints from the city because one of our neighbours was complaining about our German Shepherd Lady barking too much. Since we didn't want the SPCA to have to take action, we decided that we needed to deal with it. Very hesitantly we bought a shock collar, just to see what the effects were. We've always been opposed to using a shock collar, but her barking was getting out of control. We put it on her on the lowest setting and she barked once, got shocked, barked again, got shocked and never barked again with it on. We eventually turned it off when it was on her. In this situation, it worked really well, but this was only done because it was necessary. I would never use a shock collar to train a dog, I don't believe in that form of training. We have never, and will never use one on Ripley (she's silent as the grave and won't even bark if their are raccoons in the yard). I would also warn one against using one (even for barking) on less intelligent/older dogs, my uncle bought one to use to prevent his 10 year old cocker spaniel from barking and the dog kept barking and getting shocked until they had to tackle the dog to the ground to get it off of him. It was very traumatizing for the dog. I must reiterate that I am not an advocate for the shock collar, I just wanted to show a positive experience with one, but it was only used because it was necessary. I will hopefully never have to use one again.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> I love it when proponents of aversive methods use euphemisms such as "stim."


And I love it when those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" pretend that I'm using euphemisms as some sort of "cover-up." Conveniently you've missed the FACT that I've used the term "shock" several times in my previous posts. I've also referred to "current" and some other references to the fact that electricity is in use. Fact is, the term "stim" is how Ecollar trainers refer to shock, because it avoids the inherent, unpleasant and MISLEADING emotions that the word "shock" brings." There's nothing wrong with euphemisms, nothing sinister, just about everyone uses many every day. But it's another common argument used by the antis. 

BTW an Ecollar is not necessarily an _"aversive method."_ Conveniently the antis forget that for every press of the button that brings an aversive, there's a release of the button that brings reinforcement. Ecollar training is "balanced," unlike the so−called "kinder gentler methods" that seek to avoid aversives. Advocates of those methods usually try to avoid all but one side of the OC (Operant Conditioning) box, the +R (positive reinforcement side). Here's an interesting article by Roger Abrantes that addresses this. Unveiling the Myth of Reinforcers and Punishers | Roger Abrantes



Lilliam said:


> Or when they come into a discussion and always claim that *their* methods do not inflict pain.


My method starts out with finding the "dog's working level of stim," the level that he can first perceive. One can see from the video I posted that this dog is not in pain. That level is used for all the basic training. 



Lilliam said:


> Or when they post on their website that 1) detractors of aversive methods are not to post on their forums


Except that's not what is says. Here's what IT DOES say,


> Welcome to [my site], the website that will help you learn to use an Ecollar.
> 
> This site is devoted to dog training. Primarily it's about using the Ecollar, but any methods are open for discussion from clickers to Ecollars and anything in between. There are "how-to" articles here that will teach you how to use an Ecollar to train your dog. There are general training articles to help you with common problems that occur with dogs. There's a forum to discuss questions that you have about how your training is going and to discuss problems that arise. There are places to display photos of your dog. The Forum is a place to discuss anything related to dogs or dog training.
> 
> ...


The members of my forum have already done their research and decided that the tool is an option for them. There are plenty of places, like here, that such debate is appropriate. 



Lilliam said:


> As expected, detractors are considered to lie as noted on their commercial websites and discount their observations as one-offs.


Pretty sure that I've not called anyone a liar in this thread. Since you seem to disagree, please show us where I've said this. If those observations were not _"one−offs"_ and the problems described occurred every time that anyone used an Ecollar, they'd have been banned long ago. 



Lilliam said:


> No, Lou, given that my grandfather was born in 1898 he never used a computer to research training methods on the Internet. I thought you were a proponent of civil discourse. Your sarcasm is failure number one.


You _"failure number one"_ was failing to recognize that technology has advanced since your grandfather's day, in one aspect of life, but freely embraced it in another. There was no sarcasm there. 



Lilliam said:


> I have observed hard dog breeds turn into neurotic, stressed animals. More than one dog. More than one handler. More than one occasion.


Yes, and? It would appear that you've seen your share of bad Ecollar work. But that's not the norm, nor is it necessary. You want the OP to believe that it's both. I've seen lots of bad work, using the so−called "kinder gentler methods" that turned _"hard dog breeds"_ (whatever that means) into _"neurotic, stressed animals. More than one dog. More than one handler. More than one occasion."_ The difference between us is that I realize that it was poor use of the tool/method and that it was not inherent in the tool/method, as you seem to be trying to get people to believe. 



Lilliam said:


> I have stated that I have never owned a retriever, but I have extensive experience with border collies and sheep trials.


I've never owned a retriever either. But at my seminars I've worked with ACD's, Afghans, Airedales, Akitas, American Staffs, Appenzeller, Beagles, Beagles, Berners, Bloodhounds, Border Collies, Boxers, Coonhounds, Dalmations, Dutchy's, Goldens, Greyhounds, GSD's, GSP's, Huskys, JRT's, Labs, Mals, Poodles, Portugese Water Dogs, Ridgebacks, Rotties, Rotties, and some Tervs. I'm sure that there are more but those are just the ones that come quickly to mind. I've also trained other species than just dogs; chickens, several breeds of cats, flatworms, rats, humans, several species of snakes, guinea pigs, gerbils several species of monkey, several species of birds, coatis, fish and mice. I just used the Ecollars on the dogs though. Lol.



Lilliam said:


> I have seen the effects of these electric shock collars, let's call them what they are for the sake of clarity, on Belgian Malinois, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Australian Cattle dogs, Belgian Tervurens, and Bouviers des Flanders. And they always were mechanical, nonthinking dogs out of contact with the sheep unable to decide for themselves due to the expectation and fear if the shock


I'd say that you've _"seen the effects of [poorly used] electric shock collars."_ Not the same thing at all. The effects you describe are not inherent in the tool. If they were, users would not be winning any competitions at all. If a dog has become, as you've described, it's because the tool was not used properly. Most of my work these days is with dogs in law enforcement and SAR. Both of those vocations require clear headed, thinking dogs that are completely in touch with their environment and their own senses. I use Ecollars extensively. Somehow, not one person who's followed my methods, reports anything, even distantly resembling, what you've described. 



Lilliam said:


> I have seen burned skin on a dog, I have seen scorched hair in a dog.


It's physically impossible (meaning that it violates the laws of physics) for the current produced by a modern Ecollar to have produced such things. If such things could occur, they'd happen every time an Ecollar was used. There's not one bit of scientific evidence to support your statement. In fact, one thing that's consistent with studies done on the Ecollar, if they discuss physical injuries at all, they're quick to mention that physical injuries have never been reported. I can quote from several studies and "experts" if you like. I'd challenge you to show us even ONE study where a physical injury resulted from the current that an Ecollar produces. 



Lilliam said:


> I gave seen dogs who, when told to lie down, characteristically flattened themselves in the ground and looked up. It was the tell tale sign of a shocked dog.


I've NEVER seen this as a result of Ecollar use. There is a "tell" that an Ecollar was used to teach a down but this is not it. I've seen the behavior you describe occur with dogs when the Ecollar had NEVER been used. Commonly this occurs with handlers that are very dominant and very (physically and psychologically) hard on their dogs. It has nothing to do with Ecollar use and it does not occur when properly teaching the down with one. 



Lilliam said:


> If your contention is to tell me that I did not in fact see that, then explain to me why no national level sheepdog trainer or clinician will allow the use of electric shock collars in their facilities, clinics, or trials.


When I was a young boy in Florida, African−Americans could not sit at the lunch counters. They were allowed to ride the buses, but they had to sit in the back section. I think there's a bit of this sort of discrimination (against Ecollars) going on at the venues you talk about. Senseless discrimination made no sense (and was wrong then) and it makes no sense, and is wrong, now. 

Few in that venue have investigated modern use of modern versions of the tool. Like some here, they hear the term _"Ecollar"_ and have a preconceived notion of what that tool is, and how it's utilized. They've not bothered to learn how it's changed. But things are changing. More later when I get the details. 

In any case, choosing not to use a tool because some _"trainers or clinician"_ have decided not to use them, is silly. People should make their own decisions, based on facts, not fear, not emotions, and not a myth of physical injury that is not supported by a single study. 



Lilliam said:


> Take away the personal aversion to shocking a dog into submission;


Here's a perfect example of how little you really know about Ecollars. You want to appear authoritative, but in reality, your knowledge is severely lacking on them. Using one has NOTHING to do with _"shocking a dog into submission."_ I'd ask that you take a look at my article on _"Teaching the recall"_ that's on this site (I linked to it in a previous post) and show us where the dog is, as you claim occurs, _"shock[ed] into submission."_ Please show us where it happens ANYWHERE in my methods! 

Similarly, in a previous post, you wrote this, _"I have seen dogs cower and react to the shock."_ I posted a video showing a dog feeling his first shock and asked you to point out where the dog did as you claimed, _"cowered."_ Somehow, you failed to provide us with this information. Please support your statement by telling us, where on the videotape, this occurs. In this post I've supplied several more videos. Please show us the _"cowering"_ in them as well. You should be able to find it in each video, since you claim it occurs with Ecollar use, not the truth, that it's only limited to POOR Ecollar use. 



Lilliam said:


> rather, it's the resulting mechanical, unthinking dog who has been shocked out of its natural ability to problem solve.


Yep, this can occur when an Ecollar is used poorly. It's simple to avoid and it doesn't occur with my methods. 



Lilliam said:


> Now let us discuss your statement that ALL dogs are punished. Here failure number two. With my border collies, * the so called punishment * was to take the sheep away. [Emphasis Added]


Thank you for proving my point. You call it my _"failure number two,"_ when, in fact, it supports my statement. To you, this removal of the sheep, is a small matter. But you have no idea how punishing it was to the dog or how he perceived it. Some dogs may be crushed by this, psychologically damaged far more, than might occur with a low level Ecollar stim. I've worked dogs that wilted if a harsh tone of voice was used with them. They handled the Ecollar very well. 



Lilliam said:


> Period. If they walked too fast, ran the sheep, took a cheap shot, they were taken out if the ring or field and brought back one level.


Yep, thanks for showing us a good example of PUNISHMENT. I find it fascinating that you call this _"[my] failure"_ when it so obviously supports my statement. Referring back to the Abrantes articles I linked to, he says,


> Bottom line: in principle * reinforcers and punishers are * neither good nor bad, they are not things we like or don’t like, they are * just stimuli that either increase or decrease the frequency, intensity and/or duration of a behavior. * A reinforcer may be a punisher one day and a reinforcer another, whilst a reinforcer for you may be a punisher for me. [Emphasis Added]





Lilliam said:


> In this manner, I was able to train my border collies to do a 550, 600 yard outrun, do cross drives at a distance if 300 yards away from me. Because foundations were built LONG before, with patience and care. Not one single shock was delivered to my national level dogs. Not one single electric so called "stim."


That's great. Congrats on all your success. How it applies to this discussion is a mystery. Not everyone has your dogs. They have their own dogs with their own issues. The fact that you don't use an Ecollar is interesting but has nothing to do with the facts at hand. In your field there is little training necessary. Most of the work is based on drives and those are based on genetics, not training. What little training that's done is to "put brakes" on the behaviors and give it direction. But I've seen some sheep dog trainers lay some hellacious corrections on a dog with a shepherd's stick, so let's not pretend that it never happens in your venue. 



Lilliam said:


> Now, at home, for the training the OP needs, it is unnecessary to shock her dog into submission.


I agree, there's never a need to _"shock [a] dog into submission."_ Fact is, it's not done with my methods and so your repeated reference to this, means nothing to this discussion. It is a useful EMOTIONAL phrase though, and no doubt, that's why you keep using it. 

I've written hundreds of times that "no one NEEDS an Ecollar." We trained dogs for thousands of years before they came along. But they're here now, and there's no reason not to take advantage of the advances in technology that makes them easy to use, gives very fast results, and allows for control of the dog at a distance in the event that he makes a bad decision. 

If the dog responds to other methods, that's great. If not, there's always the Ecollar and used properly, has never failed to give me, and the folks that I've trained, great results. 



Lilliam said:


> Failure number two....believing that all trraining is as you espouse.


This would actually be _"Failure number *THREE * [not number two.]"_ You've lost count. Lol. But since neither of the first two were failures (and neither is this one) it's only interesting to see how emotional this discussion is for some people. You can't even keep track of what you're writing. 

In any case, AGAIN, you're wrong. I'm well aware that not _"all training is as [ I ] espouse."_ I've seen the same sort of misuse as you and others have described. The difference? I know that it does not have to be so. But you folks seem to want the OP and others reading this to believe that such aberrations are normal, natural and occur anytime an Ecollar is used. The videos I've supplied have shown the truth. When Ecollar training is done properly (any my methods are not the only ones that give such results, they're just the easiest for a newbie to put to use and the most available to all) the results can't be discerned from other methods of training. 



Lilliam said:


> Not all trainers use punishment.


Yes, they do. You've just described your personal use of it, in the removal of the sheep from your dog. 



Lilliam said:


> Some use the dog's instinct, natural abilities to reward and take what they want to do as *so called punishment * for bad behaviour. [Emphasis Added]


Thanks for AGAIN proving my point. Except that there's no such thing as _"so called punishment."_ Something is either punishment or it's not. If it tends to make a behavior decrease, it's punishment. 



Lilliam said:


> So.....failure number three.


You've still lost count. lol



Lilliam said:


> You present an argument using euphemisms for the truth of what an electric shock collar is


A stim is a euphemism for electric shock as produced by an Ecollar (another euphemism, lol). It's the "term of art" that's used by Ecollar users around the world. Nothing is hidden, nothing is concealed. As to _"the truth of what an [Ecollar] is"_ again, nothing is hidden. It's an electrical device that, when a button is pressed, delivers electrical current to a set of contact points in a box, that a dog wears. That current is adjustable so that the appropriate level of discomfort can be applied. In my methods, that's the level that the dog first feels in a given situation. Some Ecollars also can deliver vibration and audible tones that can assist in the training. Some also have lights or strobes that assist owners in locating their dogs in the dark. Some have microphones and speakers so that audible commands can be given. Some have GPS circuitry built into them to allow the owners to track their dogs location, allowing them to be found, if lost, and for the purposes of mapping their coverage in SAR situations. 



Lilliam said:


> showing one lab and attempt to discount my observations with several hard breeds.


I've not tried to _"discount your observations."_ I have shown that all Ecollar training is not as, and does not always produce the results that several have claimed. I'm not sure why you think that showing _"one lab"_ or _"several hard breeds"_ is worth mentioning. (Is a Jack Russell Terrier a _"hard breed?"_) but since you've brought it up, here are some more videos. 

Here's a trainer working with an aggressive dog, stopping his aggression by teaching him recall. This dog is a heeler mix. Is this another _"hard breed?"_ And if so, why is this an issue for you? BTW I think that "hardness" is more of an individual trait, not inherent in the breed. The breed merely indicates a tendency towards "hardness" or "softness." But such tendencies mean nothing to me. I only care about the dog that I'm working with at the moment, not his ancestors. 




Here's part two of this video. 




Here's some video of a class that's being done by an Ecollar trainer who uses methods that are very similar to mine. Are these all _"hard breeds?"_ 




Here's a boxer being trained with an Ecollar. Is a boxer a _"hard breed?"_ 




And finally, here's some video of some children being tortured with an Ecollar. Are these kids of a _"hard breed?"_ 






Lilliam said:


> You ignored the video I had showing a dog forcibly handled into doing something that a retriever would do naturally or could be taught with fifteen minutes, some booked chicken, and a clicker. I could have had that lab picking up that bumper and dropping it in hand in one session, with no pinching, no electric shock, no punishment, and no avoidance.


I didn't ignore it. Since it has nothing to do with this discussion, I didn't discuss it. It's just more bad Ecollar work. But since you mention _"ignoring ..."_ I asked you a question DIRECTLY aimed at something that you said, about Ecollar trained dogs cowering. I showed you a video and asked you to point out where the dog was cowering. SOMEHOW you ignored my direct question. I've supplied several more videos. Please show us SOMEWHERE a dog cowering in one of them. AGAIN, this CAN happen with Ecollar training, but it's not inherent in the tool. It does not occur when it's used properly. 

As almost always occurs in Ecollar discussion, the antis ONLY discuss Ecollar training when it's done poorly. And ONLY discuss their methods when it's done properly. Hardly a fair or reasonable comparison. But it's rare that the antis are interested in either fairness or being reasonable. 



Lilliam said:


> None if my dogs will wear an electric collar for obedience or field work. I will not shove a bumper into my Dog's mouth and shock him to hold it. Retrievers WANT to do that. It's hard coded into them. And if one shows less interest, it can be taught without being shocked into it.


You're wrong. NOT every retriever _"WANT"_ to hold a bumper. I have little doubt that there are many here with dogs that have no interest in it. Probably MOST of the dogs belonging to forum members will want to hold a bumper, it's a breed tendency. But it's pretty much guaranteed that not all of them will. 



Lilliam said:


> For the record, I visited your website, where you extoll the virtues of electric shock collars. You have, in fact, a vested interest in shock collar training and in extolling your opinions of its virtues.


I hope that everyone can see what's happening here. Up to this point the discussion has been about Ecollars. But now Lilliam takes a turn and the rest of her post is ONLY about me. This is inappropriate and the reason that these discussions often get closed. I wish that the antis would stick to the topic but it's rare that they do. Almost always, they turn, as does Lilliam here, to the personal attack. 



Lilliam said:


> Therefore, you have a financial and commercial interest in this dicussion given that your website is dedicated to the use of electric shock collars for training.


As do you. So what? 



Lilliam said:


> Conversely, I have no interest in clicker training nor do I have an interest in Pam Miller's Peaceable Paws training facility.


Sure you do. There are other interests besides financial ones. Some are even more important to some folks. 



Lilliam said:


> My statements have no financial value and are my first hand observations of dogs trained using electric shock collars.


They still have value, even if it's not financial. I don't doubt your observations, except the ones describing _"burned skin"_ or _"scorched hair."_ I'm sure you saw something but it was not a burn or a scorch mark. The other things you describe are the result of poor Ecollar use. I could describe some of the poor use of clickers that I've seen, and even post a few videos of it, but it's irrelevant. I'm not arguing against them, just supplying an alternate. I use them when they're appropriate, but, unlike some, I know that they are not always the best and that they simply do not provide acceptable results, in a reasonable period of time with some dogs. 

BTW as to my financial interest ... Ecollar are a financial net loss for me, not a profit column item. And that doesn't even include my time spent in discussions like this one. 



Lilliam said:


> Please excuse the typos. This was typed on my iPhone and there are simply too many to correct. I believe you have the gist of what I intend to say.


WOW! You typed all this on a phone! I'm in awe! I can barely get out a couple of sentences on one. 



Lilliam said:


> Ah....I have just taken a look at your history on this forum. I understand your agenda.


I doubt it. You think that my _"agenda"_ is driven by business. I had these same sorts of discussions long before I started doing seminars or selling Ecollars. My agenda has always been the same, to counteract the nonsense, the lies, the myths, the misconceptions that are put out about Ecollars. Like any tool they can be abused and misused and when this happens, the results are poor. But this is the case with any tool or method. I believe that people should be able to make informed decisions as to what tools and methods they use for training their dogs. 



Lilliam said:


> In previous threads you have repeatedly posted your own articles in a manner that is borderline spam.


Sorry but I don't know any other way to make my points than by telling the truth about the Ecollar. You can apply any term that you like, the mods here have decided that it's not spam. You folks keep talking about the poor results that occur with Ecollar training as if that was always the case. It's not. They don't occur with my methods. They're available for free, merely by sending me a PM asking for the link, or by Googling my name combined with the term "Ecollar." 



Lilliam said:


> Were it not for the fact that this is a weekday morning and I need to go to work, I would research more deeply into your agenda.


When you get the time, please do. And while you're out there looking, please bring to this forum any reference to my methods giving the results that you've described from the poor uses of Ecollars. You won't find any. In fact, what you'll is many people praising my methods and describing their great results from them. 



Lilliam said:


> You are not simply presenting an opposing point of view, you are promoting your business on this forum, as evidenced by several separate posts. I will not link to them since you would be someone to whom I would never give my business.


My website has about 50,000 words teaching people FOR FREE, how to use an Ecollar. They're written in a how−to fashion so that anyone can easily put them to use. There are a couple of hundred words (if that) mentioning that I do seminars and sell Ecollars. As I've already said, Ecollars are a net loss to me. 



Lilliam said:


> But for the sake of clarity and full disclosure, you are not interested in civcil discourse as evidenced by a thread which was subsequently closed, or by others in which you posted your materials.


I'm ONLY interested in civil discourse. I hate it when these discussion turn nasty, but I never start it. When personal attacks occur I respond by merely pointing it out, as I'm doing with your attacks. ONLY after it continues and mods don't stop it, do I respond in kind. Many antis are either incapable of, or unwilling, to keep these discussions polite and professional. 



Lilliam said:


> I understand. It's best if everyone in this thread and in this discussion knows your prior discussions, most of which, coincidentally, have been closed, and in which your behaviour was decidedly less than civil.


I suggest that you read them and see where the unpleasantness started. It's NEVER with me. In this case, it's you who has started it. 



Lilliam said:


> I know now. I understand. I know who you are and your agenda. Enough said. I will not engage you again.


Thereby providing yourself an escape, a reason NOT to answer my questions. OK. I understand.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> "Burn" is a term used by some field trainers to refer to a long 'stim' as opposed to a nick. I believe that's what the poster was referring to, not an actual physical burn on the dog. Hence her quotation marks.


It's rare that a non-Ecollar user, uses the term to mean a "long stim." It's much more common for them to mean an injury to the skin caused by the electrical current. In any case, I wanted the OP and the readers to know the physics of the situation, that it's impossible for an Ecollar to cause a burn from the current that they produce, rather than the myth that antis often push. 



tippykayak said:


> And it is pretty unpleasant to watch a dog get 'burned' by a handler in that context.


I agree. Another reason that I never suggest it.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> A misleading statement at best. Quite a few who _"use them for field work"_ advocate their use for _"teaching new behaviors."_ In fact, Ecollars are an EXCELLENT tool for _"basic household obedience,"_ (whatever that means) lol.





tippykayak said:


> Well, then let's see some of our many accomplished field trainers come and back you up on that one. Most (maybe all, but I can't claim to have read every post in every thread) seem to say the opposite when you stop by.


Few _"accomplished field trainers"_ bother to get into these debates and I doubt that's going to change. They're commercial trainers and there's no advantage to them to engage in them. They're not going to get any more clients from it, as most of these folks don't do field work. They're pet owners. 

But since you claim that _"accomplished field trainers"_ say that Ecollars are _"not a good tool for teaching new behaviors and ... basic household obedience."_ please provide some quotations from a few of them who have said this. 

Here's some video from Pat Nolan, who has done a bit of field training, doing some basic OB with an Ecollar. Contrary to your claim, IN FACT, Mr. Nolan uses it as part of his very basic collar conditioning. The video notes state, _"Clip shows introduction to here, heel, sit, stay and kennel or place commands."_ This video is even NAMED _"E-collar Training Basic Obedience."_ 




Here's another. Looks like pretty basic OB to me. 




I have more but I think the point is made, again, you're wrong. lol 



tippykayak said:


> And "basic household obedience" seems to be obvious to everybody else


I doubt that you've gotten the opinion of _"everybody else"_ on this. 



tippykayak said:


> but I use it as a simple term to describe basic stuff for having a livable household companion, like sit, come, fetch, lie down, stay, stop licking my face, etc.


I know of no one (until now) who considers _"stop licking my face"_ to be an obedience command. I'd consider it to be "basic manners." I thought it might be such things as the recall, sit, and down, but now, I'm glad that I asked. I'll disagree with your use of the term to apply to all these behaviors. 



tippykayak said:


> An e-collar is totally unnecessary for those behaviors.


I've written many times that _"No one NEEDS an Ecollar."_ That means not only for these behaviors, but not for ANY BEHAVIOR! I've NEVER claimed that it's necessary. But it makes basic OB, recall, sit down, etc. go much faster and gives reliability with the dog at a distance when off leash, and so I use it for that. 



tippykayak said:


> I realize that you've developed some methods for these behaviors that you feel are very successful.


You write as if this was my opinion only. It's not. There are dozens of unsolicited testimonials on my site from people who are extremely happy with their results in using my methods. 

Here's just one example. Jimmy, from the UK, rescued a Patterdale Terrier ... he wrote,


> I am a UK based dog owner who stumbled across your excellent site after exasperating all other training methods for my rescue Patterdale terrier who I have shared the last year with. ... [A]fter following your protocols and commencing training last Saturday I can only express my gratitude for providing the information you have. My dog used to chase anything and after a few frightening incidents and one incident in which I was first to arrive at a road traffic incident in which a dog was killed I decided to take action. * My dog is now able to enjoy his life thoroughly with off-leash play and freedom but with complete safety as he will now respond to my voice commands when issued. My problem was with his disobedience in the face of distraction which we now do not have to contend with. * I only wish that there was more readily available information out there and for the thousands of misinformed individuals who are basing their judgment on remote training on either other people's poor practice or unreliable misconceptions about the collars themselves to be furnished with the truth as I have discovered in the last few weeks.
> 
> * Initially I was reluctant to use remote collars because I had only heard the usual horror stories and it is only after a great deal of research and now personal experience that I know differently. * [Emphasis Added]





tippykayak said:


> More power to you if you can help dogs and owners. I choose to use and to advocate for methods that avoid punishment wherever practical as opposed to using it as the go-to first stop, and I make that choice for a very good reason.


Interestingly you don't tell us what that _"very good reason"_ is. More than likely it's because you've seen, and perhaps used it yourself, with poor results. That's not anything inherent in the method, it's the application, and in this case it's YOUR application of the methods. I use the Ecollar for MANY very good reasons. It's fast. It's efficient. It gives control when the dog is off leash very quickly. It allows for "insurance" when the dog is a great distance from the handler and a dangerous situation arises where the dog makes a bad decision. 

Earlier I wrote,


> The Ecollar is an excellent tool for this. It allows for BOTH rewarding desired behavior and punishing undesired behavior.





tippykayak said:


> The e-collar is incapable of delivering a reward. Depending on model, it is only capable of delivering sounds, vibrations, and sensations that range from mildly unpleasant to outright painful.


Notice that I never said that the Ecollar could _"deliver a reward."_ Here we start with the Straw Man arguments that you're so fond of. Stopping the unpleasant stim is REWARDING. * THAT *is what I said. To be technical, which some love, it's negative reinforcement (-R). My statement (above) is accurate and true. 



tippykayak said:


> Any rewarding you'd realistically do would be independent from the collar equipment itself.


Quite wrong. Negative reinforcement is rewarding in and of itself. If it wasn't, it wouldn't tend to make a behavior increase. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Thanks for expressing your opinion. Mine is quite different and I have used just about ALL tools that exist for the purpose of training dogs. I recommend the Ecollar much of the time. I don't believe that you know much about using one, isn't that correct? Like some others, you have lots of opinions, but little, if any, real experience with the tool.





tippykayak said:


> I don't have to beat a dog to know I don't want to beat a dog or to claim that beating a dog is ineffective training.


You also don't have to taste vanilla ice cream and chocolate cake to know that they're delicious. But having that experience makes you quite a bit more knowledgeable about that subject. 



tippykayak said:


> It's specious to make the argument that you've had to use a tool in order to have a useful opinion on it.


There's that old straw man again. I've not said this. But having the experience of using an Ecollar properly would give you some insight about it. Right now you're all about the theory and using the experience of others, most of which, in this discussion, has been seeing only poor Ecollar work. 



tippykayak said:


> And when it comes to the e-collar, I've watched a lot more people use it effectively and ineffectively than I've ever seen beat a dog.


Propose a straw man argument and then follow it to its illogical conclusion!? This is polite and professional discussion? 



tippykayak said:


> You don't have to use a bad idea yourself in order to identify it as a bad idea. In fact, you hopefully don't use bad training concepts too many times before you learn that they're bad.


Was it a bad idea when it was used _"effectively?"_ 

Earlier I wrote,


> So many people want to pretend that there's no "annoyance" at work when they hold up a treat and then DON'T give it to their dog, as is common with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." No doubt we'll hear from those who don't do it this way. They'll pretend that there's no "annoyance" with their methods, but they're just trying to fool people.





tippykayak said:


> Funny, 'cause when I hold up a treat—and I generally don't, because it's rare that you show a treat first when you use food rewards


Not if you're using "luring." There, "showing the treat" is what allows for the training to occur. It's one of the commonly used so−called "kinder gentler methods." And in any case, it's really not necessary that you hold up the treat for the dog to know that you have them. He can see the "bait box" if you're wearing one, and if not, he certainly can smell them in your pocket or your hand. In those cases you're still not giving one to him, and he knows it. 



tippykayak said:


> my dog doesn't look annoyed. He looks super happy.


Yes, the stress that he's feeling is covered up by his excitement at the prospect of getting the treat. You want to pretend that it's not there, but there's at least one study that shows that not only is it present, but it's present to a greater degree than it is when an Ecollar is in use!. 



tippykayak said:


> A little different than when a dog feels even the mildest nick from an e-collar.


Not always. Many dogs take _"the mildest nick from an Ecollar"_ far better than they take the stress of not getting a treat that they know that their owner has. 



tippykayak said:


> No matter how "rewarding" people claim e-collar training can be, the dog never looks rewarded during any electrical stimulus applied to him.


It's not always about how the dog looks at the moment that he's getting stimmed, but you wish it was so. 

Earlier I wrote,


> The Ecollar is an excellent way to show a dog that people are _"fair, clear and generous."_ I worked with a highly reactive, fear aggressive dog with whom the so−called "kinder gentler methods" have failed completely. I was the last stop before the trip to doggie heaven. When I first met the dog she literally tried to kill me. About 25 minutes later the dog climbed into my lap and was licking my face. I'm happy to supply the complete information, contact me privately for the link.





tippykayak said:


> I'm glad you were able to help a dog.


Love your attempt to minimize my contribution to the world of dogs. I've helped hundreds personally and thousands by assisting their owners. Often I'm the last stop after people have exhausted all other methods, including the so−called "kinder gentler methods," leash and correction collars and medications, and the dog is literally on his way to the shelter or the vet for the blue juice. 



tippykayak said:


> That doesn't vindicate any of the concerns about the side-effects of e-collars used to train basic behaviors.


It certainly should. When my methods are used, none of these _"side effects"_ you refer to occur. In the case at hand, all I did was the first phase of teaching the dog the recall. The protocol can be seen here. http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94724-teaching-recall-ecollar.html Please tell us of _"the side−effects"_ that you imagine occur. 



tippykayak said:


> And even in the absence of side effects, I'd rather teach a dog that coming is rewarding than annoy him into doing it and then praise him when he does it.


I'd rather use an Ecollar, that rewards the dog when I shut off the stim AND add praise, toys, play or whatever else the dog prefers. You only have the praise. I get the added benefit of the –R phase of the Ecollar. You're only using one aspect of OC. I'm using all four! Much more effective.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier Lilliam wrote,


> Now let us discuss your statement that ALL dogs are punished. Here failure number two.





tippykayak said:


> FYI, Lou is fond if equating positive punishment (the addition of an aversive stimulus to lessen the occurrence of a behavior) with negative punishment (the removal of a rewarding stimulus in order to lessen the occurrence of a behavior).


It's a good thing that I equate positive punishment (+P) with negative punishment (-P) because, so does the rest of the world. Some may have noticed that the word "punishment" appears in both terms! That means that both of them are punishment, that is they BOTH tend to reduce a behavior. The difference is that in one situation, one adds something to the situation, and in the other, one removes something from the situation. 

Lilliam is referring to my truism that every trainer uses punishment. It's a fact, even when they try to pretend that they don't, sometimes by even changing definitions and making up new words to hide that fact. 



tippykayak said:


> To any layperson, they're obviously different, but he likes to blur the distinctions so he can claim that we all use punishment.


They're different as can be, as AGAIN I've just shown you. In fact I just pointed out the difference between them. This is just ANOTHER one of your straw man arguments. The truth is that _"[you] all use punishment."_ I've shown this repeatedly. Lilliam even supplied her own use of punishment without being asked for details! lol



tippykayak said:


> Just like he will claim that the "stress" of not getting a cookie is essentially the same as the "stress" of being stimmed, since they're both "stress."


Tippy, you're wrong AGAIN! I don't think that they're the same. I think that the stress of not getting the cookie is worse, and there is a study that supports this position. Would you like to see it?


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

coffenut said:


> I have to admit that I have been tempted to go with an electronic collar only to train Káva of not jumping. I haven't been able to do it though because I am so against them. The real problem is that Káva loves my mother but she is so frail that even when Káva keeps all four paws on the ground and wiggles, she knocks my mother off of her feet. It scares me ... and yes, I keep her on a leash when we first see her. Ah well ...


Please don't use the Ecollar for this. Since it's difficult to show the dog why the stim is occurring, (unless of course you use my methods to train a sit or a down) you can make the dog aggressive. There's an article on my site that describes the method that I recommend for this. Write privately for the link.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Capt Jack said:


> I have an invisable fence for Jack & now Sweetie & I have an e-collor for Jack I don't use the shock button & I don't think vibrate would do anything to help.It is handy for beep if he gets too far when we're off leash training so he knows I'm looking for him.When he hears the beep he knows I'm looking for him & comes back.I don't let anyone handle the remote except me.I find it was a usefull tool to begin with but feel now I could have done just as well without it.Sweetie will never have it on her I'll just work a little harder.I would use the shock if I thought Jack was in danger & that was the only way I could do anything about it but I don't really think that's a problem at this stage


I'd recommend AGAINST using the Ecollar shock if you think that _"Jack was in danger"_ unless you train him what the stim means. If all you do is zap him (probably with a fairly high level) he's liable to panic and run. If he guesses wrong, and starts running towards the danger, there's not much that you can do to stop him. Pressing the button again at a higher level will only increase his fear and speed him up TOWARDS the danger. 

No one ever thinks that _"there's a problem"_ until there is one. Sometimes, then, it's too late for the dog. Don't wait for the emergency to happen. Train your dog BEFORE it does so that if it ever does, you're ready. I've seen too many dogs that would not recall, get hit by cars. Better that you're trained and ready.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> Yes, I just ran through his previous posts in the forum.
> And this is someone who is a trainer.
> Right.
> Anyone can be a trainer and have a qebsite and articles on the Internet. Doesn't mean their methods come from of a position of understanding basic concepts.
> Further evidence that my zero respect and my abhorrence for this "trainer's" methods are justified.


Here we have the real reason that these threads get closed. This is NOTHING but another personal attack from someone who has run out of logic and reason and now thinks that this is the way to win an argument. Disgusting, simply disgusting. 

I'm well trained in the basic concepts. Tippy often tries to mislead people about my knowledge, I've already shown how wrong he is AGAIN in this thread. Looks like you decided to follow him down his rabbit hole. YOU are the one who pretends that she doesn't use punishment WHILE IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE, shows us that she does! 

As to my qualifications as a trainer ... I'm just back (last weekend) from my 59th seminar/workshop. They've been done in 20 states, 42 cities, and 3 foreign countries (Canada, The UK and Spain). Twenty one of them were repeats (done for the same seminar organizers). One seminar giver like my training so much that she's invited me back six times. I've been invited back for a 7th seminar next year. Next month I'm doing an Ecollar seminar for a local police agency. In January I'm doing another one that's open to local LE agencies. It filled up within two days of the announcement. 



Lilliam said:


> After all, this "trainer" espouses the idea of using electrick shock collars on puppies. The age of the puppy is not mentioned. So according to this trainer, it is acceptable to shock a puppy. This does not link to his website, so I don't mind posting it.


Thanks for posting the link to a collection of my articles! I'd forgotten all about them. That article was written in 2003 and at that time I didn't think that it was necessary to give the age to start working with a puppy. The articles were still under development. Now it's mentioned in two places on my website. Here's what one of the current articles on my site says,


> The youngest that I recommend working with a puppy is six months.


 And here's what the other one says,


> * I recommend that the youngest you go with a puppy with an Ecollar is six months. * [Emphasis Original]


 Additionally I've given that information here several times, when the topic of using Ecollars on puppies has arisen. 

I'm pretty easy to find on the Net and so, if anyone had a question as to what minimum age I'd recommend for using an Ecollar, they could easily contact me and ask. I guess that some people were born with all the knowledge that they now have. Not me, I had to learn and evolve to get here. 

But I do want to express my thanks to you Lilliam, for helping to improve my articles, my site and the information that many others host on the Web about my methods! I just got off the phone with the owner of that site. She's going to update the articles and put a statement to the effect that "there may be updates – so check with the author" and give a link to my site. I truly appreciate your efforts.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> Astonishing that I found several instances of dogs being burned by electronic shock collars.


Not really. There's lots of bad information on the Net. But some people will believe anything that agrees with their notions without question. We see that again, right now. 



Lilliam said:


> I wish I'd taken pictures of the four dogs I saw with burn marks and with burned coat. Of course, at the time, I was too shocked to even think of it.


_"too shocked ..."_ Pun intended? Lol Problem is that one can't diagnosis an electrical burn from a photo. It takes lab examination. 



Lilliam said:


> And I never knew that I would ever encounter anyone who would deny the veracity of what my eyes were telling me.


Even a vet can't tell a friction burn from an electrical burn without a very detailed examination that includes lab work. What you've alleged, is that the burns you've seen are electrical in nature. I've been VERY clear that this is impossible based on the physics. No modern Ecollar puts out enough current to cause burns in any animal. It's simply impossible. Ecollars can cause friction burns, as can any device that's put on a dog's neck too tightly and/or is left on for too long. Burns of one type often resemble one another, to the naked eye. 

And so you may have seen friction burns, aka pressure necrosis, aka friction sores. I've seen them from pinch collars too. And there's certainly no electrical current at play with them. But I'm intelligent enough so that when someone says something and is so positive of the real situation, I pay attention. Sometime some folks get too emotionally wrapped up to look at such things logically. 

You mention "The Rufus incident" as proof that an Ecollar can cause burns from the electrical current they produce. In fact the vet who treated Rufus now acknowledges that the burns she saw were from *chemicals *released when the batteries got wet. (NOTE: This is not an issue with modern Ecollars as they are all waterproof). The directions for the invisible fence collar that was in use, clearly said not to allow them to get wet. The owner failed to comply with that requirement and he left the dog out in the rain. The unit got wet, the batteries leaked and the chemicals that were released, caused the burns. I suggest that if you still believe the initial report (the dog's owner refuses to take responsibility for his own behavior – and to change the vet's comments on the site) that you do as I did, and contact the vet directly. Somehow I doubt that you will, it won't support your claim. 

This site that you supplied shows some injuries on a dog's neck. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IrxhQEEZDQw/TNORxiduIlI/AAAAAAAAAhk/RPCFKvaECzU/s1600/matthew+003.JPG These are friction burns. As I've said ... no modern Ecollar puts out enough current to cause burns due to that current. 

An article on my site states,


> * MYTH #23: * Ecollars put out thousands of volts of electricity. They will burn my dog’s neck.
> 
> * FACT: * If you put an Ecollar on an oscilloscope, you'll find that it puts out thousands of volts. That’s what’s called a “no load” voltage, and measures the voltage that’s produced without any resistance. That never occurs during use of the tool. It’s on the dog’s neck, and so whatever resistance the skin puts into the system must be taken into account when measuring the voltage that’s applied to the dog. That resistance is commonly considered to be 100 ohms. When you plug these figures into the equations that deal with electricity, you'll discover that the actual voltage output from an Ecollar is from three to twenty-five volts. With the small amount of amperage that available, it’s physically impossible for an Ecollar to cause burns or any other injury that’s due to the electricity that they discharge.


This site, that YOU supplied, supports my point perfectly. banshockcollars.ca - Reports/Alerts AGAIN, these are friction burns from leaving the Ecollar on for too long. As the manufacturer said, _"The owner's claim the manufacturer wasn't surprised about the damage because the collar was left on the dog "too long."_ Put a choke chain, or any kind of collar that is inflexible, on a dog without following the instructions and you can get this result. Ever seen a chain embedded into the flesh of a dog's neck because it was put on when the dog was small and as he grew, it penetrated his skin? Similar thing going on here but because the contact area is relatively so small, it happens faster. An Ecollar should not be left on a dog for longer than about 8-10 hours. It should be moved around several times a day to prevent friction sores from occurring. There are devices available that allow for longer wear and they should be used if wearing the Ecollar for longer periods is necessary or desirable. 

"Virtually" every manufacturer puts out a warning not to leave the collar on for extended periods of time. Actually I'd bet that it's "every manufacturer" but since I haven't read every makers websites or seen their literature, I can't make that statement. This is common knowledge among users and it's mentioned several times on my site. 

This site shows what appears to be bloodstained fur on the dog's neck. http://www.animal-rights-action.com/images/shock-dog-collar-1.jpg But there's not even a caption telling us what's going on. AGAIN these are friction burns. You're still wrong! 

I’m always amused when people in this debate lose their focus as has happened here. Lilliam is trying to convince people that Ecollars cause burns as a result of the current they produce. In her zeal she supplies this website. Injured With Shock Collar at Canine Country « Boarding Your Dog in Tualatin, OR? Avoid Canine Country There's a photo of a dog's neck stained (we assume) with blood. But text on the site CLEARLY shows that even in the opinion of the dog's owner and the vet, this is not an electrical burn. It states,


> When we retrieved our dog from Canine Country, she was bleeding profusely *from the puncture wounds * caused by the collar’s prongs and required immediate veterinary care. ... Our vet would later testify that the wounds had gone untreated for too long and had become infected. * His assessment was that the collar had been left on for a prolonged period of time, * [Emphasis Added]


 SOMEHOW not a word about electrical burns. AGAIN, these are friction sores. One of the photos even bears this caption, _*"Puncture wound *from shock collar prongs."_ Even the owner of the injured dog realizes that these are not burns, but Lilliam in her zeal has posted them to support her argument. Missed it by a mile! lol 



Lilliam said:


> Given the existence of these pictures it is evident that burns from electric shock collars do happen.


Quite wrong. You might try reading the accompanying text. You might consider the physics of the situation. No modern Ecollar puts out enough current to cause electrical burns. Other injuries can result, but these injuries, similar ones, and other injuries can also result with other tools as well. Deny this and you deny reality. 

To put the nail in this coffin. I'll quote from some studies that were decidedly anti-Ecollar. Emphases are mine. 

From this study, The Use of Electric Pulse Training Aids (EPTAs) in Companion Animals http://www.cawc.org.uk/sites/default/files/120625 CAWC ecollar report.pdf


> * 3.1.4. Risk of injury from the devices * It is sometimes claimed that EPTAs can cause electrical burns or seizures, but * evidence of this is lacking and indeed such suggestions have led to legal proceedings * (e.g. Orion Pet products Pty v RSPCA (Vic) in Australia) which did not find in favour of such claims. The physical characteristics of these devices are such that accidental harm in the way that is often suggested by any proprietary device is extremely unlikely, if not impossible. * Sores occasionally arise from fitting a collar too tightly and it is perhaps these pressure sores arising from inappropriate fitting that have led some to believe that a collar may burn the skin at the point of contact. *


From this study, "Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations" http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/S0168-1591(06)00382-0/abstract


> Klein (2003) states that some authors stress the advantage of these instruments, claiming that their application does not cause any physical injury


From this study, "Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects" http://82.221.28.69/media/ljosmyndir/dyralif/Trainingdogswithshockcollar.pdf


> Although shocks may be painful, this does not imply that there is physical damage. * A recent report on possible damage by the use of shock collars provides no evidence for physical damage and states that this is even unlikely *


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Thanks, Lou! I think you've given us everything we need to know (and more!).


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> Thanks, Lou! I think you've given us everything we need to know (and more!).


I've often wondered if his computer lights up and plays the Cavalry Charge whenever a thread is posted about e-collars.


----------



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

kwhit said:


> I've often wondered if his computer lights up and plays the Calvary Charge whenever a thread is posted about e-collars.


 
Actually it only lights up when people make such absurd comments


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Thanks, Lou! I think you've given us everything we need to know (and more!).


If only you'd cowboy up and answer questions that are asked of you! You make it a habit to run and hide from them because you know that they'll show the real value of some of your statements. 

To save you the trouble of having to look the ones that I've asked in JUST THIS THREAD, here they are again. To make it easier for you to find, I'll highlight them in red. I've also used bold in some places to draw your attention to what I'm referring to. 

1. You claimed that _"accomplished field trainers"_ say that Ecollars are _"not a good tool for teaching new behaviors and ... basic household obedience."_ Then I posted a couple of videos of a well known field trainer showing that you were wrong. Then I wrote, "Please provide some quotations from a few of them who have said this." 

2. You wrote, _" And when it comes to the e-collar, * I've watched a lot more people use it effectively * and ineffectively than I've ever seen beat a dog. You don't have to use * a bad idea * yourself in order to identify it as a bad idea. In fact, you hopefully don't use bad training concepts too many times before you learn that they're bad."_ In response, I asked _"Was it 'a bad idea' when it was used 'effectively?' "_ 

3. You wrote that you were _"glad that [I was] able to help a dog. That doesn't vindicate any of the concerns about the side-effects of e-collars used to train basic behaviors. "_ In response, I asked _"Please tell us of "the side−effects" that you imagine occur [when my methods are used]."_ 

4. You wrote, _"Just like he will claim that the 'stress' of not getting a cookie is essentially the same as the 'stress' of being stimmed, since they're both 'stress.'"_ I responded, _"Tippy, you're wrong AGAIN! I don't think that they're the same. I think that the stress of not getting the cookie is worse, and there is a study that supports this position. * Would you like to see it?"*_ 

I look forward to receiving your answers to these very simple questions.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

kwhit said:


> I've often wondered if his computer lights up and plays the Cavalry Charge whenever a thread is posted about e-collars.


There is an informal network of Ecollar users and supporters who, when they see rumors, false information, or misconceptions being spread about the Ecollar will send me an email so that I can join the discussion and set the record straight. I appreciate them greatly. They do this with complete confidentiality. Anyone who wants to join in the effort to stop the spread of misinformation, please, feel free, to help me find these discussions. My email address is in my signature line. The pay is very good! You get to sit back and watch the show, secure in the knowledge that you've helped a lot of dogs and their owners! 

I never hope to change the minds of those people who are arguing against Ecollars. That would be like trying to get someone to change their religion and I'd never do that. But there are lots of others reading this who deserve the right to make an informed decision about the tool. They can't do that if all they read is misinformation. And there's never a shortage of that.


----------



## Shalva (Jul 16, 2008)

OK I am not totally against e-collars when used by someone that knows what the heck they are doing BUT 

I absolutely hate quotes taken out of context from studies. If nothing else give me the whole paragraph as with anything taking one sentence is never enough to get the full meaning of what the author is talking about. Especially when talking about something as contraversial as e collars I want to see at least the entire paragraph... and not just annotated pieces of a literature review.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> There is an informal network of Ecollar users and supporters who, when they see rumors, false information, or misconceptions being spread about the Ecollar will send me an email so that I can join the discussion and set the record straight.


Ahhhhh...so it's not the song but the actual Cavalry. I see...


----------



## DNL2448 (Feb 13, 2009)

Don't mind me. I'm just here to watch the show (one I've seen before..several times.)


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> If only you'd cowboy up and answer questions that are asked of you! You make it a habit to run and hide from them because you know that they'll show the real value of some of your statements.


I think more than anybody else on GRF, I've been willing to sort through your absurd multi-quote posts and take your ideas seriously enough to actually respond to them. Calling it "cowboying up" is beyond ridiculous. This is not a machismo contest for me, but is it for you?




Lou Castle said:


> "Please provide some quotations from a few of them who have said this."


Read the threads you participate in. The very conversations you've been in with some of our serious field training members have contained this theme over and over. Most of them will say that it's not the right tool for basic obedience. I'm sure there are field people out there who use them for everything they can, but not the folks I respect.



Lou Castle said:


> Was it 'a bad idea' when it was used 'effectively?'


I don't care to debate the use of the e-collar by field professionals working at a high level. I care to call it a bad idea for people trying to have livable household pets. It's a bad tool for teaching and reinforcing basic behaviors. You shouldn't shock (or stim, or tickle, or whatever euphemism you please) a dog in order to show him what to do. It's lazy communication and a betrayal of the dog's trust, no matter how low you set the voltage. I wouldn't teach a person, a dolphin, or a parrot a new skill with electric current, so I certainly won't teach a dog with one.



Lou Castle said:


> 3. Please tell us of _"the side−effects"_ that you imagine occur [when my methods are used].


I've done this so many times, that it's obvious you just want to get back into the same tired argument. Positive punishment and negative reinforcement have well-documented side effects that occur less or not at all with negative punishment and positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement also creates more durable behaviors than negative. You don't like it, and you do an amazing tap dance around it, but no matter how many long, rude internet forum posts you write, you won't change basic, accepted facts of animal psychology.



Lou Castle said:


> 4. I think that the stress of not getting the cookie is worse, and there is a study that supports this position. * Would you like to see it?"*


Sure. To say "I have a study" and then not to produce at least a link to it is the height of ridiculousness. And one heretofore-unnamed study doesn't undo decades of research that says the opposite. But sure, show us your study.



Lou Castle said:


> I look forward to receiving your answers to these very simple questions.


I look forward to an absurd rant on the same tired self-promoting themes.


----------



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

And once again every question was direct and not one was answered. LOL!


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

I wonder what it would take for goldenretrieverforum to follow the path of other internet dog sites such as petforums.co.uk, e-dog list, Bob Eden's police dog list, e-dog training, workingdogforum.com, dogforums.com, the Leerburg forums, etc. and get rid of his self promotion and search engine optimisation tactics, and get rid of him once and for all. When the majority of threads where he posts are closed there might be something to the possibility that the common denominator and his minions (read: those who get him to post incessantly in order to promote his own admitted instructions of putting e collars on puppies whenever anyone mentions "e collar," which he just admitted) it proves the point that he is the contributor to the disruption.
Spam takes many forms. The use of search engine optimisation techniques such as linking his own articles in many of those closed threads and the propagation of his own "training" materials are simply two. Every time he says "PM me" it achieves the same result, bringing his website or "body of work" to the top of web searches. 
Any person who would "train" online or have "how to" materials without seeing "student" or dog, particularly with a device that can produce the results I showed in those pictures of dogs with burnt necks, is a danger to our dogs and should be called out for those practices.
He's on my Ignore list, so frankly I don't see anything he says to me. Which suits me perfectly. But I hate to think what would happen to new members who use his materials to "train" their dogs at home without professional supervision using a device that can burn a dog.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> And once again every question was direct and not one was answered. LOL!


Here is a direct question....have you anything of substance to add or are you merely in a sycophantic supporting role?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lilliam said:


> I wonder what it would take for goldenretrieverforum to follow the path of other internet dog sites such as petforums.co.uk, e-dog list, Bob Eden's police dog list, e-dog training, workingdogforum.com, dogforums.com, the Leerburg forums, etc. and get rid of his self promotion and search engine optimisation tactics, and get rid of him once and for all.


I wonder this too. I've thought this since his very first appearance here, and I theorized as much. Normally, I don't care if a person owns a Golden or not when they post here, since I think posts are about their substance, not the identity of the poster, but usually people at least have a dog to post about, even if it's not a Golden.

Coming on to promote an agenda and a personal business is tiresome indeed, especially with the scorched-earth tactics that lead to nearly every thread he participates in being closed.


----------



## Shalva (Jul 16, 2008)

Lilliam said:


> Here is a direct question....have you anything of substance to add or are you merely in a sycophantic supporting role?


 
omGOSH i LOVE YOU!!!


----------



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

Lilliam said:


> Here is a direct question....have you anything of substance to add or are you merely in a sycophantic supporting role?


I have been in heated debates on here many times in regards to the collar. I have also had my questions twisted to no avail.

The threads get pulled because of absurd posts such as yours in regards to being burned and abused because of ecollars. Abuse is abuse period. Should I post pictures of dogs with prong collars embedded in their necks? And then go on to say that these collars should be banned along with threads on here because they are dangerous? That would certainly upset many on here that train correctly and successfully with prong collars.

You are doing new members a disjustice to shove ecollar information under the covers. They need to get educated on the proper use of the collar. If not they will go to the store buy it and slap it on and push the button. Education will avoid this. Education is key. Even for kool aid drinkers 

And not ONE of Lou's questions was answered BTW.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I have been in heated debates on here many times in regards to the collar. I have also had my questions twisted to no avail.
> 
> *The threads get pulled because of absurd posts such as yours in regards to being burned and abused because of ecollars.*


Absolute idiocy. And perhaps lack of visual acuity. Perhaps you did not see the burnt necks of the dogs whose pictures I posted. Do you need to see them again? Unfortunately, I did not stop to take pictures of dogs I saw myself with burns on their necks. Nor am I able to post the name of the "trainer" who put those marks on those dogs because she is an AKC member who was banned from trialing because of abuse. And *my* neck is not one I would burn for the sake of an online forum.



> Abuse is abuse period.


Agreed. And it should be stopped. To that end, several countries have either banned them altogether or severely curtailed their use. So at least dogs in Denmark, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, Wales, and if it passes, England, will not suffer the dangers of burnt necks.



> Should I post pictures of dogs with prong collars embedded in their necks? And then go on to say that these collars should be banned along with threads on here because they are dangerous? That would certainly upset many on here that train correctly and successfully with prong collars.


Your actions are your own. I certainly won't stop you.



> You are doing new members a disjustice to shove ecollar information under the covers.


It appears that you lack an understanding of what I wrote. While I abhor the use of the electronic shock collar and will not use it on my dog, I am not "shoving e collar information under the covers." Rather, I'm preseting an opposing viewpoint. What I do want is for a "trainer" who advocates in his own writings the use of electronic shock collars on puppies, who "trains" online without ever seeing his "students" or their dogs and the effects of the electronic shock collar, and whose posts have a positive correlation to closed threads be removed from this forum. I hope you can discern the difference.



> They need to get educated on the proper use of the collar. If not they will go to the store buy it and slap it on and push the button. Education will avoid this. Education is key. Even for kool aid drinkers


I would state that they need to be fully informed on what ther electronic shock collar is, the possibility for physical and psychological damage to their dogs that it can cause, and then shown alternative methods that promote a greater cooperation and trust between owner and dog. But then again, in Lou's own words to Tippykayak in another thread, trust is not really the most important thing, results are. I could find you that statement, but it would mean removing him from my Ignore list, and as I mentioned earlier, I will not engage him again. I do not engage individuals whose agendas and philosophies I abhor.



> And not ONE of Lou's questions was answered BTW.


He's a big boy. If he feels he has been slighted he will let everyone know. He is certainly not short on words. And his minions will let him know so that he can show up again. Or you can. On the way to the kool aid aisle.


----------



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

Lilliam said:


> Absolute idiocy. And perhaps lack of visual acuity. Perhaps you did not see the burnt necks of the dogs whose pictures I posted. Do you need to see them again? Unfortunately, I did not stop to take pictures of dogs I saw myself with burns on their necks. Nor am I able to post the name of the "trainer" who put those marks on those dogs because she is an AKC member who was banned from trialing because of abuse. And *my* neck is not one I would burn for the sake of an online forum.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not idiocy at all. These threads get banned because of posts such as yours. Instead of educating you just want conflict. You just keep throwing out cases of abuse. And then it turns into a heated argument. That is why they get pullled. Nobody is adocating abuse. Not one person. 

I have had both my dogs condtioned with this collar and I can tell you that there is no way either one of them could be burned by this tool. No way in hell. And I would have no problem inviting *anyone *to use my collar to prove that this could even happen.


----------



## dezymond (May 3, 2012)

I think this thread may be closed soon, but I'll give my opinion.

I think e-collars can be great tools for training when put in the right hands. I've the seen the results for myself with the e-collar on AND off, also on vibrate mode and my jaw was on the floor practically. However, I think the amount of "bad cases" regarding the e-collar outweigh the "good cases" which is why e-collars get a bad rep. It's just like the pinch collar to me, it looks cruel, but sometimes it's just necessary as part of training or keeping control of the dog. 

I do not have the knowledge nor the means to use the collar on Maverick and never will.

Just my .02


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> It's not idiocy at all. These threads get banned because of posts such as yours. Instead of educating you just want conflict.


We are both in this thread for the same reason. I am advocating against the use of electronic shock collars that deliver an electrical shock to the neck of a dog. You are advocating for its use. If I want conflict, as you state, it would appear that so do you, since you are in this thread with me.




> You just keep throwing out cases of abuse. And then it turns into a heated argument. That is why they get pullled. Nobody is adocating abuse. Not one person.


It seems you believe I have more power than I do. I have engaged in two threads on this forum where I voiced my refusal to use electronic shock collars. This is the first time I have engaged Lou. Therefore I had no hand in any thread being closed.
As to the word "abuse" I have not applied it to Lou. Nor have I used it in this thread. You have. 



> I have had both my dogs condtioned with this collar and I can tell you that there is no way either one of them could be burned by this tool.


That is a rather improbable assertion. All electronic equipment is subject to failure. Even if you do not fry your dog, the equipment has the potential to fail. 




> No way in hell. And I would have no problem inviting *anyone *to use my collar to prove that this could even happen.


Rather a melodramatic statement. It is quite improbable that anyone on this forum would take you up on your offer. Personally I will not take you up on your invitation. But it is a statement quite effective in its grandiosity.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Lilliam said:


> But I hate to think what would happen to new members who use his materials to "train" their dogs at home without professional supervision *using a device that can burn a dog*.


OK, I have sat back and put up with your blatent lies and misinformation long enough. 

Electronic collars can't cause a physical burn on a dog. They simply do not generate enough current to do so. That is a matter of physics. Electrical engineering is one of the few sciences that can be proven mathmatically. I would love to see your calculations that prove the collar can generate enough energy to physically burn a dog. 

The popular photo the anti-E-collar folks love to trott out depicts a dog who's owner put a collar on a dog too tightly and and left it on for what appears to be several weeks. That's not a problem with the collar, that is blatent neglect on the part of the owner.

E-collars have been around now nearly 50 years. They have gone through numerous changes and refinement over that period of time. The leading manufacturer in the U.S. has produced and sold hundreds of millions of units over the last 50 years. The E-collar is here to stay and it isn't going away any time soon. 

Rather than spreading lies and falsehoods, wouldn't it be more productive to admit the truth. The E-collar is a very effective training tool for the majority of users. If it wasn't people would have long ago quit using them. 

What this debate always boils down to is whether or not somebody wants to employ a training format that includes some corrections. Like it or not, the vast majority of dog owners DO NOT follow a positive only approach to dog training. The vast majority of dog owners will apply the use of some type of training aid to help pressure the dog into compliance. It might be a leash, flat collar, chain collar, gentle leader, halti or for the sake of this discussion an E-collar.

There are almost as many training programs available as there are varieties of dog food. Many are very effective, many are somewhat effective, many aren't effective at all. 

What type of training program somebody chooses depends upon many factors the least of which being what kind of behavior they expect out of their dog, and how capable they are in executing the program effectively. If they can't execute a program effectively, it really doesn't do them any good.


----------



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

Lilliam said:


> We are both in this thread for the same reason. I am advocating against the use of electronic shock collars that deliver an electrical shock to the neck of a dog. You are advocating for its use. If I want conflict, as you state, it would appear that so do you, since you are in this thread with me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are wrong. I am not advocating this tool. I am here to stop the myths. I could care less if anyone wants to use it or not. 

I said posts "such as yours" get these threads closed. You posted links to abuse.

You can't fry an egg with my collar. 

Ok I invite anyone to purchase a recomended ecollar referred by a professional and video it burning something.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

Swampcollie said:


> OK, I have sat back and put up with *your blatent lies and misinformation* long enough.
> 
> Electronic collars can't cause a physical burn on a dog. They simply do not generate enough current to do so. That is a matter of physics. Electrical engineering is one of the few sciences that can be proven mathmatically. I would love to see your calculations that prove the collar can generate enough energy to physically burn a dog.
> 
> ...


Aaaawww, Swampcollie....that's too bad....I have respected you on this forum since I first arrived. Because this is a heated argument, I will ignore the bolded part.
Unlike Lou, I do respect your viewpoint and have enjoyed you on this forum. I will post these again and will leave it at that. Unlike Lou, I don't want to build a fence against you.

http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/Adobe/rufus.pdf

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IrxhQEEZDQ...atthew+003.JPG

http://banshockcollars.ca/alerts.php

http://www.animal-rights-action.com/...g-collar-1.jpg

http://caninecountrytualatin.wordpre...4/shawn-riley/


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Where are your calculations? 

I'm waiting.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

Swampcollie said:


> Where are your calculations?
> 
> I'm waiting.


Calculations? What are you on about?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> And not ONE of Lou's questions was answered BTW.


How is "sure" not a direct answer to the question "do you want to see the study?"


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

OK I see, you want me to provide calculations as to how a dog can be burnt with electronic shock collars.
Of course I can't. I'm hopeless at math. 

It appears that the pictures (plural) provided are not enough for you. Since you have categorised me as a liar my statements as to what I saw are not enough.

If you wish to use an electronic shock collar on your dog you are certainly free to do so.

I will not train my dog by giving it an electric shock.

And I *really* don't want to do this with you. As I stated before, I have respected you before this moment. I *really* don't want to do this with you.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> You are wrong. I am not advocating this tool. I am here to stop the myths. I could care less if anyone wants to use it or not.
> 
> I said posts "such as yours" get these threads closed. You posted links to abuse.
> 
> ...


I posted links to dogs who had been burned by electronic shock collars. Again, the word abuse is yours, not mine. Whether intentional or accidental, these dogs had burnt flesh. I saw dogs with burns on their necks. 
And seriously....I'm beyond the age where I fold to a childish taunt on a forum.


----------



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

Lilliam said:


> I posted links to dogs who had been burned by electronic shock collars. Again, the word abuse is yours, not mine. Whether intentional or accidental, these dogs had burnt flesh. I saw dogs with burns on their necks.
> And seriously....I'm beyond the age where I fold to a childish taunt on a forum.


What? You can honestly say those pictures don't have abuse written all over them? Really? Oh my:no:


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> Electronic collars can't cause a physical burn on a dog. They simply do not generate enough current to do so. That is a matter of physics. Electrical engineering is one of the few sciences that can be proven mathmatically. I would love to see your calculations that prove the collar can generate enough energy to physically burn a dog.


I mostly agree with you, but I'll quibble a bit on the math. A modern e-collar can't burn a dog under normal operation, but if the device shorts or the battery cracks, it could burn a dog. The collar wouldn't work afterwards, and I would bet it's quite rare, but it's not _impossible_.

You can burn skin with a AA battery if you short or crack it. You can certainly do it with the rechargeable lithium ion or NiMH battery in an e-collar.

The "burns" that are typically pictured, in my guess, are certainly not electrical burns caused by a short. Most could easily be hotspots or pressure necrosis caused, yes, by leaving the collar on too long. I agree with you there.

However, in the case where the veterinarian was utterly confident that the dog was burned, I doubt the vet was misinterpreting a hotspot. And there are a few other cases where it's clear the dog was burned by heat or acid. An acid burn from a cracked battery could be to blame, and I'd guess that's more likely than a burn from a short. The device is designed pretty well against shorting. And even if it did, the short wouldn't be able to pass increased current along the skin and cause an electrical burn, since the short would have to be caused by an internal failure, not anything that would be touching the skin.

A burn from a short could only happen if the unit shorted internally and heated up to the point that it burned the fur or skin. That would _still_ not be an electrical burn from current run across the skin, but it could happen and it could burn the dog. I'd agree that electrical burns are unlikely to the point of being functionally impossible because there's no feasible way for the short to be passed across the skin. 

So I wouldn't call it a lie or a falsehood to say that a dog can be burned by a malfunctioning e-collar, but I'd say that risk is significantly exaggerated by some people.

If you're saying it's _mathematically_ impossible, then yeah, it's impossible for enough current to cross the skin to cause an electrical burn. However, it's not mathematically impossible for the unit to heat up enough to burn (just quite unlikely), and it's not mathematically impossible for batteries to crack and cause acid burns.

However, in terms of real danger of physical injury, it's no more dangerous than putting a GPS unit in your dog's backpack (as long as you don't leave the prongs against the dog's neck for too long in one spot).



Swampcollie said:


> The E-collar is a very effective training tool for the majority of users. If it wasn't people would have long ago quit using them.


I don't agree with the logic. People have beaten dogs for a lot longer than they've used e-collars, and it's not going away anytime soon. Doesn't mean it's effective training. The fact that a training method is popular and persistent doesn't mean it's good. It just means that somebody is profiting from it.



Swampcollie said:


> What this debate always boils down to is whether or not somebody wants to employ a training format that includes some corrections.


I disagree here too. My beef here is not about using _some_ corrections. I use some myself. My problem is advocating for the e-collar as the first stop for teaching young dogs basic obedience skills. It's unnecessary and carries more potential for harm than good, since there are positive-oriented techniques that accomplish the goals at least as quickly and reliably without many of the potential downsides.

I'm not a "pure positive" or "positive only" trainer myself. I'm not afraid of corrections, and I don't choose to eliminate them completely from my training. However, I think they make a crappy teaching tool and that correction-focused training undermines the dog/handler relationship.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> What? You can honestly say those pictures don't have abuse written all over them? Really? Oh my:no:


I posted pictures of dogs with burn flesh to counter the argument that it cannot happen. 

I have stated that I have seen dogs with burnt flesh due to electronic shock collar use. 

I have repeatedly stated that I will not put an electronic shock collar on my dogs with the purpose of training them something that I can accomplish quite easily and effectively through the use of clicker and broiled chicken.

I have stated what I abhor in the methods, tactics, and agenda espoused by Lou.

The utilisation of the word abuse and its application to the pictures is yours.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I looked at Lilliam's links, and at least two of them seem to be from a collar being put on way, way too tightly and possibly then left on for a while. Combine that with the prongs on the e-collar, and you could get those horrible red marks and necrotic tissue. I don't think they prove electrical damage.

The vet's letter seems to describe a battery cracking and burning the dog with its acid.

I really don't think they prove an _electrical_ burn cause by normal or abnormal operation of the collar.

As far as her personal experience, though, I strongly doubt she's lying. And, again, I take issue with claims that it's "impossible" for a dog to be injured by e-collar malfunction because it clearly isn't.

I'd do the actual math if I could find clear stats on the output of a popular collar, but devices that use even a fraction of the power you'd need for an e-collar can get hot enough to burn if they short. All you have to do is short _any_ commercial battery and it'll heat up enough to cause at least 2nd degree burns.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

tippykayak said:


> I looked at Lilliam's links, and at least two of them seem to be from a collar being put on way, way too tightly and possibly then left on for a while. Combine that with the prongs on the e-collar, and you could get those horrible red marks and necrotic tissue. I don't think they prove electrical damage.
> 
> The vet's letter seems to describe a battery cracking and burning the dog with its acid.
> 
> ...


I am not lying as to the dogs I saw with those burns.
There were dogs in AKC sponsored sheepdog trials. They were not border collies. The trainer worked with loose eyed breeds, quite hard on sheep. Her personal dogs showed burns, as did two of her clients' dogs. I saw them on different trials. This trainer was eventually barred from trailing in certain venues.
From those experiences, and from discussions with the more "traditional" national level sheepdog trialers and trainers I developed my personal convictions against the use of the electric shock collar. From those experiences, perspectives and convictions, I have stated many times, and will continue to state, that I will not use electronic shock collars.
I don't *have* to participate in any one sport. If I cannot find a trainer in field who doesn't use them then I simply won't participate in that sport. And if I do find one who does and it takes me and Max until he's seven or eight, so be it. I'm not proving anything to anyone.
I cannot look into my dog's eyes and know that I put a shock into him. I cannot and I will not.


----------



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

Lilliam said:


> I posted pictures of dogs with burn flesh to counter the argument that it cannot happen.
> 
> I have stated that I have seen dogs with burnt flesh due to electronic shock collar use.
> 
> ...


Oh ok I am glad you are not trying to mislead people into thinking that this is normal use of a collar. Cause clearly it's not.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Oh ok I am glad you are not trying to mislead people into thinking that this is normal use of a collar. Cause clearly it's not.


Whether it's normal or abnormal is not the issue. The issue is that it can happen, is has happened. 

A person with a puppy should NOT be using an electronic shock collar on him. That is absolutely vile. Particularly so when there are many methods that serve to create and cement a bond between puppy and owner.

The OP had bought an electronic shock collar by mistake. For a puppy. It is absolutely inappropriate to use an electronic shock collar on a puppy. I will fight that absolutely and unequivocably.

On older dogs I again stress the use of something else.


----------



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

Lilliam said:


> Whether it's normal or abnormal is not the issue. The issue is that it can happen, is has happened.
> 
> A person with a puppy should NOT be using an electronic shock collar on him. That is absolutely vile. Particularly so when there are many methods that serve to create and cement a bond between puppy and owner.
> 
> ...


It most certainly IS the issue. That is clearly not normal. You can't possibly be in that much denial:uhoh: By all means report the abuser but stop blaming the tool. FWIW I started using mine when one was a year and one was 7months.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Brian, 
I'm not debating the training methods. (I'm not a fan of Lew's approach either.) I'm trying to stop the blatent misrepresentations about the tool itself. 

The photos do not depict physical "burns" generated from the normal furnction of the e-collar. 

In each instance they depict the type of physical trauma seen from putting the collar on too tight and leaving it on for an extended period of time, far beyond that which is recommended by the manufacturer. Then there is the accompanying acute moist dermatitis (hot spot) that follows the profile of the collar and strap. Of course most golden owners know what a hot spot is, and that it has nothing to do with physical or chemical burns. 

Although not posted here, I have seen photos of the dog mentioned in the Veterinarians write up. The dog was not wearing a "training" collar as discused in this thread, it was wearing an invisible fence collar. From the looks of it, the collar had been on the dog continuously for months and had actually started to grow into the dogs neck. The chemical burns were from a long failled battery that the owner didn't replace. 

In all of these cases it wasn't the tool that caused the problem, it was neglect on the part of the owners or care givers and their failure to live up to their responsibilities.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> Brian,
> I'm not debating the training methods. (I'm not a fan of Lew's approach either.) I'm trying to stop the blatent misrepresentations about the tool itself.
> 
> The photos do not depict physical "burns" generated from the normal furnction of the e-collar.


I think that's fair. Based on what I know about electricity and batteries, I'd say you're almost certainly right.


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

Well I'm calling it a night. I'm taking my two men to bed with me.
Y'all enjoy your evenings. However, I am posting these last pics. Because when someone tells me that something I have seen is impossible, or when I'm called a liar, it irritates me.
I don't care why these burns happened. I don't care who put them there. It's an electronic shock collar. 
So yes, an electronic shock collar can do this to a dog. And contrary to having me labelled a liar, I have seen dogs with burn marks. And I have seen dogs flatten themselves like pancakes and have a nervous jerk of the head up. 
Thank God many countries are banning electronic shock collars. I hope to God that we do here as well.

Let's see who is in denial.


----------



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

I would never advocate irresponsible use of electronic collars, but some of what I see in these photos is what I see with Invisible Fence collars that have been kept on the dog 24/7.
Not so much burns,,but the collars become embedded because they never get removed....


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I would invite anyone who is sincerely interested and open-minded to go training with me and any of my retriever friends to learn about the e-collar. I would love to show you what happens when I leave mine sitting within reach of the dog (in which she then brings it to me, tail wagging, trying to push me over). I don't care if you use one or not all I ask is you respect those of us that made that choice and have happy dogs that are well taken care of (but are also trained to a high level).


----------



## dezymond (May 3, 2012)

Man those pics are gruesome....thread needs a warning logo regarding pics


----------



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

The lesions look more like hot spot type lesions due to improperly fitted collars ... And other than an invisible fence collar, I have no electronic collar experience ... They look like acute moist dermatitis, ie,hot spots, not burns...


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> If only you'd cowboy up and answer questions that are asked of you! You make it a habit to run and hide from them because you know that they'll show the real value of some of your statements.





tippykayak said:


> I think more than anybody else on GRF, I've been willing to sort through your absurd multi-quote posts and take your ideas seriously enough to actually respond to them. Calling it "cowboying up" is beyond ridiculous. This is not a machismo contest for me, but is it for you?


I've got quite a collection of questions that you've hidden from in other discussions. In one of them there was nearly two dozen of them! You like to play the big time dog trainer, but when called out, you're found lacking over and over again. At first I thought that you were really going to answer my questions this time. Then I started reading. 

Nope, no macho for me, but I make it a point to answer just about every question that's asked of me. But I have a few guidelines. I don't answer stupid questions. I don't answer rhetorical questions, unless I feel like it. I also don't answer personal questions from unfriendlies that have nothing to do with the topic. Generally I don't answer questions from people that have refused to answer mine. I make a exceptions as the mood strikes. But I do answer every real question that I'm asked. YOU OTOH run and hide from those you know will show the weakness that pervades your anti-Ecollar comments. 



tippykayak said:


> Read the threads you participate in. The very conversations you've been in with some of our serious field training members have contained this theme over and over.


What part of _"*Please provide some quotations *from a few of them ... "_ is beyond your comprehension? As I said, running and hiding from questions that put the lie to your statements. And here you are PRETENDING to answer my questions. 



tippykayak said:


> Most of them will say that it's not the right tool for basic obedience. I'm sure there are field people out there who use them for everything they can, but not the folks I respect.


I'll let Mr. Nolan know that you don't respect him. I'm sure that he'll be crushed! ROFL. 

Since you say that _"MOST of them will say that it's not the right took for basic obedience."_ I'll AGAIN ask you to back up that statement with actual quotations from several of them. There are hundreds of field trainers out there. Even just counting the ones that you respect, you should be able to find A COUPLE who have said what you claim they've said in past discussions. BUT, even if that was true, the experience of the thousands of people that I've worked with, contradict them. But you go ahead and find those quotations. LOL. 

Earlier I wrote,


> 2. You wrote, _" And when it comes to the e-collar, * I've watched a lot more people use it effectively * and ineffectively than I've ever seen beat a dog. You don't have to use * a bad idea * yourself in order to identify it as a bad idea. In fact, you hopefully don't use bad training concepts too many times before you learn that they're bad."_ In response, I asked _"Was it 'a bad idea' when it was used 'effectively?' "_





tippykayak said:


> I don't care to debate the use of the e-collar by field professionals working at a high level.


ANOTHER "run and hide." 



tippykayak said:


> I care to call it a bad idea for people trying to have livable household pets. It's a bad tool for teaching and reinforcing basic behaviors.


Thanks for again sharing your opinion. Having done just that, thousands of times, I'll disagree. AGAIN we have someone with decades of experience v. someone with theories. As always, I'm happy to let the forum members decide who has the credibility on this. 



tippykayak said:


> You shouldn't shock (or stim, or tickle, or whatever euphemism you please) a dog in order to show him what to do.


In spite of having read my articles as you claim, you still don't have even the slightest bit of understanding. That's probably because learning of any form requires an open mind. The dog is not stimmed _"in order to show him what to do."_ He's stimmed to punish his inactivity. As always this occurs at the "annoyance" or "tingle" level. As this is occurring, he's guided into the desired behavior, and then the stim is shut off. 



tippykayak said:


> It's lazy communication


It's fantastic communication. 



tippykayak said:


> and a betrayal of the dog's trust


Sorry you are simply wrong. If all that happened was to hit the button, then you'd be right. But, since the dog is shown that he's in charge of the stim's stopping and starting, it actually BUILDS the dog's trust. I've previously described my work with a highly fear aggressive dog, who literally tried to kill me when we first met. After about 25 minutes, she climbed into my lap and was licking my face. She went from complete mistrust to complete trust in 25 minutes of Ecollar work. 

Elsewhere I've described the work of someone who had never before used an Ecollar as I train, whom I talked through the recall protocol ON THE PHONE. He took a dog that was literally on death row, and in two nights of work with an Ecollar, saved the dog, who went on to be adopted out to a family. Both stories are detailed on my site, PM for details. 



tippykayak said:


> no matter how low you set the voltage. I wouldn't teach a person, a dolphin, or a parrot a new skill with electric current, so I certainly won't teach a dog with one.


Given your knowledge of the Ecollar I'd not let you touch one! 

Earlier I wrote,


> 3. You wrote that you were _"glad that [I was] able to help a dog. That doesn't vindicate any of the concerns about the side-effects of e-collars used to train basic behaviors. "_ In response, I asked _"Please tell us of "the side−effects" that you imagine occur [when my methods are used]."_





tippykayak said:


> I've done this so many times, that it's obvious you just want to get back into the same tired argument. Positive punishment and negative reinforcement have well-documented side effects that occur less or not at all with negative punishment and positive reinforcement.


ROFLMAO. You consider this to be an answer to my question? The same general BS that people spout when they don't have a real answer. I was very clear in that I was looking for you to describe _"the side−effects you imagine when * my methods are used."*_ EVEN MORE running and hiding. 



tippykayak said:


> Positive reinforcement also creates more durable behaviors than negative.


I disagree and have proven the contrary over and over. 



tippykayak said:


> You don't like it, and you do an amazing tap dance around it, but no matter how many long, rude internet forum posts you write, you won't change basic, accepted facts of animal psychology.


_"Animal psychology"_ has yet to experiment with low level electrical stim. And so until it does, we'll have to accept (or those of us with logic and reason will have to accept) the findings of thousands of Ecollar trainers, those who train with Ecollars and continually win top level competitions and the experiences of the thousands of pet owners who have NOT had success with the so−called "kinder gentler methods," but who have had success with the Ecollar. You are free to stay where you are, I won't be bothered in the slightest. You're free to play any way that you like, but when you enter these discussion against the Ecollar, you'll be shown the truth. You're not required to accept it, but that also, doesn’t change it. 



tippykayak said:


> Sure. To say "I have a study" and then not to produce at least a link to it is the height of ridiculousness. And one heretofore-unnamed study doesn't undo decades of research that says the opposite. But sure, show us your study.


FINALLY a real answer! ROFL. I didn't put the study in the post where I first mentioned it because I thought that the post was already too long. I'd also thought that you might have read it and would be familiar with its findings. You so love to pretend that you've read everything there is under the sun on learning theory! But since you've chosen to play games while pretending to answer my previous questions, I'll not bother to comply with your request. 

As to your statement that _"the decades of research that says the opposite."_ We both know that it doesn't exist in regards to low level electrical stim. Every study that's ever been done has used very high levels of Estim. In fact, in some those (that actually used Ecollars) they were used at the highest level of stim that they afforded.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> And once again every question was direct and not one was answered. LOL!


Aw c'mon Wyatt's mommy, he actually did answer one of the four questions that I asked again, 25% ain't too bad is it?


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> I wonder what it would take for goldenretrieverforum to follow the path of other internet dog sites such as petforums.co.uk, e-dog list, Bob Eden's police dog list, e-dog training, workingdogforum.com, dogforums.com, the Leerburg forums, etc. and get rid of his self promotion and search engine optimisation tactics, and get rid of him once and for all.


This time the ENTIRE POST is a personal attack. AGAIN we see the REAL reason that these posts get closed. The antis simply can't stay on topic. They put up some weak arguments, and they're shown to be empty. They try the emotional approach and when that doesn't work, they've run out of steam. And so, they go down this road, the personal attack. 

You left off a whole buncha lists and forums that I've been kicked off of AND you mentioned a couple that I'm still on. Can't really get your facts straight, can you? 



Lilliam said:


> When the majority of threads where he posts are closed there might be something to the possibility that the common denominator and his minions (read: those who get him to post incessantly in order to promote his own admitted instructions of putting e collars on puppies whenever anyone mentions "e collar," which he just admitted) it proves the point that he is the contributor to the disruption.


An astute observer would have noticed that Tippykayak and a few others were in those discussions too. But since I’m the main one who's opposing you, you focus your attention on me, as the reason that some threads were closed. Fact is, I'm never the one who starts the personal attacks. AGAIN you've committed one against me, and I'm not responding in kind. Merely pointing out your lack of logic and reason, your inability to stay on topic, and your lack of honor. There's an interesting saying in the law that's appropriate here. if the facts are on your side – argue the facts. If the law is on your side – argue the law. If neither are on your side, pound your fist on the table and attack your opponent personally. This seems to be Lilliam's tactics. 



Lilliam said:


> Spam takes many forms. The use of search engine optimisation techniques such as linking his own articles in many of those closed threads and the propagation of his own "training" materials are simply two. Every time he says "PM me" it achieves the same result, bringing his website or "body of work" to the top of web searches.


Simply not true. Writing "PM me" does nothing to move my site on any search engine. Since PM's are, by definition, "private" they don't appear in any search by any search engine. If I were to give a link to my site THAT would affect such searches. But asking people to PM me has no effect. This is simply absurd. Other than statements that I do seminars and sell Ecollars, there's no advertising on my site that would bring me any income. 



Lilliam said:


> Any person who would "train" online or have "how to" materials without seeing "student" or dog, particularly with a device that can produce the results I showed in those pictures of dogs with burnt necks, is a danger to our dogs and should be called out for those practices.


I guess the same would apply to the THOUSANDS of books, articles, pamphlets, etc., that have been written, right? 

And STILL it's against the laws of physic for a modern Ecollar to cause burns. No matter how many times you say it or how much you pretend it's so. 



Lilliam said:


> He's on my Ignore list, so frankly I don't see anything he says to me.


I've never used the ignore feature on any forum that I've ever been on. I think it's a cowardly way out. I'd suppose that most here are adults and can exercise some will power, but the facts prove me wrong on that. 



Lilliam said:


> Which suits me perfectly.


It suits me perfectly too. Now I get to punch holes in your statements and you don't reply, making my life infinitely easier! ROFL. 



Lilliam said:


> But I hate to think what would happen to new members who use his materials to "train" their dogs at home without professional supervision using a device that can burn a dog.


Keep saying it, you just lose credibility every time you do. No modern Ecollar puts out enough current to cause burns. 

As to _"new members who use [my] materials to 'train' their dogs at home without professional supervision ..."_ here are a couple of comments from just such folks. These are unsolicited testimonials from my website and there are lots more. PM for the link. LOL I've added some emphases. 

Amber, who rescued a "boisterous" dog, wrote ...


> There were two main behaviours that I was despairing of changing. The first was her "boisterousness" around my kids. It was NOT an aggressive behaviour at all - Ceili was, and is, so friendly and happy to be with them and to play with them that she would quickly get out of hand. My husband called her the velociraptor! She had a particularly unwanted move of "boxing" with her front paws, which could and did leave pretty bad scratches. The more she was corrected, the harder she tried to "play".
> 
> I tried the usual route of substituting a wanted behaviour for the unwanted - i.e. sit and then you get attention, but something wasn't clicking. Correction for the jumping was difficult as well, since she didn't jump ON you, just AROUND you and AT you. It was the paws that were deadly! I also had the additional concern of making sure that Ceili didn't associate Brianna with the "bad" things, i.e. corrections. Having an animal that size wary of or nervous toward a child is asking for trouble.
> 
> ...


Beth, who handles a SAR K-9 wrote ...


> I've been in SAR work a long time (never mind how long) and have made a point of learning from every experience, and making experiences happen so I can learn. I've learned a lot and have a lot more to learn .
> 
> Several things I've learned came from a Lou Castle seminar. My experience with an electronic collar, prior to the seminar weekend, was to observe a person 'frying' a dog because of not responding to a command, 'when he knows better.'
> 
> ...


I have plenty more.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Normally, I don't care if a person owns a Golden or not when they post here, since I think posts are about their substance, not the identity of the poster, but usually people at least have a dog to post about, even if it's not a Golden.


I have plenty of dogs to post about. I just don't feel the need. If you have a question, feel free to ask. Just as soon as you answer my questions, which you keep avoiding, I'll get to yours. 



tippykayak said:


> Coming on to promote an agenda


As I've said before in this thread, my agenda has always been the same, to counteract the nonsense, the lies, the myths, the misconceptions that are put out about Ecollars. Like any tool they can be abused and misused and when this happens, the results are poor. But this is the case with any tool or method. I believe that people should be able to make informed decisions as to what tools and methods they use for training their dogs. 




tippykayak said:


> especially with the scorched-earth tactics that lead to nearly every thread he participates in being closed.


Oddly you forget that you've been a part of just about every thread that I've been in that's been closed. What's the saying? "When you point a finger at me, there are four pointing back at you." You are one of those whose personal attacks gets these threads closed. NOT ONE OF THEM has EVER been closed due to my _"agenda"_ or your imagined boosting of my _"personal business"_ that you find so _"tiresome."_ Feel free to join Lilliam and put me on Ignore.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> Absolute idiocy.


And here we have the worst kind of personal attack. Name calling. If anyone needs to be banned it's someone who engages in such childish behavior. 



Lilliam said:


> And perhaps lack of visual acuity. Perhaps you did not see the burnt necks of the dogs whose pictures I posted.


I saw some photos of injuries on the necks of some dogs. There is ABSOLUTELY no support for your contention that they are burns. Several of the people who put those photos online said that the injuries were _"puncture wounds"_ not burns. As always, no modern Ecollar puts out enough electrical current to cause burns. 



Lilliam said:


> Unfortunately, I did not stop to take pictures of dogs I saw myself with burns on their necks.


And as, with the photos you provided the links to, there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to support the fact that these are electrical burns. I'll guarantee that they are ALL friction marks from Ecollars being left on too long by negligent owners. 

Wyatt's mommy wrote,


> Abuse is abuse period.





Lilliam said:


> Agreed. And it should be stopped.


I agree. But your next statement makes no sense. Animal abuse is against the law in every civilized country on the planet. Using an Ecollar is not abuse. If it was, there could be an arrest, a prosecution and a conviction every time that an Ecollar was used. The facts are very simple, but they seem to escape you over and over again. ANY TOOL can be misused. ANY TOOL can be abused. NO TOOL is idiot proof to the right idiot. 



Lilliam said:


> To that end, several countries have either banned them altogether or severely curtailed their use. So at least dogs in Denmark, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, Wales, and if it passes, England, will not suffer the dangers of burnt necks.


NO DOG ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET is in danger from being burned by an Ecollar. They do not put out enough current for this to occur. And of the countries you mention, ONLY one of them Wales, has banned Ecollars. The restrictions in the others have no teeth. In most of them, all that's necessary is a letter from a vet or that someone who wants to use one, has to take some classes. 



Lilliam said:


> It appears that you lack an understanding of what I wrote. While I abhor the use of the electronic shock collar and will not use it on my dog, I am not "shoving e collar information under the covers." Rather, I'm presenting an opposing viewpoint.


Not really. You stopped doing that quite some time ago. NOW all you're doing is repeating nonsense about burns and committing repeated personal attacks. 



Lilliam said:


> What I do want is for a "trainer" who advocates in his own writings the use of electronic shock collars on puppies


Yep, as does most of the rest of the Ecollar community, as long as they're six months of age or older. 



Lilliam said:


> , who "trains" online without ever seeing his "students" or their dogs and the effects of the electronic shock collar


Just like the authors of thousand of books and pamphlets on dog training that are out there. Somehow I don't see you demanding that Barnes and Nobel remove them from their shelves! 



Lilliam said:


> and whose posts have a positive correlation to closed threads be removed from this forum.


It seems to have escaped your notice that several other forum members were also in those threads. And those were the people who started the personal attacks and off topic rants that got the threads closed. BTW it seems to have escaped your notice that this rant is off topic. 



Lilliam said:


> I hope you can discern the difference.


I wish that you could. 

If you were making these comments privately to the moderators you might have a leg to stand on. As it is, you don't. You've made your case SEVERAL times, and I'm still here. Obviously they don't agree with your assessment. I do hope they consider your atrocious behavior in calling names though. It's quite disgusting. 



Lilliam said:


> I would state that they need to be fully informed on what ther electronic shock collar is, the possibility for physical and psychological damage to their dogs that it can cause


Except that there is not one study of the many that have been done that has shown EITHER physical OR psychological damage to any dog from an Ecollar. Since you have made the claim, please support your statement with FACTS, not more of your opinion. 



Lilliam said:


> and then shown alternative methods that promote a greater cooperation and trust between owner and dog.


Guess what? Nothing is stopping you from showing those methods. It's probably also escaped your notice that Ecollar users don't barge into threads about the so−called "kinder gentler methods" decrying them and talking about how ineffective they are. We may show up and suggest an Ecollar but we don't put them down until you folks start putting down the Ecollar. 



Lilliam said:


> But then again, in Lou's own words to Tippykayak in another thread, trust is not really the most important thing, results are.


You've got the quotation wrong. The most important thing is "results achieved humanely." Trust is great but it's not going to give you a reliable recall when your dog is running towards the road. 



Lilliam said:


> I could find you that statement, but it would mean removing him from my Ignore list, and as I mentioned earlier, I will not engage him again. I do not engage individuals whose agendas and philosophies I abhor.


More rudeness. 

Earlier Wyatt's mommy wrote,


> And not ONE of Lou's questions was answered BTW.





Lilliam said:


> He's a big boy. If he feels he has been slighted he will let everyone know. He is certainly not short on words.


Good point. Here are the questions that I've asked of you that you ran and hid from. I realize that you won't see them, but I wanted the other members to be aware of just how you operate. I've added emphases where I think it's appropriate. 

1. You wrote this, _"I have seen border collies, german shepherds and Belgian Malinois ruined through the use of e collars. * I have seen dogs cower * and react to the shock."_ I responded with _"Here's an example of a dog feeling his first shock. * Can you show please us where the "cowering" that you refer to occurs? * Testing The Working Level If E-Collar On Lab . I'm going to post some other videos in later posts. Please show us where it's occurring in them too, OK?"_ 

I re−asked this question a little while later but STILL you did not respond. 

2. You wrote,


> Take away the personal aversion to shocking a dog into submission;


 And I asked, _"I'd ask that you take a look at my article on 'Teaching the recall' that's on this site (I linked to it in a previous post) and show us where the dog is, as you claim occurs, 'shock[ed] into submission.' Please show us where it happens ANYWHERE in my methods!"_ 

To make it easy, here's a link to my article on teaching the recall. http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94724-teaching-recall-ecollar.html 

3. You wrote,


> As expected, detractors are considered to lie as noted on their commercial websites and discount their observations as one-offs.


 I responded _"Pretty sure that I've not called anyone a liar in this thread. Since you seem to disagree, please show us where I've said this."_ 

4. You wrote,


> I have seen burned skin on a dog, I have seen scorched hair in a dog.


 I responded, _"It's physically impossible (meaning that it violates the laws of physics) for the current produced by a modern Ecollar to have produced such things. If such things could occur, they'd happen every time an Ecollar was used. There's not one bit of scientific evidence to support your statement. In fact, one thing that's consistent with studies done on the Ecollar, if they discuss physical injuries at all, they're quick to mention that physical injuries have never been reported. I can quote from several studies and "experts" if you like. * I'd challenge you to show us even ONE study where a physical injury resulted from the current that an Ecollar produces."*_ 

You've repeated this comment MANY times now and have NEVER provided the slightest bit of support for it. You won't, and not just because you're hiding from my posts by putting me on ignore. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR THIS STATEMENT! 



Lilliam said:


> And his minions will let him know so that he can show up again. Or you can. On the way to the kool aid aisle.


My minions? MORE rudeness.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

dezymond said:


> However, I think the amount of "bad cases" regarding the e-collar outweigh the "good cases" which is why e-collars get a bad rep.


The bad cases may _"outweigh"_ the good ones but it's not because of the relative numbers of them. If Ecollars gave the bad results these folks keep talking about, they'd soon be banned, and people would stop using them. The reality is that these cases are few and far between. There are well over a million Ecollars in use in the USA alone, based on the sales figures. Of course there are going to be _"bad cases."_ 

The issue is that the bad cases evoke so much emotion and the antis keep playing them over and over again. I've seen the Rufus photos and story dozens of times, every time that someone brings up the topic of Ecollars causing burns, it shows up. Notice that Lilliam who keeps talking about burns, failed to follow my suggestion to call the vet involved in that case. I've spoken to that vet and she has changed her mind. She realizes that what she saw were CHEMICAL (not electrical) burns, from leaking batteries. This incident occurred because the owner failed to heed the warning in the instruction manual not to get the invisible fence collar wet. I can't remember that even once, in all the times that this case has been brought up by the antis, has one of them placed the blame for the dog's injuries on the owner, where it properly belongs. Instead, it's always been the collar that was "the bad guy."

Few people who have success with Ecollars want to get involved with these folks, for obvious reasons. They get called rude names, people who can't remain polite and professional start personal attacks, they're told that they're _"drinking kool aid"_ and more. This is a case of "dog bites man" isn't news. But "man bites dog" is.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Earlier Wyatt's mommy wrote,


> It's not idiocy at all. These threads get banned because of posts such as yours. Instead of educating you just want conflict.





Lilliam said:


> We are both in this thread for the same reason. I am advocating against the use of electronic shock collars that deliver an electrical shock to the neck of a dog. You are advocating for its use. If I want conflict, as you state, it would appear that so do you, since you are in this thread with me.


It's not a matter of being present in the thread. It's a matter of HOW you behave in this thread. Name calling, personal attacks, attacking anyone who supports me by calling THEM names ...

Earlier Wyatt's mommy wrote,


> I have had both my dogs condtioned with this collar and I can tell you that there is no way either one of them could be burned by this tool.





Lilliam said:


> That is a rather improbable assertion. All electronic equipment is subject to failure. Even if you do not fry your dog, the equipment has the potential to fail.


You're correct _"[ANY] equipment has the potential to fail."_ This can happen. The most common failure is for the Ecollar to simply stop working. You press the button and nothing happens. That's certainly not going to burn a dog. Another way is for it to work intermittently. You press the button and it works "sometimes." That's also, not going to burn a dog. But any electrical device can short circuit. THAT is the only way that an Ecollar can put out more power than it's designed for. If it works, as designed, then it's impossible for burns to occur. Modern Ecollars don't put out enough current for burns to occur. But when that happens (and in my 20+ years I've never heard of that sort of malfunction, and I'm close to some of the biggest manufacturers of them) it would be obvious. When this occurs with other electrical devices such a cell phones, circuit boards melt, the insulation melts off wiring, solder liquefies and runs off the circuit boards, scorch marks are present and obvious. The case deforms and that deformation is obvious. Yet not one case of this has been reported with an Ecollar on any of the discussion boards that I'm aware of. If you find one, please let me know. I've asked on several boards but no one has ever seen it or heard of it. I'll ask here. Anyone seen this?


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Swampcollie said:


> OK, I have sat back and put up with your blatent lies and misinformation long enough.


While I can't help but sympathize with your feelings, please don't respond to these folks like this. You just lower yourself to their level. If you do it again, I'll have to revoke your "minion card." ROFL. 



Swampcollie said:


> Electronic collars can't cause a physical burn on a dog. They simply do not generate enough current to do so. That is a matter of physics. Electrical engineering is one of the few sciences that can be proven mathmatically. I would love to see your calculations that prove the collar can generate enough energy to physically burn a dog.


Please stop. These discussions can only so much logic and reason.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> Aaaawww, Swampcollie....that's too bad....I have respected you on this forum since I first arrived. Because this is a heated argument, I will ignore the bolded part.


Quite the shift from the abuse you've been handing out. 



Lilliam said:


> Unlike Lou, I do respect your viewpoint and have enjoyed you on this forum. I will post these again and will leave it at that. Unlike Lou, I don't want to build a fence against you.


Oh well. It lasted for a few seconds. 

Lilliam then Reposts her photos. This is one of the consequences of having someone on ignore. You don't get to see how badly you've been spanked. Rather than repost my rebuttal I'll just supply the link to my post that tears this nonsense apart and shows the truth of the situation of each of them. Here ya go. Golden Retrievers : Golden Retriever Dog Forums - View Single Post - Electric Collar's


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> OK I see, you want me to provide calculations as to how a dog can be burnt with electronic shock collars.
> Of course I can't. I'm hopeless at math.


I don't know that a lay person could prove this. Especially since the Ecollar manufacturers don't release the information as to the output of their Ecollars. They consider it "proprietary information." In order to be able to measure the output of an Ecollar one needs an oscilloscope and those are rare, outside specialized industries. 

But if an Ecollar could cause burns dontcha logically and reasonably believe (and there is the heart of the issue) that any old study could test for this and then put out the information? Instead, universally, they say the same thing. To the effect "Ecollars can't cause physical damage from the current they produce." It's beyond silly for an individual to propose what heavily funded studies have been unable to provide the slightest support for. It's (again) beyond logic and reason to believe that if burns COULD result that the antis would NOT be shouting this information to the heavens and Ecollars would be banned everywhere in the world in a heartbeat. 



Lilliam said:


> It appears that the pictures (plural) provided are not enough for you. Since you have categorised me as a liar my statements as to what I saw are not enough.


I wish that Swampcollie had not sunk to your level, but she did. I slapped her for it and it had better not happen again! (or else!!!!!) lol. 

We all saw the same thing. The difference is that you categorize them as "burns" when there is no support for such a statement. AGAIN, some of the people who were present at those situations categorized them as "puncture wounds" NOT BURNS. Yet you contradict those people based on your belief. I'm sorry, you're wrong. More than likely those are the result of the Ecollar having been left on the dog for too long.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> I posted links to dogs who had been burned by electronic shock collars. Again, the word abuse is yours, not mine. Whether intentional or accidental, these dogs had burnt flesh. I saw dogs with burns on their necks.
> And seriously....I'm beyond the age where I fold to a childish taunt on a forum.


No ya didn't. You posted links to dogs with injuries on their necks. There's absolutely no evidence to support the opinion that they are burns. "You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear." – Harry Nilsson.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I mostly agree with you, but I'll quibble a bit on the math. A modern e-collar can't burn a dog under normal operation, but if the device shorts or the battery cracks, it could burn a dog. The collar wouldn't work afterwards, and I would bet it's quite rare, but it's not _impossible_.
> 
> You can burn skin with a AA battery if you short or crack it. You can certainly do it with the rechargeable lithium ion or NiMH battery in an e-collar.


Yep. If a short were to happen the results would be as I've written in a previous post. Such a malfunction would be OBVIOUS and as you say, the Ecollar would no longer work at all. I've never heard of such a malfunction. Can you find one on a forum somewhere? Certainly if it had occurred the owner of that dog would have written about it somewhere. 



tippykayak said:


> The "burns" that are typically pictured, in my guess, are certainly not electrical burns caused by a short. Most could easily be hotspots or pressure necrosis caused, yes, by leaving the collar on too long. I agree with you there.


Yep. Not burns. 



tippykayak said:


> However, in the case where the veterinarian was utterly confident that the dog was burned, I doubt the vet was misinterpreting a hotspot. And there are a few other cases where it's clear the dog was burned by heat or acid. An acid burn from a cracked battery could be to blame, and I'd guess that's more likely than a burn from a short. The device is designed pretty well against shorting. And even if it did, the short wouldn't be able to pass increased current along the skin and cause an electrical burn, since the short would have to be caused by an internal failure, not anything that would be touching the skin.


As I mentioned, I've spoken to the vet. At first she diagnosed the injury as a burn caused by the current from the fence collar. But after I spoke with her and told her the facts about the circuitry, she changed her diagnosis and said that the injuries were due to a chemical burn. I corresponded with the dog's owner and told him that the vet had changed her diagnosis, but he didn't care. 



tippykayak said:


> A burn from a short could only happen if the unit shorted internally and heated up to the point that it burned the fur or skin. That would _still_ not be an electrical burn from current run across the skin, but it could happen and it could burn the dog. I'd agree that electrical burns are unlikely to the point of being functionally impossible because there's no feasible way for the short to be passed across the skin.


Thanks for saying this. I hope that Lilliam reads it and realizes her error. 

Earlier Swampcollie wrote,


> The E-collar is a very effective training tool for the majority of users. If it wasn't people would have long ago quit using them.





tippykayak said:


> I don't agree with the logic. People have beaten dogs for a lot longer than they've used e-collars, and it's not going away anytime soon. Doesn't mean it's effective training. The fact that a training method is popular and persistent doesn't mean it's good. It just means that somebody is profiting from it.


I CERTAINLY don't agree with this logic. Lots of people have profited from all sorts of things that were quickly banned when they learned about the side effects. Thalidomide, quickly comes to mind. Ecollars have been around since 1968, over 44 years. They've been proven to be effective training devices over and over. As has been said, it's rare for anyone to stand on the top step of a podium at the national level in a sport that rewards precision and reliability who has NOT trained with an Ecollar. If the side effects that have been described ALWAYS occurred, Ecollars would have fallen from use long ago. The reality is that they ONLY occur when the device is poorly used and those incidents are fairly rare if you consider that there are millions of them in the hands of the public. 

Earlier Swampcollie wrote,


> What this debate always boils down to is whether or not somebody wants to employ a training format that includes some corrections.





tippykayak said:


> I disagree here too. My beef here is not about using _some_ corrections. I use some myself. My problem is advocating for the e-collar as the first stop for teaching young dogs basic obedience skills. It's unnecessary and carries more potential for harm than good, since there are positive-oriented techniques that accomplish the goals at least as quickly and reliably without many of the potential downsides.


I disagree here too. You may call it unnecessary but you don't set the rules for the rest of the dog owning public. They can do as they please. There's no requirement that anyone adopt your ethos and I don't think that many will. Having put Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs I know the facts. You're wrong that there is _"more potential for harm than good."_ I've never had any but good results. The best response to the poor use of the tool is EDUCATION. That's why I'm here and that's why my website exists. I used to use what you love to call the _"positive−oriented techniques"_ (what I call the so−called "kinder gentler methods") and found that they give results only when the trainer is quite skilled, has excellent timing and spends a huge amount of time in the work. They give zero results with some dogs and for some issues. This and just about every other dog forum on the Net, has hundreds of posts from people who have had failures with those methods.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> I posted pictures of dogs with burn flesh to counter the argument that it cannot happen.
> 
> I have stated that I have seen dogs with burnt flesh due to electronic shock collar use.


Nope still not a single burn in any of your links.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> As far as her personal experience, though, I strongly doubt she's lying. And, again, I take issue with claims that it's "impossible" for a dog to be injured by e-collar malfunction because it clearly isn't.


I don't think that Lilliam is lying either. She's just badly mistaken and because she's so emotionally involved, can't admit that she's been wrong in her continuous posting that those injuries are from pressure sores and not electrical burns. 

I don't think that anyone has said that that _"it's impossible for a dog to be injured by [an] e-collar malfunction ..."_ I HAVE said that it's impossible for a dog to be burned by the current put out by an Ecollar. That obviously assumes that it's functioning as intended. Clearly Lilliam was NOT talking about malfunctions. I've already thoroughly discussed this but since we have no support that this has EVER happened and that a burn resulted, I think it's as close to moot as we can get. 



tippykayak said:


> I'd do the actual math if I could find clear stats on the output of a popular collar, but devices that use even a fraction of the power you'd need for an e-collar can get hot enough to burn if they short. All you have to do is short _any_ commercial battery and it'll heat up enough to cause at least 2nd degree burns.


I don't think that you'll find that information. The manufacturers regard it as "proprietary information." I'm not sure why they feel this way as anyone with an oscilloscope can get those measurements.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> I am not lying as to the dogs I saw with those burns.


I'm sure that you saw some injuries. But they were not burns due to the current that the Ecollar puts out. Still impossible. 



Lilliam said:


> From those experiences, and from discussions with the more "traditional" national level sheepdog trialers and trainers I developed my personal convictions against the use of the electric shock collar.


WOW! This REALLY defies logic. It's about the same as seeing a murder committed with a hammer and forever being against the use of hammers for any purpose. Rational intelligent human beings should be able to separate misuse and abuse from normal use. You don't seem to be able to be rational about this.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> A person with a puppy should NOT be using an electronic shock collar on him. That is absolutely vile.


Just about every Ecollar manufacturer and trainer says the same thing. Once a dog reaches the age of 6 months, it's OK to use an Ecollar on him. I guess it depends on your definition of _"puppy."_ I know some who think that their three−year−old dog is still a puppy. 



Lilliam said:


> Particularly so when there are many methods that serve to create and cement a bond between puppy and owner.


An Ecollar is a great way to _"cement a bond between [a] puppy [that's older than six months] and [the] owner."_


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> Y'all enjoy your evenings. However, I am posting these last pics. Because when someone tells me that something I have seen is impossible, or when I'm called a liar, it irritates me.


I've not called you a liar, in spite of your continued personal attacks on me. But you're still wrong, those injuries are not burns. 



Lilliam said:


> I don't care why these burns happened.


Still not burns. Still impossible. 



Lilliam said:


> I don't care who put them there. It's an electronic shock collar.


The lack of logic and reason is amazing here. Actually beyond comprehension. I've seen this sort of response in people with PTSD but not many other circumstances. It just occurred to me that there is one other place that I've seen such hysteria, in the gun debate. It's called hoplophobia. You seem to have the same affliction but directed towards Ecollars rather than weapons. Perhaps we need to coin a new term for this? 



Lilliam said:


> So yes, an electronic shock collar can do this to a dog.


No it can't. An Ecollar is an animate object. It's only when an abuser or someone who is negligent, picks it up, puts it on a dog, and then leaves it there for waaaaaaaay too long that this sort of injury happens. 



Lilliam said:


> And contrary to having me labelled a liar, I have seen dogs with burn marks.


You're not a liar. But you're mistaken. You've not seen burns, at least not ones caused by the current from an Ecollar. 



Lilliam said:


> And I have seen dogs flatten themselves like pancakes and have a nervous jerk of the head up.


I’m sure that you've seen this too. If it was inherent in the tool, then EVERY DOG trained with an Ecollar would be doing it. Since they're not, it's obvious that your feelings are misplaced. Rather than blaming the tool, you should be blaming the trainer who used it improperly. But it's so much easier for some and so much less confrontation to blame the inanimate object. JUST LIKE THE GUN DEBATE! The similarities are amazing. 



Lilliam said:


> Thank God many countries are banning electronic shock collars.


ONLY one country has banned the Ecollar. Wales. 



Lilliam said:


> I hope to God that we do here as well.


I doubt that it's going to ever happen. Too many successes. 



Lilliam said:


> Let's see who is in denial.


Still you.


----------



## kjohnstone82 (Sep 24, 2012)

Whoah I honestly did not think this would cause so much craziness. I do apologise to the people in charge of this forum, i honestly didnt think it would come to this. I just wanted some simple advice about something i didnt mean to cause this. Sorry everyone- if we can just draw a line under this now please!


----------



## Lilliam (Apr 28, 2010)

kjohnstone82 said:


> Whoah I honestly did not think this would cause so much craziness. I do apologise to the people in charge of this forum, i honestly didnt think it would come to this. I just wanted some simple advice about something i didnt mean to cause this. Sorry everyone- if we can just draw a line under this now please!


As Ljilly28 mentioned early on, this topic is passionate. 
Rereading the whole thread, it is obvious where the downturn happened, on post 16, at Lou's multi quoted statements when he was called in, as he described, whenever a thread about electronic shock collars happen. 
I have held back a great deal during this thread. I did not say one fraction of what I wanted to say. I have put the person who came in to create all the drama on Ignore. so I do not see what he writes to me. I have chosen to not engage someone who straight out called me a liar. I have done all I can and held back from truly speaking my mind in full.
The pictures I posted were as a result of a posted saying I was in denial. And more posters stated that electronic shock collars cannot cause physical damage to a dog. Obviously they can. 

Again, as Ljilly28 stated, in the end no one changes their mind. But personally, my interest is in giving you and anyone who wishes to use these devices an alternative. And I will do that always. I am as passionate a proponent of positive training techniques as these individuals are of using aversive training techniques. To equate luring a puppy to shocking a puppy is ludicrous in the extreme.

This debate will happen again. Now we know that when it does, Lou's sympathisers will call him into it, as he stated that they do, to promote his "training" techniques which entail the promotion of his "how to" materials over the internet, so that for people can use these devices on their dogs without being in the presence of the "student" and the dog, including puppies. That is something I find vile and repugnant, and while I hold no ill will to the regular members of this community, even after calling me a liar, I do abhor and detest Lou's tactics, methodologies, and philosophies.

Out of respect for you, I am out of this discussion from this point on. I will keep Lou on Ignore and I will not engage regular members of this community.

I wish you and your doggies the best.


----------



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

kjohnstone82 said:


> Whoah I honestly did not think this would cause so much craziness. I do apologise to the people in charge of this forum, i honestly didnt think it would come to this. I just wanted some simple advice about something i didnt mean to cause this. Sorry everyone- if we can just draw a line under this now please!


Don't worry it's not the first and won't be the last. This is what happens when some people throw out myths about training tools. Nothing wrong with disagreeing but most certainly everything wrong with trying to prove something wrong with myths. Good luck in whatever road you chose in training.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou, I think your highly insulting, mocking posts speak for themselves when it comes to the way you want to debate. You claim that I've been in all the threads you've had closed on GRF, but I've been in dozens and dozens of other contentious threads that have not been closed. I also haven't been banned from forum after forum and e-mail list after e-mail list. What's your excuse? You only come here to push an e-collar agenda with incredibly aggressive posts, and then you claim you never start the nastiness once it's going full-bore. It was a plausible excuse the first three or four times you did it here, but do you really expect us to buy that you're an innocent victim anymore?

I at least gave it the ol' college try to cowboy on up to the bar and answer your questions. And the one you agree I answered to your satisfaction didn't actually result in your posting the study. Why not, I wonder? So while I'm still curious about that study, I guess you have reasons for referring to it cryptically instead of actually sharing it.

So the only question I have for you at this point is this:

Why shouldn't you put a collar on a dog less than six months old?

As always, I look forward to the elegant backflips of your next multi-quote rant as you make the nastiness somebody else's fault, avoid the interesting questions, and twist my point of view into something you'd prefer to debate, rather than what I've said.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

I hope it never comes to the point that people are not allowed to use their tool of choice for training. Some people want ecollars banned because there are people who misuse them or don't agree on their use. Some feel the same way about prong collars. If we were to follow that pattern, I would no longer be allowed to use dowel sticks to help my dog line up for fronts, because some people out there beat their dogs with sticks.

It don't feel it's much different from us being in danger of no longer having purebred dogs someday, people become over zealous in their own beliefs and want to push their agenda on everyone with no exceptions.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

For what it's worth, I'm not at the "ban 'em" stage. I do have serious concerns about the real world results when people use them to train their pets' manners and basic skills. I think they should not be the go-to device for people starting out with young dogs because in those situations, they seem to do more harm than good in teaching dogs and developing strong relationships with handlers.


----------



## ashleylp (Jul 23, 2011)

I don't like to get in on these debates because they get too heated.... But just had to comment on the pictures. Those aren't burns... That's what happens when you are irresponsible and leave the collar on too long, way too tight, etc.


----------



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

It's wonderful to have a forum where _every_ owner can share their _experience,_ whether it's a training tool, breeder, groomer, vet, dog food etc. Not everyone has an agenda. Some of _us_ just like to tell our _experience_. What works for us and what doesn't. It's ok to disagree.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> It's wonderful to have a forum where _every_ owner can share their _experience,_ whether it's a training tool, breeder, groomer, vet, dog food etc. Not everyone has an agenda. Some of _us_ just like to tell our _experience_. What works for us and what doesn't. It's ok to disagree.


Yes, please, tell us about your _experience_ raising a dog without an e-collar and training fully reliable recall without one, as well the increased bond you developed by avoiding corrections and emphasizing rewards.

Your experience emphasis cuts both ways.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

kjohnstone82 said:


> Whoah I honestly did not think this would cause so much craziness. I do apologise to the people in charge of this forum, i honestly didnt think it would come to this. I just wanted some simple advice about something i didnt mean to cause this. Sorry everyone- if we can just draw a line under this now please!


It is _"craziness"_ isn't it? Not to worry, you have nothing to apologize for. You did not take us down this road. The anti's did, as they frequently do, when the topic of Ecollars comes up.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Lilliam said:


> As Ljilly28 mentioned early on, this topic is passionate.
> Rereading the whole thread, it is obvious where the downturn happened, on post 16, at Lou's multi quoted statements when he was called in, as he described, whenever a thread about electronic shock collars happen.


I merely expressed an opinion that was contrary to yours and the rest of the antis. I came into the discussion long after some antis had started with the usual misconceptions and myths, and had presented a one sided view of Ecollar use. I provided the opposite view to balance the picture. I guess you'd prefer a forum where only views that agree with yours are presented. I suggest that you start your own forum if that's the case. 

Since you seem to think that I started the problems, please tell us exactly where in post #16 http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/1823192-post16.html (your claim to where _"the downturn"_ started) my comments were inflammatory, rude, off topic, or otherwise detrimental to the flow of information on this topic. 

My opinion is that the problems started with Ljilly's allegation that an Ecollar can do _"damage"_ accompanied by the usual emotional baggage. I shot down this bit of misinformation with the fact that an Ecollar can not cause any physical damage (referring to burns from the current they produce). That's an emotional issue for some, for some quite a bit more than for others. But that's merely a difference of opinion. 

Then you came along with the comment regarding training like your grandfather did. I pointed out that there have been many technological advances since his day and suggested that you learn about them. Your misinformation and misconceptions were, and still are massive. 

YOU are the one who started the personal attacks in this thread. YOU are the one who started the name calling. And you are the one who has the closed mind, so closed that you can't even read the posts of people who oppose you. 



Lilliam said:


> I have held back a great deal during this thread. I did not say one fraction of what I wanted to say. I have put the person who came in to create all the drama on Ignore.


I didn't _"create any drama."_ you folks started with the scare tactics and the emotional appeals loooooooooong before I got here. Go back and read the responses that followed the OP's question before I entered the discussion. Most of them contained either misinformation, a highly emotional appeal, comments designed to scare the OP, or all three! 



Lilliam said:


> so I do not see what he writes to me.


Probably the best demonstration of a closed mind that exists on any forum. What I have to say is so contrary to your opinions that you can't even muster the will power not to read it. I don't ever want to be on a forum where everyone agrees with me. I'd never learn a darn thing and that's one of the reasons that I'm on these forums. If we had that situation, someone would say something and we'd all nod our heads saying "uh huh," someone might post about their near−identical experience, and the discussion would be over. It's through disagreement that information is gained and new methods are learned. But one has to have an open mind for that to occur. I was initially trained to use leash corrections and praise only. I first heard about clicker training on the Net. I quickly joined a buncha lists and forums and bought a buncha books and started going to a couple of local trainers who used that tool/method so that I could learn about it. I went to a couple of seminars. Then I started seeing shortcomings with it in the face of high level distractions. Then I discovered that it was not suitable for all dogs for all things. It has many applications, it's GREAT for teaching tricks but not so good for getting reliable OB when distractions are present and it's useless for some dogs in some situations. The same can be said about my experience with luring, shaping and all the rest of the so−called "kinder gentler methods." But if I'd had a closed mind, I not have learned a thing. My mind is still open and I'm always willing to learn something new. Would that this condition existed for everyone in these discussions. 

I prefer a forum, like this one, where the members have varied and many different opinions and methods of doing things. That's a good way to learn. I've never learned much from people who agree with me. 



Lilliam said:


> I have chosen to not engage someone who straight out called me a liar.


You think that I called you a liar? Sorry you're wrong. Is saying that "you're wrong" or that "you're mistaken" _"call[ing you] a liar?"_ I don't think so and that's all I've done. Here's what it would look like if I WERE to call you a liar. I'd say, "Lilliam, you're a liar." But I have not done this and there's little chance that I ever will. I suggest that you follow the advice of George Bernard Shaw, an Irish writer and winner of the 1925 Nobel prize for literature, "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." 



Lilliam said:


> I have done all I can and held back from truly speaking my mind in full.


You've already gotten about as rude as anyone I've ever seen on a public forum. I wonder what you _"held back?"_ 



Lilliam said:


> The pictures I posted were as a result of a posted saying I was in denial. And more posters stated that electronic shock collars cannot cause physical damage to a dog. Obviously they can.


An obvious misstatement of what's been said. What REALLY has been said is that an Ecollar can't cause damage from the current they produce. That's still true and a matter of physics. That's really beyond question. Every scientific study that's mentioned "damage" has said (to the effect) that they've observed none from the current produced, and that none has ever been verified. 

MOST of us (perhaps all who use Ecollars) have said that if left on for too long, that sores can develop from the pressure of the contact points against the dog's skin. In the photos you supplied, but claimed they were electrical burns, one of the people who supplied the photos even supported the fact that the injuries were _"puncture wounds,"_ going against your position that they were electrical burns. 

But in reality the Ecollar didn't cause those injuries. An inanimate object can't cause anything. The true cause of those injuries is careless, abusive or negligent owners/trainers who left the Ecollars on for too long a period of time. Again, this is beyond question. 



Lilliam said:


> Again, as Ljilly28 stated, in the end no one changes their mind.


Sorry but you're wrong. There have been SEVERAL people who have changed their mind. But before a mind can change it has to be open. Several people who were anti-Ecollar, or on the fence, before these discussions have started using Ecollars. I doubt that any of them will make this public because they've seen how some members treat Ecollar users and they don't want to stand in front of that cannon. Can't say as I blame them for remaining silent! 



Lilliam said:


> But personally, my interest is in giving you and anyone who wishes to use these devices an alternative. And I will do that always. I am as passionate a proponent of positive training techniques as these individuals are of using aversive training techniques.


I think that's great! I always suggest that people try other methods first if for no other reason that it's expensive to get into using Ecollars. They ain't giving them away. A quality Ecollar costs several hundred dollars and treats and clickers and praise and toys are cheap. But people need to be aware that one must spend lots of time applying those methods, they must develop their timing and their skill to a relatively very high degree to get good results. It's not all peaches and cream as some who espouse the so−called "kinder gentler methods" would have them believe. EVERY tool/training method requires an investment of time from those who would apply them. I know that the so−called "kinder gentler methods" take more time, give weaker results and don't provide an "insurance policy" for when a dog makes the wrong decision after basic training is over. (Yes, I know that training is never over). I use those methods myself when they're appropriate for the behavior and for the dog that I'm training. The difference between us is that I know that they are not always the best way to get to the desired end, a happy, trained dog and that they sometimes don't give good results with some dogs, no matter how skilled the trainer is. 



Lilliam said:


> To equate luring a puppy to shocking a puppy is ludicrous in the extreme.


I don't think the subject of training a puppy has been brought up at all, except for the comment that an Ecollar should not be used on a dog that's less than six months of age. So I have no idea where this statement of yours comes from. Can you tell us? 



Lilliam said:


> This debate will happen again. Now we know that when it does, Lou's sympathisers will call him into it, as he stated that they do, to promote his "training" techniques which entail the promotion of his "how to" materials over the internet


A rather complete *MIS*statement of the facts. The truth is that sometimes I find these discussions myself. Sometimes they're occurring when I'm busy elsewhere and someone who wants the truth to be told, lets me know that such a conversation is going on. They don't do it so that I can _"promote [my] 'training' techniques."_ they do it because they're put off by the misinformation and the misconceptions that are being spread. 



Lilliam said:


> so that for people can use these devices on their dogs without being in the presence of the "student" and the dog, including puppies.


One of the problems with having someone on ignore is that you're liable to keep repeating absurdities, as you're doing now. I'd say that hundreds of thousand, perhaps MILLIONS of dogs have been trained by people who got their information from books, pamphlets, a friend, or places such as my website. They were never in _"the presence"_ of a trainer and yet, they're completely happy with their results. 

The repeated _"puppy"_ comment is just tired now. I doubt that there is anyone reading this thread who does not know how old a puppy should be before an Ecollar is used on him. 



Lilliam said:


> That is something I find vile and repugnant, and while I hold no ill will to the regular members of this community, even after calling me a liar, I do abhor and detest Lou's tactics, methodologies, and philosophies.


I find your comments, especially in light of the fact that you know next to nothing about my _"tactics, methodologies and philosophies,"_ vile and repugnant. 



Lilliam said:


> Out of respect for you, I am out of this discussion from this point on. I will keep Lou on Ignore and I will not engage regular members of this community.


Are you gonna put ALL of us Ecollar users on ignore? lol


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Lou, I think your highly insulting, mocking posts speak for themselves when it comes to the way you want to debate.


And I think that your responses to me are the ones that are _"highly insulting [and] mocking."_ You've not often been engaged by someone who gives back as good as you hand out and so you're knocked off balance when it happens. Your ego can't handle that and you reply with nastiness. 



tippykayak said:


> You claim that I've been in all the threads you've had closed on GRF


Most of the posts that get closed are because you folks can't stay on topic. I contribute to that BY RESPONDING to the personal attacks you commit, such as this one. 

I don't think I've made the claim that you've _"been in all the threads that ... [have been] closed."_ I think you've been involved in most of them though. Since you seem to disagree, please show us the post where I made that claim. AGAIN you try to put words into my mouth, one of the most disgusting forms of debate that I can think of. Another of your favorites, along the same lines, is your persistent use of straw man arguments. 



tippykayak said:


> but I've been in dozens and dozens of other contentious threads that have not been closed.


Your particular problem, as I said, seems to be with me. With others who don't directly challenge you, you can maintain your "cool." You can't with me because my style is to go directly at the opposition and you can't handle that. 



tippykayak said:


> I also haven't been banned from forum after forum and e-mail list after e-mail list. What's your excuse?


No excuse is necessary. The facts are that I argue for an unpopular tool. It's unpopular due to the massive ignorance that surrounds it. On some of the forums that I've been banned from they didn't even permit comments that tell the truth about Ecollars. On some it's because they don't like my multiquoting style, even though it's not stated in the rules that it can't be done. On some it's because the mods favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" and they don't want to hear ANYTHING that supports Ecollars. On one of them it was because I called the list owner out for his continuous use of profanity against other members, even though his own rules prohibited it. One forum said that I could not use the phrase "so−called 'kinder gentler methods' " even though, after someone said that they took it as a "dig" that I added the disclaimer "and that's not meant as a dig." 

But really this has nothing to do with the topic, the real reason that most of these threads get closed, you folks take the discussion down this off-topic path as you've done again. This time you have a couple of sentences that are on topic, but the rest of it is another personal attack on me! 



tippykayak said:


> You only come here to push an e-collar agenda


As I've said at least twice before in just this discussion ... _"My agenda has always been the same, to counteract the nonsense, the lies, the myths, the misconceptions that are put out about Ecollars. Like any tool they can be abused and misused and when this happens, the results are poor. But this is the case with any tool or method. I believe that people should be able to make informed decisions as to what tools and methods they use for training their dogs."_ 

You just don't like that the truth gets told when I show up, instead of the antis being able to spread myths, misconceptions and fear on the topic. You seem to think that it's perfectly ok for you to push your own agenda of the so−called "kinder gentler methods," yet when I press for the Ecollar, it's not OK. 



tippykayak said:


> with incredibly aggressive posts


I'm not the one who starts the aggression. You, in particular are the champion of that. This post and your final paragraph are good examples of such aggression. I just respond to it sometimes, when it gets over the top. 



tippykayak said:


> and then you claim you never start the nastiness once it's going full-bore.


Yep, that what I claim, because that's the truth. It's painful for some to admit that they're the ones who start it but sometimes the truth hurts. 



tippykayak said:


> It was a plausible excuse the first three or four times you did it here, but do you really expect us to buy that you're an innocent victim anymore?


I really don't care what you buy. The truth is the truth. Lilliam claims that I started the trouble with my first post, #16. http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/1823192-post16.html I've read, reread and reread that post again and for the life of me, I can't see any aggressiveness, rudeness, discourtesy or anything other than a very general polite, disagreement. If you think that I started trouble elsewhere please show us that post. If you think that it started with #16, please show us exactly what it was I said that was anything but polite disagreement. 



tippykayak said:


> I at least gave it the ol' college try to cowboy on up to the bar and answer your questions.


ROFL. You answered ONE of FOUR of them. I'd say that we have a vastly different definition of what it means to _"cowboy up"_ and _"the ol' college try."_ 



tippykayak said:


> And the one you agree I answered to your satisfaction didn't actually result in your posting the study. Why not, I wonder? So while I'm still curious about that study, I guess you have reasons for referring to it cryptically instead of actually sharing it.


AS I SAID at the time, _"... since you've chosen to play games while pretending to answer my previous questions, I'll not bother to comply with your request."_ 



tippykayak said:


> So the only question I have for you at this point is this:
> 
> Why shouldn't you put a collar on a dog less than six months old?


That's the recommendation for the youngest age that's given by every Ecollar manufacturer that I'm aware of. When I've asked them, they didn't have anything further to say on the matter. I had one trainer tell me that it's because a dog's nervous system isn't well developed enough until that age. But he couldn't expand on that thought. So I don't really know. 

I'd say that it's due to several reasons. It's very difficult working with a dog of that age anyway because it's very difficult to find their working level, the level at which they first perceive the stim. Because everything is new to them, every time that they turn their head their distraction level spikes and the level that they first felt a moment ago, is below their distraction level. You can't try "to chase" the level as can be done with a mature dog, because as soon as the puppy turns his head, it drops off and then spikes again a second later. And so it takes (for example) many more leash pulls when teaching the recall for the puppy to make the association between coming towards the trainer and the stim because he often doesn’t feel he stim at all. 

That being said, there's at least one organization, SMS who does work with puppies younger than six months. I guess they don't see a reason to let that market go untapped. I don't support that. 

I once did go younger. I worked with the owner of a ten week old puppy who said that she was going to put the Ecollar on her puppy whether I helped her or not and so I decided to help. My intention was to, at the first sign of a problem, "kidnap" (should that be "puppynap?") the puppy and confiscate the Ecollar. It went well though, but I still recommend against going younger than six months and have not done so again. 



tippykayak said:


> As always, I look forward to the elegant backflips of your next multi-quote rant as you make the nastiness somebody else's fault, avoid the interesting questions, and twist my point of view into something you'd prefer to debate, rather than what I've said.


Here's ANOTHER example of your nastiness. And again, it's nothing but gratuitous. I said or did nothing to for you to respond in this manner. You just have to get in the dig. But AGAIN you're wrong. There were no _"back flips."_ I didn't _"make the nastiness somebody else's fault."_ Instead I put the responsibility directly where it belongs, on you. I also didn't _"avoid the interesting question ..."_ I gave more information on the question about six month old puppies" than you asked for. I deliberately skipped another of your questions for reasons that I've already given, three times now. Perhaps we have a different definition of what we consider _"the interesting questions."_ I also didn't _"twist [your] point of view into something [I'd] prefer to debate."_ Sorry to disappoint. I've written many posts that have this sort of rude, nasty tagline paragraph. But I've reconsidered and removed them because they profit no one and just add to the dissension. Would that you had done the same.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Loisiana said:


> I hope it never comes to the point that people are not allowed to use their tool of choice for training. Some people want ecollars banned because there are people who misuse them or don't agree on their use. Some feel the same way about prong collars. If we were to follow that pattern, I would no longer be allowed to use dowel sticks to help my dog line up for fronts, because some people out there beat their dogs with sticks.
> 
> It don't feel it's much different from us being in danger of no longer having purebred dogs someday, people become over zealous in their own beliefs and want to push their agenda on everyone with no exceptions.


Great post Loisina! I especially agree with your last paragraph. When you combine that thought with the fact that some people want the government to right every imagined wrong and take care of their every need, it gets scary.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> For what it's worth, I'm not at the "ban 'em" stage. I do have serious concerns about the real world results when people use them to train their pets' manners and basic skills. I think they should not be the go-to device for people starting out with young dogs because in those situations, they seem to do more harm than good in teaching dogs and developing strong relationships with handlers.


I have a quite different opinion. I KNOW that Ecollars do FAR MORE good than harm. I KNOW that they are an excellent tool for _"developing strong relationships with handlers."_ It's just that we don't hear about the successes on this kind of forum. On forums that are more open to the topic of Ecollars, it's a common topic, but here it brings out the antis, and who needs that headache and this discussion over and over and over and over?


----------



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

tippykayak said:


> Yes, please, tell us about your _experience_ raising a dog without an e-collar and training fully reliable recall without one, as well the increased bond you developed by avoiding corrections and emphasizing rewards.
> 
> Your experience emphasis cuts both ways.


I thought I already had this conversation with you but here we go again. I will be happy to share.
My dog was introduced to the ecollar _after_ he was fully trained including recall at 1 year 3 months to be exact. However when he was put into situations such as our regular weekend desert romps that he would totally zone out and take off into the desert after prey. I came so close to losing him in the desert. I took him back for a refresher course on recall and that is where his trainer who also trains hunting dogs introduced me to the ecollar. My only regret was I wish she would had introduced it to me earlier. Having a home on the river I have heard horror stories of dogs missing and never being found. I chose a training tool that worked best for my situation.

Since I had such a great experience with it I chose to train Wyatt with it for the exact same reason. Would I have used one if my dogs were not put into a dangerous prey situation? Honestly probably not. 

But I have mentioned it to owners who's dogs were in danger of bolting out their doors and running into the streets with the same great outcome.

And FWIW my dogs have a wonderful bond with us. Not sure why people think otherwise. I don't have a problem with your type of training because _that is what I use _with the exception of recall. I believe if you can find a type of training that works for you and your situation then that is all that matters. As long as there is no abuse involved of course.

That is my experience. I would love to hear others.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

So...you don't know why exactly why they're not recommended for puppies, but you follow the recommendations. But you did help use on a puppy once, and it was fine. But you still don't recommend their use on puppies.

And here's your personal rationale:


> I'd say that it's due to several reasons. It's very difficult working with a dog of that age anyway because it's very difficult to find their working level, the level at which they first perceive the stim. Because everything is new to them, every time that they turn their head their distraction level spikes and the level that they first felt a moment ago, is below their distraction level. You can't try "to chase" the level as can be done with a mature dog, because as soon as the puppy turns his head, it drops off and then spikes again a second later. And so it takes (for example) many more leash pulls when teaching the recall for the puppy to make the association between coming towards the trainer and the stim because he often doesn’t feel he stim at all.


What I think you're saying here is that you don't use them on young dogs because it's hard to find the "working level" of the stim because a young dog's "working level" changes constantly? And this is largely due to the fact that they're highly distractible? So the "working level" is related to how distracted the dog is? Like, it's higher when the dog is more distracted and lower when he's not?

I don't agree that puppies are hard to work with if you're not interested in finding the working level of an electrical stimulation on them, btw.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I thought I already had this conversation with you but here we go again. I will be happy to share.
> My dog was introduced to the ecollar _after_ he was fully trained including recall at 1 year 3 months to be exact. However when he was put into situations such as our regular weekend desert romps that he would totally zone out and take off into the desert after prey. I came so close to losing him in the desert. I took him back for a refresher course on recall and that is where his trainer who also trains hunting dogs introduced me to the ecollar. My only regret was I wish she would had introduced it to me earlier. Having a home on the river I have heard horror stories of dogs missing and never being found. I chose a training tool that worked best for my situation.
> 
> Since I had such a great experience with it I chose to train Wyatt with it for the exact same reason. Would I have used one if my dogs were not put into a dangerous prey situation? Honestly probably not.
> ...


Right. So you've never trained a dog to reliable recall without an e-collar.

I'm not saying you don't have a good bond. I'm saying you have no experience of what it might be like without the e-collar, so, according to your own rules, you can't tell us that it's equivalent to the bond achieved without one.


----------



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

tippykayak said:


> Right. So you've never trained a dog to reliable recall without an e-collar.
> 
> I'm not saying you don't have a good bond. I'm saying you have no experience of what it might be like without the e-collar, so, according to your own rules, you can't tell us that it's equivalent to the bond achieved without one.


 
Yes Cody was trained with a reliable recall without the collar. I never had a problem with him at home ever. It wasn't until he was put into a prey situation. He was highly prey driven. My bond didn't change when I included the collar.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Yes Cody was trained with a reliable recall without the collar. I never had a problem with him at home ever. It wasn't until he was put into a prey situation. He was highly prey driven. My bond didn't change when I included the collar.


You can't use Cody as an example of reliable recall in one post and then as an example of a dog who had to wear an e-collar because he was too prey driven in another post. Either the recall was reliable without the collar or it wasn't.

And my bond with my dogs has improved as I've moved away from punishment and dominance. Your mileage may vary.


----------



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

tippykayak said:


> You can't use Cody as an example of reliable recall in one post and then as an example of a dog who had to wear an e-collar because he was too prey driven in another post. Either the recall was reliable without the collar or it wasn't.
> 
> And my bond with my dogs has improved as I've moved away from punishment and dominance. Your mileage may vary.


Sure I can. And I did. I didn't say he HAD to wear an ecollar. I said I chose to use one for his safety. 

I still don't know where you are going with the whole bond and punishment thing. I'm thrilled your bond is improving. Really I am.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I still don't know where you are going with the whole bond and punishment thing. I'm thrilled your bond is improving. Really I am.


I'm going to use the term "aversive" in this post instead of "punishment" because I feel like the line between positive and negative punishment is going to get blurred.

I think aversive-based training, no matter how mild the aversive used, interferes with a dog's trust in his handler. It may be impractical to eliminate aversives completely—though I'm intrigued by people who claim to do so—but I prefer to at least minimize them. And the first place it makes sense to remove them entirely is in the teaching stage of a behavior.

And I certainly think it's becoming increasingly obvious that methods that rely primarily on aversives (as opposed to rewards) to teach behavior are a bad idea.


----------



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

tippykayak said:


> I'm going to use the term "aversive" in this post instead of "punishment" because I feel like the line between positive and negative punishment is going to get blurred.
> 
> I think aversive-based training, no matter how mild the aversive used, interferes with a dog's trust in his handler. It may be impractical to eliminate aversives completely—though I'm intrigued by people who claim to do so—but I prefer to at least minimize them. And the first place it makes sense to remove them entirely is in the teaching stage of a behavior.
> 
> And I certainly think it's becoming increasingly obvious that methods that rely primarily on aversives (as opposed to rewards) to teach behavior are a bad idea.


Nothing is blurred. I see where you are going, however I don't see how this relates to my explanation to the question you asked me and the trust I have with _my _dog.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Nothing is blurred. I see where you are going, however I don't see how this relates to my explanation to the question you asked me and the trust I have with _my _dog.


I can't comment on the amount of trust your dog has in you. My point was to comment on your emphasis on experience. You seemed to say that experience is the only thing that qualifies a person to comment on a training technique. Thus, people shouldn't listen to my comments on e-collars because I don't train with one.

If that logic holds, then you cannot comment on how well a dog bonds when he's not trained with an e-collar, because you don't train without one, and you also cannot comment on the results when a dog is trained to reliable recall without an e-collar, because you haven't done that either.

My point is that I don't agree with your first premise about experience. I think we can comment on training techniques we avoid ourselves because we frequently have good reasons for avoiding them.


----------



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

tippykayak said:


> I can't comment on the amount of trust your dog has in you. My point was to comment on your emphasis on experience. You seemed to say that experience is the only thing that qualifies a person to comment on a training technique. Thus, people shouldn't listen to my comments on e-collars because I don't train with one.
> 
> If that logic holds, then you cannot comment on how well a dog bonds when he's not trained with an e-collar, because you don't train without one, and you also cannot comment on the results when a dog is trained to reliable recall without an e-collar, because you haven't done that either.
> 
> My point is that I don't agree with your first premise about experience. I think we can comment on training techniques we avoid ourselves because we frequently have good reasons for avoiding them.


What?

I never said people shouldn't listen to _your_ comments and_ your_ training techniques? LOL! I am just telling of _my experience_ using this training tool. I do have a problem with people that insinuate that my bond would be better with my dog if I didn't use this tool from someone that has not _seen how I use it or the happy healthy relationship I have with my dogs._ Or that my dog didn't have a reliable recall with the methods you use. Obviously I don't have critters passing thru my neighborhood to trigger his prey instinct. And FWIW I am not training my dog with the ecollar. He has been condtioned. His recall is awesome. I don't need it. It is a safety net. Why a safety net you ask? Because I know he is an animal.

Why does telling people of a training tool have to turn into a pathetic right or wrong argument? Or silly insinuations that you and your dog will bond better without it etc. Really? If you don't like the tool, don't use it. Simple!


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I am glad the OP decided not to use the e collar/shock collar. 2 of my current dogs' contracts specify no e collars, and I would also not place a puppy in a home that planned to use one on a puppy.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I never said people shouldn't listen to _your_ comments and_ your_ training techniques? LOL! I am just telling of _my experience_ using this training tool.


You have, several times, emphasized that the OP should listen to people with experience with the collar over people who don't use it. You also typically refer to those that don't use it as "uneducated" in its use.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> I do have a problem with people that insinuate that my bond would be better with my dog if I didn't use this tool from someone that has not _seen how I use it or the happy healthy relationship I have with my dogs._


I did not insinuate this. I explicitly said I had no information on your bond with your dog.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> Or that my dog didn't have a reliable recall with the methods you use.


You said he didn't have a reliable recall. I didn't insinuate it. I repeated what you said.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> Why does telling people of a training tool have to turn into a pathetic right or wrong argument? Or silly insinuations that you and your dog will bond better without it etc. Really? If you don't like the tool, don't use it. Simple!


I honestly believe people will have better relationships with their dogs if they don't use aversives as a teaching tool, and I want people to have good relationships with their dogs. It's not really a right or wrong thing but rather an improve-relationships-and-avoid-unwanted-side-effects thing. Having an e-collar on your dog as a safety net that you almost never use is quite a bit different than teaching a dog with aversives, and I never commented specifically on what you do or what your relationship is with your dog.


----------



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

tippykayak said:


> You have, several times, emphasized that the OP should listen to people with experience with the collar over people who don't use it. You also typically refer to those that don't use it as "uneducated" in its use.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
When a person posts photos of abused dogs and says they don't know and don't care how it happened all they know is they were wearing ecollars to prove they are evil.......those people are highly uneducated in the proper use of an ecollar and just have an agenda. When people state that you will have a better bond with your dog without the collar, I invite both to visit a professional or educated e collar owner and their dog so they can get a hands on demonstration and really see what kind of bond dog and owner really have.

You did insinuate it. And you are again in your last paragraph.

I said Cody HAD a reliable recall. He never would even chase a cat. But put into high prey area all bets were off. I learned then and there that no matter how well trained a dog is, he is still an animal. So I chose safety first.

Contrary to the uneducated beliefs of the ecollar, a owner who has been properly trained and dog conditioned don't "SHOCK" their dogs. That is why I stress to meet with owners and their dogs and see* hands on* how it is used and the true bond they really have together. A member here did just that. Let's put these myths to bed once and for all. Can this tool get in the hands of an abuser? Absolutely! But so can any tool. Heck an abuser doesn't need a tool. Shouldn't the focus be on the abusers?

I have always said I am for whatever training technique works best for the dog and owner as long as there is no abuse involved. I am not promoting this tool, just trying to help people understand the truth about it.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> When a person posts photos of abused dogs and says they don't know and don't care how it happened all they know is they were wearing ecollars to prove they are evil.......those people are highly uneducated in the proper use of an ecollar and just have an agenda.


That wasn't me, and I agreed that most of the photos seem to be acute dermatitis from collars that were too tight and left on too long.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> When people state that you will have a better bond with your dog without the collar, I invite both to visit a professional or educated e collar owner and their dog so they can get a hands on demonstration and really see what kind of bond dog and owner really have.


I do think people have a better bond with their dogs when they make efforts to avoid using aversives wherever possible. That's different than commenting on anybody's individual relationship with their own dog.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> I said Cody HAD a reliable recall. He never would even chase a cat. But put into high prey area all bets were off. I learned then and there that no matter how well trained a dog is, he is still an animal. So I chose safety first.


I guess we have different definitions of "reliable." If a dog blows you off to chase prey, that's not a reliable recall in my book.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> Contrary to the uneducated beliefs of the ecollar, a owner who has been properly trained and dog conditioned don't "SHOCK" their dogs. That is why I stress to meet with owners and their dogs and see* hands on* how it is used and the true bond they really have together. A member here did just that. Let's put these myths to bed once and for all. Can this tool get in the hands of an abuser? Absolutely! But so can any tool. Heck an abuser doesn't need a tool. Shouldn't the focus be on the abusers?
> 
> I have always said I am for whatever training technique works best for the dog and owner as long as there is no abuse involved. I am not promoting this tool, just trying to help people understand the truth about it.


Shock is an accurate term. I know many people that use e-collars don't like it, but you're passing current across a dog's skin. "Shock" describes exactly that. It might be a low level shock that's not particularly painful, but it's a shock. You may not feel that the word captures the feeling of the setting you use, but 'stim' is embarrassingly euphemistic in its complete vagueness. A feather duster, a low electrical current, and being hit by a car are all "stimulation." I try to say 'stim' most times out of politeness, but let's be realistic about how much of a euphemism it is.


----------



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

tippykayak said:


> That wasn't me, and I agreed that most of the photos seem to be acute dermatitis from collars that were too tight and left on too long.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well we are just going to have to disagree about the BELIEFS of bonding. No harm no foul.

I hope to heck your dogs never breaks a solid recall and gets lost in the desert as my dog did. Again I am a realist as are alot of professional trainers. When you least expect it....expect it. 

I feel YOU and some others use the word "SHOCK" for shock value and nothing more. But hey I can't prove that. But I can prove that ecollar users are not shocking, electrocuting or harming their dogs in any way shape or form, *if* someone wants to take a first hand class with a professional or meet up with the member who uses one.........just sayin


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> But I can prove that ecollar users are not shocking, electrocuting or harming their dogs in any way shape or form, *if* someone wants to take a first hand class with a professional or meet up with the member who uses one.........


I've done just that and have gone steps further. I've attended seminars with e-collar manufacturers. They were very in depth and very lengthy, involving the reps' personal dogs and several others trained using this method. There were several trainers, also. Still wouldn't use them. 

I've felt the different levels of shocks and all were uncomfortable, higher levels hurt. To me anyway...there were those in the seminar that said the higher levels weren't that bad. Lower levels were more irritating than anything else. And I knew when they were coming...so I kind of prepared for them. Either way, if they weren't uncomfortable, they wouldn't work. 

Everyone has to make their own choices, but what I _firmly_ believe is that these collars should never be sold without training. It's irresponsible for the manufacturers to give the general public access to this training method without proper instruction on how to apply it correctly. I don't know how that could be implemented, but, to me, seems like that is the only responsible way to sell these collars.


----------



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

kwhit said:


> I've done just that and have gone steps further. I've attended seminars with e-collar manufacturers. They were very in depth and very lengthy, involving the reps' personal dogs and several others trained using this method. There were several trainers, also. Still wouldn't use them.
> 
> I've felt the different levels of shocks and all were uncomfortable, higher levels hurt. To me anyway...there were those in the seminar that said the higher levels weren't that bad. Lower levels were more irritating than anything else. And I knew when they were coming...so I kind of prepared for them. Either way, if they weren't uncomfortable, they wouldn't work.
> 
> Everyone has to make their own choices, but what I _firmly_ believe is that these collars should never be sold without training. It's irresponsible for the manufacturers to give the general public access to this training method without proper instruction on how to apply it correctly. I don't know how that could be implemented, but, to me, seems like that would be the only responsible way to sell these collars.


Thanks and I understand your view towards them and that's your choice. So you know that if used properly those photos that were posted are complete nonsense. Also it doesn't have to be uncomfortable to work. Did they demonstrate the tone and vibrate option? And I do agree that *all* training collars should not be used without professional knowledge.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Did they demonstrate the tone and vibrate option? And I do agree that *all* training collars should not be used without professional knowledge.



I've seen the vibrate option in action with a customer's deaf Dane. She called it a pager. 

I really wish they could figure out how to have training mandatory...I just don't know how that could be accomplished, especially when people sell used ones. It's the dogs that suffer when they're used flippantly and that's my major concern.


----------



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

kwhit said:


> I've seen the vibrate option in action with a customer's deaf Dane. She called it a pager.
> 
> I really wish they could figure out how to have training mandatory...I just don't know how that could be accomplished, especially when people sell used ones. It's the dogs that suffer when they're used flippantly and that's my major concern.


I wouldn't be against this with any training collar. I can't tell you how many times I see the prong collar being worn wrong. But I honestly don't think making it mandatory would weed out the abusers.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> I do think people have a better bond with their dogs when they make efforts to avoid using aversives wherever possible.


I would have to disagree here. I don't think me using less aversives would create a stronger bond between me and my dogs. I don't make efforts to avoid them whenever possible, but I'm not out there just willy-nilly correcting my dog just because I feel like it either. Everything I do is carefully thought out as to it's effects, both towards the behavior itself we're working on and the relationship between the dog and me and the dog and his view towards working.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Well we are just going to have to disagree about the BELIEFS of bonding. No harm no foul.
> 
> I hope to heck your dogs never breaks a solid recall and gets lost in the desert as my dog did. Again I am a realist as are alot of professional trainers. When you least expect it....expect it.
> 
> I feel YOU and some others use the word "SHOCK" for shock value and nothing more. But hey I can't prove that. But I can prove that ecollar users are not shocking, electrocuting or harming their dogs in any way shape or form, *if* someone wants to take a first hand class with a professional or meet up with the member who uses one.........just sayin


FYI - I have trained with e-collar users on a number of occasions. I have seen dogs noticeably flinch when the button is pushed, and the people handling those dogs had advanced field and obedience titles. So in my personal experience with people that train with e-collars, they're not always honest with themselves about how uncomfortable the shock is at the level they're using. To the person pushing the button, the dog has "noticed" the shock and altered his behavior. To me, he is noticeably flinching because it's pretty unpleasant.

I don't use shock for—nice pun—shock value. I use it because it's accurate, regardless of the level used because it's the word for applying electrical current to a body part. If it works to lessen an undesired behavior, it's at least mildly unpleasant. If it's breaking through the attention of a driven dog, it's substantially unpleasant.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Loisiana said:


> I would have to disagree here. I don't think me using less aversives would create a stronger bond between me and my dogs. I don't make efforts to avoid them whenever possible, but I'm not out there just willy-nilly correcting my dog just because I feel like it either. Everything I do is carefully thought out as to it's effects, both towards the behavior itself we're working on and the relationship between the dog and me and the dog and his view towards working.


It's certainly held true in my relationships with my dogs. Your mileage may vary.


----------



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

tippykayak said:


> FYI - I have trained with e-collar users on a number of occasions. I have seen dogs noticeably flinch when the button is pushed, and the people handling those dogs had advanced field and obedience titles. So in my personal experience with people that train with e-collars, they're not always honest with themselves about how uncomfortable the shock is at the level they're using. To the person pushing the button, the dog has "noticed" the shock and altered his behavior. To me, he is noticeably flinching because it's pretty unpleasant.
> 
> I don't use shock for—nice pun—shock value. I use it because it's accurate, regardless of the level used because it's the word for applying electrical current to a body part. If it works to lessen an undesired behavior, it's at least mildly unpleasant. If it's breaking through the attention of a driven dog, it's substantially unpleasant.


LOl my golden flinches when he accidently backs up against my cat Were you training _your _dog with the collar? Or watching others? I won't comment on field and hunt training as I have no experience but I am well aware of how the collar works and_ know_ that it can work without harming the dog. I also have NO PROBLEM upping the anti on the stem if I need to get the attention of my high prey driven dog if he chooses to ignore my command. No problem whatsoever. Been there done that. I love my dog too much.

And I still believe you use "shock" as shock value LOL!


----------



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

tippykayak said:


> It's certainly held true in my relationships with my dogs. Your mileage may vary.


Somehow I have a feeling you had some bad results using aversive training.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I wouldn't be against this with any training collar. I can't tell you how many times I see the prong collar being worn wrong. But I honestly don't think making it mandatory would weed out the abusers.



I agree that it wouldn't weed out the abusers, as you said before, they don't need a collar to be abusive. But it would weed out those that don't know they're actually causing harm to their dogs by not knowing the proper way to use the collar. They don't mean to do it, but they end up ruining their dog and most likely that dog will end up being given up. Unfortunately, most of those dogs will pay the ultimate price for their owner's ignorance.


----------



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

kwhit said:


> I agree that it wouldn't weed out the abusers, as you said before, they don't need a collar to be abusive. But it would weed out those that don't know they're actually causing harm to their dogs by not knowing the proper way to use the collar. They don't mean to do it, but they end up ruining their dog and most likely that dog will end up being given up. Unfortunately, most of those dogs will pay the ultimate price for their owner's ignorance.


I agree! And hopefully that would work. But I don't agree that someone can unknowingly harm a dog with this collar.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> But I don't agree that someone can unknowingly harm a dog with this collar.


Oh, I do. They could use the collar in the wrong way, in timing or whatever, in response to a certain issue the dog has, (such as DA), and forever ruin that dog in any future interactions it would have. They would most likely keep upping the level of the correction, and that could very well harm the dog, at least emotionally and at the time of the correction, physically. It might not leave permanent physical harm, (even bruises go away), but at the immediate moment, I definitely do believe harm is done. Emotionally, the dog may never recover.


----------



## Shalva (Jul 16, 2008)

I think for me the issue is why use aversives when I can get the same results not using them. 

This morning I was able to call 9 dogs off a loose chicken... several of the dogs are in for their CDX right now. I have rock solid retrieves without dropping and I can call the dogs off of anything..and have called them off of deer. so my issue is why use an aversive when you can get results without one... and with 9 dogs here I have all kinds of personalities and even the wolfhound has a solid recall at 18 mos. I have dogs who could not tolerate a shock collar and would shut down and I have dogs that would have no issue with it and could tolerate it but why should they when with a little time and effort we can get to the same place

just my two cents


----------



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

Shalva said:


> I think for me the issue is why use aversives *when I can get the same results not using them. *
> 
> This morning I was able to call 9 dogs off a loose chicken... several of the dogs are in for their CDX right now. I have rock solid retrieves without dropping and I can call the dogs off of anything..and have called them off of deer. so my issue is why use an aversive when you can get results without one... and with 9 dogs here I have all kinds of personalities and even the wolfhound has a solid recall at 18 mos. I have dogs who could not tolerate a shock collar and would shut down and I have dogs that would have no issue with it and could tolerate it but why should they when with a little time and effort we can get to the same place
> 
> just my two cents


 
It looks like you answered your own question.


----------



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

kwhit said:


> Oh, I do. They could use the collar in the wrong way, in timing or whatever, in response to a certain issue the dog has, (such as DA), and forever ruin that dog in any future interactions it would have. They would most likely keep upping the level of the correction, and that could very well harm the dog, at least emotionally and at the time of the correction, physically. It might not leave permanent physical harm, (even bruises go away), but at the immediate moment, I definitely do believe harm is done. Emotionally, the dog may never recover.


Yes I see how the timing can be off could totally confuse a dog. Using the collar has actually really helped me to read my dogs to the tee. And yes some people never read instructions. I don't buy that someone will keep upping the stim and not know what is happening. Not in a million years. Being unavailabe at pet stores can minimize this. Honestly I never even knew they sold them there until after I purchased mine. And I wouldn't waste my money on those nor would I recommend them. I wonder how many dogs have nerve damage from ill fitting prong collars.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I don't buy that someone will keep upping the stim and not know what is happening. Not in a million years.


Well, you need to buy it...I had a customer try to return a collar saying it didn't work, (he thought his wife had bought it at my shop, which she didn't because I had discontinued them years before). After I told him that, he went on to tell me anyway why he felt it didn't work. He had tried to use it for correcting DA. He kept upping the correction but his dog was still acting out. This guy had no clue. I gave him the card of a trainer we recommended and told him to toss the collar. I don't know if he did or not, but I do know he never gave the trainer a call. 

And yes, I agree with the prong collar causing harm, too. At my store I kept them in my office. If I wasn't at work the office was locked. My employees knew that I was the only one that could sell the prong collars. No one got one unless they had their dog with them and I could fit it properly. I also gave instructions on how to use it. If they came in for additional links, the same rule applied. They needed their dog there with them so I could see if extra links were needed. 

You'd think that this would lessen their sales, but the opposite was true. We sold quite a few and I felt good about the people who bought them using them correctly.


----------



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

kwhit said:


> Well, you need to buy it...I had a customer try to return a collar saying it didn't work, (he thought his wife had bought it at my shop, which she didn't because I had discontinued them years before). After I told him that, he went on to tell me anyway why he felt it didn't work. He had tried to use it for correcting DA. He kept upping the correction but his dog was still acting out. This guy had no clue. I gave him the card of a trainer we recommended and told him to toss the collar. I don't know if he did or not, but I do know he never gave the trainer a call.
> 
> And yes, I agree with the prong collar causing harm, too. At my store I kept them in my office. If I wasn't at work the office was locked. My employees knew that I was the only one that could sell the prong collars. No one got one unless they had their dog with them and I could fit it properly. I also gave instructions on how to use it. If they came in for additional links, the same rule applied. They needed their dog there with them so I could see if extra links were needed.
> 
> You'd think that this would lessen their sales, but the opposite was true. We sold quite a few and I felt good about the people who bought them using them correctly.


 
Oh I believe your story. That guy was just plain stupid. He knew what he was doing, he just didn't get the results he wanted. And have no doubt that he is an abuser. 

I don't know where you live but prongs are available on the shelves at every pet store around me.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I don't know where you live but prongs are available on the shelves at every pet store around me.


Oh, for sure...just not in my store. I was an independent so I could stock my merchandise were I felt it should be. Having the collars readily available to buy without being shown the proper fit and correct usage, to me, is the problem. I can't even count how many people wanted to put them on young puppies. Some of them toy breeds. Also, everyone that came in for a prong was given my trainer's card and he held classes at my shop. Many, many customers decided on those classes. Win, win situation for both me and their dogs.


----------



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

kwhit said:


> Oh, for sure...just not in my store. I was an independent so I could stock my merchandise were I felt it should be. Having the collars readily available to buy without being shown the proper fit and correct usage, to me, is the problem. I can't even count how many people wanted to put them on young puppies. Some of them toy breeds. Also, everyone that came in for a prong was given my trainer's card and he held classes at my shop. Many, many customers decided on those classes. Win, win situation for both me and their dogs.


I can't believe they make them small enough to fit small dogs. :shakeshead:


----------



## Shalva (Jul 16, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> It looks like you answered your own question.


I didn't ask a question....


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Somehow I have a feeling you had some bad results using aversive training.


I noticed a substantial difference in attitude in working between dogs who were taught something relying on corrections vs. dogs taught something through shaping and rewards, both with my own dogs and observing others' dogs. The results were fine in terms of the dog's obedience. It was the attitude of the dog while complying that really convinced me that there was a better way to train.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> LOl my golden flinches when he accidently backs up against my cat Were you training _your _dog with the collar? Or watching others?


I was hard enough on previous dogs with mild leash pops and a stern voice, and I regret that deeply. My dogs deserved a better trainer than that. Never in a million years would I put a device on my dog that was only capable of delivering punishment, even then, and I certainly wouldn't now. As I said, your mileage my vary.



Wyatt's mommy said:


> I won't comment on field and hunt training as I have no experience but I am well aware of how the collar works and_ know_ that it can work without harming the dog. I also have NO PROBLEM upping the anti on the stem if I need to get the attention of my high prey driven dog if he chooses to ignore my command. No problem whatsoever. Been there done that. I love my dog too much.
> 
> And I still believe you use "shock" as shock value LOL!


If my dog is prey driven, my response is not to outbid the distraction, either with pain or with bait. Both make for a bad training scenario. (For safety, just to get the dog back, fine, but not as a training situation to improve his reliability.)


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I don't buy that someone will keep upping the stim and not know what is happening. Not in a million years.


Buy it. This seems to be the default uneducated use of the collar and the thing that people like me try to undo on dogs whose owners bought one and kept upping the stim until the dog finally stopped jumping (or chasing cats, or whatever). If you define this as abuse, there's a looooot of abusers out there.

For those of us that clean up the mess when people do this dogs, it's a pretty common scenario.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

kjohnstone82 said:


> Thanks so much for your help Lilliam, my husband and I have bought a clicker and a book to go with it and we have 2 weeks off next week where we will have plenty of time to dedicate to training him on the lead and various other things.


Kjohnstone82 you wrote this back on 15 October. It's now the 20th. Please tell us of your progress so far. 

Let's assume for a moment that you were a typical, dedicated Ecollar user following my directions and that you'd gotten an Ecollar on the 15th. You'd spend 30-45 minutes on the first day, in the first session, introducing the Ecollar and starting the recall. You'd do another 20 minute session that evening. Then you'd do 20 minutes a day (two ten minutes sessions) working with your dog. You'd have worked on the recall on Monday and Tuesday. You'd have introduced and worked on the sit on Wednesday and the down on Thursday. Friday you'd be proofing the behaviors and today, Saturday, you'd be out in public, off leash (where appropriate and legal), working on proofing him around low and medium level distractions. Probably on Saturday you'd be working him off leash around high level distractions. Are you there with the clicker yet? I'm very interested in hearing of your progress.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> And here's your personal rationale: [tippy then quotes me]


Are you ever going to write a post involving something I've said without trying to twist my words? What you quoted is hardly a _"personal rationale."_ It's just some additional information about working with puppies with the Ecollar. 



tippykayak said:


> What I think you're saying here is that you don't use them on young dogs because it's hard to find the "working level" of the stim because a young dog's "working level" changes constantly?


I thought it was pretty clear, I don't use them on puppies younger than six months because I'm going with the manufacturer's recommendations and those of other Ecollar trainers that I respect. You can try and twist my words all that you like, it just shows folks what kind of person you are. 



tippykayak said:


> And this is largely due to the fact that they're highly distractible? So the "working level" is related to how distracted the dog is? Like, it's higher when the dog is more distracted and lower when he's not?


Of course the dog's working level is related to how distracted he is. When someone is very involved with something, it's hard to get their attention. In this, dogs are the same. 



tippykayak said:


> I don't agree that puppies are hard to work with if you're not interested in finding the working level of an electrical stimulation on them, btw.


For the kind of work that you're doing with them, you don't get reliability in the face of distractions without tons of time and energy being spent. I'd say that equates to _"hard to work with."_ if you dangle a treat, you can get their attention, but you're still dealing with the short attention span and short retention span of a puppy. It's really irrelevant though, most of my work is with mature adults, either police or SAR K−9's, or adult pets for whom the so−called "kinder gentler methods" have failed to give their owners satisfactory results.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I'm going to use the term "aversive" in this post instead of "punishment" because I feel like the line between positive and negative punishment is going to get blurred.
> 
> I think aversive-based training, no matter how mild the aversive used, interferes with a dog's trust in his handler.


Since this thread is about Ecollars, I'll stick to aversives, as they're used with the Ecollar in dog training. I doubt that we can keep to the term _"aversive"_ at least I can't and so I won't bother. The line won't _"blur"_ between positive and negative punishment as long as the terms are used properly. For the sake of this discussion I'll assume that when the term punishment is used, it's assumed that it will tend to make a behavior not repeat. The same is true for the term "reinforcement" (Basically I'm talking about assuming that either one is sufficient enough, so that the behavior is affected). 

Delivering an aversive is punishment. Removing the aversive is reinforcing. 

Most everyone knows that every time that the button on an Ecollar is pressed an aversive is delivered to the dog. Many people, and you're one of them, fail to realize that when the button is released a reinforcement occurs. And so the Ecollar is balanced equally between punishment and reinforcement. If the handler utilizes some praise, play, treats, toys, etc., the training then becomes tipped towards the reinforcement side. 



tippykayak said:


> It may be impractical to eliminate aversives completely—though I'm intrigued by people who claim to do so—but I prefer to at least minimize them.


Every time I've seen someone claim that they can train without aversives, I've shown that they do, indeed use them. Occasionally some have gone so far as to change the terms to pretend that they don't use any aversives. It's simply impossible not to use them in training. The article I posted by Roger Abrantes is a good one. For those joining this discussion late, here's the link again. Unveiling the Myth of Reinforcers and Punishers | Roger Abrantes

I don't try to minimize them. I see no reason to do so. As long as they're used properly there aren't any problems. It’s only when they're not applied properly that issues arise. This is true of reinforcement too. 



tippykayak said:


> And the first place it makes sense to remove them entirely is in the teaching stage of a behavior.


I'll say that it's impossible to do so. Since you'll probably disagree, just tell us, in detail, how you teach the sit and I'll show you where the aversives (punishment) are in your training. 



tippykayak said:


> And I certainly think it's becoming increasingly obvious that methods that rely primarily on aversives (as opposed to rewards) to teach behavior are a bad idea.


I'd agree. But I can't think of a viable training method that _"rel[ies] primarily on aversives to teach behavior."_ Ecollars certainly don't (with my methods) as, even without the trainer introducing praise, they're perfectly balanced between punishments and reinforcers on a one to one basis. Can you tell us of a couple of such methods? 

Animals learn best when training is balanced between reinforcement and punishment. It shows them when they're right AND when they're wrong. That makes if far easier for them to learn than if they only get feedback when they're right.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> I am glad the OP decided not to use the e collar/shock collar. 2 of my current dogs' contracts specify no e collars, and I would also not place a puppy in a home that planned to use one on a puppy.


I think it's a mistake to make such a statement without any information as to the success of the OP's training. If they are able to get reliability in the face of high level distractions with other tools, then I'll be happy for them. But having seen the results of many people with the so−called "kinder gentler methods", I don't hold out much hope for that. 

Making such an assessment, based ONLY on the choice of tools that was made, without an eye to the results, is, I think a mistake. Would you still be _"glad"_ if the dog disobeyed a command, ran into the street and got hit by a car because they were not able to get reliable results with those methods?


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> You have, several times, emphasized that the OP should listen to people with experience with the collar over people who don't use it. You also typically refer to those that don't use it as "uneducated" in its use.


I don't see anything wrong with such advice. Theory is great, but if I'm building a house, I'll go with the guy who has experience in building other houses, rather than a guy who has never done it. I'd call the guy who has never done, "lacking in education." 



tippykayak said:


> I honestly believe people will have better relationships with their dogs if they don't use aversives as a teaching tool, and I want people to have good relationships with their dogs.


Once again, thanks for sharing your opinion. Once again mine is different. Once again, my experience says that you're wrong as this advice applies to the Ecollar specifically and to the general statement regarding aversives as well. 

IF the tool of choice is used properly then there is no adverse affect on the relationship. In nature, pack members who outrank a given dog apply punishment when it's appropriate, and it doesn't damage the relationship. 

My police K−9 was trained with leash corrections, giving praise and play as needed. He never hesitated to run into known dangerous situations to support me. 

I regularly train basic OB with the Ecollar, which delivers BOTH aversives and reinforcement, and contrary to your opinion about it harming the relationship, the opposite is the case, it builds it. I've referred to two situations where reactive, fear−aggressive dogs learned that a stranger was not to be feared or bitten in very short periods of time, by doing nothing more than teaching the first steps of the recall. One dog took 25 minutes, the other, one training session, probably lasting about an hour. 

If the Ecollar harmed the relationship neither incident would have had a happy ending, yet they both did. 

My theory on this is due, in part, to the remote nature of my method of teaching the recall. First, the dog thinks that the stim came from the environment, not from the handler. Second, it's a mild aversive, better described as bothersome, than painful. Third, the dog learns in a few minutes that the mere presence of the handler brings comfort. The dog has no idea why this occurs, it just does. When the dog moves AWAY from the handler _ something _ brings discomfort to him. When he moves TOWARDS the handler and stays near him, the result is comfort. The dog learns that the handler is a safe spot, where he's safe and protected from discomfort. This can't help but comfort the dog and that's the start of a good relationship. There's a dichotomy that's clear to the dog. 

It's interesting to note that NO OTHER TOOL can do this. Pushing treats, playing, praising, NOTHING ELSE shows the dog this situation, where being away from the owner is uncomfortable and being near him brings safety from discomfort. This is _ the magic _of low level stim and the method that I teach, that makes it different from other methods of using the Ecollar, where the dog is only corrected (and that's done at a much higher level of stim) for disobedience. 



tippykayak said:


> It's not really a right or wrong thing but rather an improve-relationships-and-avoid-unwanted-side-effects thing.


In just this thread, I've asked you several times now to point out the side effects when my methods are used to teach the recall. Rather than answer my question directly, one time you completely avoided it. When pressed you rambled off, talking generalities that have to do with punishment. You NEVER did as asked, tell us about the side−effects you imagine when * MY METHODS * are used. Please do so now that this conversation has turned towards the theoretical.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I do think people have a better bond with their dogs when they make efforts to avoid using aversives wherever possible.


I'll disagree. When aversives are used properly, they do not cause an issue in the bond between the handler and the dog. 



tippykayak said:


> Shock is an accurate term. I know many people that use e-collars don't like it, but you're passing current across a dog's skin. "Shock" describes exactly that. It might be a low level shock that's not particularly painful, but it's a shock. You may not feel that the word captures the feeling of the setting you use, but 'stim' is embarrassingly euphemistic in its complete vagueness. A feather duster, a low electrical current, and being hit by a car are all "stimulation." I try to say 'stim' most times out of politeness, but let's be realistic about how much of a euphemism it is.


Here's what Steven Lindsay says about use of the term "shock."


> First, at low levels, the term shock is *hardly fitting to describe the effect *produced by electronic training collars, since *there is virtually no effect beyond a pulsing tingling or tickling sensation *on the surface of the skin. Second, *the word shock is loaded with biased connotations, images of convulsions spasms and burns, and implications associated with extreme physical pain, emotional trauma, physiological collapse, and laboratory abuses. * Third, the e−stimulus or signal generated by most modern devices is highly controlled and present to produce a specific set of behavior and motivational responses to it.


_ Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, Volume 3, _ (Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 2005) pg 569

I think that most antis used the word "shock" not because it's "accurate" but for its "shock value" (pun intended). They WANT to evoke the _"biased connotations, images of convulsions spasms and burns, and implications associated with extreme physical pain, emotional trauma, physiological collapse, and laboratory abuses."_ A good part of their argument is emotional, and they think that this helps them. The truth is that NONE of these things happen with low level stim. I think that some of them know this but they pretend not to. Some claim that it does.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

kwhit said:


> Everyone has to make their own choices, but what I _firmly_ believe is that these collars should never be sold without training. It's irresponsible for the manufacturers to give the general public access to this training method without proper instruction on how to apply it correctly. I don't know how that could be implemented, but, to me, seems like that is the only responsible way to sell these collars.


When you and everyone else start advocating for education and requiring education before ANY dog training tool is sold, I'll join in. I don't want to live in a nanny state where the size of my soft drinks, the amount of fat in my diet and Ecollars are controlled by the government. When you start giving government the power to control such minutiae, it's just a matter of time before they try to enlarge their reach.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> FYI - I have trained with e-collar users on a number of occasions. I have seen dogs noticeably flinch when the button is pushed, and the people handling those dogs had advanced field and obedience titles. So in my personal experience with people that train with e-collars, they're not always honest with themselves about how uncomfortable the shock is at the level they're using. To the person pushing the button, the dog has "noticed" the shock and altered his behavior. To me, he is noticeably flinching because it's pretty unpleasant.


Your experience has done nothing to educate you or to prepare you for this discussion. People who are handling dogs with _"advanced Field and obedience titles"_ are not using low level stim. Here we're talking about using it for training basic OB and as I've said a number of times, the level that's used is the level that the dog can first perceive. You'll never see a dog _"flinch"_ when he feels this. Go back and look at the video I supplied of the dog feeling his first stim. He doesn't _"flinch."_ He just looks at the ground. 

At seminars it's happened many times that I've been working a dog for about ten minutes and someone will ask, "When are you going to start using the Ecollar?" I'd been using it since I started, since the very first leash pull. People who are watching, some of them with years of training and lots of expertise, can't tell that I've been pressing the button. 



tippykayak said:


> If it works to lessen an undesired behavior, it's at least mildly unpleasant. If it's breaking through the attention of a driven dog, it's substantially unpleasant.


Sorry but AGAIN, you're wrong. It does not have to be _"substantially unpleasant."_ it merely has to rise to the level that he can perceive in his distracted state. If you go waaaay beyond that level, it CAN BE PAINFUL. But it's easy to avoid doing that. Press and hold the continuous button and slowly turn the dial. When the dog feels it, he'll show it.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> It's certainly held true in my relationships with my dogs. Your mileage may vary.


Some of us know how to apply aversives properly. Some of us don't.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

kwhit said:


> I agree that it wouldn't weed out the abusers, as you said before, they don't need a collar to be abusive. But it would weed out those that don't know they're actually causing harm to their dogs by not knowing the proper way to use the collar. They don't mean to do it, but they end up ruining their dog and most likely that dog will end up being given up. Unfortunately, most of those dogs will pay the ultimate price for their owner's ignorance.


If you take out the word _"collar"_ and substitute any training tool, the paragraph makes just as much sense. Advocate for education for the use of ALL training tools, not just the Ecollar, and I'll join in.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

kwhit said:


> Oh, I do. They could use the collar in the wrong way, in timing or whatever, in response to a certain issue the dog has, (such as DA), and forever ruin that dog in any future interactions it would have.


Nonsense. I've never come across a problem that anyone has caused through uneducated use of an Ecollar that I can't cure with the Ecollar. I've NEVER seen a dog that's been _"forever ruin[ed]."_ It's just another myth. It may be that you're not capable of rehabbing those dogs with your methods. That hardly means that others can't. 



tippykayak said:


> They would most likely keep upping the level of the correction, and * that could very well harm the dog, at least emotionally and at the time of the correction, physically. * It might not leave permanent physical harm, (even bruises go away), but at the immediate moment, I definitely do believe harm is done. Emotionally, the dog may never recover. [Emphasis Added]


It's still IMPOSSIBLE for an Ecollar to physically harm a dog by the electrical current they produce during training. AGAIN, no study has ever supported such a claim.


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

Shalva said:


> I think for me the issue is why use aversives when I can get the same results not using them.


You might get good results with your dogs with your skill level. Others don't have your dogs and they probably don't have your skill. 



Shalva said:


> I have dogs who could not tolerate a shock collar and would shut down


I've put Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs. NEVER had one that could not tolerate it when it was used properly. I've had hundreds of people make the statement that you've just made. I've proved them all wrong. 



Shalva said:


> and I have dogs that would have no issue with it and could tolerate it but why should they when with a little time and effort we can get to the same place


It's great that you have the skill and that you're willing to put in the _"time and effort."_ Not everyone has your skill and if they don't want to put in the _"time and effort"_ they shouldn't have to. Why do you think that training that takes more _"time and effort"_ is better?


----------



## Lou Castle (Mar 16, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> I was hard enough on previous dogs with mild leash pops and a stern voice, and I regret that deeply.


You may have thought that your leash pops were _"mild"_ but your perception is irrelevant. Corrections are judged ONLY by the animal they're applied to. This is dog training 101. If your dog reacted badly to them and your bond was damaged, the leash pops were too hard for that dog at that moment. 



tippykayak said:


> Never in a million years would I put a device on my dog that was only capable of delivering punishment


I wouldn't either. I can't think of such a tool though. Ecollars and, all kinds of conventional correction collars can deliver BOTH punishment and reinforcement. 



tippykayak said:


> If my dog is prey driven, my response is not to outbid the distraction, either with pain or with bait. Both make for a bad training scenario. (For safety, just to get the dog back, fine, but not as a training situation to improve his reliability.)


I agree with this. Using an Ecollar to blast a dog off a prey driven chase works only sometimes. Sometimes the dog thinks that the pain he's getting is a result of being away from the handler and so they return to the handler and then won't leave his side. Some dogs just power through the pain. 

That's one reason that I developed my protocol for stopping such chases using low level stim. None of the fallout that can occur with the conventional method of stopping this with an Ecollar, occurs.


----------



## coffenut (Jan 3, 2012)

I have to admit that I am very very close to using an ECollar on Káva. I took her out yesterday to get some photographs with fall foliage and to take pictures of my sister and her family. The problem was that I had forgotten her "sensation" harness. She loves my two little nephews and was desperate to keep up with them. Unfortunately, I am disabled and she kept pulling me off of my feet (I did 3 face plants). I ended up having to loop the leash around her neck as a makeshift choke collar. Even so, she pulled to the point where I can barely walk today. When the boys weren't around, she walked just fine with me. I just don't know what to do.


----------



## GoldensGirl (Aug 2, 2010)

coffenut said:


> I have to admit that I am very very close to using an ECollar on Káva. I took her out yesterday to get some photographs with fall foliage and to take pictures of my sister and her family. The problem was that I had forgotten her "sensation" harness. She loves my two little nephews and was desperate to keep up with them. Unfortunately, I am disabled and she kept pulling me off of my feet (I did 3 face plants). I ended up having to loop the leash around her neck as a makeshift choke collar. Even so, she pulled to the point where I can barely walk today. When the boys weren't around, she walked just fine with me. I just don't know what to do.


Perhaps 10 years ago, I was walking two Goldens in a public park. Suddenly one decided to dash for the nearby river and the other saw another Golden and decided to run visit. Their combined actions pulled me off my feet and they dragged me face down for several feet before I let go of the leashes. I was very lucky that I wasn't seriously injured and that friendly bystanders caught my fur kids and brought them back to me. I promptly enrolled the older one in an obedience class, which helped.

The trainer was insistent that I should try a pronged "training collar." I was horrified by the appearance of the collar, as many people are. But under the trainer's supervision, I tried it and it allowed me to walk my headstrong dogs safely. Their eager dance whenever I touched those collars convinced me that they were not hurt by the prongs. I realized that they controlled the pressure on the collar and simply had to stop pulling if the collar became uncomfortable. 

Pronged collars provoke heated discussions here, but I would not hesitate to use a pronged collar in a situation like yours. If you try one, please get a trainer to show you how to fit and use it.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> Delivering an aversive is punishment. Removing the aversive is reinforcing.


To be precise, the removal of the aversive is negatively reinforcing, and behavioral science makes a distinction between positive and negative reinforcement because the outcomes are different, not just the delivery.



Lou Castle said:


> And so the Ecollar is balanced equally between punishment and reinforcement.


Between positive punishment and negative reinforcement, again, for the sake of precision.



Lou Castle said:


> I'll say that it's impossible to do so. Since you'll probably disagree, just tell us, in detail, how you teach the sit and I'll show you where the aversives (punishment) are in your training.


See? You're deliberately blurring the lines already. I used "aversive" to mean "addition of negative stimulus," and now you're already trying to equate it with the behavioral term "punishment," which includes negative punishment, which of course you use in training an non-aversive sit. You can train a sit without _adding a negative stimulus_. I do not believe you can do it without withholding a positive stimulus.

But adding a negative and withholding a positive (both designed to reduce a behavior) are not equivalent in their efficacy or in their potential side effects.



Lou Castle said:


> I'd agree. But I can't think of a viable training method that _"rel[ies] primarily on aversives to teach behavior."_ Ecollars certainly don't (with my methods) as, even without the trainer introducing praise, they're perfectly balanced between punishments and reinforcers on a one to one basis. Can you tell us of a couple of such methods?




Any method that involves holding the button down until the dog figures out what you want is "taught primarily with aversives" by my definition.



Lou Castle said:


> Animals learn best when training is balanced between reinforcement and punishment. It shows them when they're right AND when they're wrong. That makes if far easier for them to learn than if they only get feedback when they're right.


This is an old school way of thinking about it, and you're probably in the majority of dog trainers when you put it that way. That doesn't make you right.

Animals learn best when given an opportunity to figure out what to do and then to receive a reward for it. Aversives create stress that interferes with memory and shuts down creative behaviors that animals use to figure out what gets them what they want.

There's a reason that APDT utterly rejects your type "animals learn best" philosophy.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> The dog learns that the handler is a safe spot, where he's safe and protected from discomfort.


And if people feel that the best way to create a relationship with a dog is to trick him into feeling that something mysterious in his environment is making him uncomfortable, but nearer his owner, that sensation goes away, then they can go with your method.

Honestly, what else is there to say? This is my problem with the philosophy you push, right in a nutshell, right in your own words. I would never train a dog in this way. I like dogs too much, and there are other nicer methods that are at least as effective.



Lou Castle said:


> ...being away from the owner is uncomfortable and being near him brings safety from discomfort. This is the magic of low level stim and the method that I teach, that makes it different from other methods of using the Ecollar...


Again, just so we have it said a couple of ways in your own words. No twisting, no nothing. That's your philosophy, and if it sounds appealing to someone, then they can use your methods.



Lou Castle said:


> In just this thread, I've asked you several times now to point out the side effects when my methods are used to teach the recall. Rather than answer my question directly, one time you completely avoided it. When pressed you rambled off, talking generalities that have to do with punishment. You NEVER did as asked, tell us about the side−effects you imagine when * MY METHODS * are used. Please do so now that this conversation has turned towards the theoretical.


I don't care to make myself familiar enough with YOUR METHODS to provide a meaningful point-by-point critique. Each time I haven't answered that question is because each time I read anything on your site, I'm so turned off by the first few sentences that I've only read 2 or 3 of your complete articles. I read that whole one on jumping and one on recall, and that's all I've read all the way through.

I've never gone into a thread and said "the Lou Castle method is a terrible idea." I've talked about the collars and about the downsides of using aversives, and then you come roaring in, and I'm trying to talk about the equipment and about what aversives do to dogs, you want to push your methods.

I'm not here to battle about the Lou Castle method because I've never heard of anybody using it, and I have a very hard time wrapping my head around what kind of person reads your articles and thinks they offer a friendly way to train a beloved dog.

I'm not talking about dogs you've trained yourself, because I have no idea about them. I worry about people buying a collar and reading articles online and what the real world consequences are to the dogs.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> Here we're talking about using it for training basic OB and as I've said a number of times, the level that's used is the level that the dog can first perceive. You'll never see a dog _"flinch"_ when he feels this. Go back and look at the video I supplied of the dog feeling his first stim. He doesn't _"flinch."_ He just looks at the ground.


Why do you think you can define what we're talking about? We're talking about real world use. Nobody asked to debate the Lou Castle method. You're the only one on GRF who uses it and wants to talk about it. I'm talking about how the e-collar ends up being used in the real world. I was briefly interested in your methods, but I'm not any longer. If anybody wants to debate _your_ method, I'm sure they'll ask you.



Lou Castle said:


> Sorry but AGAIN, you're wrong. It does not have to be _"substantially unpleasant."_ it merely has to rise to the level that he can perceive in his distracted state. If you go waaaay beyond that level, it CAN BE PAINFUL. But it's easy to avoid doing that. Press and hold the continuous button and slowly turn the dial. When the dog feels it, he'll show it.


I would have thought that, doing police work, you would have worked with lots of driven dogs. When a dog is chasing prey, for example, it takes a ton to get his attention. A little tickle at the neck isn't going to do it. It's going to have to provide a pretty significant unpleasant stimulus if it's going to get his attention. "The level he can perceive in his distracted state" would have to be high. I've had dogs get cuts and scrapes without even breaking stride if they're in an intense moment, so it would take even greater discomfort that a bloody scrape to get their attention. Why doesn't that apply to electrical current?


----------



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

tippykayak said:


> If my dog is prey driven, my response is not to outbid the distraction, either with pain or with bait. Both make for a bad training scenario. (For safety, just to get the dog back, fine, but not as a training situation to improve his reliability.)



That's why I received professional training and not just slap it on my dog and crank up the dial. 




tippykayak said:


> Buy it. This seems to be the default uneducated use of the collar and the thing that people like me try to undo on dogs whose owners bought one and kept upping the stim until the dog finally stopped jumping (or chasing cats, or whatever). If you define this as abuse, there's a looooot of abusers out there.
> 
> For those of us that clean up the mess when people do this dogs, it's a pretty common scenario.


Well since I do know how this collar works I can honestly say that these people had to know they were harming their dog. However I can see where people with no knowledge of the collar would believe this. And yes that is abuse. And if that is common around your neck of the woods, perhaps you need to advocate education or even report the abusers.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> You may have thought that your leash pops were _"mild"_ but your perception is irrelevant. Corrections are judged ONLY by the animal they're applied to. This is dog training 101. If your dog reacted badly to them and your bond was damaged, the leash pops were too hard for that dog at that moment.


My dog reacted fine. It's the difference between the way he performed the skill and the way later dogs performed the same skill that convinced me that leash pops were a bad way to teach leash behavior. When a dog learns to do something to avoid an unpleasant feeling, no matter how mild, his attitude is really different than when he learns to do it for a reward. I prefer the attitude I get with rewards.



Lou Castle said:


> I wouldn't either. I can't think of such a tool though. Ecollars and, all kinds of conventional correction collars can deliver BOTH punishment and reinforcement.


Only if you bend the terms. The e-collar is only capable of delivering positive punishment and negative reinforcement. It cannot directly deliver positive reinforcement.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> Your experience has done nothing to educate you or to prepare you for this discussion.


You are not being terribly respectful, just FYI. If you're wondering why you make people so mad, it's this kind of sentence. :wave:


----------



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

coffenut said:


> I have to admit that I am very very close to using an ECollar on Káva. I took her out yesterday to get some photographs with fall foliage and to take pictures of my sister and her family. The problem was that I had forgotten her "sensation" harness. She loves my two little nephews and was desperate to keep up with them. Unfortunately, I am disabled and she kept pulling me off of my feet (I did 3 face plants). I ended up having to loop the leash around her neck as a makeshift choke collar. Even so, she pulled to the point where I can barely walk today. When the boys weren't around, she walked just fine with me. I just don't know what to do.


I agree with Goldensgirl that you might want to consider contacting a trainer who can show you how to use and properly fit a prong collar. We all know how strong these goldens are and they could easily pull you to the ground.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> That's why I received professional training and not just slap it on my dog and crank up the dial.


So why are you defending Lou? He just said, "It does not have to be "substantially unpleasant." it merely has to rise to the level that he can perceive in his distracted state. If you go waaaay beyond that level, it CAN BE PAINFUL. But it's easy to avoid doing that. *Press and hold the continuous button and slowly turn the dial. When the dog feels it, he'll show it.*" (emphasis mine)



Wyatt's mommy said:


> And yes that is abuse. And if that is common around your neck of the woods, perhaps you need to advocate education or even report the abusers.


I think anybody who trains dogs for money would tell you that a lot of people use it in a way similar to what I've described (shock the dog during a problem behavior at the minimum level it takes for him to stop doing it). But I don't know for sure. My trainer friends would certainly agree with that characterization, but perhaps it varies by region.


----------

