# E-collar discussion - all opinions welcome!



## FTGoldens

Indeed, I agree with Evan's description of the e-collar ... it is a tool. Just like a collar, leash, treats, heeling stick, etc. are all tools to help the trainer teach the dog how to respond properly to a command (i.e., to modify the dog's behavior). In the right hands, an e-collar is far and away a more effective tool than those used in the past, some of which Evan mentioned. There are several reasons for its superior effectiveness, some being the ability to administer a stimulation virtually instantaneously, the ability to reach long distances, and (at least with modern collars) the ability to vary the level of stimulation on a moment's notice (I barely noticed a "1," but a "2" got my attention ... I didn't see the need to go any higher).
For purposes of full disclosure, for a couple of reasons, I don't use the e-collar as early in the training process as many/most field trial competitors ... as long as the other tools are effectively teaching my dogs, then I stay with them. But when the time comes, and it entirely depends on the individual dog, we go through the conditioning process and proceed accordingly. 
It's a tool, one of many (even after the conditioning process).
It doesn't teach a dog a thing.
It works.

FTGoldens


----------



## gdgli

I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding about its use. I think that its original use did not include the idea of indirect pressure. And it seems to me that a lot of dogs were ruined by the crude units and its use for punishment. I would say that even today the e collar is misused by a lot of people. This is from my own observations. The Escalon Shuffle has not completely disappeared.


----------



## EvanG

Right! Nobody has an opinion or a question about e-collars. Um...yeah! Asking questions is a much better way to learn than assuming to know. And shared opinions have far greater value than silent wondering. 

EvanG


----------



## gdgli

I will give my opinion.

The ecollar is a great tool. However it does not make up for a trainer's poor training skills. I think that the ecollar in the hands of a poor trainer can ruin a dog. That's why I think that maybe not everyone should use one.


----------



## FTGoldens

Okay, I'll try to open a discussion. (This may not be the direction that the Original Poster intended the thread to go, but somewhere is better than no where.)

When do you think it is better to use continuous v. momentary stimulation?

And when using continuous, how long is the stimulation? 1. Just a tap; 2. until the dog begins the desired behavior; 3. until the dog completes the desired behavior.

FTGoldens


----------



## Golden999

I've never quite been comfortable with electric fences, e-collars, and the like. To be fair, I once had a doctor tell me to use a machine to shoot electrical impulses through my back for back pain and did not ultimately want to use it on myself regularly either. So I am not just uncomfortable with using these sort of things for dogs.  In the end, I just know so much of the way mammalian brains and nerve systems work depends on electric impulses we don't fully understand that I don't like messing with that. Remember all those electro-shock therapies they used to give depressed people decades ago that now are rarely done? I assume there's a reason for that.

When training a dog, I'd be more comfortable first with positive training methods like praise, treats, petting, etc. and then secondarily with mildly adversive but traditional methods like verbal admonishment, lightly placing one's hand over a snout the way dogs lightly place their jaws around the snouts of other dogs in their "pack" to correct them, training collars if nothing else works to keep a dog from pulling (Preferably the plastic gently grooved kind), etc.. I know someone who lightly swats her dog on the head to reprimand her, which I am not fully comfortable with, but doesn't seem to hurt the dog when she does it, and would be something I'd resort to sooner than anything involving electrical shock, even electrical shock that is said to be painless or relatively so.

Maybe I'm just being technology adverse with this to some degree, but I just don't like the idea of using electricity in training. Who knows what it's really doing? And who's to say it might not break down or malfunction in a way harmful to the dog? When you work with the dog one on one with just the two of you and low-tech simple tools and training methods, you pretty much know what you have and can immediately identify it when something has changed in such a way that it might present a danger.

Anyway, have said all that, I am absolutely not telling anyone how to train their dog. I believe people should have every right to use e-collars, electrical fences, and so on and so forth if that is what they feel is best for them and their dog. I don't think it's abusive or anything like that. I think there is room in the world for people to decide what they feel is best for their own dog and their own situation, within reason. I don't like the idea of forcing every person and every dog into a cookie cutter "one acceptable way to raise a dog" type thing. People ought to have leeway to use their own judgement and adjust things to their own lifestyles and temperament, and the lifestyles and temperaments of their individual dogs, within reason.


----------



## Brave

I know this is posted in the hunt & field section, of which I have no experience, however I would be interested in seeing scientific statistics as to the effectiveness of the e-collar versus other training methods, and side effects of each. 

It's all good to discuss the merits of a training tool, but if you don't discuss it in context, it doesn't really open up a discussion. If you want to discuss e-collars, you should also discuss other training methods. 

FWIW - I am not opposed to the e-collar as a tool, but I do not think it's for every owner or every dog. 

I would be interesting in seeing what other training methods e-collar user have used and why they opted to use the e-collar over more conventional training methods.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

It's not either or. I use both methods. Although we are not into hunt and field I have been an avid user of the ecollar since 1999. I was taught back then by a professional that the dog needed to know and understand his commands before we introduced it to him. We had a hard headed prey driven golden who consistently ignored his recall command _when out hiking off leash._ I couldn't understand this because at home his recall was always spot on. My trainer reminded me that no matter how well trained our dogs are, don't ever forget they are animals. The ecollar kept him safe and gave me piece of mind knowing that now I could hike and enjoy our hikes without any added stress on either of us. I have since introduced it to Wyatt for off leash walking with great success. 

Someone mentioned a poor trainer can ruin a dog with this tool. A poor trainer can ruin a dog period regardless of what tool they use.


----------



## Brave

Wyatt's mommy said:


> It's not either or. I use both methods. Although we are not into hunt and field I have been an avid user of the ecollar since 1999. I was taught back then by a professional that the dog needed to know and understand his commands before we introduced it to him. We had a hard headed prey driven golden who consistently ignored his recall command _when out hiking off leash._ I couldn't understand this because at home his recall was always spot on. My trainer reminded me that no matter how well trained our dogs are, don't ever forget they are animals. The ecollar kept him safe and gave me piece of mind knowing that now I could hike and enjoy our hikes without any added stress on either of us. I have since introduced it to Wyatt for off leash walking with great success.
> 
> Someone mentioned a poor trainer can ruin a dog with this tool. A poor trainer can ruin a dog period regardless of what tool they use.


Thank you for replying to me!!  

A few questions; did you spend time using positive reinforcement to work on off-leash recall before using the e-collar? If yes, how much time was spent doing this? Is the e-collar reserved just for recall? What was it like getting Wyatt acclimated to this new training method? Is the e-collar still coupled with different training methods for recall? For instance, you buzz the collar, Wyatt returns to your side, do you treat and praise him? 

To play devil's advocate, the mention of a trainer ruining a dog with any tool they use; would you consider the tool would need to be an aversive in order to ruin a dog? I'm posing this question because I'm not sure how a trainer could ruin a dog with a clicker and treats. 

We use a majority of positive and a couple aversive training methods on Bear, and the worst thing I've done to Bear with our positive methods is confuse him over hand signals/commands. He is very motivated to earn his treat and will try to figure out what I want, so I know as a trainer I need to become a better communicator for Bear's training. 

Thanks for being so cooperative. I'm trying to understand the position of e-collar users and how much different their training methods are from positive reinforcement advocates.


----------



## sterregold

A poor trainer is a poor trainer no matter the tools--if your timing and understanding of canine behaviour and learning is lacking you are not going to teach effectively, and any tool or methodology will have the potential to create confusion or nagging. An abusive trainer who tries to control a dog's behaviour through fear and aggression and intimidation is also not a good trainer, and would be so with any training tool. So apart from the tools I think there are simply some PEOPLE who should not be training dogs at all!!

However, when used by a trainer/handler with a good understanding of canine behaviour as well as conditioning, it can be a phenomenal tool for hands free and distance communication with the canine student about right and wrong choices. The modern collar with its incredible variability I think is a far superior tool when it comes to doing advanced training with physically softer or more mentally sensitive dogs, as it allows much more precisely timed corrections to be given--this really helps clarify for dogs who might otherwise worry about what they are doing wrong identify the error more easily. These are dogs who the old physical methods would have overwhelmed, and for whom delayed correction is very counterproductive. I think it is a highly effective tool for bringing dogs through skills development and consolidation in an efficient manner--and yes, time to train and develop advanced skills is a concern as real hunting can be incredibly physically demanding--I do not want it to take 9 years for my dog to learn how to run a complex blind with lots of suction--by that point I am looking at retiring most of my hunting dogs from the work in really tough locations as they are too creaky the next day.

I think people tend to get hung up on the word "correction"--to some people correction equates abuse and I just do not think that is so. Assuming that any correction has to be physically terrible for the dog, and should be avoided at all costs removes a lot of tools from your repertoire. I also reject the notion that that the particular correction delivered by an e-collar has to be more devastating for the dog than a collar pop on a slip collar, or a finger jab, or any of the myriad things I see people I know doing in obedience class who personally have said negative things about using the collar to me--all are physical corrections designed to let the dog know they made a wrong choice, and the collar simply allows me to make that clear and carry through with a consequence to change behaviour at a distance. I think part of that reaction comes from the rampant mis-belief about the purported physical damage a collar can do, in terms of the notion of the electrical charge produced by the collar physically causing actual burns (images of which circulate widely and are actually most likely pressure/contact sores caused by leaving the collar on the dog for extended periods of time.) That part needs to be laid to rest--the amperage at which they operate, and the battery capacity they possess cannot produce that effect. It is not like sticking a finger in the light socket! That said, this is one area where I would argue there is a huge difference in product quality between brands like Tritronics and Dogtra and some of the cheaper brands. Those brands cannot cause an actual physical burn through delivery of current either--the issue with them is quality and reliability of function with sticking buttons, or cases that allow water penetration and malfunction that deliver corrections not connected to a lesson--if the dog cannot connect the correction to a lesson, if it is just a random bolt (and possibly repeated) bolt out of the blue, then it is counterproductive as it will be confusing. (As would a correction coming from out of the blue from any other source without a clear connection to a lesson.)


----------



## sterregold

Not the individual that wrote the first response to you, but I can relate experiences with poor training--specifically mistimed +R. Yes, the whole process of collar conditioning relies on previously taught commands, which gets +R (like praise, pets or cookies) when the dog does it right.

As to ruining dogs with poorly used +R: Here is an example I am personally familiar with--an ineffective trainer with poor timing was dealing with a dog with resource guarding tendencies. This person tried to train the dog out of resource guarding behaviour using a clicker and positive reinforcement--but because they were a poor trainer and did not understand what they were chaining and rewarding, what they actually inadvertantly trained the dog to do was to get the owner to give them a treat by growling over an item--they had not actually reinforced giving up the item or stopping the growling. They were using a food lure whenever the dog got possessive over an item. Once the dog was distracted from the item with the food lure they would click and give the treat. In this case, the possessive incidents actually ended up increasing as the dog used it as a strategy to get cookies. This dog ended up being euthanized after it attacked and killed a smaller dog over a toy. 

Another common unintended training outcome of completely unaware use of positive reinforcement is people who pet and cuddle a dog who has had a fear reaction (to a thunderstorm, dude in a helmet or whatever, separation anxiety etc)--soothing and petting in connection with that reaction actually rewards the dog for having the fear reaction and reinforces something the owner likely does not want to have perpetuated. They think they are being kind and comforting their dog--but because they do not understand that they are actually rewarding and reinforcing the response they instead end up creating a significant issue.

Part of the disconnect around the use of certain training tools comes from misuse of terminology as well. A lot of what people are calling "positive reinforcement" training actually does include operant conditioning techniques from other quadrants as well. Positive(+) means you are adding something--either a reward (+R--you get something for doing what I want) or a punishment (+P--I add something you do not like if you engage in an unwanted behaviour). Negative (-) means you are taking something away--negative punishment (-P) is denying a something desired in order to elicit the desired behaviour (common ie of this is stopping when a dog pulls on the lead--you are denying the pleasure of walking, or a timeout for a kid--denying them the fun of the activity or social interaction), and negative reinforcement (-R) is delaying something undesireable. Many of these work better when linked together. Using the ecollar to work on a forging issue for example, +P would be a momentary stim and a verbal correction "No heel!" when he gets out ahead of the handler, followed by a -R of no stim when the dog chooses to return to heel position, and a +R of praise. This combination together, well-timed, is going to build or proof a reliable response more quickly than any one of them alone. For close work like this, you can substitute a collar and leash or collar and tab. In a field context, distance communication is needed. To communicate at 100 yards and get that combination that is going to ingrain the desired behaviour and reduce the undesired behaviour is far more difficult without a tool like an ecollar (ie stay in the water on the way to that blind retrieve bird rather than fading to shore and running the shoreline and disappearing into the brush where you cannot be handled...)



Brave said:


> Thank you for replying to me!!
> 
> A few questions; did you spend time using positive reinforcement to work on off-leash recall before using the e-collar? If yes, how much time was spent doing this? Is the e-collar reserved just for recall? What was it like getting Wyatt acclimated to this new training method? Is the e-collar still coupled with different training methods for recall? For instance, you buzz the collar, Wyatt returns to your side, do you treat and praise him?
> 
> To play devil's advocate, the mention of a trainer ruining a dog with any tool they use; would you consider the tool would need to be an aversive in order to ruin a dog? I'm posing this question because I'm not sure how a trainer could ruin a dog with a clicker and treats.
> 
> We use a majority of positive and a couple aversive training methods on Bear, and the worst thing I've done to Bear with our positive methods is confuse him over hand signals/commands. He is very motivated to earn his treat and will try to figure out what I want, so I know as a trainer I need to become a better communicator for Bear's training.
> 
> Thanks for being so cooperative. I'm trying to understand the position of e-collar users and how much different their training methods are from positive reinforcement advocates.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

Brave said:


> Thank you for replying to me!!
> 
> A few questions; did you spend time using positive reinforcement to work on off-leash recall before using the e-collar? If yes, how much time was spent doing this? Is the e-collar reserved just for recall? What was it like getting Wyatt acclimated to this new training method? Is the e-collar still coupled with different training methods for recall? For instance, you buzz the collar, Wyatt returns to your side, do you treat and praise him?
> 
> To play devil's advocate, the mention of a trainer ruining a dog with any tool they use; would you consider the tool would need to be an aversive in order to ruin a dog? I'm posing this question because I'm not sure how a trainer could ruin a dog with a clicker and treats.
> 
> We use a majority of positive and a couple aversive training methods on Bear, and the worst thing I've done to Bear with our positive methods is confuse him over hand signals/commands. He is very motivated to earn his treat and will try to figure out what I want, so I know as a trainer I need to become a better communicator for Bear's training.
> 
> Thanks for being so cooperative. I'm trying to understand the position of e-collar users and how much different their training methods are from positive reinforcement advocates.


Cody was trained using the positive method for recall. As I mentioned his recall was spot on at home away from the temptations of wild prey. Yes the collar was used for recall reinforcement and safety. I also introduced it into boundary training. 

Wyatt was introduced to it at an earlier age than Cody. Cody was a year old and Wyatt was 6 months. He had his basic knowledge of recall but not as solid as Cody's. He now has a pretty solid recall and it is also just used for reinforcement and safety. The dog learns to make the correct choice and all correct choices are met with praise and love. 

In regards to a trainer ruining a dog, I believe I said "poor" trainer. As Sterregold mentioned, there are some people who shouldn't be training dogs period. I have witnessed this in my own neighborhood and some of them ended up being road kill  With any type of training the key is to be consistent and follow thru. I have and would recommended ecollar training to anyone that is seriously interested.


----------



## EvanG

gdgli said:


> I will give my opinion.
> 
> The e-collar is a great tool. However it does not make up for a trainer's poor training skills. I think that the e-collar in the hands of a poor trainer can ruin a dog. That's why I think that maybe not everyone should use one.


I pretty much agree, with one exception. I contend that no dog was ever ruined by an e-collar, any more than they were ruined by a heeling stick, or a leash. My rationale agrees with yours, though. Any dog that was ruined during training was ruined by a trainer improperly using whatever they used. It's not the fault of an e-collar, or heeling stick. It is nearly always the fault of an abusive human being.


FTGoldens said:


> Okay, I'll try to open a discussion. (This may not be the direction that the Original Poster intended the thread to go, but somewhere is better than no where.)
> 
> When do you think it is better to use continuous v. momentary stimulation?
> 
> And when using continuous, how long is the stimulation? 1. Just a tap; 2. until the dog begins the desired behavior; 3. until the dog completes the desired behavior.
> 
> FTGoldens


Great comments as usual, FTG. I dare say that there are numerous people lurking here who have one or all of those 3 questions. So, let's look at them:

Continuous stimulation: *1.* Sometimes, but I usually use the pre-timed nicks of my TT Pro500 XL because they are uniform and predictable. *2.* Yes, but that applies to any aversive. In my view aversives are implements of force or pressure. We use force or pressure in dog training to change behavior. If I apply pressure, but there is no change in behavior, I'm only nagging, and that is not productive or fair. If I randomly apply an overt or excessively high amount of pressure, that is abuse, and is neither productive nor fair. If the dog changes behavior distinctly on a medium 2 nick, or short continuous application, that's all he will get. *3.* Rarely. Only in a couple special applications would this usage be my choice. A prominent example would be Water Force. The dog is sent and stimulus is on until the dog leaves land so that no stimulus is felt in the water. There are others, but again they are rare.


Golden999 said:


> I've never quite been comfortable with electric fences, e-collars, and the like.


Apples and oranges. One critically important distinction you need to make is that e-collars don't go off automatically. They are applied like any aversive should be; on demand at the hands of someone who knows how to operate them. You don't know how? Learn. No one was born knowing how to use them. You are blessed to live in the information age. More is available now than at any previous time about how to do all of this.


Golden999 said:


> Remember all those electro-shock therapies they used to give depressed people decades ago that now are rarely done? I assume there's a reason for that.


May I offer two important distinctions? 1. The subject was a human being, not a dog. 2. The objectives are entirely different, inasmuch as the established e-collar methods do not involve using e-stimulus to teach behavior, but rather only to enforce behaviors previously taught by far more passive ways. Teach, force, reinforce; the cycle of formal training.


Golden999 said:


> When training a dog, I'd be more comfortable first with positive training methods like praise, treats, petting, etc.....I'd resort to sooner than anything involving electrical shock, even electrical shock that is said to be painless or relatively so.


You and virtually every competent e-collar trainer follow that same path of logic. None of us just straps on the e-collar to teach anything with it. I suppose we can get into a philosophy lesson later about life being fair or painless. But not here.


Golden999 said:


> Maybe I'm just being technology adverse with this to some degree, but I just don't like the idea of using electricity in training.


You should come to one of my seminars. Throughout my 35+ year training history I have hand-tested all of my e-collars. There is almost no relationship between an electrical shock, such as an AC outlet, and the kind of stimulus applied with e-collars. At many of the low levels most of those at our seminars have stated they couldn't even feel it. As we progress up scale - often well past where we had decided to use it on the dog at hand - the person stated it felt uncomfortable, but not painful. 

As I see it, a nick from an e-collar at the usual level we apply for most of our dogs (2) is less painful and stressful than a tap with a heeling stick, or a tug of a leash. Bear in mind that we use pressure to change behavior.


Brave said:


> I know this is posted in the hunt & field section, *of which I have no experience*, however I would be interested in seeing scientific statistics as to the effectiveness of the e-collar versus other training methods, and side effects of each.
> 
> It's all good to discuss the merits of a training tool, but if you don't discuss it in context, it doesn't really open up a discussion. If you want to discuss e-collars, you should also discuss other training methods.


Go get some experience. It will really help you with your perspective. Go to a training day with a local club that trains for fieldwork.

The best scientific evidence for this purpose must (in my opinion) come from the results of competition. That is because it provides results based on comparative merit in an environment where the testing is uniform. That is because the tests must be as much the same for each dog in order to determine a winner. If you think a clicker-centered method, for example, would produce superior results, all you need to do is to train up a good dog and go beat the e-collar-method dogs. Simple. Best dog wins...at least overall.


Wyatt's mommy said:


> *It's not either or.* I use both methods.


To be clear, the e-collar is not a method. But I'm sure you understand that. My comment was for those who aren't clear on this. I support the accuracy of your comment at large.


Wyatt's mommy said:


> Although we are not into hunt and field I have been an avid user of the ecollar since 1999. I was taught back then by a professional that the dog needed to know and understand his commands before we introduced it to him. We had a hard headed prey driven golden who consistently ignored his recall command _when out hiking off leash._ I couldn't understand this because at home his recall was always spot on. My trainer reminded me that no matter how well trained our dogs are, don't ever forget they are animals. The ecollar kept him safe and gave me piece of mind knowing that now I could hike and enjoy our hikes without any added stress on either of us. I have since introduced it to Wyatt for off leash walking with great success.
> 
> Someone mentioned a poor trainer can ruin a dog with this tool. A poor trainer can ruin a dog period regardless of what tool they use.


What a wonderfully sane person you are! Well said.

EvanG


----------



## Brave

sterregold said:


> Part of the disconnect around the use of certain training tools comes from misuse of terminology as well. A lot of what people are calling "positive reinforcement" training actually does include operant conditioning techniques from other quadrants as well. Positive(+) means you are adding something--either a reward (+R--you get something for doing what I want) or a punishment (+P--I add something you do not like if you engage in an unwanted behaviour). Negative (-) means you are taking something away--negative punishment (-P) is denying a something desired in order to elicit the desired behaviour (common ie of this is stopping when a dog pulls on the lead--you are denying the pleasure of walking, or a timeout for a kid--denying them the fun of the activity or social interaction), and negative reinforcement (-R) is delaying something undesireable. Many of these work better when linked together. Using the ecollar to work on a forging issue for example, +P would be a momentary stim and a verbal correction "No heel!" when he gets out ahead of the handler, followed by a -R of no stim when the dog chooses to return to heel position, and a +R of praise. This combination together, well-timed, is going to build or proof a reliable response more quickly than any one of them alone. For close work like this, you can substitute a collar and leash or collar and tab. In a field context, distance communication is needed. To communicate at 100 yards and get that combination that is going to ingrain the desired behaviour and reduce the undesired behaviour is far more difficult without a tool like an ecollar (ie stay in the water on the way to that blind retrieve bird rather than fading to shore and running the shoreline and disappearing into the brush where you cannot be handled...)


I really like how you broke it down here. Thank you. 

So the method is really consequential, meaning everything has a consequence, of which the options are:

+Reward - praise and treat
+Punishment - Nick on the e-collar (?)
-Reward - remove the incentive (?)
-Punishment - remove the nick/pulse from the eCollar

I think with these defintions, I believe a majority of owners follow this methodology (even without an e-collar). Could we correlate any +punishment and -punishment with other aversives?


----------



## Brave

Golden999 said:


> I've never quite been comfortable with electric fences, e-collars, and the like. To be fair, I once had a doctor tell me to use a machine to shoot electrical impulses through my back for back pain and did not ultimately want to use it on myself regularly either. So I am not just uncomfortable with using these sort of things for dogs.


I have a TENS unit for my back, that using electrical stimulation for pain relief. I cannot say enough good things about this device, for my own use. 

Ironically, I've not only touched an electric fence @ a horse ranch, but I've also accidentally touched an electrical prong trying to get a plug out of an outlet. The funny thing, is the sensations between the TENS unit and from the outlet/fence were nothing alike. 

I imagine e-collars would not be similar to an electric fence. Though, I suppose the same theory is behind both devices. To teach an animal not (or do) to do specific things; like to respect boundaries.


----------



## Brave

EvanG;3536729}Go get some experience. It will really help you with your perspective. Go to a training day with a local club that trains for fieldwork.
The best scientific evidence for this purpose must (in my opinion) come from the results of competition. That is because it provides results based on comparative merit in an environment where the testing is uniform. That is because the tests must be as much the same for each dog in order to determine a winner. If you think a clicker-centered method said:


> I thought my perspective was coming across mostly neutral. Am I coming off differently?
> 
> Are e-collars only used in Field work? What about agility and obedience? If clicker trained dogs excel in those venues, wouldn't that be more evidence showing clicker training works? Are there any clicker-centered dogs where you compete? If no, were there ever any dogs that competed that were only trained without an e-collar?
> 
> Thanks!!


----------



## robinrd

I have had many dogs and I thought I was against e collars until I got Tucker. I did take him to training and they showed me how to use it, I wanted to make sure I was doing it right. I think that the e collar is a great tool if used correctly.


----------



## sterregold

I think you could find a variety of aversives used in different sports and settings. Remember to that with some dogs, especially those not accustomed to be yelled at (constant loud commands I tend to think just desensitize the dog to the effectiveness of that voice modulation), even a big booming "NO!" could be pretty strong aversive. My Butch is so soft that too much voice pressure can make him shrink. In conformation, a collar pop on a show chain intended to check the speed of a showdog who is "racing" would be +P, and then slacking the leash to release pressure when the dog is moving under control would be -P. In field basics and in some obedience programs still, during FF the ear is pinched (+P) and the dog turns off that stimulus by taking the dumbbell/buck/bumper. As you proof that process you add in repetitions with no pinch so long as the dog quickly reaches for the bumper (-P). One obedience competitor I know will give a dog who is not giving good attention in heel position a push out of heel position with a "what're you doing!" so in that case the -P is not having mom do this crazy thing when you give attention--it is not a hugely scary or intimidating thing for the dog just this unexpected moment--but it is enough to make the dog work harder, and watching her do this with one of her dogs you could see the dog start to put together when it happened and when it didn't and thus work out what the right choice was.

I don't do agility or dock diving or any of those sorts of dog sports as field, conformation and obedience are quite enough with a truck full of dogs and a full time job(!), but I do know there are some Schutzhund/Ringsport trainers who use the e-collar as part of their program (the ecollar demo video in the other thread was made by one of those guys), some police dogs are trained with them, and even some herding dogs (and if you think the discussions about their use with retrievers get heated it is a whole other level in the herding world!!)



Brave said:


> I really like how you broke it down here. Thank you.
> 
> So the method is really consequential, meaning everything has a consequence, of which the options are:
> 
> +Reward - praise and treat
> +Punishment - Nick on the e-collar (?)
> -Reward - remove the incentive (?)
> -Punishment - remove the nick/pulse from the eCollar
> 
> I think with these defintions, I believe a majority of owners follow this methodology (even without an e-collar). Could we correlate any +punishment and -punishment with other aversives?


----------



## JayBen

sterregold- Your posts were some of the most eloquent, informative posts I've ever read. Thank You.


----------



## sterregold

There has been some published material on the physical effects of ecollars. 
Dr. Dieter Klein has stated that, "Modern devices ... are in a range in which normally no organic damage is being inflicted. The electric properties and performances of the modern low current remote stimulation devices ... are comparable to the electric stimulation devices used in human medicine. Organic damage, as a direct impact of the applied current, can be excluded.” (_Klein, Dieter R., 2000, "How Dangerous are Remote Stimulation Devices for the Training of Dogs?” Amtstierärztlicher Dienst und Lebensmittelkontrolle_) 

Comparing devices people may be familiar with:
A "remote trainer" set on a low level emits 0.000005 joules (5 microjoules).
A "bark collar" set on a high level emits 0.0003 joules (300 microjoules).
A "muscle stimulation machine" set on a "normal level" emits 2.0 joules. Set on a "high level" it emits 6.0 joules.
An electric fence energizer (a "charged fence" used for containment of large livestock like cattle) emits 3.2 joules.
A modern defibrillator can emit up to 360 joules.

On the issue of electro-shock therapy--it has recently started to be used more frequently again, particularly for mood disorder (depression, bipolar) patients for whom medication is not proving effective or is producing side-effects the patient finds intolerable. These patients report that it works well for them. Unlike an ecollar it uses a larger charge as it is designed to influence electrical activity in the brain that is believed to be connected to the mental illness. An ecollar is designed to be used as a means to deliver a correction in behaviour modification through operant conditioning.


----------



## Brave

sterregold said:


> Comparing devices people may be familiar with:
> A "remote trainer" set on a low level emits 0.000005 joules (5 microjoules).
> A "bark collar" set on a high level emits 0.0003 joules (300 microjoules).
> A "muscle stimulation machine" set on a "normal level" emits 2.0 joules. Set on a "high level" it emits 6.0 joules.
> An electric fence energizer (a "charged fence" used for containment of large livestock like cattle) emits 3.2 joules.
> A modern defibrillator can emit up to 360 joules.


Do you by chance have examples of other things that emit 5 microjoules? 

I love this list! Thanks for sharing it!


----------



## sterregold

No, but a static electricity shock like what you can get from a carpet generally measures .01 to .025 joules. So that sensation which we have all had at one point of another is over 100x higher than what a modern collar can produce.


----------



## EvanG

Brave said:


> I thought my perspective was coming across mostly neutral. Am I coming off differently?


It was indeed neutral. Much of my response overall is not entirely specific to those posting so far, but rather to address what I believe are questions and attitudes of many who may not have posted, or of someone different who has posted.


Brave said:


> Are e-collars only used in Field work? What about agility and obedience?


No. E-collars are used by upper echelon trainers in most venues - even some who don't admit it due to ridiculous scrutiny. Obedience and Agility trainers in the US and Canada often use them. I am friends with many such trainers who have made numerous OTCH's and who use e-collars on every dog via a sound method.


Brave said:


> If clicker trained dogs excel in those venues, wouldn't that be more evidence showing clicker training works?


I would never assert that clicker training does not "work". But that isn't enough of a statement simply because not all venues are created equal. Many e-collar trained Field Trial dogs begin their puppy training with clicker methods, and later transition into e-collar programs because the level of training elevates exponentially when you get into FT work. The demands of performance and reliability in field trials at any level far exceed those of other competitive venues...far. Just think of this one aspect as an example. The obedience ring, as well as the agility ring, are both held in controlled spaces; most often indoors - especially obedience. Take the same dog outdoors around other people and dogs, gunfire, bird smells, and other sights and sounds, and the demand for focus and devotion to tasks rises exponentially. Then look consider that the dogs in both venues are within very short distances of their handlers compared to FT dogs that operate at a high and demanding level often at over 400 yards from the handler. It goes on and on. This is just a scratching the surface.








Brave said:


> Are there any clicker-centered dogs where you compete? If no, were there ever any dogs that competed that were only trained without an e-collar?
> 
> Thanks!!


I'm confident that clicker trained dogs have attempted field trial competition. I am equally certain that unless they advanced into higher level training than what a clicker method can offer that they failed utterly. I'm not exaggerating even slightly on this.

EvanG


----------



## Brave

sterregold said:


> No, but a static electricity shock like what you can get from a carpet generally measures .01 to .025 joules. So that sensation which we have all had at one point of another is over 100x higher than what a modern collar can produce.


I would like to confess at this time, that I have accidentally static shocked Bear on more than one occasion. :no: And those suckers HURT. BAD! 

To hear that that static shock is ~100x more powerful (for lack of a more appropriate adjective) than the low setting on an e-collar, is a very demonstrative analogy. 

What about the highest setting on e-collars. I assume they vary, depending on brand and what-not. Would you be able to ponder a range of joules the highest setting might fall in? 

Is there a max setting never exceeded by any manufacturer?


----------



## gdgli

Brave

Put an ecollar on your arm and try it. I did. It's nothing. Also try it on different locations and you may find as I did that the sensation varied from 'Not felt" to "momentarily annoying" for the setting---25 on my Dogtra. Also the continuous is not exactly continuous, it is a series of rapid pulses.


----------



## tippykayak

sterregold said:


> Comparing devices people may be familiar with:
> A "remote trainer" set on a low level emits 0.000005 joules (5 microjoules).
> A "bark collar" set on a high level emits 0.0003 joules (300 microjoules).
> A "muscle stimulation machine" set on a "normal level" emits 2.0 joules. Set on a "high level" it emits 6.0 joules.
> An electric fence energizer (a "charged fence" used for containment of large livestock like cattle) emits 3.2 joules.
> A modern defibrillator can emit up to 360 joules.


Just on the science here: a joule is not a great unit of measurement for the discomfort, pain, or danger of a given electric current. Joules measure work, so they can tell you how much energy or heat a device gives out over a period of time. In fact, it's a little misleading to say something something "emits" a joule, since a joule involves the amount of time expended. Put more simply, the amount of time the current is running affects its measurement in joules (less energy running for a longer time vs. more energy running for a shorter time). Also, a static spark between two kids shuffling around on the carpet might have a relatively high measurement in joules and in voltage, but as most of its energy is expended in the air, the joules and the voltage aren't a good measurement of how painful it might be.

Joules can't really tell you how uncomfortable a particular current would be as it runs _across_ the skin, since while the length of time a shock goes certainly relates to its painfulness, it's probably not as meaningful a measurement as the strength of the shock itself measured as a function of resistance. Amperage is probably a better measurement of that, though a lot of the potential for discomfort would depend on the conditions surrounding the individual shock delivered. That is, since amperage is a measurement of the current passing a given point for a given time, it would give you a clearer picture, but the actual amperage is highly variable depending on condition.

However, since amperage is a function of resistance, you still can't really say that a collar "puts out" or "emits" a particular amperage. The humidity of the air, the wetness of the skin, and even the composition of the particular part of the body the prongs are touching would all affect the actual current passing through the tissue and the resulting sensations. 

In pain research, as little as 2-5 milliamps can register as painful and cause involuntary muscle contraction. On e-collar promotional materials, however, I have a lot of trouble finding any kind of amperage estimates. Given that e-collars do cause involuntary muscle contractions at higher settings, one could estimate with some confidence that they are capable of up to 10 milliamps or more (maybe up to 40ish as a rough estimate), though that still doesn't tell you what actual amperage you're at or what discomfort you're causing when you use the lowest effective setting.

I do agree that it's highly unlikely to the point of being functionally impossible for an e-collar to cause tissue damage in terms of an electrical burn, unless the battery both shorted and somehow managed to deliver the shorted current across the prongs (again, a scenario so unlikely as to be impossible).

I'm not sure I want to delve into other issues, as they seem always to devolve into a pile-on, especially when they're in the H&F part of the forum, but I thought the EM part of the discussion could use a little clarification on the science.


----------



## gdgli

I will reserve comment on the science but I will tell you that I am a retired Bio and Physics teacher (among other things). A thorough discussion on the science will only lead to confusion, IMO.


----------



## tippykayak

gdgli said:


> I will reserve comment on the science but I will tell you that I am a retired Bio and Physics teacher (among other things). A thorough discussion on the science will only lead to confusion, IMO.


Maybe so, but using joules to compare the e-collar's safety or discomfort to other things will end up giving you a inaccurate sense of what it might feel like, so I decided to at least comment on that to set the record straight.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Maybe so, but using joules to compare the e-collar's safety or discomfort to other things will end up giving you a inaccurate sense of what it might feel like, so I decided to at least comment on that to set the record straight.


I'm with you on this Tippy. I satisfied that aspect for myself a long time ago, but it belongs in a discussion like this because this is for everyone - including those who have little or no experience with them. It provides hard evidences of relative intensity, at least in what is available from the instrument. By the way, that picture is just beyond cute!!


gdgli said:


> Brave
> 
> Put an ecollar on your arm and try it. I did. It's nothing. Also try it on different locations and you may find as I did that the sensation varied from 'Not felt" to "momentarily annoying" for the setting---25 on my Dogtra. Also the continuous is not exactly continuous, it is a series of rapid pulses.


And that is the broad consensus among those who try it at my seminars. Referring back to a question earlier, one of the top Obedience and Behavior Mod trainers in the world, Monique Anstee from Victoria, BC uses e-collars extensively and has attended more than one of my seminars. In a discussion from another forum, I'm helping a newer trainer e-collar condition his dog from my program. This was a question from this morning, and my reply.


metaluno67 said:


> Okay, I have formal OB down real nice. My question is on the collar I'm using it has vibration mode can I start off with that, then move on to low stimulation.
> When I push the button and command here should I pop the check cord along with it? Do I keep continuos until she gets to me?





EvanG said:


> If you want to go through the vibration thing that's fine. But it will contribute nothing to collar conditioning. Vibrating and tone features are for marketing, not dog training. That is directly from the mouth of (Hall of Fame trainer) Rex Carr.
> 
> I start with low continuous, and work through the program as it's outlined in Smartwork.
> 
> Evan


I add this because I know from experience it will come up. TT has always had a thing for 'bells & whistles' in its marketing department.

EvanG


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

tippykayak said:


> Maybe so, but using joules to compare the e-collar's safety or discomfort to other things will end up giving you a inaccurate sense of what it might feel like, so I decided to at least comment on that to set the record straight.


It will also just confuse the normal Joe public IMHO.



gdgli said:


> Brave
> 
> Put an ecollar on your arm and try it. I did. It's nothing. Also try it on different locations and you may find as I did that the sensation varied from 'Not felt" to "momentarily annoying" for the setting---25 on my Dogtra. Also the continuous is not exactly continuous, it is a series of rapid pulses.


This is the most accurate method and I can guarantee if more people would take the time to do this all those scary assumptions would disappear. 




EvanG said:


> This was a question from this morning, and my reply.I add this because I know from experience it will come up. TT has always had a thing for 'bells & whistles' in its marketing department.
> 
> EvanG


This question was just asked the other day in the main section. Hopefully he will see this.


----------



## tippykayak

Wyatt's mommy said:


> This is the most accurate method and I can guarantee if more people would take the time to do this all those scary assumptions would disappear.


Wouldn't it be even more accurate to put it on your own neck and give somebody else the remote? I've suggested this before and people seem to get really mad when I do, but wouldn't that most closely approximate what the dog goes through? The perception of a stimulus is very different when you're not controlling it or expecting it.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Wouldn't it be even more accurate to put it on your own neck and give somebody else the remote? I've suggested this before and people seem to get really mad when I do, but wouldn't that most closely approximate what the dog goes through? The perception of a stimulus is very different when you're not controlling it or expecting it.


No, it would not provide any more accurate equation with what a dog feels. We don't have dense fur coats anywhere on our bodies that like that of dogs. But doing things like this is really nit picking, more than it is fact finding. If you can't get a reasonable idea of what the stimulus of an e-collar is like by placing the contacts on your hand, you won't be any more perceptive of it by placing it anywhere else.

Back to the actual subject: E-collars deliver pressure. We use pressure in dog training to change behavior. Good trainers apply pressure fairly, which means they apply well-time pressure in amounts that accomplish that goal; no more/no less. No tool does this with greater precision, at any practical distance, or with more precise timing than an e-collar. Challenges to that assertion are welcome. Even further hair-splitting is welcome!

EvanG


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

tippykayak said:


> Wouldn't it be even more accurate to put it on your own neck and give somebody else the remote? I've suggested this before and people seem to get really mad when I do, but wouldn't that most closely approximate what the dog goes through? The perception of a stimulus is very different when you're not controlling it or expecting it.


I was referring to showing how intense the voltage really is, so the fear of electrocuting or burning your dog would be laid to rest. But sure. We actually did this exercise with a few of our friends.


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> No, it would not provide any more accurate equation with what a dog feels. We don't have dense fur coats anywhere on our bodies that like that of dogs. But doing things like this is really nit picking, more than it is fact finding. If you can't get a reasonable idea of what the stimulus of an e-collar is like by placing the contacts on your hand, you won't be any more perceptive of it by placing it anywhere else.


Genuine question, though: aren't the prongs there in order to go through the fur and make direct contact with the skin?

And I genuinely don't understand why trying to understand how it feels to the dog isn't relevant to understanding how the pressure works. But it is not your responsibility to explain that to me, and while I welcome the attempt, I don't think it's worth your time to try. 

I think we approach dog training from such far quarters that it's very difficult for us to even understand the questions each other asks. To me, understanding my dog's perspective is a hugely important part of motivating him and of training him honestly and ethically. That's why it makes perfect sense to me to try to understand what it would feel like to have an e-collar used on me before I would be willing to try one on a dog. I think you structure you dog training ethics on completely different criteria from an entirely different worldview of both people and dogs.


----------



## Otter

JayBen said:


> sterregold- Your posts were some of the most eloquent, informative posts I've ever read. Thank You.


*+1.
*

Also, I find this to be an interesting thread.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Genuine question, though: aren't the prongs there in order to go through the fur and make direct contact with the skin?


I appreciate your question. Yes, the contacts are designed to reach the surface of a dog's skin, and takes into account that the dog has a coat. Each breed, and indeed each individual dog has a different coat, which the makers take into account or the unit would be useless. Even though the tips of those contacts reach the dog's skin, that skin still has a dense coat, unlike a majority of humans.


tippykayak said:


> And I genuinely don't understand why trying to understand how it feels to the dog isn't relevant to understanding how the pressure works. But it is not your responsibility to explain that to me, and while I welcome the attempt, I don't think it's worth your time to try.


I don't think wondering about it is wrong at all. I think it's empathetic, and appropriate to wonder about these things. What I believe is unrealistic is thinking that we can somehow replicate in ourselves a dog's set of senses. We guide our training and use of aversives humanely, and measure that temperate application according to our read of the dog. Don't give up on this notion. It can lead you toward more reasoned conclusions.


tippykayak said:


> I think we approach dog training from such far quarters that it's very difficult for us to even understand the questions each other asks. To me, understanding my dog's perspective is a hugely important part of motivating him and of training him honestly and ethically. That's why it makes perfect sense to me to try to understand what it would feel like to have an e-collar used on me before I would be willing to try one on a dog. I think you structure you dog training ethics on completely different criteria from an entirely different worldview of both people and dogs.


One of the things I've reminded students of over the years is that it is a mistake to regard our dogs as four-legged, fuzzy little kids. As much as we love them, and regard them as members of our families, they are not children. They are dogs, and that is special enough.

If we are to be as effective at dog training as we can be we need to keep a clear perspective that dogs and people perceive things differently than humans, think and remember differently, and have a host of other distinct differences. If your empathy demands putting an e-collar on your own neck, thinking to feel what your dog feels, by all means satisfy your inquisitiveness. Where we are very unlikely to ever meet is thinking that you and your dog are the same organism. As both a Registered Nurse, and an expert on dogs, I simply could not intellectually accept such a notion.

EvanG


----------



## Bentleysmom

OK, so this is a topic I usually steer clear of. I have been vocal about not agreeing with the use of e-collars in many threads so I stopped going to those threads. Things have changed and I decided to share while I have a moment.

Bentley has always been an easy dog to teach. He picks things up pretty quickly. He's a good dog albeit mischievous at times but I wouldn't have him any other way.

He passed his CGC with no problem. I can take him anywhere. Nursing home, stores, outdoor cafe, ect and he behaves like a perfect gentleman. His problem is barking. And it is a huge problem. He never barks anywhere except in our backyard. I have tried everything, and I do mean everything to get him to stop. We've been going through this for months & months. 

He knows barking is not allowed but he acts like he can't help himself. I can be standing right beside him out back & he will bark. At a tree, a leaf, a squirrel, the neighbor, a car.....you get the idea. He feels the need to sing the song of his people. We can go for a 5 mile walk and the very second we enter our fence the barking begins.

A few months ago I bought a bark collar that beeps when he barks. It worked. For a short while. Something had to be done because his last pee of the night he always woke the neighbors baby.

I spoke with our trainer and bought an e-collar. She trained me the proper way to use it. For the record I did put it on my neck and so did DH. I wanted to know what he would feel. I can set it from 1-15. 15 hurts A LOT.

I always give him a warning beep and if he barks again he gets zapped (on 2) if it continues I move it up to 4. We've never had it higher than 4.
It works. I am now able to put his collar on him and take him out to pee without worrying about him waking the baby up. 
He is able to wear the collar and spend all day outside if he wants, never a bark out of him.

So I went from being 100% against e-collars to actually using one. He knows it's the collar because if I forget to put it on him he barks the minute he gets out the door. I will continue using it, forever if necessary. 

I have to wonder how much puppies learn from birth to 6 weeks. BB never met his dad at the BYB but his little shed was surrounded by all of the Goldens outside of it and they barked non-stop. Did he hear that and decide it's the thing to do? Who knows. But I will not allow the barking.

So there's our story. A $160.00 collar brought peace to our lives again. It was worth every penny.  And........Bentley still wears his silly smile when he comes to me to have it put on so he is not traumatized about it.


----------



## Brave

gdgli said:


> I will reserve comment on the science but I will tell you that I am a retired Bio and Physics teacher (among other things). A thorough discussion on the science will only lead to confusion, IMO.


I'm catching up on the responses since I last checked the thread, and I wanted to point this out. Since one of the biggest "cons" or reasons NOT to use an e-collar stems from the idea that they hurt the dog; I believe it's a worthwhile endeavor to find a quantitative way to measure an e-collars sensation, if you will. 

That way owners can more easily gauge if an e-collar would not work with their dog. I enjoyed Tippy's information regarding the difference between joules and amps. 

I don't consider myself exceptionally smart; I only have a high school diploma, after all, however even I can understand the difference between joules and amps, especially if they are explained in clear, concise definitions. 

It might be worthwhile to explore the quantitiative values of e-collars further, as long as we don't try to write a thesis out of it. :crossfing


----------



## Brave

Bentleysmom said:


> OK, so this is a topic I usually steer clear of. I have been vocal about not agreeing with the use of e-collars in many threads so I stopped going to those threads. Things have changed and I decided to share while I have a moment.
> 
> Bentley has always been an easy dog to teach. He picks things up pretty quickly. He's a good dog albeit mischievous at times but I wouldn't have him any other way.
> 
> He passed his CGC with no problem. I can take him anywhere. Nursing home, stores, outdoor cafe, ect and he behaves like a perfect gentleman. His problem is barking. And it is a huge problem. He never barks anywhere except in our backyard. I have tried everything, and I do mean everything to get him to stop. We've been going through this for months & months.
> 
> He knows barking is not allowed but he acts like he can't help himself. I can be standing right beside him out back & he will bark. At a tree, a leaf, a squirrel, the neighbor, a car.....you get the idea. He feels the need to sing the song of his people. We can go for a 5 mile walk and the very second we enter our fence the barking begins.
> 
> A few months ago I bought a bark collar that beeps when he barks. It worked. For a short while. Something had to be done because his last pee of the night he always woke the neighbors baby.
> 
> I spoke with our trainer and bought an e-collar. She trained me the proper way to use it. For the record I did put it on my neck and so did DH. I wanted to know what he would feel. I can set it from 1-15. 15 hurts A LOT.
> 
> I always give him a warning beep and if he barks again he gets zapped (on 2) if it continues I move it up to 4. We've never had it higher than 4.
> It works. I am now able to put his collar on him and take him out to pee without worrying about him waking the baby up.
> He is able to wear the collar and spend all day outside if he wants, never a bark out of him.
> 
> So I went from being 100% against e-collars to actually using one. He knows it's the collar because if I forget to put it on him he barks the minute he gets out the door. I will continue using it, forever if necessary.
> 
> I have to wonder how much puppies learn from birth to 6 weeks. BB never met his dad at the BYB but his little shed was surrounded by all of the Goldens outside of it and they barked non-stop. Did he hear that and decide it's the thing to do? Who knows. But I will not allow the barking.
> 
> So there's our story. A $160.00 collar brought peace to our lives again. It was worth every penny.  And........Bentley still wears his silly smile when he comes to me to have it put on so he is not traumatized about it.


I think this speaks volumes, given your dogs and their history. Thanks for sharing, Joyce!


----------



## Otter

As I said above, I am enjoying this thread. I hope it remains a civil discussion.

I am neutral on e-collar use. I'm not an expert dog trainer either. I like to try to learn and read about all methods.

I spend time with several of my friends who are all Golden breeders, compete in field work, obedience, conformation, and so on. They use e-collars. Like Joyce above, I used to be totally against e-collars until spending time with them and learning from them how they are used and what they really are.

I finally bought one some time ago and spent time with these people learning the basics of its use. I would like at some time to get professional training on it.

I haven't used it on our boy for over a year, but he responded to it right away (using very low stim). I used it to work on his recall. When I say 'here' and point to the ground next to me, he comes every time.

Like I said, I haven't used it for a long time, but all I have to do is pull it out and our boy gets super excited when he sees it. He has associated the e-collar to special play time I think.

Which brings me to Joyce's experience above. Will Bentley at some point no longer need to wear his e-collar when he goes outside?


----------



## sterregold

The neck actually has as a lower density of nerve endings than other parts of the body, and it is more thickly muscled--both in people and other mammals. Here is a neat diagram that shows where the more highly ennervated parts of the canine anatomy are--on the face and legs--which makes sense as those are the parts of the body being used to interact with the world.

I have tried the collar on myself, in various locations. The sensation was more intense on my inner arm than it was on my neck. I would not describe the sensation as painful. I have had EMS on leg muscles during a knee rehab, and I certainly felt that more, but it was not painful either. And as a farm kid, I did play "who can hold onto the electric fencer wire longer"--that one is a jolt that leaves you buzzing (which makes sense since it is designed to significantly influence the behaviour a a one-tonne animal with a thick hide and dense haircoat.)


----------



## Brave

I think we're still all being polite and civil. Kudos, btw, to all participants.  We've made it 5 pages.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

Bentleysmom said:


> I always give him a warning beep and if he barks again he gets zapped (on 2) if it continues I move it up to 4. We've never had it higher than 4.
> It works. I am now able to put his collar on him and take him out to pee without worrying about him waking the baby up.
> He is able to wear the collar and spend all day outside if he wants, never a bark out of him.
> 
> So I went from being 100% against e-collars to actually using one. He knows it's the collar because if I forget to put it on him he barks the minute he gets out the door. I will continue using it, forever if necessary.
> 
> I have to wonder how much puppies learn from birth to 6 weeks. BB never met his dad at the BYB but his little shed was surrounded by all of the Goldens outside of it and they barked non-stop. Did he hear that and decide it's the thing to do? Who knows. But I will not allow the barking.
> 
> So there's our story. A $160.00 collar brought peace to our lives again. It was worth every penny.  And........Bentley still wears his silly smile when he comes to me to have it put on so he is not traumatized about it.


Joyce I'm curious as to why the trainer suggested an ecollar for barking instead of a bark collar?


----------



## Brave

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Joyce I'm curious as to why the trainer suggested an ecollar for barking instead of a bark collar?


I believe he did wear a bark collar before transitioning to the e-collar, because he would blow off the bark collar. At least, that is what I am understanding from her post.

ETA-


> "A few months ago I bought a bark collar that beeps when he barks. It worked. For a short while. Something had to be done because his last pee of the night he always woke the neighbors baby."


----------



## Bentleysmom

> Which brings me to Joyce's experience above. Will Bentley at some point no longer need to wear his e-collar when he goes outside?


That's a good question Joe. I don't know the answer to it either. I would love to be able to put it away permanently but I don't see that happening anytime soon. 
Since he realizes that it's the collar that does it to him I bought a regular collar in the same color and tried putting that on him to see if I would get the same effect. He knew the difference and barked & barked until I went outside and switched collars. **Crickets**
Sometimes I think he's playing with my head 

When he wants to go outside now he comes over and sits down in front of me waiting for me to put that collar on him. :doh:


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

Brave said:


> I believe he did wear a bark collar before transitioning to the e-collar, because he would blow off the bark collar. At least, that is what I am understanding from her post.
> 
> ETA-


I meant a real bark collar LOL! Ecollar manufacturers also make bark collars. This way the dog controls the stim not the owner.


----------



## Brave

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I meant a real bark collar LOL! Ecollar manufacturers also make bark collars. This way the dog controls the stim not the owner.


DOH! So instead of a beep, it's a stim? 

Do all dogs know when it's the e-collar that is giving them the stim? Like Broadway Bentley does?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

Brave said:


> DOH! So instead of a beep, it's a stim?
> 
> Do all dogs know when it's the e-collar that is giving them the stim? Like Broadway Bentley does?


Yes. It has different levels like an ecollar. The difference is when the dog barks it goes off. It's very effective 

Sounds like Broadway Bentley might be collar smart, or he just connects the collar to going outside?


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> One of the things I've reminded students of over the years is that it is a mistake to regard our dogs as four-legged, fuzzy little kids. As much as we love them, and regard them as members of our families, they are not children. They are dogs, and that is special enough.


This is kind of what I mean...you are having almost as much difficulty understanding my perspective as I am having with yours, and the assumption that it's related to my regarding dogs as if they're people really misses the mark. I do not, in any way, regard dogs as fuzzy children. While I don't object when people call their dogs "furkids" or something similar, I don't share that worldview at all.

I think a dog offers his handler immense respect, loyalty, and affection, and I think that bond deserves a certain respect and responsibility in return. I think a dog's life has a dignity and a worth that merits the utmost care in choosing tools and training methods, but I would offer that I think of dogs _less_ like kids than the average handler—not necessarily you, but including many of the people who choose the e-collar as a tool. For all my deep love of dogs, I tend to approach training from an angle that's heavily influenced by contemporary behavioral science, not sentiment. Also, I spend a lot of my professional dog-time helping people understand that their dogs are not children, as that's one of the most common misconceptions—conscious or unconscious—that undermines a novice trainer's success.



EvanG said:


> Where we are very unlikely to ever meet is thinking that you and your dog are the same organism. As both a Registered Nurse, and an expert on dogs, I simply could not intellectually accept such a notion.


As I said, I think it's very difficult for us to understand each other's starting point, as you really have misunderstood mine here. In nothing I wrote do I so much as imply the thought that I am the same organism or even a similar one as my dogs. I said that if you wanted to understood how it felt, you would want to replicate the experience as close to the dog's as you could. That does not come from a belief that dogs are the same thing as people or even remotely similar.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

EvanG said:


> One of the things I've reminded students of over the years is that it is a mistake to regard our dogs as four-legged, fuzzy little kids. As much as we love them, and regard them as members of our families, they are not children. They are dogs, and that is special enough.
> 
> .
> 
> EvanG


 
I believe this is one of the biggest mistakes an owner can make. I agree totally!


----------



## Bentleysmom

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I meant a real bark collar LOL! Ecollar manufacturers also make bark collars. This way the dog controls the stim not the owner.


That's exactly the first collar he had. He ignored it after awhile. This is the only thing we have found that works. Do I wish we didn't have to use it? Yes, of course. But I make no apologies for using something that works.
I wouldn't like living next to a dog that's allowed to bark all the time and I will never allow my dogs to do that. This is what Bentley responds to for whatever reason. So be it. 
The first collar was a waste of a LOT of money for us.


----------



## Brave

tippykayak said:


> This is kind of what I mean...you are having almost as much difficulty understanding my perspective as I am having with yours, and the assumption that it's related to my regarding dogs as if they're people really misses the mark. I do not, in any way, regard dogs as fuzzy children. While I don't object when people call their dogs "furkids" or something similar, I don't share that worldview at all.
> 
> I think a dog offers his handler immense respect, loyalty, and affection, and I think that bond deserves a certain respect and responsibility in return. I think a dog's life has a dignity and a worth that merits the utmost care in choosing tools and training methods, but I would offer that I think of dogs _less_ like kids than the average handler—not necessarily you, but including many of the people who choose the e-collar as a tool. For all my deep love of dogs, I tend to approach training from an angle that's heavily influenced by contemporary behavioral science, not sentiment. Also, I spend a lot of my professional dog-time helping people understand that their dogs are not children, as that's one of the most common misconceptions—conscious or unconscious—that undermines a novice trainer's success.


Tippy - The way I understand your post here, is that you approach dog training, through the eyes of the dog. From their perspective, per say. Would that be an accurate summary? Finding ways to get a behavior from them, based on what makes them tick?


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

Bentleysmom said:


> That's exactly the first collar he had. He ignored it after awhile. This is the only thing we have found that works. Do I wish we didn't have to use it? Yes, of course. But I make no apologies for using something that works.
> I wouldn't like living next to a dog that's allowed to bark all the time and I will never allow my dogs to do that. This is what Bentley responds to for whatever reason. So be it.
> The first collar was a waste of a LOT of money for us.


I thought you said you used a beep bark collar? My bark collar has no beeper. So I'm a bit confused.


----------



## EvanG

Brave said:


> DOH! So instead of a beep, it's a stim?
> 
> Do all dogs know when it's the e-collar that is giving them the stim? Like Broadway Bentley does?


No, not all. Some are conditioned earlier and more thoroughly to the extent That several things would contrast with this event. 

Starting earlier would usually result in better conditioning and less need for repeated application. That would result in better long term suppression of the barking.

The less often stimulus is applied for a specific infraction, the less likely they are to directly associate the collar to the point of becoming dysfunctionally collar wise. I don't know that it's happened to that extent here. But I would use this as a caution to identify problems and solutions as early as possible.

EvanG


----------



## Bentleysmom

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I thought you said you used a beep bark collar? My bark collar has no beeper. So I'm a bit confused.


I missed the part about the shock. His first collar did not shock. It beeped. The longer he barked the louder it beeped. No shock. It worked for awhile because Ky hated the sound and would give him "the look". After awhile I think they both became used to it.


----------



## tippykayak

Brave said:


> Tippy - The way I understand your post here, is that you approach dog training, through the eyes of the dog. From their perspective, per say. Would that be an accurate summary? Finding ways to get a behavior from them, based on what makes them tick?


I would say it's a big part of the approach but not the whole thing. One of the things that makes somebody a good dog trainer, especially from the approach that I've been using, is understanding what motivates the particular dog is particular to that dog. So a big part of rewarding effectively is about understanding things from the dog's perspective. So is avoiding accidental punishment. And those are two of the biggest things we teach new handlers in classes. e.g., if you're holding your dog's collar and shoving a treat in her face that she doesn't want, that's not a reward.

There's a lot more to it, but understanding the dog's perspective is often the key to eliminating problem behaviors or motivating desired ones. That holds true for biting, jumping, attention, recall, and a whole host of other things that we teach.


----------



## EvanG

Bentleysmom said:


> I missed the part about the shock. His first collar did not shock. It beeped. The longer he barked the louder it beeped. No shock. It worked for awhile because Ky hated the sound and would give him "the look". After awhile I think they both became used to it.


From this response I would defer to the comment posted earlier from master trainer Rex Carr about "Vibrating and tone features are for marketing, not dog training."

I submit that if, instead of working so hard to get around correcting the dog, we had gone to e-stimulus up front that the problem would have been settled much sooner. Note that I'm not suggesting this as a teaching procedure, but rather a corrective measure.

EvanG


----------



## Brave

EvanG said:


> From this response I would defer to the comment posted earlier from master trainer Rex Carr about "Vibrating and tone features are for marketing, not dog training."
> 
> I submit that if, instead of working so hard to get around correcting the dog, we had gone to e-stimulus up front that the problem would have been settled much sooner. Note that I'm not suggesting this as a teaching procedure, but rather a corrective measure.
> 
> EvanG


I don't believe they were trying to work around an actual correction. They had been trying different corrections to no avail. Are you suggesting that at the start of ANY behavior needing correction, the first correction to use is that of an e-collar? I'm also confused by your sentence "Note that I'm not suggesting this as a teaching procedure, but rather a corrective measure." Can you please explain this a bit more, so I can get a better idea of what you are getting at?


----------



## EvanG

Brave said:


> I don't believe they were trying to work around an actual correction. They had been trying different corrections to no avail. Are you suggesting that at the start of ANY behavior needing correction, the first correction to use is that of an e-collar?


No, I didn't say that at all. And in actuality I don't like bark collars at all, and rarely use e-collars for barking. I use corporal corrections. But, when a dog has been through a series of corrections that have not changed its behavior I do believe something has to change. I don't allow barking right from the beginning. If I have a dog with problematic barking I generally settle it before the sun sets that day.

No matter what pressure a trainer elects to apply to correct such an issue we use pressure to change behavior. If light pressure does not change behavior, more will follow..immediately. I will follow that course until the behavior changes, and I mean now. Note that I'm still talking about barking. The same would be true of many issues, but not all.


Brave said:


> I'm also confused by your sentence "Note that I'm not suggesting this as a teaching procedure, but rather a corrective measure." Can you please explain this a bit more, so I can get a better idea of what you are getting at?


Many who are reading along might get the notion that I believe in teaching with an e-collar from this discourse. I do not. I am suggesting going to whatever measures will result in a desired behavior change. If that means going swiftly to e-collar corrections, that is what I'll do. That does not mean I suggest starting there. It does mean using one if it's called for, and if the dog is conditioned to it previously. 

EvanG


----------



## FTGoldens

Use of a bark collar and the associated correction is different than use of an e-collar for correcting an erroneous response.
With a bark collar, the dog is not given a command before the stimulation, but instead it has engaged in a responsive behavior ... i.e., it barked, then it got the stimulation. The dog will eventually come to the realization that BARK = STIMULATION. So the purpose of the stimulation is to stop or at least discourage the bark, i.e., stop a certain behavior.
On the other hand, with an e-collar, the dog has heard a command and responded in a manner that is not in accordance with its training before receiving the stimulation. 
So while they may seem the same, they are different.

And as for seeing things from the dog's perspective, this is critically important regardless of the training/correction methods. It is a part of "reading" the dog.

FTGoldens


----------



## Brave

EvanG said:


> No, I didn't say that at all. And in actuality I don't like bark collars at all, and rarely use e-collars for barking. I use corporal corrections. But, when a dog has been through a series of corrections that have not changed its behavior I do believe something has to change. I don't allow barking right from the beginning. If I have a dog with problematic barking I generally settle it before the sun sets that day.
> 
> No matter what pressure a trainer elects to apply to correct such an issue we use pressure to change behavior. If light pressure does not change behavior, more will follow..immediately. I will follow that course until the behavior changes, and I mean now. Note that I'm still talking about barking. The same would be true of many issues, but not all.Many who are reading along might get the notion that I believe in teaching with an e-collar from this discourse. I do not. I am suggesting going to whatever measures will result in a desired behavior change. If that means going swiftly to e-collar corrections, that is what I'll do. That does not mean I suggest starting there. It does mean using one if it's called for, and if the dog is conditioned to it previously.
> 
> EvanG


I think the communication is getting hung up on vocabulary. To help us all understand what you are explaining, please define and provide examples of:

*corporal corrections
*corrections 
*pressure 
*light pressure vs heavy pressure


----------



## Alaska7133

FT,
Bark collars are similar to invisible fence collars. No command is given, but a stimulation when a distance is reached.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM

Brave said:


> I think we're still all being polite and civil. Kudos, btw, to all participants.  We've made it 5 pages.


I too would like to commend everyone participating in this thread of the fantastic job you're all doing. 

It is a very productive and very informative thread. 


*This is one of the best ones I've seen in a long time-
Thank you everyone!
*


----------



## Brave

Tangent:

Why is it commonplace to use Invisible Fences (w/ electric stim collars) and bark collars, but so controversial to use electronic training collars?


----------



## EvanG

Brave said:


> I think the communication is getting hung up on vocabulary. To help us all understand what you are explaining, please define and provide examples of:
> 
> *corporal corrections


Glad you asked. These are a little out of order, but here goes. The word "corporal" relates to the body. Corporal punishment involves something applied to the body that is an unpleasant stimulus intended to punish, or correct for misbehavior. Of course we first have to define...


Brave said:


> *corrections


Right from the dictionary:
cor·rec·tion (k-rkshn)
n.
1. The act or process of correcting.

2. Something offered or substituted for a mistake or fault: made corrections in the report.

3. 
a. *Punishment intended to rehabilitate or improve.*

b. corrections The treatment of offenders through a system of penal incarceration, rehabilitation, probation, and parole, or the administrative system by which these are effectuated.

I hope that's as clear to you as it is to me.


Brave said:


> *pressure


The exertion of force by one body upon another. So, when a trainer exerts pressure on a dog to correct misbehavior, which more than half of e-collar use is, it is in a way calculated to extinguish the wrong behavior. This is general. There is far more to it. 


Brave said:


> *light pressure vs heavy pressure


Really? A low 1 nick = low. A high 6 nick = heavy, for example. A tap with a heeling stick vs. a home run, and so on.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

FTGoldens said:


> On the other hand, with an e-collar, the dog has heard a command and responded in a manner that is not in accordance with its training before receiving the stimulation.


This seems to hold true in the methodology used by the vast majority of field trainers on this forum, but in many venues and training programs, the e-collar is absolutely used to train new behaviors, not just proof behaviors that are already learned. Part of the strong opposition you hear from people who train companion dogs professionally is based on what we see from training centers and their clients who put e-collars on young dogs in order to teach them how to come, sit, lie down, etc.

It seems _nearly_ everyone on GRF agrees that e-collars aren't a good tool for teaching new behaviors, but there are at least a couple of people who have been through an e-collar-based training program with a puppy or who have even worked for a center or company that uses such a program.


----------



## Mayve

I have an e-collar and it is used for very specific circumstances. Barking and digging. We tried many different things before resorting to this. She knows that both are not allowed yet would sneak off and dig or bark at stuff. If I caught her she would stop but as soon as my back was turned be at it again. It took one day with a reminder a few days later to stop both behaviors and I always gave her a verbal command to stop before she was corrected.

Stop, praise when she did but when she went right back to it she got a nick. Now a simple verbal stop and she does. She has only dug twice since then and hasn't dug in over a month. The barking is all but non existent as she will bark during play. 

She is not collar smart as she doesnt even wear it anymore. Although we are thinking about using it to reinforce known commands which she has been blowing off them lately.

I feel its a tool and not meant to be a life long thing. I used to be against them but see now that they can be a useful tool with training!

What scares me is the people who just put it on and zap away without first teaching the dog what the propper behavior/response etc

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## FTGoldens

tippykayak said:


> This seems to hold true in the methodology used by the vast majority of field trainers on this forum, but in many venues and training programs, the e-collar is absolutely used to train new behaviors, not just proof behaviors that are already learned. Part of the strong opposition you hear from people who train companion dogs professionally is based on what we see from training centers and their clients who put e-collars on young dogs in order to teach them how to come, sit, lie down, etc.
> 
> It seems _nearly_ everyone on GRF agrees that e-collars aren't a good tool for teaching new behaviors, but there are at least a couple of people who have been through an e-collar-based training program with a puppy or who have even worked for a center or company that uses such a program.


In that case, kudos to Evan for bringing this topic to the forefront, so that those who have not seen proper use of a collar may be able to get a better understanding of what, why and how.
For those going to the Specialty, drop by the field trial and see how much those competitive dogs love their jobs ... and I can pretty much guarantee that not less than 90% of the dogs running, at least running the Amateur or the Open, are trained with an e-collar. 

FTGoldens


----------



## sterregold

Alaska7133 said:


> FT,
> Bark collars are similar to invisible fence collars. No command is given, but a stimulation when a distance is reached.


Yes--they both work on principles of classical conditioning where an outcome and an event/action become linked. This is like Pavlov's dogs--ring a bell then feed--dogs would soon salivate upon the ringing of the bell in anticipation of food. Another was done with pigeons--they had to tap a bar to get a food ration--then a mild shock stimulus was added when they pecked the bar--despite the desirability of the food, the pigeons soon quit tapping the bar to avoid the shock. With the electric fence, the dog approaches the area where the line sends the signal to the collar, so the dog learns to associate that area with the unpleasant stimulus and thereby stay clear of the area.

In using collars for field work, as well as for some of the complex behaviours in other canine sports or work, we are using operant conditioning which allows for the development and proofing of more complex behaviours because of the variety of feedback the dog gets.


----------



## Brave

EvanG said:


> No, I didn't say that at all. And in actuality I don't like bark collars at all, and rarely use e-collars for barking. I use corporal corrections. But, when a dog has been through a series of corrections that have not changed its behavior I do believe something has to change. I don't allow barking right from the beginning. If I have a dog with problematic barking I generally settle it before the sun sets that day.
> 
> No matter what pressure a trainer elects to apply to correct such an issue we use pressure to change behavior. If light pressure does not change behavior, more will follow..immediately. I will follow that course until the behavior changes, and I mean now. Note that I'm still talking about barking. The same would be true of many issues, but not all.Many who are reading along might get the notion that I believe in teaching with an e-collar from this discourse. I do not. I am suggesting going to whatever measures will result in a desired behavior change. If that means going swiftly to e-collar corrections, that is what I'll do. That does not mean I suggest starting there. It does mean using one if it's called for, and if the dog is conditioned to it previously.
> 
> EvanG





Brave said:


> I think the communication is getting hung up on vocabulary. To help us all understand what you are explaining, please define and provide examples of:
> 
> *corporal corrections
> *corrections
> *pressure
> *light pressure vs heavy pressure





EvanG said:


> Glad you asked. These are a little out of order, but here goes. The word *"corporal"* relates to the body. Corporal punishment involves something applied to the body that is an unpleasant stimulus intended to punish, or correct for misbehavior. Of course we first have to define...
> 
> *[Corrections]*
> Right from the dictionary:
> cor·rec·tion (k-rkshn)
> n.
> 1. The act or process of correcting.
> 
> 2. Something offered or substituted for a mistake or fault: made corrections in the report.
> 
> 3.
> a. *Punishment intended to rehabilitate or improve.*
> b. corrections The treatment of offenders through a system of penal incarceration, rehabilitation, probation, and parole, or the administrative system by which these are effectuated.
> 
> I hope that's as clear to you as it is to me.
> 
> *[Pressure]*
> The exertion of force by one body upon another. So, when a trainer exerts pressure on a dog to correct misbehavior, which more than half of e-collar use is, it is in a way calculated to extinguish the wrong behavior. This is general. There is far more to it.
> 
> *[Low vs High Pressure]*
> Really? A low 1 nick = low. A high 6 nick = heavy, for example. A tap with a heeling stick vs. a home run, and so on.
> 
> EvanG


I read your response yesterday, and had to step away from the situation, because the response that was posted came across snarky. I don't want this thread to go down that road, so I am choosing to ignore the tone and address the information you have posted. 


I've quoted the past dialogue for reference (and have added the terms back into the last quote to make for easier reading). In the original post I quoted, you used very general terms for trainers. Especially in this part, "No matter what pressure a trainer elects to apply to correct such an issue we use pressure to change behavior. If light pressure does not change behavior, more will follow..immediately." I realize this discussion was intended to be ONLY about the merits of e-collars (and questions people had about them), but in discussing training tools, you will, by default, end up discussing OTHER tools as well. Pressure is a physical force, and therefore, is hard for me to understand how EVERY trainer uses pressure. Especially those trainers who use luring techniques to teach commands. I can understand the pressure of physically placing a dog back into the stay they broke, since that is a physical interaction. But when I'm teaching leave-it, all I do is hold the treat and prevent him from getting to it, until he CHOOSES to leave it - and then he is rewarded for that choice. 

Are you able and willing to discuss other tools than e-collars? Because I believe it would be an asset to this conversation. 

Another puzzle is when you said, "I am suggesting going to whatever measures will result in a desired behavior change." To me, that sounds ominous. What if the dog doesn't respond to a "heavy pressure" nick?
What is the heaviest pressure you've used on a dog? Does that happen often? Because your descriptions from light vs heavy pressure in a more mundane example is, "A tap with a heeling stick vs. a home run..." That is a very wide range of force. I don't think anyone would think/feel the force of a swinging bat would be beneficial to training (or proofing as it should more aptly be called.)

I appreciate your cooperation and responses. Please in the future, treat others with the same respect they are treating you with. Kindness goes both ways.:wave:


----------



## Brave

sterregold said:


> Yes--they both work on principles of classical conditioning where an outcome and an event/action become linked. This is like Pavlov's dogs--ring a bell then feed--dogs would soon salivate upon the ringing of the bell in anticipation of food. Another was done with pigeons--they had to tap a bar to get a food ration--then a mild shock stimulus was added when they pecked the bar--despite the desirability of the food, the pigeons soon quit tapping the bar to avoid the shock. With the electric fence, the dog approaches the area where the line sends the signal to the collar, so the dog learns to associate that area with the unpleasant stimulus and thereby stay clear of the area.
> 
> In using collars for field work, as well as for some of the complex behaviours in other canine sports or work, we are using operant conditioning which allows for the development and proofing of more complex behaviours because of the variety of feedback the dog gets.


For more information on Classical vs Operant conditioning: Classical vs Operant Conditioning

I like how this was explained (in the post). I had to look it up (outside source) b/c I was a little fuzzy on the operant conditioning in general terms. 

Could you give any insight into why there is such a difference of opinion between bark collars and training collars? Is it b/c it's a different type of conditioning?


----------



## sterregold

I really do not know why one can be so accepted and the other not--and I do not think bark collars are accepted as boundary collars are. I suppose for some there is an emotional reaction against pressing the button themself to cause the discomfort. As well, for some people stopping the barking, or providing containment where a fence is not an option can mean the difference between having their pet or not. I think part of it may be a lack of understanding of the complexity of the behaviours trained for field work and not understanding the complication that distance throws into this training--seeing what it takes to train traditional obedience behaviors within what is a relatively close range using other methods makes some question its necessity in other situations. I also think there is considerable holdover of memory of the first collars which carried a much stronger correction and were less moderable than modern collars, that plus seeing "old-school" trainers who used far more severe corporal methods (which can also translate into more heavy handed use of the collar as well) and watching bad trainers use the tool inappropriately and ineffectively. 

I do not like to use bark collars with with my working retrievers--I want the ecollar reserved as my tool for field work, and I want those corrections to come in the context of lessons we are working on together. I do have one dog who wears a bark collar in the yard at home--my Cavalier, who would otherwise think it her duty to announce every leaf and squirrel that moves withing four blocks of our house. She is definitely collar-wise, and I think that comes from the fact that it is operant conditioning--she does associate wearing the collar and barking with getting a correction--she taught herself to be quiet while wearing it. She came to live with me as an adult who had been in a kennel situation--so for her barking was a strongly ingrained, self-rewarding activity that was not stiopping despite other interventions, so she got a small dog bark trainer rather than drive my neighbours crazy and bring the bylaw officer to my house. She can now happily play in the yard with the Goldens. My field dogs actually associate the collar with the fun of getting to play with birds and bumpers or go hunting, because of the more complex way the tool is used in that context.


----------



## Tayla's Mom

I'm not chiming in other than to say, wow, Jen you are being very thorough and asking very pointed questions. It's not a conversation I want to take part in because everyone is a proponent, but I am following it and enjoy your questions and the responses.


----------



## EvanG

Brave said:


> I read your response yesterday, and had to step away from the situation, because the response that was posted came across snarky. I don't want this thread to go down that road, so I am choosing to ignore the tone and address the information you have posted.


I apologize for coming off ‘snarky’. I meant only to be direct.


Brave said:


> "No matter what pressure a trainer elects to apply to correct such an issue we use pressure to change behavior. If light pressure does not change behavior, more will follow..immediately."


By “what pressure” I mean not only what amount, but by what means. I don’t think nagging dogs with a repetitious ‘tap-tap-tap’ that does not change behavior is any more humane that tapping harder and settling the issue.


Brave said:


> I realize this discussion was intended to be ONLY about the merits of e-collars (and questions people had about them), but in discussing training tools, you will, by default, end up discussing OTHER tools as well.


Actually, the intent of this thread was to objectively discuss both the merits and the perceived risks or downsides of e-collars as a dog training tool. I’m happy to address either aspect, or any opinions either way.


Brave said:


> Pressure is a physical force, and therefore, is hard for me to understand how EVERY trainer uses pressure. Especially those trainers who use luring techniques to teach commands.


Nothing in our world moves without pressure. One of the appropriate aspects of how the dictionary defines the word “pressure” is that at no point does it imply an amount.

I think the reason for your confusion about this is because you’re mixing terms; “training” and “teaching”. They are not identical. ‘Teach’ is the first of 3 steps in the ‘training’ cycle. Teach, Force, Reinforce. It appears we are destined to get into that. But teaching-alone is not formal training, but rather only one aspect of it.


Brave said:


> I can understand the pressure of physically placing a dog back into the stay they broke, since that is a physical interaction. But when I'm teaching leave-it, all I do is hold the treat and prevent him from getting to it, until he CHOOSES to leave it - and then he is rewarded for that choice.


And when he grabs it anyway, what do you do?


Brave said:


> Are you able and willing to discuss other tools than e-collars? Because I believe it would be an asset to this conversation.


I’m prepared to discuss any tools or techniques germane to training retrievers. I would prefer not to allow the involvement of those tools to drag the discourse away from the e-collar focus, however. But “yes”, there are good reasons to discuss aversive tools in comparison to e-collars.


Brave said:


> Another puzzle is when you said, "I am suggesting going to whatever measures will result in a desired behavior change." To me, that sounds ominous. What if the dog doesn't respond to a "heavy pressure" nick?


This relates to your previous question. “Whatever measures” includes using a heeling stick as an aversive, instead of the e-collar. It may include a leash, or a prong collar, or a harsh tone of voice. To assume an ominous air in my wording seems to assume that I’d resort to a hatchet, or some such deadly device. I steadily teach humane methods and measures in dog training. My inference was simply that I’ll use all my (humane and fair) influence to resolve barking the day I discover it.


Brave said:


> What is the heaviest pressure you've used on a dog? Does that happen often?


I’m not sure I could really provide a description of the heaviest pressure I’ve ever used because someone will surely misconstrue it as barbaric, while someone else reading the same description would construe it as being on the heavy end of a normal scale of pressure. How often we get to the “high end” is dictated by the dog more than by me. I never elect to use very much pressure, if any at all.


Brave said:


> Because your descriptions from light vs heavy pressure in a more mundane example is, "A tap with a heeling stick vs. a home run..." That is a very wide range of force. I don't think anyone would think/feel the force of a swinging bat would be beneficial to training (or proofing as it should more aptly be called.)


We’re going to end up covering a lot of ground here, aren’t we? No credible trainer uses a bat on a dog. “Home run” was a euphemism meaning hitting hard, as opposed to hitting light (tap).


Brave said:


> I appreciate your cooperation and responses. Please in the future, treat others with the same respect they are treating you with. Kindness goes both ways.:wave:


As does empathy and open mindedness. So far so good. Please understand that being a trainer of trainers often requires directness. I mean no offense. I do mean to address any questions directly because my first concerns are for the dog, and then for the humans in the equation.

The late Mr. Carr, to whom I often refer, had worked on his yet unpublished book for more than four decades. I asked him why he had never had it published. He replied, "Because I'm afraid of what people would do with the information. I anticipate that they would do harm to dogs and blame me for it because they've misconstrued what I've written. Look around at some of these people...and _they're_ right here with me!" Use your imagination about how some were applying the training, and imagine his frustration. I have those concerns also, so I've become a little less diplomatic about how I address some issues because I would rather risk a degree of offense to humans out of directness than to risk a dog being harmed in any way because I was too timid to be clear. It's not personal. I hope you understand. 35+ years of training trainers teaches all sorts of lessons; some of them have been hard.

EvanG


----------



## Alaska7133

I have very little experience with e-collars. The person helping me has used e-collars for decades. She starts you once the dog has gone through basic obedience and forced fetch. She only has the e-collar for re-call in the beginning. It is not until adding blinds that you begin to use the e-collar differently. So my question is, how do you all add an e-collar in training and when? 

I've reviewed Pat Nolan's videos and he uses the e-collar quite early on and in combination with forced fetch training. Sorry I really don't want to drag us into a forced fetch conversation, just about when you add the e-collar.

Also one other question, what do you do when the dog refuses to re-call when wearing an e-collar? I have the situation regularly happen when the salmon are spawning and dying in our creeks. Dead fish everywhere! Increasing the nick intensity or length has no effect.


----------



## EvanG

Alaska7133 said:


> I have very little experience with e-collars. The person helping me has used e-collars for decades. She starts you once the dog has gone through basic obedience and forced fetch. She only has the e-collar for re-call in the beginning. It is not until adding blinds that you begin to use the e-collar differently. So my question is, how do you all add an e-collar in training and when?


Terrific questions! Thanks for asking. It depends on the program you're following as to when and how the e-collar is inserted into the progression. But in modern, Carr-based programs it is during formal Basics (starting at 6 months). In mine we CC to "Here" specifically at around 4 months with minimal stimulus levels. We then progress into formal Basics at 6 months of age, and CC to specific commands as they are formally trained; command by command. Basics usually takes about 6 months to complete through Swim-by. 


Alaska7133 said:


> Also one other question, what do you do when the dog refuses to re-call when wearing an e-collar? I have the situation regularly happen when the salmon are spawning and dying in our creeks. Dead fish everywhere! Increasing the nick intensity or length has no effect.


I mentioned in an earlier post that we use pressure to change behavior. If a small amount of stimulus fails to change behavior it is appropriate to increase the level until the dog shows a stark change. Here's the 'kicker' for many newer trainers, and some who may not be all that new.

E-collar conditioning as Rex Carr taught it to me, and I have taught it to countless others, involves a formal process of conditioning to pressure. During this process the trainer learns the threshold of the individual dog, and what will be the typical operating level of stimulus for the career of that dog. I often hear people say things like "I like variable e-collars because I work on a 2 most of the time, but I can jump up to a 4 for violations of commands I think are more important." Not only is that nonsensical, but it's unfair. But in this discussion there is one more point to be made. If you have truly collar conditioned your dog you should almost NEVER need to use more than a "low-med-hi" application of a specific level. If you find yourself needing to jump more than a level very often, stop. Go back and finish your conditioning.

Once we get the dog through Basics we rarely use the collar anyway, and surely should not be tap dancing on the buttons!

EvanG


----------



## EvanG

Just a little more e-collar history. 

Some of us who were around back then can relate to the fact that the old A1-70's were not built with the consistent quality components of today's units. Anytime we met at D.L.'s, or in any group with multiple collars, we first got out our test lights and conducted a frequency check. It was not uncommon for two or more collars to set each other off! We do live a great age!! :wavey:

EvanG


----------



## boomers_dawn

Thank you Sterre for the info about the nervous system and the perspective about the joules; I too tried the collar on myself before putting it on the dog.

I learned to use the collar together with a pro. Started with wearing the collar turned off to eat or do anything fun. Then we found the right setting - started at the lowest setting and bumped up until the dog made any kind of reaction to it - blink, ear twitch, move head - that was the setting - not screeching or screaming.
Next was how to use it - for corrections only to well known behaviors. If refuse known command on second try, it's sit, nick, then repeat the command.

So it's very controlled and timing is essential. 
My understanding is it's supposed to work like a virtual collar pop - get their attention - hey!! pay attention! 

Getting mad and becoming abusive is counterproductive to training, so if that happens, it's time to stop.

One time I had it turned way too high without looking first :-( bad bad.
Lucky for me, dogs are forgiving and I'm pretty sure they have already forgotten my mistakes .. just like I forgot about the time my father ran over my foot with the car when I was little  heh heh.


----------



## Michele4

I know the Invisible Fence or containment collars have been mention a couple of times as a means of correction for a dog , I don't know how anyone elses fences work but my dogs have only *every* been shocked about a handful of times thats including all 4 I have trained. And that was *only* in the training process, Murphee for example I only remember about two times for him, my first Golden KC was *once*. They get a warning beep way before the shock and they know where that line is. If anyones dog is getting shocked on a regular basis than I would try something else because you haven't trained them correctly. 90% of the time I don't even need to put a collar on the they just know. If I put a new boundy up or change it around I will put the flags back up and show them with the collar of where their new boundary is but that had only happened a couple of times in the past 10 years. Yes I did feel bad when I trained them but I think I got shocked more they they ever will and I wasn't that bad.


----------



## Ljilly28

As a dog trainer who works with over 1000 dogs a year of all shapes, sizes, and backgrounds, I see the efficacy and ethics of training in a reward-based system, and do not recommend using e collars, and especially not as a short cut or the cliff notes to puppy recall, stay- the basics. I think a golden should be motivated enough to work with a human without heavy equipment. 

Many people go to this type of tool too quickly bc they do not have the skills, resources, or motivation to build working relationships with their dogs.

I am very lucky to work one on one on tough behavior cases with a great trainer and leading veterinary behavior specialist, Dr. Nick Dodman, who is emphatic about the damage done to dogs with shock and prong collars. I have learned an immense amount from Tufts University Behavior lab. 



> Dodman: I think that the direct punishment-based techniques are outmoded, a thing of the past, and should be avoided. Nobel Prize winners Lorenz, Tinbergen and Von Frisch might have disagreed on some points, but the three of them were all in agreement that punishment teaches a dog nothing. All it does is to teach a dog how to avoid the punishment. Which is not the same as teaching the dog what to do. There is no learning, other than learning avoidance of certain actions. You don’t need punishment to teach either dogs or children. I don’t believe in the concept of “sparing the rod and spoiling the child,” or sparing the chain-jerking and spoiling the dog. All the techniques that we use in the clinic are 100 percent motivational—we do not use any coercive techniques. . .
> As for those prong collars … I sometimes say to clients what John Lennon rudely said about Paul McCarthy—the only thing he did was “Yesterday.” Prong collars are yesterday. There are some trainers, not all trainers, who just seem to know only one thing, and that is how to escalate punishment to reach the desired effect. So they start off with puppies the right way with food motivation. But as soon as the dog reaches a certain age, they go into a slip collar, then a metal choke collar, and if these aren’t having the desired aversive effects, they escalate up to a prong collar; some even graduate higher, to electricity. What you have is a gradation of pain. And the pain is designed with the theory “you teach them to do something, and if they don’t do it, you hurt them.” Konrad Lorenz said that science and know-how aren’t enough in dog training; patience is the vital stuff. I find that non-confrontational techniques are more appreciated by owners who often aren’t of the disposition to want to hurt their animals to make them do anything.


Dr. Nicholas H. Dodman, BVMS, MRCVS (Faculty Profile)
Behavior Clinic Photo Dr. Nicholas Dodman is a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, and Professor, Section Head and Program Director of the Animal Behavior Department of Clinical Sciences. Dr. Dodman is one of the world’s most noted and celebrated veterinary behaviorists. He grew-up in England and trained to be a vet in Scotland. At the age of 26, he became the youngest veterinary faculty member in Britain. It was at that time that Dr. Dodman began specializing in surgery and anesthesiology. In 1981, Dr. Dodman immigrated to the United States where he became a faculty member of Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine. Shortly after his arrival, Dr. Dodman became interested in behavioral pharmacology and the field of animal behavior. After spending several years in this area of research, he founded the Animal Behavior Clinic - one of the first of its kind - at Tufts in 1986. He received an additional board certification in animal behavior from the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists. Dr. Dodman began to see clinical cases in 1987 and since 1990, he has devoted all of his time to his specialty practice of animal behavior. Since the mid 1990s, Dr. Dodman has written four acclaimed bestselling books that have received a tremendous amount of national press. His first book, The Dog Who Loved Too Much (Bantam Books, 1995), was an unqualified success selling more than 100,000 copies as did his second book, The Cat Who Cried for Help (Bantam Books, 1997). His third book, Dogs Behaving Badly (Bantam Books, 1999) was again a bestseller while his latest, If Only They Could Speak (W.W. Norton & Co., 2002) was recently released as a trade paperback. Dr. Dodman is internationally recognized and sought after as a leader in his field.

In addition to his four trade books, he has authored two textbooks and more than 100 articles and contributions to scientific books and journals. He appears regularly on radio and television including: 20/20, Oprah, The Today Show, Good Morning America, Dateline, World News with Peter Jennings, Discovery Channel, NOVA, Animal Planet, the BBC and CBC, CNN’s Headline News, Inside Edition, MSNBC, NOVA, NPR’s “Fresh Air” and A&E. He is an ad hoc guest on WBUR’s “Here & Now.” As a former senior editor for PetPlace.com, he is currently a columnist for the American Kennel Club’s quarterly publication, AKC Family Dog, where his column was nominated for 2005 “Column of the Year.” Additionally, he is a Pet Expert for Time, Inc. and also writes a monthly “Expert Advice” column for LIFE magazine that is read by twelve million people. Dr. Dodman is also the editor of Tufts University’s forthcoming Puppies First Steps, which has been sold to Houghton Mifflin (2007). He is a consultant to and official national spokesman for a new line of pet products from Zero Odor LLC for whom he recently completed shooting a 28-minute infomercial that will air up to five times a week on cable television networks beginning the spring of 2006. In addition, Dr Dodman has recently completed a television pilot for a series of his own sponsored by The Humane Society of the United States. Dr. Dodman graduated from Glasgow University Veterinary School in Scotland where he received a BVMS (DVM equivalent). He was a surgical intern at the Glasgow Veterinary School before joining the faculty. He received a Diploma in Veterinary Anesthesia from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and is board certified by the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists and the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists. He is a member of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and the American Society for Veterinary Animal Behavior. Dr. Dodman holds ten US patents for behavior modification treatments, including a recent (2002) patent that details a novel treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder in humans. Early work in the Harvard and Yale University Psychiatry Departments confirms the validity of this novel treatment. Dr. Dodman lives near Tufts University with his wife, Dr. Linda Breitman, a veterinarian who specializes in small animals, and their children.


----------



## Ljilly28

The main reason to avoid E collar use is best summed up by Dr. Karen Overall at University of Pennsylvania:


> "I've seen so many animals damaged by shock. And I've seen people devastated when they realize that the dog who they love has been made a nervous wreck or aggressive because they've chosen the wrong training method."[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Karen Overall received her BA and MA degrees concomitantly from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. After a year spent at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama she was awarded her VMD from the University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine in 1983. Dr. Overall attended graduate school at the University of Wisconsin - Madison where her PhD in Zoology was awarded for research focusing on mating systems and egg physiology of a protected lizard. She completed a residency in Behavioral Medicine at Penn in 1989. She is a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Behavior (ACVB) and is certified by the Animal Behavior Society (ABS) as an Applied Animal Behaviorist.
> 
> Dr. Overall has given hundreds of national and international presentations and short courses and is the author of over 100 scholarly publications on behavioral medicine and lizard behavioral ecology and dozens of textbook chapters. She has also been a regular columnist for both Canine and Feline Practice journals, has been the behavior columnist for the popular magazine, Cat Fancy, and continues to write a bimonthly column for DVM Newsmagazine. Her best-selling textbook, Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals, was published by Mosby in 1997. Her new book, Manual of Small Animal Clinical Behavioral Medicine, will be published by Elsevier in 2006, and her first instructional video, Humane behavioral care for distressed humans and their confused dogs: techniques for the treatment and prevention of canine behavior problems, will be released at the same time. Another text, Behavioral Medicine for Old Dogs, will follow later in 2006 or early 2007. Additionally, Dr. Overall serves on the editorial and editorial advisory boards of numerous journals, and is the editor-in-chief for the new Elsevier journal that will begin publishing in 2006, Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research.
> 
> After 14 years at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, where she ran the Behavior Clinic for more than 12 years, she was offered a tenured position as an Associate Professor of Behavioral Medicine and Director of the Behavior Clinic at The College of Veterinary Medicine, the University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign as part of the faculty excellence program. Instead, she chose to join the faculty of the Psychiatry Department at Penn Med as a Research Associate. Dr. Overall�s clinical work has at its core the humane treatment of troubled pets and their distressed people. Her research has 2 main foci (1) understanding the neurobiology and genetics of canine behavior and canine cognition, and (2) the development of natural genetic and behavioral canine models for human psychiatric illness, particularly those involving anxiety, panic, and aggression. Such models allow better treatment for pets with behavioral problems while adding to our understanding of the shared conditions in humans. Dr. Overall and her colleagues have recently funded a series of studies to examine the behavioral genetics of anxiety in groups of dogs where familial concerns, including those that affect performance, have been noted.
> 
> Dr. Overall frequently consults with service and assistance dog organizations and military and police organizations that use dogs in any capacity. She also consults frequently with law makers regarding legislation affecting dogs. Dr. Overall is currently the Co-Chair of the US government SWGDOG (the Scientific Working Group on Dogs and Orthogonal detector Guidelines), and serves on the board of Directors of both charitable (PALS for Life) and working dog (International Working Dog and Breeding Association [IWDBA]) organizations. She was awarded the 1993 Randy Award for Excellence and Creativity in Research. In 2005, Dr. Overall was voted the Small Animal Speaker of the year at the North American Veterinary Conference.
> 
> When she is not traveling, speaking, writing, seeing patients, or conducting research, she tries to play with her 4 Australian shepherds and husband - and collaborator - Dr. Art Dunham, who shares her passion for the wonder and logic of science, fine art, language, culture, wild places, and doing the right thing.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ljilly28

double post


----------



## EvanG

Ljilly28 said:


> The main reason to avoid E collar use is best summed up by Dr. Karen Overall at University of Pennsylvania:


With deference to Dr. Overall, I'm sure she is competent at being a doctor. What are her credentials as a dog trainer? Any FC's, AFC's, NFC's, or NAFC's on her resume? Theories about these things are easy to write. Being a first rate trainer? Not so much. And all I'm saying here is when all the theories have been articulated, I'll still be waiting for superior results.

There are many hundreds of doctors running field trials all over the continent. Dr. Mack Dubose and his wife Lynn have won several nationals between them, and made many more field champions. I imagine each has written a number of fine articles on various topics for JAMA. But I respect their opinions on retriever training most for what they did in the field, and the way their stylish precise retrievers have always worked.

EvanG


----------



## Sweese

Thanks for the post. Dodman is obviously a brilliant guy and sought after for speaking engagements. I went to one of his websites and it is interesting to read about some of his behavioral correction techniques. Some can be applied to gun dog training like his recommendation to exchange one object you would not want the dog to chew for another that might be ok to chew. One of his write ups included turning on "Dog TV" to help a dog with separation anxiety and another using drugs to stop licking. Some techniques include a high pitched "ouch" for biting or a foghorn and other loud noises to avoid behavior. Other techniques include a water pistol or simply ignoring the behavior and having the dog feel lonely. I think his behavioral research is interesting and can be studied for training all dogs but some of his specific recommendations for training may not work very well with a high strung retriever. 

With a gun dog we get our dogs use to loud noises at an early age. Gun dogs tend to associate a gun (a shotgun going off within a few feet) with fun, game and an eventual retrieve. Additionally, these "sound" type corrections that Dodman recommends are tough to administer when a retriever is out 100 or more yards away. I think if I blew a foghorn at my dog away at 100 yards she would just sit. The use of a water pistol? - nah I do not think so. My dog would either look for the bird to fall out of the sky or the shampoo bottle - she loves being sprayed with a hose.

Very interesting reading and thanks for sharing.

The e-collar continues to be a very effective tool for me.

Jay


----------



## Ljilly28

EvanG said:


> FC's, AFC's, NFC's, or NAFC's on her resume?
> EvanG


The number of clients we see who are interested in running field trials in that niche is zero, so adding those titles to her credentials would not inform the discussion from my perspective at least. The relevance of an AFC title to the average person looking for training advice is low.


----------



## EvanG

Ljilly28 said:


> The number of clients we see who are interested in running field trials in that niche is zero, so adding those titles to her credentials would not inform the discussion from my perspective at least. The relevance of an AFC title to the average person looking for training advice is low.


I suspect in many cases that is a result of not knowing the comparative demands of training. It's not that one and all should have field trial aspiration, but rather that having knowledge of its relevance to field training and preparing working retrievers to hunt at their best would provide a more accurate sense of scale. The demands of FTs is far beyond most hunting, but that is what makes that level of excellence a gold standard for methodology.

As the demands have become ever greater over the many years it is evident that only a small percentage of dogs are of adequate ability to compete, and fewer yet that are adequately trained & handled. The bar is permanently high in that venue, so few make the cut.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> With deference to Dr. Overall, I'm sure she is competent at being a doctor. What are her credentials as a dog trainer? Any FC's, AFC's, NFC's, or NAFC's on her resume? Theories about these things are easy to write. Being a first rate trainer? Not so much. And all I'm saying here is when all the theories have been articulated, I'll still be waiting for superior results.
> 
> There are many hundreds of doctors running field trials all over the continent. Dr. Mack Dubose and his wife Lynn have won several nationals between them, and made many more field champions. I imagine each has written a number of fine articles on various topics for JAMA. But I respect their opinions on retriever training most for what they did in the field, and the way their stylish precise retrievers have always worked.


Mac DuBose is a human medical doctor, right? Let's not muddy the waters by conflating all MDs and PhDs when we're talking about credentials for making statements about animal behavior. Dr. Overall is a behaviorist with a PhD in zoology and a VDM, and she's a diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Behavior. She did her residency in veterinary behavior, and she works at UPenn in animal neurobiology and behavior, studying dogs. There's more if you're curious, but I pulled what I felt were her most relevant credentials to a conversation like this one.

While I am sure there are medical doctors and even vets who use e-collars, I would be curious if any of these nationally ranked field competitors or even more minor players have advanced degrees in animal behavior. It seems clear that the overwhelming majority of the people who actually study animal behavior at advanced levels (ACVB, etc.) have gone on record against the use of electrical stimulus in training dogs.

In direct answer to the question "what are [Dr. Overall's] credentials as a dog trainer," if the advanced degrees and professional credentials are somehow not impressive, it should be pointed out that her full time job is to help people with their pets' behavioral problems.


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> I suspect in many cases that is a result of not knowing the comparative demands of training. It's not that one and all should have field trial aspiration, but rather that having knowledge of its relevance to field training and preparing working retrievers to hunt at their best would provide a more accurate sense of scale. The demands of FTs is far beyond most hunting, but that is what makes that level of excellence a gold standard for methodology.
> 
> As the demands have become ever greater over the many years it is evident that only a small percentage of dogs are of adequate ability to compete, and fewer yet that are adequately trained & handled. The bar is permanently high in that venue, so few make the cut.
> 
> EvanG


You have explained precisely why FT makes a poor standard to compare real world pet dog training to. When you talk about FTs, you're not talking about shaping the behavior of real world dogs with real world issues. You're talking about a highly rarified group of skills applied to a group of dogs selected for very specific work. If the tool or program doesn't work on the dog, the dog doesn't show up in the group you're talking about.

When we talk about teaching obedience to pet dogs, washing the dog out and moving on to the next dog is unacceptable.

I admire success in hunt and field very much, and I regard those dogs and trainers very highly. But I don't think the fact that the dog is trained to a field title tells us much about the application of that methodology to pet dogs.


----------



## tippykayak

Sweese said:


> Thanks for the post. Dodman is obviously a brilliant guy and sought after for speaking engagements. I went to one of his websites and it is interesting to read about some of his behavioral correction techniques. Some can be applied to gun dog training like his recommendation to exchange one object you would not want the dog to chew for another that might be ok to chew. One of his write ups included turning on "Dog TV" to help a dog with separation anxiety and another using drugs to stop licking. Some techniques include a high pitched "ouch" for biting or a foghorn and other loud noises to avoid behavior. Other techniques include a water pistol or simply ignoring the behavior and having the dog feel lonely. I think his behavioral research is interesting and can be studied for training all dogs but some of his specific recommendations for training may not work very well with a high strung retriever.


I think you may have the wrong Dodman. You read this, presumably. I'm pretty sure that's different Dr. Nicholas Dodman.

Can you find any place that the Tufts Dodman suggests the water pistol or foghorn? The only place I can find in the Tufts Dodman's work that talks about a water pistol was the loading of a water pistol with tobasco and lemon juice in order to deter aggressive dogs found on walks, and even then it's not his idea but rather related in a story about a client.


----------



## EvanG

tippykayak said:


> Mac DuBose is a human medical doctor, right? Let's not muddy the waters by conflating all MDs and PhDs when we're talking about credentials for making statements about animal behavior. Dr. Overall is a behaviorist with a PhD in zoology and a VDM, and she's a diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Behavior. She did her residency in veterinary behavior, and she works at UPenn in animal neurobiology and behavior, studying dogs.


Does she do any hunting? How about competing in a retriever field sport? The skills I'm referencing directly link to hunt and field, not "Shake" or "Roll over".


tippykayak said:


> There's more if you're curious, but I pulled what I felt were her most relevant credentials to a conversation like this one.


That's nice. You decided what were "relevant credentials" for a thread I started on e-collars, but I'm not permitted to make the same distinction? How does that work? I know a ton of veterinary doctors who know nearly nothing about dog training. Even though they have training in animal behavior, dog training is a skill set of its own.


tippykayak said:


> You have explained precisely why FT makes a poor standard to compare real world pet dog training to. When you talk about FTs, you're not talking about shaping the behavior of real world dogs with real world issues. You're talking about a highly rarified group of skills applied to a group of dogs selected for very specific work. If the tool or program doesn't work on the dog, the dog doesn't show up in the group you're talking about.


I'm talking about a group that falls under "Hunt and Field". E-collars tend to show up there, along with skills germane to hunting, hunt tests, and field trials. Have we slid into the 'real world' of parlor tricks? What's the distinction between a field dog being obedient and a 'real world' pet being obedient? I'm not trying to talk pet owners into using e-collars. I'm proposing to conduct a reasoned, fact-based conversation about e-collar use. If you want to use it to demean the instrument why not just be up front about it?


tippykayak said:


> When we talk about teaching obedience to pet dogs, washing the dog out and moving on to the next dog is unacceptable.


I'm sorry. I thought this was the "Hunt and Field" board. Apart from that distinction, all those high level skills in FT retrievers begin with exactly the same standard obedience commands. In fact they depend on them. The difference between training a retriever for hunting (field) and for field trials is far more a matter of scale, than of divergent methods.


tippykayak said:


> I admire success in hunt and field very much, and I regard those dogs and trainers very highly. But I don't think the fact that the dog is trained to a field title tells us much about the application of that methodology to pet dogs.


I see it as completely opposite. It's training not only at a higher level, but that must be more highly reliable under far more demanding circumstances. If you're honing in on another venue for this discussion, what point do you hope to make? All of us who train for hunt and field should stop?:gotme:

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> Does she do any hunting? How about competing in a retriever field sport? The skills I'm referencing directly link to hunt and field, not "Shake" or "Roll over".


Sorry - I truly thought this thread was about the use of the e-collar in general, not only about its value as a hunt and field training tool. It's your thread, so I will confine my comments to hunt and field (i.e., leave, as I try not to comment on that around here), but you might understand how I misread the phrase "all opinions welcome."



EvanG said:


> Have we slid into the 'real world' of parlor tricks? What's the distinction between a field dog being obedient and a 'real world' pet being obedient? I'm not trying to talk pet owners into using e-collars. I'm proposing to conduct a reasoned, fact-based conversation about e-collar use. If you want to use it to demean the instrument why not just be up front about it?


Real world obedience, and recall in particular, are not parlor tricks. Nobody is talking about teaching a dog to roll over with the e-collar, but a lot of people have been talking about reliable recall in the real world in this thread. I find it interesting that you've chosen this moment to point out that it's not part of the discussion or appropriate to this part of the board, rather than pointing it out when a pro-collar comment was made about non-field issues.

I am not trying to "demean the instrument" but rather to point out an observable fact to those who are interested in an open conversation: the vast majority of those at high levels of behavioral study, research, and practice recommend against electrical stimulus for dog training. Hunt and field seems to be one of the only venues in which a majority of high-level competitors endorse its use, and I think it's worth having a conversation about whether success in that venue really translates to applications to all the dogs who don't participate in H&F. If you want to use e-collars and recommend them for hunt and field, I'm not trying to stop you. But this thread, until now, has had a healthy mix of H&F people as well as people teaching, as you say, "parlor tricks." If you'd like the "just pet training" people to bow out, simply ask and see if you are really being welcoming to "all opinions."



EvanG said:


> I'm sorry. I thought this was the "Hunt and Field" board. Apart from that distinction, all those high level skills in FT retrievers begin with exactly the same standard obedience commands. In fact they depend on them. The difference between training a retriever for hunting (field) and for field trials is far more a matter of scale, than of divergent methods.I see it as completely opposite. It's training not only at a higher level, but that must be more highly reliable under far more demanding circumstances. If you're honing in on another venue for this discussion, what point do you hope to make? All of us who train for hunt and field should stop?:gotme:


I do not think I said anything remotely along the lines that you should all stop training for hunt and field. In fact, I didn't even say that you should stop using the e-collar. I said, just to repeat myself and be crystal clear, something factual about recommendations about electrical stimulus among behavior experts.

If I have misunderstood the thread, which seems to have been about e-collars far more generally than in their application to H&F, I apologize. These days, I make a big effort not to take a position on their application in that particular, rarified circumstance to which I have only minor personal exposure. And I certainly try to stay out of telling H&F people how to train for H&F.

My point was simply to address the fact that you started a "all opinions" e-collar thread and then argued that having a titled dog was a better credential than a degree in veterinary behavior when it comes to having authority on the use of electrical stimulus in dog training. I offered the contrary opinion.


----------



## sterregold

Since behaviourists in practice generally deal with dogs with behaviour issues, I would venture that the collar-trained dogs behaviourists are seeing are not dogs who have been trained in the careful and methodical way those of us contributing to this thread who have used the tool successfully have trained. These are not dogs who have had good or effective use of this tool, and likely with owners who have poor timing, and a poor understanding of training and dog behaviour--ie dogs who would have been a mess no matter what tool their owners used. So as a sample to assess the efficacy of a tool, it is biased from the get go.

I like behaviourists for helping pet owners deal with specific problematic behaviour issues like separation anxiety--their study has prepared them well for that. However, I have yet to have found one who has done an objective study of 4-quadrant training using the ecollar as one tool available from the ground up with a "clean slate" set of dogs, as opposed to simply judging by looking at the after effects of poor use of a tool (be that tool a pinch collar, the ecollar etc). That would be the objective, balanced scientific analysis necessary before one could declare that a tool is the problem rather than the trainer and the training.

I do not recommend an e-collar as a go-to for everyone. I especially do not recommend them to people who are looking for a short-cut in training. Quite the contrary, it is a tool that requires a very strong obedience foundation to use well in the way I use it in my training program. *The tool does not train the dog*. The trainer trains the dog, and the collar is a tool for reinforcement and feedback, just like the leash, verbal praise, food, and petting are. My dogs are all collar conditioned, and are happy, enthusiastic workers.


----------



## FTGoldens

Unfortunately, the anticipated deterioration of the thread occurred, though possibly due to conflicting expectations as to what it was about.

Just a few thoughts:
*The available techniques for training non-competitive dogs are broader in scope. 
*Non-collar techniques continue to develop for competitive dogs, however NONE of the dogs trained with those techniques have reached the level of AFC, much less FC in several years. (There are, however, a number of dogs that have made the Derby list and become Qualified All Age without use of a collar ... but reaching the pinnacle has not been possible with those techniques.) 
*Academic credentials do not necessarily equal real world success ... as is said about law school professors, "Those who can ... DO, those who can't ... TEACH." Theory is interesting for discussion, but good ideas don't always result in desired results. Furthermore, many academics have an agenda ... the result of their research is ALWAYS going to match their agenda. [It's generally self-serving, but that's the way the world works.]
*Dr. Overall's description of dogs trained with a collar WHICH SHE SEES may be accurate, but she sees a small, select group of animals. I would doubt that she would describe any of the dogs running field trial at the Specialty as "nervous wrecks."

What is expected of a field trial competitor is far different that what is expected from a pet. If I was training a pet I doubt that I'd use a collar ... well, maybe for recall because that's a life-safety issue.

FTGoldens


----------



## Sweese

tippykayak said:


> I think you may have the wrong Dodman. You read this, presumably. I'm pretty sure that's different Dr. Nicholas Dodman.
> 
> Can you find any place that the Tufts Dodman suggests the water pistol or foghorn? The only place I can find in the Tufts Dodman's work that talks about a water pistol was the loading of a water pistol with tobasco and lemon juice in order to deter aggressive dogs found on walks, and even then it's not his idea but rather related in a story about a client.


Here you go:

Preventing Canine Behavior Problems : Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine


----------



## Ljilly28

The topic heading asks for an open discussion of e collars rather than e collars in field training, and welcomes all opinions- a great idea. 

There simply are strong opinions that clash, and professionals with good credentials who utterly disagree if there can be any humane use of this tool on the one hand or if it is a must for field training and a wonderful tool. This tool is chosen by top field trainers but outlawed in some countries. It is objectively a very controversial tool. There is not much common ground, and probably will never be no matter how long or frequent the thread. The value is in those who search and research to be exposed to both polarities of thought, and at least realize that questions of ethics, and how/why we relate to dogs the way we do come into play when we elect training methods. 

http://www.dogdaysnw.com/doc/overall_collars.pdf



> There is no longer a reason for people to remain misinformed. Let me make
> my opinion perfectly clear: Shock is not training - in the vast majority of
> cases it meets the criteria for abuse. . . In all situations where shock has been used there is
> some damage done, even if we cannot easily see it.
> Karen L. Overall, M.A., V.M.D., Ph.D.


----------



## tippykayak

Sweese said:


> Here you go:
> 
> Preventing Canine Behavior Problems : Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine


Many thanks - for the record, I'm 100% with you on the way that fog horns, cans of pennies, and water pistols are generally a bad idea. I'll also point out, though, that the Canine Behavior Clinic isn't Dodman's personal book, site, or advice, and his name doesn't appear on that page, so we have little idea as to whether he endorses that particular idea.


----------



## sterregold

Here is the problem I have with experts who make such absolute statements--she asserts that anyone who advocates for the use of a collar is misinformed (sorry but I am not stupid just because I do not have a PhD) and that *all* dogs who have had collar training have been *harmed*. This is not objective --she herself uses the word OPINION. And if her conclusion has not been drawn from doing an objective study, following scientific method, using control and variable groups (which means dogs with no prior exposure to the training device, so they come without any "baggage") to observe and assess the effectiveness and effects of the tool then it is merely opinion, not a well-founded, logically-sound inductive argument. She is relying on the authority of her degree to have us accept her position, without actually offering up evidence arrived at in a logically and scientifically sound way. This is a rhetorical rather than a logical defense of her opinion by engaging in _ad hominem_ attacks, false dilemma, hasty generalization, loaded language (ie abuse), and appeal to authority in place of presenting actual logical argumentation with evidence. Sorry, but until she backs up her opinion with some data arrived at in a scientifically sound way, it is just her opinion.

"There is no longer a reason for people to remain misinformed. Let me make
my opinion perfectly clear: Shock is not training - in the vast majority of
cases it meets the criteria for abuse. . . In all situations where shock has been used there is some damage done, even if we cannot easily see it. "
Karen L. Overall, M.A., V.M.D., Ph.D.


----------



## CharlieBear80

Are we distinguishing here between harmful and aversive?


----------



## EvanG

CharlieBear80 said:


> Are we distinguishing here between harmful and aversive?


Not very well.

EvanG


----------



## CharlieBear80

EvanG said:


> Not very well.
> 
> EvanG


Just wanted to make sure I am not missing something. I read through this entire thread yesterday but being that I know nothing about training dogs for field and hunting work, some things may have not sunken in yet. I do know about Schutzhund training though and there seem to be similarities in favored methodologies for training between the two.


----------



## EvanG

Accidental post


----------



## EvanG

tipkaypyak said:


> Sorry - I truly thought this thread was about the use of the e-collar in general, not only about its value as a hunt and field training tool.


Did it occur to you that it wasn't posted on an Agility board, or a Shutzhund board? There's a reason for that, which I thought would be obvious; it's meant for discussion relative to retriever hunt & field training.


tipkaypyak said:


> It's your thread, so I will confine my comments to hunt and field (i.e., leave, as I try not to comment on that around here), but you might understand how I misread the phrase "all opinions welcome."


Then quoting theories by total "non-hunt & field" authorities isn't likely to add much, is it?. There are those who are highly respected authorities in thermodynamics, who have written exhaustive discourses on that subject. But how would that relate the discussions here? How about _your_ opinions. I may not agree with them, but they're welcome. Dr. Overall's detached rants don't really apply to the topic or circumstance, so unless she's inclined to come on the board and try to connect those dots I don't see how her "opinion" weighs into this discussion.


tipkaypyak said:


> Real world obedience, and recall in particular, are not parlor tricks. Nobody is talking about teaching a dog to roll over with the e-collar, but a lot of people have been talking about reliable recall in the real world in this thread. I find it interesting that you've chosen this moment to point out that it's not part of the discussion or appropriate to this part of the board, rather than pointing it out when a pro-collar comment was made about non-field issues.


Let's try one more time then. This is not the pet dog discussion board. It's not a forum for carpentry. It's not a forum for legal issues. It's Hunt and Field, specifically for retrievers of the Golden persuasion. Can you really not make that distinction?


tipkaypyak said:


> If I have misunderstood the thread, which seems to have been about e-collars far more generally than in their application to H&F, I apologize. These days, I make a big effort not to take a position on their application in that particular, rarefied circumstance to which I have only minor personal exposure. And I certainly try to stay out of telling H&F people how to train for H&F.


Are you interested in knowing more about H&F? Glad to help. Having extensive experience in that area does tend to qualify a person to make assessments of, and useful comments about the many related subjects involved in it.

EvanG


----------



## sterregold

CharlieBear80 said:


> Are we distinguishing here between harmful and aversive?


I think the issue is that the behaviourists who most vehemently oppose the use of tools like the e-collar equate aversive with harmful, a premise which I reject. 

Can an aversive be used in a harmful way? Yes--and that goes for anything used as an aversive. My foot, a leash, show chain, etc could all be a harmful aversive that could inflict devastating damage to a dog.

Is the use of an aversive automatically harmful? Not in my experience with the dogs I have trained or observed. Positive punishment and negative reinforcement do not have to be harmful, despite that as the underlying premise of many of the arguments against their use.


----------



## sterregold

CharlieBear80 said:


> Just wanted to make sure I am not missing something. I read through this entire thread yesterday but being that I know nothing about training dogs for field and hunting work, some things may have not sunken in yet. I do know about Schutzhund training though and there seem to be similarities in favored methodologies for training between the two.


And there are similarities in the favoured methods for these venues for logical reasons--the highly complex skills dogs need to develop to be successful in both are actually derived from controlling, directing and focusing natural prey drives and communal hunting behaviours that hearken back to our dogs' wild canid ancestors. Therefore it is not surprising that similar training methods would bring consistent success in each.


----------



## EvanG

sterregold said:


> And there are similarities in the favoured methods for these venues for logical reasons--the highly complex skills dogs need to develop to be successful in both are actually derived from controlling, directing and focusing natural prey drives and communal hunting behaviours that hearken back to our dogs' wild canid ancestors. Therefore it is not surprising that similar training methods would bring consistent success in each.


Excellent post Shelly.

EvanG


----------



## Tayla's Mom

As someone who would like to know about field work, after reading EvanG's latest posts I have changed my mind. I would be afraid to ask questions when you are met with such rudeness. It started out okay, but wow did it go downhill.


----------



## EvanG

Tayla's Mom said:


> As someone who would like to know about field work, after reading EvanG's latest posts I have changed my mind. I would be afraid to ask questions when you are met with such rudeness. It started out okay, but wow did it go downhill.


As you read through this forum you will find that nearly anytime Tippy joins a discussion it starts out appearing to be an honest inquiry and a good contribution. It nearly always descends into a train wreck, especially with those who don't fall in line with her ideas. It's a disappointing pattern, but a steady one.

Have you noticed there are few if any questions? Look carefully and you'll find mostly statements and pronouncements. 

EvanG


----------



## sterregold

There has been a lot of useful information presented here. Let's not let the discussion devolve--it started to, we got it back on track in actually discussing physical actions of the collar, functionality in training, training methodology and established what is happening in terms of objective, scientific, logically sound study of the use of the e-collar. Please do not be the trout that sends this south!


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

Tayla's Mom said:


> As someone who would like to know about field work, after reading EvanG's latest posts I have changed my mind. I would be afraid to ask questions when you are met with such rudeness. It started out okay, but wow did it go downhill.


 
That's what happens when "opinions" with or without a "phd" behind them are thrown around about a product without actually experiencing and studying dogs that have been successfully trained by one. It's the same old nauseating rhetoric. These same people keep preaching "research". Perhaps they need to practice what they preach? This is not a thread about studying the behaviors of abused dogs. It is a thread that has professional and experienced knowledge in the use of ecollars. What better place to ask questions.


----------



## CharlieBear80

sterregold said:


> And there are similarities in the favoured methods for these venues for logical reasons--the highly complex skills dogs need to develop to be successful in both are actually derived from controlling, directing and focusing natural prey drives and communal hunting behaviours that hearken back to our dogs' wild canid ancestors. Therefore it is not surprising that similar training methods would bring consistent success in each.


Absolutely. Which is why I am finding this thread interesting. It just seems to me that getting into a discussion such as this usually results in 2 main camps coming forward, both digging their heels in, and not a whole lot being accomplished. But that is bound to happen when people begin discussing things about which they are passionate. We're all only human, after all.


----------



## Rob's GRs

Ljilly28 said:


> The topic heading asks for an open discussion of e collars rather than e collars in field training, and welcomes all opinions- a great idea.


I have to agree with this, the thread title makes it appear open to all that wish to discuss this topic, even if one does not Hunt or Field. 

If things can not be discussed in a civil manner this thread it will end up like so many others before it..... Closed. The Mod team is reviewing this thread as things have been reported in it to us.


----------



## lhowemt

EvanG said:


> As you read through this forum you will find that nearly anytime Tippy joins a discussion it starts out appearing to be an honest inquiry and a good contribution. It nearly always descends into a train wreck, especially with those who don't fall in line with her ideas. It's a disappointing pattern, but a steady one.
> 
> Have you noticed there are few if any questions? Look carefully and you'll find mostly statements and pronouncements.
> 
> EvanG


I too thought this was an open thread to discuss collar usage across the board. I find your tone negative and condescending. How many questions have you asked? Why must one ask questions to share their experience, thoughts, and opinions? I had been holding off posting mine to see where this went. Having already been told I'm wrong with my collar usage I didn't feel like jumping in early. I hate using an ecollar but find it critical with one dog. I thought the thread that led to this discussed wanting to share information with dog people who were considering it, to get a broad spectrum of information. My story would relate to the average reader. Not just hunt and field or pro/serious trainer. Pro and con. Unfortunately I think your story does not relate to the average dog owner and so this thread is indeed just another argument. When you start picking on individuals instead of information, you lose credibility in my opinion. Keep in mind many interfaces jumble all the different sub forums together so you aren't as isolated as you'd like to be. This is a golden retriever forum and your posts show up just like the puppy ones and rainbow bridge.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## EvanG

Wyatt's mommy said:


> That's what happens when "opinions" with or without a "phd" behind them are thrown around about a product without actually experiencing and studying dogs that have been successfully trained by one. It's the same old nauseating rhetoric. These same people keep preaching "research". Perhaps they need to practice what they preach? This is not a thread about studying the behaviors of abused dogs. It is a thread that has professional and experienced knowledge in the use of ecollars. What better place to ask questions.


Excellent observation, and on the money. Most of the questions came in the first 7 pages, and there were good ones. Most seemed to probe as much as to offer judgment yeah or nay. It didn't appear to me than a majority of questions alluded to field or pet training specifically, so much as the effects of the instrument on dogs, and its effectiveness in training overall. That was where I had hoped to focus.

E-collar discussion - all opinions welcome. It's not a perfect world, and I feel I failed to anticipate that some of those impassioned opinions it was open to would have to include folks who have no history with the tool, nor any attachment to a venue where it's likely to be used. If you have had little or no experience in field training it's going to be tough to relate to tools and techniques specific to it. But the skills, and the demands of field are different, and more demanding in the field than nearly anywhere.

There should be no better place to ask training questions than a training forum. There should be no better place to ask more specific questions about hunt and field training than a hunt and field forum. And there should be no better place to ask hunt and field training questions surrounding the pluses and minuses of e-collar use than an e-collar discussion on a hunt and field forum. And that is what led to this thread.

If someone has been missed in this thread, having asked about how to properly use an e-collar, or how does the collar effect dogs in general, or what makes it such an effective tool, please point me to your question. That's what I'm looking for.

*WARNING:* I am an expert in fieldwork with retrievers, and am looking for conversation relative to those applications far more than those of other venues. 

If I ever invest my time into another such offering I'll try to remember to include this disclaimer.

EvanG


----------



## Tatnall

LOL. Looks like this needs to be taken to POTUS 

On the bright side, while the anti collar folks will never be swayed from their righteous indignation at the use of the tool, at least it gets them to dip into the hunt and field section for a few seconds. Maybe some of the folks who are lurking waiting for the lock will at least click around a little bit and start thinking about training their GRs for what they were bred to do--collar or amish. That would be a positive, at least.


----------



## Tatnall

Tayla's Mom said:


> As someone who would like to know about field work, after reading EvanG's latest posts I have changed my mind. I would be afraid to ask questions when you are met with such rudeness. It started out okay, but wow did it go downhill.


I think that if you read around, you will find that Evan is very helpful and willing to answer questions about training. While I train my dogs with a similar but slightly different methodology, I often recommend smartworks to newcomers for just this reason. There are few out there--at least in the field training world--who are willing to spend so much time answering questions and trying to help newcomers.


----------



## Brave

I've been out of the thread for a few days and the amount of responses was hard to trickle through on the first go around. I think I got the jist of it, but some questions did come to mind: 

Evan - I know you specifically want to discuss the (mostly, in your opinion) pros and cons of the e-collar as it applies to Hunt and Field, however, since this thread will most likely pop up if someone searches for "e-collar" on the forum, I do think that we will provide a great discussion for the average pet owner. I know from pages 1-7 you were willing to listen and answer my questions. I appreciate that so very much. I do hope we will be able to continue the discussion in a broader sense. 

While I was reading the differences of opinion over what makes a professional credible to discuss the pros and cons of the e-collar, it pickled my stomach for a while. And so I ponder (and present) the question, "What are the difference between 'pet' training vs 'competition' training vs 'field' training? It puzzles me that behaviorists and dog trainers alike (granted not of the hunt and field variety) pose such opposition to the e-collar. 

I understand the new factor of distance, and oftentimes a great deal of distance between handler and dog; but what other factors are different between the two? 

My line of thought is trying to determine whether an animal behaviorist w/o field training is as credible (or more so) than a field trainer w/o education on animal behavior. It seems that both lack a distinct and large area of knowledge. 

Is there an animal behaviorist /vet who is always a field trainer? 

I personally think animal behaviorist are trainers. However would they be able to turn bad behavior around? They have to train it out of the animal some how, right? 

Anyways, I'm starting to ramble. If I'm unclear on anything, or if someone would like me to clarify anything at all, just let me know. My brain already has Friday-itis and is hitchhiking its way home as I type.


----------



## Megora

Can I ask a question or put a comment in here that could be directed either way...? 

I'll preface it with the comment that I do not put any kind of ecollar on my dogs.... and will not. This includes invisible fencing collars. 

That said, I've talked reasonably with people who do all the hunt tests and they own breeds who are better rounded than golden retrievers are. This would be flat coated retrievers, like owned by my one instructor.... as well as GSP's. My instructor even this week was talking about another golden person who has a golden who HAS the breeding behind him to be doing every performance event you can think of. This trainer has been a long time critic of ecollars and all other training collars and using any "aversives". And this person has reached that unfortunate point in her dog's life where she's realized that it did not work and her dog is not capable of performing at the level he should be, probably based on all of the early training. She is now using ecollars and working very closely with other trainers to hopefully clean up all of the problems. 

That case, fwiw... is very awesome to hear and a credit to that other trainer for recognizing the problem and making an effort to fix it. Instead of quitting.

I don't have a problem with other people using ecollars on their dogs. I've met the trainers and their dogs and they are good people and happy dogs. My instructor's dog especially is a fantastic dog - and a very happy hearted little girl. And knowing my instructor - I know she would never consciously hurt her dogs. And most of the people I've met at both golden retriever clubs here in Michigan - I've had the same impression of them. 

They are all very experienced OR are training with people who are very experienced. 

And that is the huge difference when you are comparing your average pet trainer who wants an ecollar to border train their dog.... and somebody who is taking a dog out into an area for tests where there's going to be a lot of interesting terrain that will challenge that dog's obedience and lead to a pass or fail. 

People who are just training their dogs for border training or playing off leash in a field somewhere are looking for a completely different (and far more minor or basic) use of those ecollars.

My feeling as somebody who is not involved in field tests... I think there are a lot of valid and reasonable ways to train 100% reliable recalls to your dogs, as well as to border train them - without using an ecollar. My dogs are proof of that as can be seen in most pictures of them where they do not have leashes on them while out and about with me. And on our property (no fences, etc), they rarely to never have collars on them either. 

But I know why field people use ecollars on their dogs - because they are not just sending the dogs out and relying on retrieving instincts. Their dogs have to be precise and obedient. 

AND with pet people.... lots of people seem to use invisible fencing with success. I have a neighbor who like me can't put a fence up on her property.... and her dog who is the same age as my Jacks is finally off leash on their property thanks to them investing in invisible fencing. Mandy can still run through the wire and she has done so on a couple occasions, but in general - she can go outside with her boy and run around as much as she needs. And considering she's a pit-bull mix - she has a lot of energy to burn. 

So - I don't use them, but understand why people use ecollars of all kinds and I see the benefit for their dogs - whether that's living arrangements or the sports they compete in. 

The question I have to ask is.... if there is a thread posted to answer any training questions that people might have as far as training with ecollars....

Why can't the thread be kept on topic and allow people who are interested in training with ecollars... ask questions and get answers from people who use the equipment and can knowledgably answer the questions?


----------



## Brave

Megora said:


> Why can't the thread be kept on topic and allow people who are interested in training with ecollars... ask questions and get answers from people who use the equipment and can knowledgably answer the questions?


Great post Megora. Thanks for the insight. To answer your question, b/c the thread wasn't started (IMHO) to get training tips and advice on HOW to use e-collars. It was started as a discussion of the e-collar as a tool (all opinions welcome, to boot!). Naturally, you will get both sides of that discussion.


----------



## Megora

Brave said:


> Great post Megora. Thanks for the insight. To answer your question, b/c the thread wasn't started (IMHO) to get training tips and advice on HOW to use e-collars. It was started as a discussion of the e-collar as a tool (all opinions welcome, to boot!). Naturally, you will get both sides of that discussion.


DOH. You are right. Shame on me for skim-reading!  

You can just imagine why I was going "huh?" :crazy::moreek: when I glanced at the last few pages of posts :bricks1:and was trying to figure out why people were posting all kinds of the usual stuff instead of reasonably discussing ecollars as used for field work.


----------



## Brave

Megora said:


> DOH. You are right. Shame on me for skim-reading!
> 
> You can just imagine why I was going "huh?" :crazy::moreek: when I glanced at the last few pages of posts :bricks1:and was trying to figure out why people were posting all kinds of the usual stuff instead of reasonably discussing ecollars as used for field work.


It's ok!!!  I did really love your post. I know you don't use e-collars, but your boys are proofed for long distances (with the various sights, smells and terrains), so it's confusing to me if you can do it (albeit you're not hunting, is hunting that big of a difference?), why field & hunt competitors cannot achieve the same thing w/o an e-collar.


----------



## Megora

Brave said:


> It's ok!!!  I did really love your post. I know you don't use e-collars, but your boys are proofed for long distances (with the various sights, smells and terrains), so it's confusing to me if you can do it (albeit you're not hunting, is hunting that big of a difference?), why field & hunt competitors cannot achieve the same thing w/o an e-collar.


The demands are completely different. I used to think the same thing as you - and then I found out what some of these tests entail. Initially - seriously, I thought that if I could get Jacks past his issue with loud noises (very sound sensitive he is), he would easily wup the other dogs out there with his nose and his retrieving drive. LOL. My dogs when they are out and running long distances and hiking through woods and fields with me are trained to check in on me and come back to me when called. They have controlled freedom. 

With field training - it's a bit more difficult. 

Adele was describing something she experienced in training down in Tennessee. There was stuff like going over obstacles and between... stuff... I don't know enough to describe what she was saying other than it sounded crazy complicated and messed with my brain. 

I hope people chip in with some of what the dogs are expected to work through at the SH and MH level....


----------



## coaraujo

Megora said:


> The demands are completely different. I used to think the same thing as you - and then I found out what some of these tests entail. Initially - seriously, I thought that if I could get Jacks past his issue with loud noises (very sound sensitive he is), he would easily wup the other dogs out there with his nose and his retrieving drive. LOL. My dogs when they are out and running long distances and hiking through woods and fields with me are trained to check in on me and come back to me when called. They have controlled freedom.
> 
> With field training - it's a bit more difficult.
> 
> Adele was describing something she experienced in training down in Tennessee. There was stuff like going over obstacles and between... stuff... I don't know enough to describe what she was saying other than it sounded crazy complicated and messed with my brain.
> 
> *I hope people chip in with some of what the dogs are expected to work through at the SH and MH level....*



I would appreciate this as well. As a first time dog owner/trainer I know my dogs aren't going to make it very far in the hunt and field venue (right now we can barely get their recall down anyways ). My inexperience and green handling won't allow for my dogs to work to their full potential. But my goal has always been to get as far as possible in this venue without using aversives. I don't understand how in all other venues people can train and title their dogs without using aversives but in hunt and field no one can . I only have knowledge of hunt tests, I know nothing about field trials. I feel I'll be able to have decent success with positive methods in hunt tests (I think its more common?). But from the sounds of it field trials are just too hard for regular positive methods to be good enough? It won't stop me from trying, that's for sure. It might take me many years and many dogs, but I'm going to try and I'll have a ton of fun in the process with dogs. I'll probably be laughed at for trying or shunned (or at least that's the feeling I got when reading this thread), but there's all the more reason I guess. I know i'm not good at dog training right now, but I'm learning new things every day and honestly I absolutely love it - the failing, the succeeding, the struggles, the brags - I don't ever plan on stopping and hope that one day I'll actually be good at it, using the method of my choice. Or maybe I'll realize after I've gained enough knowledge, like everyone in this thread is saying, that these goals I have are dreams that are just a little too big for reality and should just give up now.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I was being really good and staying out of this thread, but I could only last so long. 
I want to address the question about what makes field work so different from obedience and agility, since we do all of them.
First and foremost, there's the safety issue. In obedience and agility, you are in a small, enclosed, safe environment. My dog was trained "mostly positive" for both obedience and agility, and has achieved fairly high level titles in both. Honestly, it's not that hard to train "mostly positive" when your dog is confined in a small building and the worst that can happen is he doesn't do what you asked him to do. So you just smile, say in a silly voice, "uh oh! what happened?? silly dog!" and you try it again. No big deal.
But put him out in a big field with no fences on any sides, possibly roads right near by, cover so tall at times you can't see him, he's working 200 or more yards away from you (go out and look at a football field, it's at least twice that distance and usually more than that) and now you've introduced a whole new level of response that's required. If he doesn't do what you asked him to do (as in, come back, or stop running at least), you risk his life.
Ok, so you may be thinking, so what? Train him for a good solid recall from the time he's very young, and you won't have a problem.
Here's the other huge difference. If you have a dog with good instinct and lots of prey drive, you will see another side of him when he gets in the field around birds. The obedience ring and the agility ring don't trigger his instinctive behavior, but the field does. There's actually a psychological term for it (GDGLI, help me out here, I've forgotten the term) which means that instinct over-rides all training. The more instinct the dog has, and the more drive he has, the more you will see this. 
If your dog doesn't have a lot of drive or instinct, you will probably be able to train mostly positive in field. But the flip side of that is, if he doesn't have a lot of drive or instinct, he is not going to succeed in the field, especially in field trials. A dog that doesn't care about birds simply isn't going to go far. A dog that is obsessed with birds will be very successful, but will need a much firmer hand to keep him safe and to train through his strong instincts.
My dog likes food and praise as much as the next golden. But when there are birds around (and this is a common response in dogs with drive and instinct) he will spit food out on the ground, no matter how high value the treat. If I try to pet him when he's concentrating on birds, he will literally shake my hand off his head/back. That pretty much rules out trying to train with treats or praise. Conversely, in obedience and agility both he LOVES treats, the more the better, even just his kibble, and lives for praise.


----------



## Vhuynh2

Thank you Barb, that explains a lot. I hike and walk Molly off leash every day and I have called her back from chasing/playing with other dogs, in mid-sprint towards a friendly human, but I could not for the life of me call her back from hunting for a bird that had already been picked up. 

Before we started field training, I was talking to a trainer and he asked how Molly's obedience is. I told him that she's great and we are training for comp. obedience. She is great at it. Of course she knows heel, sit, etc! That's easy peasy! Well, we showed up and Molly (14 months at the time) did not even know "sit". All she knew to do was choke herself at the end of the leash, watching the other dogs. I was VERY embarrassed.. I thought he would think I lied to him. 


Sent from Petguide.com App


----------



## hotel4dogs

Yes, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Tito already had his UDX (for those of you who aren't familiar with competitive obedience, that's a high level title) before we started field, so he had a very strong obedience background. I was so proud of my smart, obedient little boy.
Until the first time he took off after a pheasant he had flushed. It took wing, the shot was missed, and the dog was G-O-N-E. 
Scared? Very. Embarrassed? Yep, after I got my dog back. 
I re-thought my ideas about obedience skills...and training.


----------



## coaraujo

hotel4dogs said:


> Yes, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
> Tito already had his UDX (for those of you who aren't familiar with competitive obedience, that's a high level title) before we started field, so he had a very strong obedience background. I was so proud of my smart, obedient little boy.
> Until the first time he took off after a pheasant he had flushed. It took wing, the shot was missed, and the dog was G-O-N-E.
> Scared? Very. Embarrassed? Yep, after I got my dog back.
> I re-thought my ideas about obedience skills...and training.


I do see how different obedience competition and field are, but I guess I don't understand why this isn't something that can be trained without aversives? With training anything you start small and build up adding distance, distractions and duration. Would this not be the same thing? Can you not start by acclimating a dog to working in a field setting, increasing distractions like other dogs and birds, building duration and distance? I would never expect a dog who can compete perfectly in a ring to behave the exact same way out in the field. My Oliver passed his CGC in an indoor test. If it was outside I know for sure we would have failed - Because all of our training had been done inside. If we moved from inside to outside it'd be a different story. I understand the danger, but isn't that the same danger we face everyday with even just pet dogs? There are squirrels, rabbits, deer, etc everywhere that our dogs can bolt after at any moment and end up in the road and dead. A reliable recall is need no matter what and I thought that could be done with positive methods. Like I said above, I have no knowledge of field trials so I can only comment on what has been said so far. I guess its just hard to fathom that its not possible.


----------



## hotel4dogs

The difference truly is instinct. 
Ever see an intact male, especially one who has been bred, around a bitch in heat? That's instinct, too. It can be very, very hard to control, no matter how well trained the dog is, no matter how you started with small steps and worked up to bigger ones. 
And in some of these well bred retrievers, the instinct to go after the bird is every bit as strong.
I have found, and I know others with high drive dogs will say the same, I can verbally turn him back from a squirrel or rabbit, but a bird taking wing trips something in his brain.


----------



## coaraujo

hotel4dogs said:


> The difference truly is instinct.
> Ever see an intact male, especially one who has been bred, around a bitch in heat? That's instinct, too. It can be very, very hard to control, no matter how well trained the dog is, no matter how you started with small steps and worked up to bigger ones.
> And in some of these well bred retrievers, the instinct to go after the bird is every bit as strong.
> I have found, and I know others with high drive dogs will say the same, I can verbally turn him back from a squirrel or rabbit, but a bird taking wing trips something in his brain.


Ahhhh I see. So this is where the e-collar comes in? In field trials a dog can't wear a collar right? How does the same issue not arise there? Is it because the dog has been conditioned to getting a stim if it reacts on its instincts? (I apologize if these are stupid questions - I know nothing about training with e-collars)


----------



## hotel4dogs

I was really careful to avoid mentioning the e-collar, because dogs have been taught for many, many years to be very successful in field trials without e-collars.
The methods, however, include extremely strong physical discomfort. People who have been around retriever training for years will tell you that the e-collar is a lot more humane than some of the older methods of training.
So it's not an e-collar versus no e-collar thing. It's really that some people (me being one of them) believe that the only way to reliably train a dog to be safe and consistent in the field is with some "fear of God" training.
It's not for everyone. If you only aspire to a junior hunter or WC, and maybe even a senior hunter and WCX, you can get there with positive training. But if you want to go to the higher levels, especially field trials, I think the time invested to get the dog there would make the dog too old to participate. For example, if you wanted to run field trials with your dogs (which I know you don't), by the time your dogs hit the age they are now you should have them 100% reliable on recall regardless of the distractions, they should be able to run 400 yard marks, including double and triple pick-ups, they should be able to work out of your sight, and so on. 
Just my opinion, of course, and I encourage absolutely everyone to train and enjoy their dog in the method with which they are most comfortable.


----------



## coaraujo

hotel4dogs said:


> If you only aspire to a junior hunter or WC, and maybe even a senior hunter and WCX, you can get there with positive training. But if you want to go to the higher levels, especially field trials, I think the time invested to get the dog there would make the dog too old to participate.


So would you say, in your opinion, SH/WCX, is the highest title a dog can attain without the use of aversives? MH would even be extremely hard to acheive? I don't know how field trials work level wise (if there are even levels ), but do you believe that an aversive-free trained dog couldn't be successful even at the most basic field trial level/test?



> For example, if you wanted to run field trials with your dogs (which I know you don't), by the time your dogs hit the age they are now you should have them 100% reliable on recall regardless of the distractions, they should be able to run 400 yard marks, including double and triple pick-ups, they should be able to work out of your sight, and so on.


Are these things you believe can be acheived with positive methods, and then beyond this aversives are needed? Or are these things aversives would be needed for as well?



Thank you Barb for your answers. I'd love to hear others opinion's as well as long as the discussion stays friendly :curtain:. 


Sidenote*** What does the age - hunt/field test progression look like? i.e. Age 1 - JH & WC title, Age 1.5 WCX title, Age 2 SH title, etc (including field test titles)


----------



## EvanG

Brave said:


> I've been out of the thread for a few days and the amount of responses was hard to trickle through on the first go around. I think I got the gist of it, but some questions did come to mind:
> 
> Evan - I know you specifically want to discuss the (mostly, in your opinion) pros and cons of the e-collar as it applies to Hunt and Field, however, since this thread will most likely pop up if someone searches for "e-collar" on the forum, I do think that we will provide a great discussion for the average pet owner.


I agree. And that will ultimately be a good thing. At least I hope it will.


Brave said:


> I know from pages 1-7 you were willing to listen and answer my questions. I appreciate that so very much. I do hope we will be able to continue the discussion in a broader sense.


I do too. You have asked outstanding questions, and have shown the ability to be willing to break new ground. That will take you far in dog training.


Brave said:


> While I was reading the differences of opinion over what makes a professional credible to discuss the pros and cons of the e-collar, it pickled my stomach for a while. And so I ponder (and present) the question, "What are the differences between 'pet' training vs 'competition' training vs 'field' training?


See; there's another good question! Let me start by saying that this description is from my own perspective and experience. In terms of 'pet' training, I have long held that a majority of pet trainers employ only part of the training process; primarily teaching. That's good. That's the first and most critical part of the process because dogs didn't think these behaviors up for themselves. We therefore owe it to them to patiently and carefully teach them what we want. But if you leave the training process at that point you will have limited the likelihood of a stable, reliable performer when a situation becomes more demanding or distracting. After all, it's one thing for a dog to know what to do in response to a command. It's quite another for a dog to believe that compliance is not an option. That requires training. Enter the field dog. More to come.


Brave said:


> It puzzles me that behaviorists and dog trainers alike (granted not of the hunt and field variety) pose such opposition to the e-collar.


I realize that perception has been created here, and that's part of why I so strenuously oppose giving equal gravity to behaviorist's opinion with those of accomplished field trainers. Let me insert a prominent example of an exception; Caesar Milan. He is a self-described behaviorist. "I rehabilitate dogs, and train people" is his own introduction. Like you, I believe he wears more hats than one because he surely trains. Again, more to come on this. But he is not a staunch opponent of e-collars. They just aren't a part of the kind of work he does. And there are many competent professional trainers in other venues who use e-collars extensively. One is an old friend of mine who is one of the most respected Obedience trainers and Behavior Modification experts in the world, Monique Anstee. She isn't a field trainer, but has attended several of my seminars in Victoria Canada. There are others in various venues, in spite of perceptions to the contrary.


Brave said:


> I understand the new factor of distance, and oftentimes a great deal of distance between handler and dog; but what other factors are different between the two?


Before adding to the list, let me mention that, universally, distance erodes control, and that's a big deal! The further your dog is from you, the less inherent control you will tend to have over him - even a well trained one. Typically, a field trial dog must become precisely skilled, and sharply obedient, even at distances over 400 yards. You just can't get that with a clicker.

It you would like, I would be happy to post up the specific skills and proportions a well trained field retriever typically needs that puts a wide gulf between it and a pet.


Brave said:


> My line of thought is trying to determine whether an animal behaviorist w/o field training is as credible (or more so) than a field trainer w/o education on animal behavior. It seems that both lack a distinct and large area of knowledge.


That one discussion could take tons of text to do justice to! I have great respect for top trainers in any venue. They will have established their credibility through achievements. More than half of my seminar attendees in Victoria each year got their start in Obedience, and later got into fieldwork. Some of them have trained multiple OTCH's.

On the other hand, some field trainers appear to understand very little about how dogs learn and remember things. Their dogs tend to show it. The best in fieldwork have and demonstrate a wide range of knowledge in both areas. That's why they're the best.


Brave said:


> Is there an animal behaviorist /vet who is always a field trainer?


One that quickly comes to mind is Dr. Cal Cadmus in Oakdale, CA. Not only is he highly respected in veterinary medicine, but he also won a National Amateur with his dog NAFC-FC Winsom Cargo. He is a respected canine behaviorist. In other words there is cross over that many do not know about. They don't hang out signs declaring it, but they're out there nonetheless.


Brave said:


> I personally think animal behaviorist are trainers. However would they be able to turn bad behavior around? They have to train it out of the animal some how, right?


That is true. And that's why I firmly regard Caesar as both. But I'll soon lay out the difference between training as most behaviorists do it, and how field trainers do it. I think it will help clear up some of the misunderstandings. At least I hope it will.


Brave said:


> Anyways, I'm starting to ramble. If I'm unclear on anything, or if someone would like me to clarify anything at all, just let me know. My brain already has Friday-itis and is hitchhiking its way home as I type.


I hear you Friday-itits. Wouldn't that be inflammation of the Friday? :--appalled:

EvanG


----------



## Alaska7133

Barb, 
Thanks for a great post!
I like to show the difference in instinct by when I use a crate in my car. When I go to an obedience competition I don't have to use a crate in the car. At the grounds I can use a soft sided folding crate. At field training or competition, I have to use a hard shell crate in the car or in the field. My little show puppy will destroy my car if I don't. Even my older guy Reilly who never had a bird until he was 5 years old, will destroy my car. They are so hyped up on chasing birds, they can loose their minds. If your dog has the instinct and drive, you have to have a way to get through to them. Their desire is to eat the bird. You have to convince them to bring you the bird. You are going against every instinct that dog knows. Sometimes electricity is the only way to make that happen. Not everyone I train with uses an e-collar, but most do. Not everyone uses forced fetch either, but most do. Little Lucy has been through forced fetch and collar conditioning, but when a frozen pigeon hits the ground and the head pops off, she about looses her mind. It's about all I can do to keep her from snatching that head,even with her training.


----------



## gdgli

hotel4dogs said:


> I was being really good and staying out of this thread, but I could only last so long.
> I want to address the question about what makes field work so different from obedience and agility, since we do all of them.
> First and foremost, there's the safety issue. In obedience and agility, you are in a small, enclosed, safe environment. My dog was trained "mostly positive" for both obedience and agility, and has achieved fairly high level titles in both. Honestly, it's not that hard to train "mostly positive" when your dog is confined in a small building and the worst that can happen is he doesn't do what you asked him to do. So you just smile, say in a silly voice, "uh oh! what happened?? silly dog!" and you try it again. No big deal.
> But put him out in a big field with no fences on any sides, possibly roads right near by, cover so tall at times you can't see him, he's working 200 or more yards away from you (go out and look at a football field, it's at least twice that distance and usually more than that) and now you've introduced a whole new level of response that's required. If he doesn't do what you asked him to do (as in, come back, or stop running at least), you risk his life.
> Ok, so you may be thinking, so what? Train him for a good solid recall from the time he's very young, and you won't have a problem.
> Here's the other huge difference. If you have a dog with good instinct and lots of prey drive, you will see another side of him when he gets in the field around birds. The obedience ring and the agility ring don't trigger his instinctive behavior, but the field does. There's actually a psychological term for it (GDGLI, help me out here, I've forgotten the term) which means that instinct over-rides all training. The more instinct the dog has, and the more drive he has, the more you will see this.
> If your dog doesn't have a lot of drive or instinct, you will probably be able to train mostly positive in field. But the flip side of that is, if he doesn't have a lot of drive or instinct, he is not going to succeed in the field, especially in field trials. A dog that doesn't care about birds simply isn't going to go far. A dog that is obsessed with birds will be very successful, but will need a much firmer hand to keep him safe and to train through his strong instincts.
> My dog likes food and praise as much as the next golden. But when there are birds around (and this is a common response in dogs with drive and instinct) he will spit food out on the ground, no matter how high value the treat. If I try to pet him when he's concentrating on birds, he will literally shake my hand off his head/back. That pretty much rules out trying to train with treats or praise. Conversely, in obedience and agility both he LOVES treats, the more the better, even just his kibble, and lives for praise.


hotel4dogs

You are alluding to instinctive drift. The power of the instinct, which is genetic, overrides the training given to the animal. I think this explains why a lion tamer can get bitten by his big cats.

P.S. I also have been staying out of this thread. Discussion of training ideas make people very emotional.


----------



## gdgli

By Evan:

*On the other hand, some field trainers appear to understand very little about how dogs learn and remember things. Their dogs tend to show it. The best in fieldwork have and demonstrate a wide range of knowledge in both areas. That's why they're the best.*

That is my biggest criticism of many field trainers. Many misapply what they know about learning theory. And I see plenty of it. Actually I see plenty who misapply learning theory in obedience class, too.


----------



## Ljilly28

How do you separate the dog who is truly biddable and desires to work hard with humans from one who is forced to work? The e collar is "too" motivating, in that sense. I am not a breeder, but I do have one nice , titled, healthy girl to breed, and I do care about keeping the retrieve in the retriever. However, I do not want to breed to a dog who is so hardheaded or untrustworthy he cant go for a simple hike in the woods without an e collar strapped on, or gets in a fight in the hunting dog class in the show ring bc his temperament is hard or edgy. The threat & force of an e collar can hide a lack of inherent motivation or a lack of a good, developed relationship between dog and owner. 

I agree with well known trainer Ian DunBar:


> “A lot of trainers are out there who can’t train dogs, but they can jerk them around and zap them (with electronic collars),” says Dunbar. “For some it’s appealing for us to feel we can dominate our dog, but for most owners, in our guts we know this is no way to treat our best friends.”
> 
> Dunbar says he began the www.dogstardaily website so the public can see videos of how to motivate dogs through positive reinforcement training; can read what others (some of the most well known experts on behavior and training in the world) have to say on nearly 30 blogs; hear audio descriptions on training techniques; read articles, and have one on one contact with the Dunbars and their blogging colleagues – and all for free.
> 
> “Dog training shouldn’t about intimidation.



Dr. Ian Dunbar PhD, BVetMed MRCVS
Dr. Ian Dunbar is peerless in his field; there is simply no other person who has his qualifications, experience, and expertise in the realm of modern psychological dog training and behavior counseling-fields, which Dr. Dunbar has played a major role in developing over the past 25 years. He has been lecturing to veterinarians and dog clubs for over thirty years, conducting more than 800 days of seminar and workshop for trainers and veterinarians around the world. There are few educated trainers who have not been strongly influenced by Dr. Dunbar’s fun and games, from-the-animal’s-point-of-view, dog friendly dog training.

Dr. Dunbar is a veterinarian, animal behaviorist, and writer. He received his veterinary degree and a Special Honors degree in Physiology & Biochemistry from the Royal Veterinary College (London University) and a doctorate in animal behavior from the Psychology Department at the University of California in Berkeley, where he spent ten years researching olfactory communication, the development of hierarchical social behavior, and aggression in domestic dogs. Dr. Dunbar is a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the International Society for Applied Ethology, the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, the California Veterinary Medical Association, the Sierra Veterinary Medical Association, and the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (which he founded).Dr. Dunbar joined the Society for Veterinary Ethology (now the International Society for Applied Ethology) over 35 years ago, at which time he was the only member specializing in dog and cat behavior problems. Later he was involved in the establishment of the American SVE (now the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior).

He has written numerous books, including How To Teach A New Dog Old Tricks, the Good Little Dog Book and a series of Behavior Booklets (separate educational booklets on each of the most common pet behavior problems). Additionally, he has hosted eleven videotapes on puppy/dog behavior and training, including SIRIUS® Puppy Training, Training Dogs With Dunbar and Every Picture Tells A Story. All of his videos have won a variety of awards. The SIRIUS Puppy Training video (the first dog training video ever produced) remains the all-time best selling dog video. For three years running the SIRIUS® video has been voted the #1 BEST DOG TRAINING VIDEO by the Association of Pet Dog trainers, which is the largest and most influential association of dog trainers in the world.

Dr. Dunbar was invited to develop and write the American Kennel Club’s Gazette “Behavior” column, which was voted Best Dog Column for a number of years in succession by the Dog Writers’ Association of America. In 1993, Dr. Dunbar founded the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) APDT in the United States and organized the first two Annual Conferences. Dr. Dunbar’s current project is the creation of the K9 GAMES®-an exciting spectator event featuring fast-moving, motivating, competitive games for dogs and owners.

Dr. Dunbar’s SIRIUS® Puppy Training video had a dramatic influence on the pet dog fancy, completely changing the way dogs are trained around the world. His unique lure/reward, off-leash training techniques provided a delightful alternative to inane and inhumane leash jerking. SIRIUS techniques have been adopted and adapted by most thinking and caring dog trainers worldwide. For more information go to: Sirius Puppy Training (www.siriuspup.com ) Dr. Dunbar’s books, CDs and DVDs are available from the DogStarDaily online digital store. Also, many of his multi-day seminars for dog trainers and veterinarians are available on DVD from Tawzer Dog Videos, and his “Give Them A Scalpet and They Will Dissect A Kiss: Dog Training Past, Present and Future” lecture is available from Dogwise.


----------



## hotel4dogs

I am bowing out of this thread because it is starting to sound like I am trying to convince people to use an e-collar, whereas I am not. I am merely explaining why some of us have chosen to use them.
If someone chooses to train without one, that is their choice. If someone chooses to train with one, that is also their choice.
Neither person is "better" than the other one, neither needs to convince the other to use their training method. 
Just get out and enjoy doing things with your dogs, however you choose to pursue them.


----------



## hotel4dogs

but I do want to say something to Jill, first.
Just my opinon, Jill, but the true test from a breeding standpoint is to get out and actually hunt the dog. Not to play hunt test games, but to hunt the dog. That is much more revealing than anything else.


----------



## Tatnall

coaraujo said:


> So would you say, in your opinion, SH/WCX, is the highest title a dog can attain without the use of aversives? MH would even be extremely hard to acheive? I don't know how field trials work level wise (if there are even levels ), but do you believe that an aversive-free trained dog couldn't be successful even at the most basic field trial level/test?


I am not Barb, but I will throw in my opinion. First of all, I think the term 'aversives' takes on almost another level when dealing with the prey drive and instinct that one finds in the field. Forget about the ecollar or other forms, even.

Assuming you could train reliable delivery to hand without any aversives and some degree of steadiness (which you could do unless the dog has high drive), JH should be no problem. WC should be no problem. SH has a blind but not tough so probably. WCX should be do-able, if you don't consider making the dog sit and watch another dog get its birds aversive (for some it is, for others, again, not so much) MH starts getting complicated and FTs are much tougher. With a very talented dog, you might get derby points or even on the derby list, but Q and above would be very tough, IMO.

I know of a dog that runs our circuit sometimes that is apparently trained 100% positive only. The dog has a SH, is running MH tests, passing them at about a 30% pass rate and has finished several Quals. From judging and watching the dog run, it is obvious that it is an incredibly talented animal. Even with its current training the dog would be able to accomplish much more if its handler were more skilled.

At the end of the day, I think an excellent trainer can go far regardless of the game and the method. A good dog person is better than a bad one. You can do field work but you would have to be creative in finding a reward important enough--one trainer I know uses live pigeons.

I would really like to see some of these folks who are obviously good dog folks based on their ability to work wonders with pet dog problems, do well in the obedience ring, etc., with no aversives, put their skills to work in the field and show us that it can be done. If they did, I think it would revolutionize field training--like breaking the 4 minute mile showed others it could be done and it was broken by many others very quickly thereafter.


----------



## EvanG

gdgli said:


> By Evan:
> 
> *On the other hand, some field trainers appear to understand very little about how dogs learn and remember things. Their dogs tend to show it. The best in fieldwork have and demonstrate a wide range of knowledge in both areas. That's why they're the best.*
> 
> That is my biggest criticism of many field trainers. Many misapply what they know about learning theory. And I see plenty of it. Actually I see plenty who misapply learning theory in obedience class, too.


And this kind of unsubstantiated generalization is what sends an otherwise intelligent discussion off into an emotional abyss. Please, what - specifically - have you seen in this regard. How many instances. "Many"; how many? "Plenty of it" how many? What have you seen these masses of field trainers do? I know most of the good FT & HT trainers, pro & am. 

EvanG


----------



## my4goldens

hotel4dogs said:


> I am bowing out of this thread because it is starting to sound like I am trying to convince people to use an e-collar, whereas I am not. I am merely explaining why some of us have chosen to use them.
> If someone chooses to train without one, that is their choice. If someone chooses to train with one, that is also their choice.
> Neither person is "better" than the other one, neither needs to convince the other to use their training method.
> Just get out and enjoy doing things with your dogs, however you choose to pursue them.


I agree with you Barb. I've hesitated to join in this discussion, a little afraid of any back lash because I have chosen to train Tugg with an e-collar, even though we do not do field. You know my dog, very well. We train for obedience, he is a very wonderful biddable dog, but even after months and months of training with a wonderful, experienced trainer using every means available, he still did not have a reliable recall, which left both of us stumped and me at a loss for what to do. At one of our training sessions she turned to me and said, have you considered an e-collar. We had a discussion, I purchased one and with her help, and after thoroughly learning how to use it, I proceeded to collar condition him. Fast forward several months later, and after minimal usage and I assure everyone, I did not hurt, injure, or damage my dog in any way, I now have a happy, joyful working dog who responds immediately and consistently to a recall. I don't think of myself as a bad trainer, and I certainly don't consider my instructor someone who routinely advises her students to immediately use an e-collar, but we had gotten to a point where it was a safety issue with him. I now have a dog that I can work off leash around other dogs, off leash, in a group and private setting without worry of him bolting. I have had and trained other dogs before him, and he is the first I have found the need to use the e-collar. I've always said Tugg marches to a different drum, now we march together.


----------



## EvanG

Tatnall said:


> I know of a dog that runs our circuit sometimes that is *apparently trained 100% positive only.* The dog has a SH, is running MH tests, passing them at about a 30% pass rate and has finished several Quals. From judging and watching the dog run, it is obvious that it is an incredibly talented animal. Even with its current training the dog would be able to accomplish much more if its handler were more skilled.


What is the name of this dog? If it's qualifying in HT or placing in FT the name is published, so you won't be violating any confidences. AKC & UKC publish results. I'd like to see where and when this dog is running.


Tatnall said:


> I would really like to see some of these folks who are obviously good dog folks based on their ability to work wonders with pet dog problems, do well in the obedience ring, etc., with no aversives, put their skills to work in the field and show us that it can be done.


I'd like to see that too. I've been waiting for decades to see an example. I know good trainers who successfully compete in multiple venues, like John and Janice Gunn. 6 OTCH's and multiple FC's. But then, they do train with e-collars. I don't know of a single non-collar/"positive-only" trainer, regardless of talent, who has been successful in trials. But we keep hoping. I started in 1976, so I've had opportunity to watch many trainers come and go.


Tatnall said:


> If they did, I think it would revolutionize field training--like breaking the 4 minute mile showed others it could be done and it was broken by many others very quickly thereafter.


It would surely be record breaking. The thing I believe is useful in this effort is improving training at the fundamental levels. Training, if it is formal training like the kind common to fieldwork, is a 3-phase process; Teach, Force, Reinforce. We haven't even begun to discuss that yet. It's important to note that 'teach' is the first and most important phase. 

But I'll add what I've said many times over the years; I think the notion of "positive-only" training is a myth. It's a lovely notion that I do not believe really exists. At some point the terms become dilute, and fail to jive with the facts in dogs that can actually perform reliably in the field. But that's a subject for a thread all its own, don't you think?

EvanG


----------



## gdgli

EvanG said:


> And this kind of unsubstantiated generalization is what sends an otherwise intelligent discussion off into an emotional abyss. Please, what - specifically - have you seen in this regard. How many instances. "Many"; how many? "Plenty of it" how many? What have you seen these masses of field trainers do? I know most of the good FT & HT trainers, pro & am.
> 
> EvanG


OK, let me start by saying that my comment was not meant to be critical of ecollars. I use one and have consulted you about its use. And I am a fan of Smartworks.

Examples of misuse:
1) While I was breaking up a dogfight recently, I found that both handlers were burning their dogs during the fight.

2) There are specifically two trainers in my group who burn their dogs on a recall. They do not use "here-nick-here'. Instead, when their dogs stray, they just burn.

3) There is a handler in my group who has a male who likes to water the bushes on a retrieve. This handler has taken to burning her dog when it slows down near a bush and looks at it. 

4) A dog entered the water during a retrieve and did not immediately return to the handler. The handler's response was to yell "G__ **** you" and then start to burn his dog. Guess how the dog behaved around the water for the rest of the day.

5) I watched a handler "correct" his noisy dog. His dog was in his truck, barked and whined, and the handler fished for his remote and burned the dog when he finally got his hands on the remote. And the burn came during a pause in the barking.

6) I had breakfast with three members of another training group. During breakfast, I casually asked how many of them had done obedience with their dogs. Answer was none of them had but they wished they had. I didn't want to follow up with any probing questions. They all are using the ecollar on their dogs.

I train regularly with 1 to 4 above. These dogs have not been collar conditioned. None have had training with collar usage.

Sorry if my original post sent the wrong message. If another thread is started on misuse of other training tools, I can contribute to misuse of those tools, too. That includes the clicker which can also be misused. Hence the expression, "Be careful of what you click".

If you need more examples I can give them to you, especially after our next training session.


----------



## Brave

Barb - thank you so much for your posts. I found these parts the most enlightening. Emphasis is mine. 



hotel4dogs said:


> I want to address the question about what makes field work so different from obedience and agility, since we do all of them.
> First and foremost, there's the *safety issue*. In obedience and agility, you are in a small, enclosed, safe environment. My dog was trained "mostly positive" for both obedience and agility, and has achieved fairly high level titles in both. Honestly, it's not that hard to train "mostly positive" when your dog is confined in a small building and the worst that can happen is he doesn't do what you asked him to do. So you just smile, say in a silly voice, "uh oh! what happened?? silly dog!" and you try it again. No big deal.
> But put him out in a big field with no fences on any sides, possibly roads right near by, cover so tall at times you can't see him, he's working 200 or more yards away from you (go out and look at a football field, it's at least twice that distance and usually more than that) and now you've introduced a whole new level of response that's required. If he doesn't do what you asked him to do (as in, come back, or stop running at least), you risk his life.
> Ok, so you may be thinking, so what? Train him for a good solid recall from the time he's very young, and you won't have a problem.
> Here's the other huge difference. If you have a dog with good instinct and lots of prey drive, you will see another side of him when he gets in the field around birds. *The obedience ring and the agility ring don't trigger his instinctive behavior, but the field does.* There's actually a psychological term for it <_*instinctive drift*_> which means that instinct over-rides all training. The more instinct the dog has, and the more drive he has, the more you will see this.
> If your dog doesn't have a lot of drive or instinct, you will probably be able to train mostly positive in field. But the flip side of that is, if he doesn't have a lot of drive or instinct, he is not going to succeed in the field, especially in field trials. A dog that doesn't care about birds simply isn't going to go far. A dog that is obsessed with birds will be very successful, but will need a much firmer hand to keep him safe and to train through his strong instincts.
> My dog likes food and praise as much as the next golden. But when there are birds around (and this is a common response in dogs with drive and instinct) he will spit food out on the ground, no matter how high value the treat. If I try to pet him when he's concentrating on birds, he will literally shake my hand off his head/back. That pretty much rules out trying to train with treats or praise. Conversely, in obedience and agility both he LOVES treats, the more the better, even just his kibble, and lives for praise.


Bear is the same way when we're on-leash around birds. Ducks most specifically. He can watch ducks ALL DAY and never take a break. 



hotel4dogs said:


> Tito already had his UDX (for those of you who aren't familiar with competitive obedience, that's a high level title) before we started field, so he had a very strong obedience background. I was so proud of my smart, obedient little boy.
> Until the first time he took off after a pheasant he had flushed. It took wing, the shot was missed, and the dog was G-O-N-E.
> Scared? Very. Embarrassed? Yep, after I got my dog back.
> I re-thought my ideas about obedience skills...and training.


This is quite telling to me. I'm kind of shocked that Tito was like this. 



hotel4dogs said:


> The difference truly is instinct.
> Ever see an intact male, especially one who has been bred, around a bitch in heat? That's instinct, too. It can be very, very hard to control, no matter how well trained the dog is, no matter how you started with small steps and worked up to bigger ones.
> And in some of these well bred retrievers, the instinct to go after the bird is every bit as strong.
> I have found, and I know others with high drive dogs will say the same, I can verbally turn him back from a squirrel or rabbit, but *a bird taking wing trips something in his brain*.


I can typically call Bear off most things: cats, gophers, dogs, etc. We haven't experienced the bird taking flight and trying to call him off it. So I have no real world experience with this. On a separate note, my girlfriend has a medium/large terrier (possible retriever mix) who goes nuts after birds. She (ironically named Jaws) will jump a 10 foot fence to get a bird. When we were just realizing her drive, she got loose by a negligent delivery man. I stayed at the house in case she came back and my GF and her wife went off looking for her. 30 minutes later, Jaws prances back into the yard with a LIVE PIGEON in her mouth. It was seriously wounded but Jaws delivered it to my hands alive.



hotel4dogs said:


> I was really careful to avoid mentioning the e-collar, *because dogs have been taught for many, many years to be very successful in field trials without e-collars.*
> *The methods, however, include extremely strong physical discomfort. People who have been around retriever training for years will tell you that the e-collar is a lot more humane than some of the older methods of training.*
> So it's not an e-collar versus no e-collar thing. It's really that some people (me being one of them) believe that the only way to reliably train a dog to be safe and consistent in the field is with some "fear of God" training.
> It's not for everyone. If you only aspire to a junior hunter or WC, and maybe even a senior hunter and WCX, you can get there with positive training. But if you want to go to the higher levels, especially field trials, I think the time invested to get the dog there would make the dog too old to participate. For example, if you wanted to run field trials with your dogs (which I know you don't), by the time your dogs hit the age they are now you should have them 100% reliable on recall regardless of the distractions, they should be able to run 400 yard marks, including double and triple pick-ups, they should be able to work out of your sight, and so on.
> Just my opinion, of course, and I encourage absolutely everyone to train and enjoy their dog in the method with which they are most comfortable.


I hadn't thought of that.


----------



## Brave

EvanG said:


> Before adding to the list, let me mention that, universally, distance erodes control, and that's a big deal! The further your dog is from you, the less inherent control you will tend to have over him - even a well trained one. Typically, a field trial dog must become precisely skilled, and sharply obedient, even at distances over 400 yards. You just can't get that with a clicker.
> 
> It you would like, I would be happy to post up the specific skills and proportions a well trained field retriever typically needs that puts a wide gulf between it and a pet.
> 
> EvanG


Thank you for the post. I don't really see myself as a dog trainer. Yes, I'm training Bear (he's my 14 month old Golden Retriever mix, in case you didn't know, and my first dog as an adult) but we're severely lacking in quite a few areas. I train him with mostly positive methods. 

Field and Hunt wasn't really in my realm of interest until recently. To share a personal story, and I apologize b/c it's off topic. My dad was an avid hunter. I think he was hunting way back as a kid. Anyways, he died in August and the idea of hunting makes me feel closer to him. It was his passion and he ALWAYS wanted a gun-dog. In fact my first (and only) dog as a child was a Golden Retriever originally purchased to be a gun dog. My dad was not a good trainer. Sunny refused to listen to him at any given time. Only listened to my mom. I don't know what methods he used to train him though. 

Anyways back to the topic at hand. Yes, I would love some examples of FT dogs vs average pets.


----------



## Eowyn

coaraujo said:


> I don't understand how in all other venues people can train and title their dogs without using aversives but in hunt and field no one can .


I think that just comes from the realization that a reliable recall when hunting can be much more of a life or death matter than say in an obedience ring where the environment is much more controlled. I think it would be awesome to have more people successfully training without adversaries in field, but I also almost got killed last week because some idiot tried to do so (his dog took off to go attack my horse on my property when I was riding).


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

my4goldens said:


> I agree with you Barb. I've hesitated to join in this discussion, a little afraid of any back lash because I have chosen to train Tugg with an e-collar, even though we do not do field. You know my dog, very well. We train for obedience, he is a very wonderful biddable dog, but even after months and months of training with a wonderful, experienced trainer using every means available, he still did not have a reliable recall, which left both of us stumped and me at a loss for what to do. At one of our training sessions she turned to me and said, have you considered an e-collar. We had a discussion, I purchased one and with her help, and after thoroughly learning how to use it, I proceeded to collar condition him. Fast forward several months later, and after minimal usage and I assure everyone, I did not hurt, injure, or damage my dog in any way, I now have a happy, joyful working dog who responds immediately and consistently to a recall. I don't think of myself as a bad trainer, and I certainly don't consider my instructor someone who routinely advises her students to immediately use an e-collar, but we had gotten to a point where it was a safety issue with him. I now have a dog that I can work off leash around other dogs, off leash, in a group and private setting without worry of him bolting. I have had and trained other dogs before him, and he is the first I have found the need to use the e-collar. I've always said Tugg marches to a different drum, now we march together.


Thank you for this.


----------



## EvanG

gdgli said:


> OK, let me start by saying that my comment was not meant to be critical of ecollars. I use one and have consulted you about its use. And I am a fan of Smartworks.
> 
> Examples of misuse:
> 1) While I was breaking up a dogfight recently, I found that both handlers were burning their dogs during the fight.


I'm just old enough to miss the days when you could "call the guys in the white coats" when you see people behaving like that! They were only making it worse.


gdgli said:


> 2) There are specifically two trainers in my group who burn their dogs on a recall. They do not use "here-nick-here'. Instead, when their dogs stray, they just burn.


Same 2?


gdgli said:


> 3) There is a handler in my group who has a male who likes to water the bushes on a retrieve. This handler has taken to burning her dog when it slows down near a bush and looks at it.


I'm guessing this dog is being trained for HT or FT? It's not against the rules for a dog to air on return, but judges will note the behavior, and score down for it if it's habitual. When mine does it I just "toot-toot", and enforce only for a refusal.


gdgli said:


> 4) A dog entered the water during a retrieve and did not immediately return to the handler. The handler's response was to yell "G__ **** you" and then start to burn his dog. Guess how the dog behaved around the water for the rest of the day.


They're fortunate if it's only for the rest of that day. It's beginning to look like you would do well to train with a better group!


gdgli said:


> 5) I watched a handler "correct" his noisy dog. His dog was in his truck, barked and whined, and the handler fished for his remote and burned the dog when he finally got his hands on the remote. And the burn came during a pause in the barking.


And that probably made it worse, yes?


gdgli said:


> 6) I had breakfast with three members of another training group. During breakfast, I casually asked how many of them had done obedience with their dogs. Answer was none of them had but they wished they had. I didn't want to follow up with any probing questions. They all are using the ecollar on their dogs.


Let me know your geography, and perhaps I can hook you up with some competent retriever trainers.


gdgli said:


> I train regularly with 1 to 4 above. These dogs have not been collar conditioned. None have had training with collar usage.
> 
> Sorry if my original post sent the wrong message. If another thread is started on misuse of other training tools, I can contribute to misuse of those tools, too. That includes the clicker which can also be misused. Hence the expression, "Be careful of what you click".
> 
> If you need more examples I can give them to you, especially after our next training session.


That is one sad story. I've seen abuses, but I don't recall such a population density of lousy trainers. I hope I can help.

EvanG


----------



## Megora

Ljilly28 said:


> How do you separate the dog who is truly biddable and desires to work hard with humans from one who is forced to work? The e collar is "too" motivating, in that sense. I am not a breeder, but I do have one nice , titled, healthy girl to breed, and I do care about keeping the retrieve in the retriever. However, I do not want to breed to a dog who is so hardheaded or untrustworthy he cant go for a simple hike in the woods without an e collar strapped on, or gets in a fight in the hunting dog class in the show ring bc his temperament is hard or edgy. The threat & force of an e collar can hide a lack of inherent motivation or a lack of a good, developed relationship between dog and owner.


Jill, I don't think the temperament as you describe is caused BY the use of ecollars. In most cases, I think that temperament is already there or inherent. 

There is the slight criticism or problem with performance and field breeders that I can see - simply because they may sometimes breed dogs who are snappish around other dogs and produce puppies who are snappish. 

That is completely SEPERATE from the way these people may choose to train or the tools they choose to use.


----------



## boomers_dawn

I was thinking about this a little more. Outside of the field setting, I think the collar can be useful where clickers and treats can't be. An example that comes to mind is to stop behaviors where there's instant gratification, before any intervention can occur, for example, eating items off the ground where the reward has already happened, reinforcing the bad behavior, before you can stop it (bird doo, dead worms, etc).


For the field, I liked what Barb said about instinct. When I was new I trained once with a woman with an OTCH flatcoat. That dog took off and would not come when called. She had to go get the dog with her car. Twice. We were both new and never thought of needing a long line for an OTCH dog. Whatever setter genes he had kicked in outdoors.

Someone asked for an example of the difficulty level between SH and MH, I didn't see any, so I'll give an example, since I'm going through this myself.

A blind retrieve: (the dog doesn't see any bird land, but you point them in the right direction, send them, then if they veer off, you stop and direct them which way to go) 

In SH, they plant the blind where the dog doesn't necessarily want to go, so the judges can see that the handler has some control over the dog and the team works together to find the bird. For example, many goldens prefer running on land because it's faster than swimming, so the blind might go past some land that would be tempting to get out of the water and run on. But it's kind of in between, where staying in the water is a viable option as well, so if you stop them in time, you can keep them in the water by telling them to go the other way. Another example would be after all the marks are done, planting the blind in relation to where the live birds are in crates. The smells and sounds and fact that a previous bird just came from there are attractants. But if the handler pays attention and stops the dog in time, they can hopefully get the dog back on the right track in the correct (other) direction.

Masters is like going to the chinese buffet but having to eat a giant bowl of raw turnips before you're allowed to eat anything else.

They do things like arc a bird high in the air, landing with a big loud plop and huge fat splash into a mud puddle right up close in your face where you can see it sitting right there! Sometimes it will land with a wing sticking up! Hi, come get me!!! Singles are very exciting and enticing, especially that kind!!! With quacking and gun shots!!! WOW! But no, you cannot pick up that bird right now. No bird leave it. You have to go pick up that blind way out in the water between those channels. I know we can see that big fat puffy mallard with the shiny green head but you can't pick that up now, you have to run THREE FEET PAST IT, keep going, get in the water, and swim way out in the middle of no where for no apparent reason just because I'm telling you.

Hopefully through training and success, the dog learns to trust there is a bird way out where you send them, and learns to work with you and pick the birds up in the order you tell them. But that will never happen if you can never get them past that first "poison" bird because they will be rewarded every time, then develop a BAD HABIT, which is harder to break than training something to begin with.

You can train for poison birds by starting with a great distance between the mark and blind and gradually close the gap. But without the control of not rewarding the bad behavior from the distances worked, I'm not sure how one would ever get over that bad habit and instant reward for doing the wrong thing.

My last point would be, our dog skool teecher has an almost 2 y.o. golden finished SH and training for MH. Her collar setting is a 1. The collar has never been up higher than a 1. The collar is not for frying or burning or creating a fearful reactive machine, it's for "no, don't do that". He is a great role model for fair and judicious training. 

I also like gdg see and hear about some people I wish would not use it. On the other hand, if it can help train dogs and keep them safe, healthy, in homes and off of Craig's list ... why not. There are ignorant abusive people everywhere, I try to do what I think is right/best and hopefully that would be a role model to inspire others.


----------



## Alaska7133

Dawn,
I'm curious. What situations do you use a collar for? Do you only use it for recall? Or do you use it for any other purpose?

Actually it would be nice to know what everyone on here uses their ecollar for. Personally I only use it for recall. But we don't run blinds.


----------



## boomers_dawn

Alaska7133 said:


> Dawn,
> I'm curious. What situations do you use a collar for? Do you only use it for recall? Or do you use it for any other purpose?
> 
> Actually it would be nice to know what everyone on here uses their ecollar for. Personally I only use it for recall. But we don't run blinds.


Hi Alaska, I start with conditioning to sit then progress to use it for not coming when called. 

I spent an entire winter taking handling class with Gladys and am 100% sure she knows sit, both overs and back; when she was running Senior, she knew both backs and the angle backs too. Now as fall ends and winter goes by, she'll be rusty, in the spring we'll do a lot of drills and give her the benefit of the doubt since she's young. If she were in tune and I was 100% certain she knows all the commands, 100% certain she can see me and hear the whistle and is not making a mistake but choosing to disobey, then I could use it for handling.


----------



## Ljilly28

boomers_dawn said:


> I was thinking about this a little more. Outside of the field setting, I think the collar can be useful where clickers and treats can't be. An example that comes to mind is to stop behaviors where there's instant gratification, before any intervention can occur, for example, eating items off the ground where the reward has already happened, reinforcing the bad behavior, before you can stop it (bird doo, dead worms, etc).
> 
> Well, all of my dogs know the Leave It command through and through and all obey it instantly. They were taught with reward-based methods and It's Yer Choice. They will leave anything, from the "sushi" buffet at the beach to goose poop to dead animals. Dogs do what they practice/rehearse, so if they learn a good leave it from the get-go, then they leave it. There is no need to use an E collars to teach simple basic commands like come, sit , down, leave it .
> 
> I have shared life with many, many goldens over the years, from diverse backgrounds like MH x MH, Ch x Ch, BYB, HVB- all kinds of goldens. All could/can recall and leave it nicely - none e collar trained.


----------



## tippykayak

Ljilly28 said:


> I have shared life with 15 goldens over the years, from diverse backgrounds like MH x MH, Ch x Ch, BYB, HVB- all kinds of goldens. All could/can recall and leave it nicely - none e collar trained.


I was going to stay out of the thread since it got ugly, but since there has been a bunch of discussion of the idea of needing an e-collar to break through to a highly driven dog and to teach things like recall and leave it, largely out of the context of H&F-specific skills, I think I have a fairly wide body of knowledge and experience from which to comment here. I've had very, very driven dogs, all of which could/can be called off chasing birds, deer, squirrels, balls, other dogs, or people. They also all know "leave it," both in an indoors environment for things dropped on the ground and in an outdoors environment for things like goose poop and dead animals. None have been e-collar trained or distance punished at all, and all have been trained for a friendly "leave it" without aversive stimulus, e-collar or otherwise. 

I was also thinking further about the argument about instinct. Gus took a stick in and out of a leg muscle once, and the injury required 8 staples at the ER. But he was fetching tennis balls in the rain at the time and never even slowed down or limped until we were done and toweling him off and saw all the blood. This is a dog who was whistled off tennis balls, wild turkeys, and deer on many occasions.

He makes me wonder two things: first, how much more instinct can you have than this go-go-go dog with a huge drive for birds and prey of all kinds and an MH dad (an "amish" trained one, fwiw)? Second, if he did enter this theoretical prey instinct mode where all his training went out the window, how hard would you have to "nick" or "burn" him to interrupt it, when a stick through the leg couldn't interrupt him or even register with him?

I understand that the e-collar is not typically used that way and that in a smart, modern program, you condition the dog to accept the lowest effective level of stimulus, but I am responding to the idea that has been introduced that some dogs are simply too driven to be trained without one. If they're that driven, it would seem to require an inhumane amount of pain to break through. And while I can understand doing that as a one-time thing to prevent a dog from, for example, running into a road, I do not understand it as a defensible training philosophy. And if you're saying you condition them to accept a lower level of stimulus as an interruptor, my experience is that you can train them to accept non-aversive things as interruptors too.

I have a lot of respect for people like hotel4dogs and boomer's dawn (and I've met sweet, wonderful Boomer and Gladys), but I simply don't agree that you need the ability to deliver distance correction as part of developing bombproof recalls and leave-its. You do need to prevent self-rewarding during the teaching and proofing phases, but there are a lot of ways to do that that don't involve delivering an unpleasant stimulus at a distance. I buy that you _can_ train a dog to strong behaviors with the e-collar in the mix, but I do not buy that some Goldens simply have too much instinct or drive and that you _must_ be able to stim them at a distance.


----------



## goldlover68

It is amazing to me how many people claim to be experts based on their experiences without using e-collar training. If you go to a hunt test or field trial and ask these folks, 90%+ incorporate e-collars into their training. Is it possible they know something that many others do not? I personally believe that with or without e-collar training is possible both having disadvantages and advantages....do your homework on these training techniques and choose the one that best suits your style and preferences....rely less on experts and those that think they are experts...


----------



## olliversmom

I am not a hunter and respect all of you that hunt with your dogs, immensely.
I cannot speak to what works and does not work with field dogs in the field, or the best training methods. My comments are from the perspective of a plain old dog lover that enjoys training her dogs to be excellent companions.

I have had many dogs my whole life; shephards, rotties and more than a few Goldens. 
My present Golden Olliver's mom has over 25 titles in obedience and agility. It is a lovely sight to behold her work with Ollie's breeder in the ring. I cannot imagine any dog working any harder than Darby. She is reward trained only.

Ollie, since age 5 months will leave anything at command. He will hike off lead and stop and sit at my first "Wait." I can imagine his recall, manners and discipline will only get better as he ages and we continually train.
I have never used anything more than food and praise, on any of my dogs. 
I don't think the use of an e collar could improve anything he does. 
Just my observation.


----------



## Brave

tippykayak said:


> I was going to stay out of the thread since it got ugly, but since there has been a bunch of discussion of the idea of needing an e-collar to break through to a highly driven dog and to teach things like recall and leave it, largely out of the context of H&F-specific skills, I think I have a fairly wide body of knowledge and experience from which to comment here. I've had very, very driven dogs, all of which could/can be called off chasing birds, deer, squirrels, balls, other dogs, or people. They also all know "leave it," both in an indoors environment for things dropped on the ground and in an outdoors environment for things like goose poop and dead animals. None have been e-collar trained or distance punished at all, and all have been trained for a friendly "leave it" without aversive stimulus, e-collar or otherwise.
> 
> I was also thinking further about the argument about instinct. Gus took a stick in and out of a leg muscle once, and the injury required 8 staples at the ER. But he was fetching tennis balls in the rain at the time and never even slowed down or limped until we were done and toweling him off and saw all the blood. This is a dog who was whistled off tennis balls, wild turkeys, and deer on many occasions.
> 
> He makes me wonder two things: first, how much more instinct can you have than this go-go-go dog with a huge drive for birds and prey of all kinds and an MH dad (an "amish" trained one, fwiw)? Second, if he did enter this theoretical prey instinct mode where all his training went out the window, how hard would you have to "nick" or "burn" him to interrupt it, when a stick through the leg couldn't interrupt him or even register with him?
> 
> I understand that the e-collar is not typically used that way and that in a smart, modern program, you condition the dog to accept the lowest effective level of stimulus, but I am responding to the idea that has been introduced that some dogs are simply too driven to be trained without one. If they're that driven, it would seem to require an inhumane amount of pain to break through. And while I can understand doing that as a one-time thing to prevent a dog from, for example, running into a road, I do not understand it as a defensible training philosophy. And if you're saying you condition them to accept a lower level of stimulus as an interruptor, my experience is that you can train them to accept non-aversive things as interruptors too.
> 
> I have a lot of respect for people like hotel4dogs and boomer's dawn (and I've met sweet, wonderful Boomer and Gladys), but I simply don't agree that you need the ability to deliver distance correction as part of developing bombproof recalls and leave-its. You do need to prevent self-rewarding during the teaching and proofing phases, but there are a lot of ways to do that that don't involve delivering an unpleasant stimulus at a distance. I buy that you _can_ train a dog to strong behaviors with the e-collar in the mix, but I do not buy that some Goldens simply have too much instinct or drive and that you _must_ be able to stim them at a distance.


Tippy - I like your post and something has popped up in my mind. I'm not being antagonistic. I am genuinely inquisitive. Would you be interested in participating in hunt & field, so we could have real-world hunt and field experience from an exceptional positive only trainer? I think that would be an amazing and remarkable asset to a thread such as this.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

I am just a plain old dog owner also. I have also had dogs all my life and this is my second golden. All of my dogs have had solid recalls, just like what others are saying on here. Well at least that is what I thought until one day I almost lost my first golden in the middle of the desert when he went after a jack rabbit. It's like that sick feeling when you think you lost your child in a dept. store. That is all it took for me to realize I needed to utilize another type of training for his safety. Obviously all dogs are not created equal, and I finally realized this one was prey driven. It took this incident to open my eyes and realize that no matter how much training a dog has, it all goes out the door when their instinct kicks in. Until something like this actually personally happens to you and your dog you won't understand. That is why some trainers don't buy it.


----------



## tippykayak

Brave said:


> Tippy - I like your post and something has popped up in my mind. I'm not being antagonistic. I am genuinely inquisitive. Would you be interested in participating in hunt & field, so we could have real-world hunt and field experience from an exceptional positive only trainer? I think that would be an amazing and remarkable asset to a thread such as this.


I don't find the question antagonistic at all. 

I think it's highly unlikely that I'd ever get into H&F, for a host of reasons that I don't need to detail in this thread. I used to be more optimistic about perhaps trying it out some day, but the more I learn, the less likely I think it that we would thrive in that venue.

I also, for the record, do not consider myself an exceptional trainer. I have known many Goldens of high drive who have real-world obedience that is as good or better than mine, and I have the privilege to work with people whose dogs are far more difficult from the get-go than any Golden I've ever met. I am simply a solid trainer who tries to live up to his dogs and is always trying to learn ways to train more effectively and gently.

But thank you for the compliment.


----------



## tippykayak

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Obviously all dogs are not created equal, and I finally realized this one was prey driven. It took this incident to open my eyes and realize that no matter how much training a dog has, it all goes out the door when their instinct kicks in. Until something like this actually personally happens to you and your dog you won't understand. That is why some trainers don't buy it.


My sincere question, though, is how high did you have to set the collar in order to break through to this dog when in that mode? I simply don't understand how my dog can take a stick through the leg and not stop, but the e-collar is somehow able to stop dogs who have—at least theoretically—even higher drive than that.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

tippykayak said:


> My sincere question, though, *is how high* did you have to set the collar in order to break through to this dog when in that mode? I simply don't understand how my dog can take a stick through the leg and not stop, but the e-collar is somehow able to stop dogs who have—at least theoretically—even higher drive than that.


It's not about "how high". Each dog is different therefore they are conditioned at different levels. Cody was conditioned at a higher level than Wyatt.


----------



## tippykayak

Wyatt's mommy said:


> It's not about "how high". Each dog is different therefore they are conditioned at different levels. Cody was conditioned at a higher level than Wyatt.


I get that, but if I understand the point you're making, it's that the dog is so prey driven that you can't break through into his attention, that there is literally no level of positively-reinforced habit that can break through that instinct. As you say, "no matter how much training a dog has, it all goes out the door when their instinct kicks in."

If that's the case, why does a non-painful level of stimulus work? And if it's an issue of conditioning, why does the conditioned low-level stimulus work in a way that a conditioned non-aversive interruptor (like a name or a whistle) doesn't?


----------



## Ljilly28

Brave said:


> Would you be interested in participating in hunt & field, so we could have real-world hunt and field experience from an exceptional positive only trainer?


Many people love birds, and are not going out to kill them for sheer sport. I grew up with my grandfather who loved hunting with dogs, so I am not opposed to it, but the few times I have gone out to field training I was amazed by the live birds with taped up wings thrown to puppies to maul and the sheer number of birds killed. The discussion of the ethics and usefulness of an e collar is interesting without trying to narrow it to one specialized niche.


----------



## Brave

tippykayak said:


> I don't find the question antagonistic at all.
> 
> I think it's highly unlikely that I'd ever get into H&F, for a host of reasons that I don't need to detail in this thread. I used to be more optimistic about perhaps trying it out some day, but the more I learn, the less likely I think it that we would thrive in that venue.
> 
> I also, for the record, do not consider myself an exceptional trainer. I have known many Goldens of high drive who have real-world obedience that is as good or better than mine, and I have the privilege to work with people whose dogs are far more difficult from the get-go than any Golden I've ever met. I am simply a solid trainer who tries to live up to his dogs and is always trying to learn ways to train more effectively and gently.
> 
> But thank you for the compliment.


Thanks Tippy! I appreciate your open mindedness and cooperation. :wave:



tippykayak said:


> My sincere question, though, is how high did you have to set the collar in order to break through to this dog when in that mode? I simply don't understand how my dog can take a stick through the leg and not stop, but the e-collar is somehow able to stop dogs who have—at least theoretically—even higher drive than that.


I wonder if the "nick" is a way to break the dog's concentration so they can be re-directed. Like when I'm staring off into space and someone comes up and snaps their fingers in my face. It brings my mind back around. 

I realize that my staring off into space is a far cry from the single-mindedness of a high drive dog, but it might be worth pondering.


----------



## Brave

Ljilly28 said:


> Many people love birds, and are not going out to kill them for sheer sport. I grew up with my grandfather who loved hunting with dogs, so I am not opposed to it, but the few times I have gone out to field training I was amazed by the live birds with taped up wings thrown to puppies to maul and the sheer number of birds killed. The discussion of the ethics and usefulness of an e collar is interesting without trying to narrow it to one specialized niche.


Thanks for the response Jill. It wasn't my intention to narrow it down to the Hunt & Field niche specifically. The direction of the past few pages went down that road. And considering the wide disparity between positive-only trainers and e-collar users (not just H&F people), I was genuinely interested to see if a positive-only trainer would be interested in trying H&F so they could share the experience with us. How their high-drive dog responded in a high-prey situation with ONLY the use of positive training.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

tippykayak said:


> If that's the case,* why does a non-painful level of stimulus work?* And if it's an issue of conditioning, why does the conditioned low-level stimulus work in a way that a conditioned non-aversive interruptor (like a name or a whistle) doesn't?


Does it? Obviously it depends on the dog and the training. After my training I could call him off without any stim. That tells me he learned to avoid even the lowest level of stim. Why he wouldn't listen to me in those moments without the collar, I would assume because when he got in that zone.......nothing else mattered to him.


----------



## EvanG

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I am just a plain old dog owner also. I have also had dogs all my life and this is my second golden. All of my dogs have had solid recalls, just like what others are saying on here. Well at least that is what I thought until one day I almost lost my first golden in the middle of the desert when he went after a jack rabbit. It's like that sick feeling when you think you lost your child in a dept. store. That is all it took for me to realize I needed to utilize another type of training for his safety. Obviously all dogs are not created equal, and I finally realized this one was prey driven. It took this incident to open my eyes and realize that no matter how much training a dog has, it all goes out the door when their instinct kicks in. Until something like this actually personally happens to you and your dog you won't understand. That is why some trainers don't buy it.


This is an excellent post. I hope somewhere in cyberspace there are still minds open enough genuinely give it study. 

There is a line from the song "The Boxer" that keeps coming to mind when reading some of these posts. "Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.". It's a study more in humanity than in canine behavior. If a person is resistant enough to a way of thinking outside their own, new thought is not a welcome guest.

The reason a "Low-2" nick can bring a high flying dog to a stop under even the most distracting circumstances is because of 'pressure conditioning'. E-collar conditioning, aka "CC", is an extension of pressure conditioning. During that process we not only determine the individual dog's threshold, but its normal operating range; the level at which most corrections will achieve the desired result. And that result is a change in behavior. In terms of all venues, most dog trainers are virtually unaware of pressure conditioning, much less how it's done.

When someone says, "I don't understand how such a low level of stimulus can be expected to significantly alter behavior, especially when the dog is highly distracted", listen to them. They're usually confessing. They really don't understand it, and therefore can't imagine it being true. There is an old axiom that goes "The truth does not cease to exist because it is ignored." 

You have demonstrated by your comments that you have an excellent insight into the ways different dogs think and react, and the role of aversive stimulus in changing dog behavior. Well done. But you'll find logic and fact are not always equal to the task of reasoning with someone who just wants to feel the way they feel in spite of the facts as much as because of them. There is room for all of us. I'm glad you're here.

EvanG


----------



## tippykayak

EvanG said:


> When someone says, "I don't understand how such a low level of stimulus can be expected to significantly alter behavior, especially when the dog is highly distracted", listen to them. They're usually confessing. They really don't understand it, and therefore can't imagine it being true. There is an old axiom that goes "The truth does not cease to exist because it is ignored."


Since you're speaking to me, or at least to a category you believe me to be in, can you answer my question of why a mild aversive stimulus can accomplish this behavior alteration while a positively conditioned interruptor cannot?

I believe that both can be used as conditioned interruptors, and I vastly prefer the second (who wouldn't?). I am responding to the concept that "all training goes out the window" and you need to have an e-collar on your dog when that happens so you can bring him back. I am responding to the idea that some people's dogs are just too driven to be trained any other way, and that only an electrical stimulus can break through that attention while nothing else can, even a deeply conditioned habit.

You are absolutely right that I don't understand it. I'll point out, though, that nobody has tried to explain it, ironically misapplied Simon and Garfunkel lyrics notwithstanding.


----------



## boomers_dawn

Ljilly28 said:


> boomers_dawn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking about this a little more. Outside of the field setting, I think the collar can be useful where clickers and treats can't be. An example that comes to mind is to stop behaviors where there's instant gratification, before any intervention can occur, for example, eating items off the ground where the reward has already happened, reinforcing the bad behavior, before you can stop it (bird doo, dead worms, etc).
> 
> Well, all of my dogs know the Leave It command through and through and all obey it instantly. They were taught with reward-based methods and It's Yer Choice. They will leave anything, from the "sushi" buffet at the beach to goose poop to dead animals. Dogs do what they practice/rehearse, so if they learn a good leave it from the get-go, then they leave it. There is no need to use an E collars to teach simple basic commands like come, sit , down, leave it .
> 
> I have shared life with many, many goldens over the years, from diverse backgrounds like MH x MH, Ch x Ch, BYB, HVB- all kinds of goldens. All could/can recall and leave it nicely - none e collar trained.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I certainly don't mean let's be lazy and push buttons, but I still think it can be useful.
> 
> The example I thought of was from someone in collar clinic the same time we were. This is from distant memory but I think her dog started eating his own poop as an adult. Everyone in the house had debilitating illness and she had zero help. No one could plan for what she went through.
> 
> She couldn't have poop eating with all the sick people in the house and couldn't have him stop pooping until he learned its yer choice. She couldn't control him because he was bigger, stronger, and faster. She used the collar, kept the dog at home, out of the shelter and off Craig's list. Everyone and everything can't be perfect all the time.
> This woman comes pretty **** close.
Click to expand...


----------



## tippykayak

Brave said:


> I wonder if the "nick" is a way to break the dog's concentration so they can be re-directed. Like when I'm staring off into space and someone comes up and snaps their fingers in my face. It brings my mind back around.
> 
> I realize that my staring off into space is a far cry from the single-mindedness of a high drive dog, but it might be worth pondering.


I have often heard it described this way, which makes perfect sense to me from a training standpoint, but not from a "my dog is so wrapped up in instinct right now that nothing will get through to him" standpoint. I train my dogs that their _name_ (or a special whistle sound) means "hey, look over here," and we work really hard to condition a deep habit of it. I actually think that's the key to getting a drivey dog back to you. It's more about breaking into his distraction than it is about finishing the recall behavior. In my experience, getting him to stop and look away from the distraction and back at you is a lot harder than getting him to come back to you once he's paying attention.

And that's the part of the conversation that currently fascinates me: this idea that a dog can be too driven to take a positively conditioned interruptor but will still accept a mild electrical stimulus that works because it has been conditioned, not because of its strength. I don't think anybody who endorses such a thing has taken the time to explain why it works when "all training goes out the window" because the dog is chasing something.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

I believe Evan explained a little in regards to the conditioning. Perhaps if some can't wrap it around their heads they should attend a conditioning class?


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

I've been reading and reading and thought some of my newbie experiences will mean something to somebody. I do not have an extremely birdy dog but I do have a dog that will NOT give up a hunt no matter what. She knows that the bird is the hunt and she will find it. There have been times when she takes off (or breaks) or misses her mark (gets off course to the point of I need to call my dog in) and I cannot get through to her. She is my heart dog and will do anything for me but if I see that nose down and her sniffing all over it is hard to get her to listen to me. I have tried whistles, friendly "here, here!" no praise ect. Since she is at least 40 to 50 yards away from me, it might come down to screaming NO! HERE! which I actually do not like to do. I don't want her to not come because she is fearful now that I getting much more negative in order to break her concentration. It disrupts the whole session when I have to walk out there to get her attention. 

Now, I have not used the collar on her but the trainer has introduced her to it a couple of times. She was fine and if anything she seemed to look behind her to see where the "tap" was coming from. It got her attention but she wasn't freaking out, cowering, whining, howling, or anything. Now, lately we're teaching new things so the collar isn't something we are using, BUT if she is out there 40 to 50 yards away and she is going nuts over some hunt and I can't get her attention with whistles, I look at the collar as a tap. That "hey, there, pay attention!" type of pressure. If she is in her "zone" then I can get her attention, she will stop and look at me, and then we can move forward with the rest of our session. I don't have to disrupt everything by walking out there or yelling out to her over and over again to get her attention. As well, it also gives her the opportunity to correct her mistake by that one little "tap" and then she will get the positive praise I love to give!

So my question to the non e collar folks (and your answers could teach me new things since I'm so new at this) how would YOU get the dog to give up a hunt that is over 50 yards (and more often much further away)? Would you bring a treat out with you? Would you wait until months and months of proofing and hope that when you put your dog out there he doesn't decide to take off since you can never be certain? How can you provide positive pressure if you can't get your dog's attention? And let's not even get into the water aspect of it all.

I train in both obedience and hunt and I can tell you that I can not forsee any real reason to use a collar to train in that venue. Kat is happy to work for praise and hugs. She doesn't even need treats. IN hunt, if you saw my videos I am annoyingly loving to her even at a test because she eats it up and that makes me happy. All the way back to me I tell her what a good girl she is and she smiles at me bringing the bird in much to the dismay to all the big bad hunting boys and their labs. But I still know that I'll need to use the collar for that remote training in the future when we are doing the real deal on blinds.....that is unless you can persuade me otherwise. And that is not intended to be snarky, I just haven't found any other valid solutions provided by non e collar users that work in the field.


----------



## tippykayak

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I believe Evan explained a little in regards to the conditioning. Perhaps if some can't wrap it around their heads they should attend a conditioning class?


What's the point of being insulting? I like to think I'm at least moderately capable on an intellectual level of understanding things that are clearly explained, and Evan has indicated many times throughout the thread that he is looking for opportunities to set the record straight on contemporary training methods that involve the e-collar. Since conditioning is the basis of an e-collar program, it would seem to be a fairly straightforward question.

And since you indicated that you needed the e-collar as a safety measure because your dog was too driven to be controlled off leash without it, I was hoping you'd shed some light on the subject. If you're not willing to, I'm sure someone else will.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

tippykayak said:


> What's the point of being insulting? I like to think I'm at least moderately capable on an intellectual level of understanding things that are clearly explained, and Evan has indicated many times throughout the thread that he is looking for opportunities to set the record straight on contemporary training methods that involve the e-collar. Since conditioning is the basis of an e-collar program, it would seem to be a fairly straightforward question.
> 
> And since you indicated that you needed the e-collar as a safety measure because your dog was too driven to be controlled off leash without it, I was hoping you'd shed some light on the subject. If you're not willing to, I'm sure someone else will.


What? Insulting? Once again as Evan explained it is "in the conditioning". I just thought you would get a clearer perspective to see how it actually works instead of trying to figure it out thru posts. Sorry you took that the wrong way.

Here I copied this from Evans post:

The reason a "Low-2" nick can bring a high flying dog to a stop under even the most distracting circumstances is because of 'pressure conditioning'. E-collar conditioning, aka "CC", is an extension of pressure conditioning. During that process we not only determine the individual dog's threshold, but its normal operating range; the level at which most corrections will achieve the desired result. And that result is a change in behavior. In terms of all venues, most dog trainers are virtually unaware of pressure conditioning, much less how it's done.


----------



## tippykayak

MillionsofPeaches said:


> So my question to the non e collar folks (and your answers could teach me new things since I'm so new at this) how would YOU get the dog to give up a hunt that is over 50 yards (and more often much further away)? Would you bring a treat out with you? Would you wait until months and months of proofing and hope that when you put your dog out there he doesn't decide to take off since you can never be certain? How can you provide positive pressure if you can't get your dog's attention? And let's not even get into the water aspect of it all.



While I can't comment from experience about handling a dog in a hunt test at that distance, I can certainly comment on how to teach one to take interruptions to his nose or his eyes at relatively large distances well over 50 yards.

In order to interrupt your dog at that kind of distance, you need to have an interruptor that your dog really understands in context. The farther they get away from you, the softer and more different your voice sounds, so I don't blame a dog who listens to me at 20 yards and doesn't at 100. It sounds different enough that the habit simply isn't conditioned. Plus, when we're 20 yards away, we tend to use a chipper voice, and when we're 100, we tend to be hollering. 

In my playbook, if a dog doesn't take an interruption, it's because I haven't taught him how, and I don't think it's sporting to punish him for it. I put that squarely back on me as the handler.

Dogs are terrible generalizers, so you may not be triggering that habit that's solid at 10 yards with the sound that's making it to him at 100. It's not because he's blowing you off; it's because he doesn't have a habit that's conditioned to the situation.

From a practical standpoint, that's why I whistle more than use my voice when we're out in the world. My whistle gets softer the farther away the dog gets, but it at least sounds identical in nearly every other way, which my voice doesn't as I yell louder and louder. The whistle also carries better and is less obnoxious to other hikers than me belting my dog's name out.

We have an interruption whistle ('look at me') and a recall whistle pattern ('look at me' then 'come'). I also train with a dog whistle in case I need to get a dog back in a windy or otherwise loud place and there's a chance I genuinely can't yell or lip whistle loudly enough for him to hear me. Five short blasts means come straight in.

From another practical standpoint, that's why you'd proof at gradually increasing distances, so your dog learns the new context and sound of your interruptor as the distance increases. It doesn't take very long to proof each new context and distance if the signals are clear and the rewards are creative and varied.

As far as treats, no, I wouldn't bring one out. Except for some very limited applications in puppyhood, I don't show my dogs treats at all before or during a behavior. Treats are produced, sporadically, at the completion of the desired behavior, and they're mixed in with all kinds of rewards. Entire recall training sessions happen without a single treat as we focus on games or life rewards. Others might involve a food jackpot where the dog gets 10 tiny pieces of chicken in a row for one, and praise and a game for the next. Using rewards effectively is all about figuring out what motivates a dog and keeping it exciting and unpredictable. 

If you find yourself waving a treat at a dog and trying to outbid his attention, that's a real misapplication of reward-based training. It doesn't work, and you end up feeling really silly. In fact, bribing like that can actually weaken habits because it encourages the dog to evaluate the treat against whatever he's doing (or eating), and distance matters too much in dog math. The closer thing tends to be much more powerful than the distant. So no matter how yummy the treat, it will often pale in comparison to whatever's under his nose. No bidding and no bribing.

And as far as months and months of proofing, no to that too. I have puppies out off leash from the first day we have them. From 8-12 weeks, they're naturally pack-oriented, so you get lots of opportunities to reward them for returning to you when they either get ahead or fall behind and suddenly realize they're out of their comfort zone. Somewhere around 12-14 weeks, they get brave and you have to keep your eyes open, but by that point, you have a strong sense of how far away they can be and still follow an interruption/recall pattern, so you keep them in that zone and gradually grow it. With Jax, we got him at 16 weeks, and he was already brave, so there was a whole lot of calling him back at short distances and rewarding heavily at first. Even with a highly driven dog whom I didn't have from puppyhood, we were at 99% recall by about 6 months.

Hope that helps, and I hope that a sincere attempt to answer somebody's sincere questions doesn't get put down as OT.


----------



## tippykayak

Wyatt's mommy said:


> What? Insulting? Once again as Evan explained it is "in the conditioning". I just thought you would get a clearer perspective to see how it actually works instead of trying to figure it out thru posts. Sorry you took that the wrong way.
> 
> Here I copied this from Evans post:
> 
> The reason a "Low-2" nick can bring a high flying dog to a stop under even the most distracting circumstances is because of 'pressure conditioning'. E-collar conditioning, aka "CC", is an extension of pressure conditioning. During that process we not only determine the individual dog's threshold, but its normal operating range; the level at which most corrections will achieve the desired result. And that result is a change in behavior. In terms of all venues, most dog trainers are virtually unaware of pressure conditioning, much less how it's done.


Yes - I read that post. I do not see how it addresses the issue of why a dog can be conditioned to take a mild aversive as an interruptor for situations in which a positively conditioned interruptor is powerless in the face of extreme drive and instinct. Could you clear that up for me, as you seem to be claiming exactly that?


----------



## sterregold

Here is the distinction I will make. It is not about HAVING to use the collar to break through that. It is that the collar is an effective and efficacious tool to accomplish that in a way that is not necessarily traumatic for the dog if they have been properly conditioned to the device. I employ a variety of aversives right alongside a variety of rewards. It is a matter of consolidating and proofing those skills efficiently. Someone who is just training for the sake of training is quite welcome to spend years and years doing the work to get the degree of precision and response I want in my hunting dogs. I however want that dog to be a polished hunting companion while it is still young enough to have the strength and stamina to spend many days each fall out in the tough slogging or the marsh. It is not a shortcut, it is just pragmatic realism.

That intense prey drive in a good hunting dog is important to have as it is opart of what gives them the bottom to keep slogging through really tough going or to chase down and recover an angry, struggling cripple. (Allowing a bird to crawl off into the marsh to die slowly, and wasting wild game are serious ethical issues to responsible hunters). But the same fortitude that helps a good hunting dog recover birds in those circumstances is also the drive that can get them in trouble if it is not effectively channeled and directed. A friend nearly lost his young labrador a couple of years ago. It was a field hunt near Lake Erie, so he brought the young dog along with his fully trained older Golden, not as concerned that it did not have all the tools in place yet--open sightlines, and the Golden to do any blind retrieves needed. They knocked down a goose that sailed out towards the lake side of the field. He sent the lab off after that goose, and when the goose saw the dog coming it took to air just long enough to get over the edge of the field and drop to the lake--the dog in hot pursuit ran right off the edge of the 20 foot drop. He broke his pelvis and had to be extracted by boat. He is fine now, and is running master, stops on a whistle and looks before he leaps.


----------



## tippykayak

sterregold said:


> Here is the distinction I will make. It is not about HAVING to use the collar to break through that. It is that the collar is an effective and efficacious tool to accomplish that in a way that is not necessarily traumatic for the dog if they have been properly conditioned to the device.


Thanks. I really appreciate this post and the rest that you've made throughout the thread.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

sterregold said:


> . They knocked down a goose that sailed out towards the lake side of the field. He sent the lab off after that goose, and when the goose saw the dog coming it took to air just long enough to get over the edge of the field and drop to the lake--the dog in hot pursuit ran right off the edge of the 20 foot drop. He broke his pelvis and had to be extracted by boat. He is fine now, and is running master, stops on a whistle and looks before he leaps.


OMG! Glad he is ok!


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

tippykayak said:


> Yes - I read that post. I do not see how it addresses the issue of why a dog can be conditioned to take a mild aversive as an interruptor for situations in which a positively conditioned interruptor is powerless in the face of extreme drive and instinct. Could you clear that up for me, as you seem to be claiming exactly that?


 
I suppose in my case when he was in that zone it was easier for him to blow off a call (I can't whistle) than a nic? Not sure what you want me to say?


----------



## MillionsofPeaches

thanks for taking the time to answer my questions TK. I really appreciate it!

I have her trained for whistle recall and I carry the long distance whistle as well as the regular whistle but once in a while nothing gets in her head and I have to get out there. 

I was thinking about something. Have you ever been daydreaming and someone keeps calling your name and you miss it but jump when a hand taps you on the shoulder? it breaks your train of thought. 

This is how I would compare it to the collar. She might not even be hearing the whistle or the sound of my voice as you said. But the tap seems to be like that tap on my shoulder. 
In fact, when I watch dogs out there (I am training 5 days a week now under my trainer) they get so wrapped up in what they are doing. The trainer whistles and all that but sometimes they just think they know best and get into their zone. The trainer taps them and they stop and turn and sit down. This allows the trainer to move forward and keep the training momentum going. He can then cast them and so forth. The dog actually seems better off this way. The dog knows when you go out there and get them that they disappointed you because now they are not allowed the reward of fetching that bird. So in a way, the dog is getting a better deal with a small tap that results in a finished training session and a fulfilled retrieve than if I were to go to all that work on getting him back and if that fails, the dog is not happy leaving his bird or worse, the dog could get hurt. In hunt, that is all Kat cares about, getting that bird and finishing her job. If I pull her away from it, she really is sad the rest of the day, and that is not with me doing anything other than stopping her retrieve but even then it doesn't prevent her from doing the same thing again if she gets in the zone. So how effective was that pressure? 

Perhaps, hunt and field is a venue that retrievers love more than most other venues. This is a generalization of course, but it seems like in other avenues they are doing it to be with their handler and to please them. It isn't as natural to get a retriever to run up a A frame or stay down while there might be an aggressive dog down next to him and expect him to endure it. In hunt they are being allowed freedom to take off and run and the opportunity to do what they were initially bred to do. So perhaps that spirit makes them a little more nutty? Maybe the collar is our best way of communicating what we want while allowing them that space to be free? Maybe the dog is okay with that trade off? 

I don't know. I just know that I was totally against collars until I started watching them being used and seeing all different types of dogs and their reactions to them that has changed my mind. 
But they are like guns, not everyone should have the right to buy or use them.


----------



## EvanG

Brave said:


> I wonder if the "nick" is a way to break the dog's concentration so they can be re-directed. Like when I'm staring off into space and someone comes up and snaps their fingers in my face. It brings my mind back around.


Often the low level nick acts that way. I'm speaking of either the usual low-end intensity, or the 'slightly below usual' level. That, again, is a result of good conditioning. I hope for that result in most situations, so that I don't have to make higher level corrections because the dog refuses to make an effort to work within a well taught standard.

An e-collar based like mine relies on thoroughly completing each phase of training. No one has asked about those yet, so I haven't really detailed them. But since I've brought up conditioning to pressure, and therefore e-collar conditioning, we may as well try to clear the air as much as possible about that. My program does not depend on e-collars. It does not depend, therefore, on e-collar conditioning. The e-collar is not a program or method. It's just a tool. It's the best, most efficient, and humane of all aversives. But it not a necessary part of the Smartwork system. It is, however, so effective as to be trans-formative in its effectiveness. It makes a good system a great one. That is because of its two chief advantages; range and timing. Whether the dog needs a 'tap on the shoulder as a reminder', or an outright correction, the e-collar can deliver that for you at any distance with instant timing. Added to that is the ability to deliver what is needed at the exact level you choose with fingertip selection.

If what you want in a given situation is tantamount to a tap on the shoulder for a dog 350 yards away, the e-collar can effectively make you arm 350 yards long. (and well coordinated, of course!)

But when we get into a discussion of detailing what and how CC is, books could be written. DVDs could be devoted to it. I've written 3 books, and produced more than a dozen DVDs in an effort to provide ample detail. It's unlikely I'll be able to match that clarity in a forum post.

EvanG


----------



## HiTideGoldens

There have been too many reported posts from this thread and the mod team has determined it is time to close the thread.


----------

