# Teaching the Recall With an Ecollar



## mumtodoog

Hi
I wonder would it be possible for u to send me the full version of your "training with an e-collar"
I haven't bought one yet but after trying the spray collar for a few weeks, and yet again failing I feel this is the next step

I haven't done enough posts to inbox u so I have added details here

Thanks 

[email protected]


----------



## Lou Castle

Info sent.


----------



## liero133

This is so sad. Using a shock collar to teach the recall is so unnecessary not to mention harmful to the dogs psyche. You should really do some research into modern behavioral science, which directly contradicts this sort of "training". It is wrong, it is based on flawed (and very old) wolf research and should be done away with.

You should take a lesson from this man (Ian Dunbar): 




Why someone would want a relationship with their dog where the dog does things because it feels forced to, rather than because it wants to, is beyond me. Although I suspect it stems from a flawed understanding of dominance in dogs.

Traditional, dominance-based training techniques are based on the idea of asserting yourself as the dogs pack leader through dominance. The problem with this approach lies in the fact that this is not how dogs become pack leaders naturally. Rather, this approach is based on old, outdated and flawed research.

To those who do not agree, please take the time to read the science behind why this is a flawed and simplistic view of a much more complex social system before speaking out against it. I am more than happy to discuss it, but not unless you actually go read the science.

Please start here: http://www.4pawsu.com/dogpsychology.htm


----------



## liero133

mumtodoog said:


> Hi
> I wonder would it be possible for u to send me the full version of your "training with an e-collar"
> I haven't bought one yet but after trying the spray collar for a few weeks, and yet again failing I feel this is the next step
> 
> I haven't done enough posts to inbox u so I have added details here
> 
> Thanks
> 
> [email protected]


Once you see that it is failing, may I suggest that instead of becoming more aggressive (you've already seen that it leads to failure), you investigate a different approach instead?


----------



## Lou Castle

liero133 said:


> This is so sad.


I agree, this is VERY sad. RARELY do we see so much misinformation and so many myths told about the Ecollar in one post. 



liero133 said:


> Using a shock collar to teach the recall is so unnecessary


It may not be necessary for YOUR dogs in YOUR situation. It may be the best tool for many owners, in many situations. Without knowing what the situation is, such blanket statements as this one, mean very little. 



liero133 said:


> not to mention harmful to the dogs psyche.


Pretty vague there liero133. Since no one knows what _"harmful to the dogs [sic] psyche"_ means it can mean anything. No scientific study ever done has shown any physical injury as a result of the current from an Ecollar. No scientific study ever done has shown any lasting "damage of ANY kind" to a dog. Since you seem to disagree, perhaps you can show us some studies that support your statement? 



liero133 said:


> You should really do some research into modern behavioral science, which directly contradicts this sort of "training". It is wrong, it is based on flawed (and very old) wolf research and should be done away with.


Modern use of the Ecollar has nothing to do with wolf research or the dominance theories that flowed from it. Wondering if you read any of the post that started this thread, or did you merely see the word, "Ecollar," and react? 



liero133 said:


> You should take a lesson from this man (Ian Dunbar):


I'm not the slightest bit impressed by Dunbar. His work with aggressive dogs is a joke. As he tells us in this video, the dog he worked with was euthanized AFTER his failure to have any effect on the dog. 

I've worked with dozens of highly aggressive dogs. NEVER has one of them been PTS after my methods were used on them. 



liero133 said:


> Why someone would want a relationship with their dog where the dog does things because it feels forced to, rather than because it wants to, is beyond me.


It's amazing that someone still thinks this is the case with modern Ecollar use. Dogs perform because they want to just as with other methods. It makes use of the same theory, operant conditioning, as many other methods, but it's far more effective. And in many cases, dogs MUST do as they're commanded and they MUST do it quickly! We've put them into a dangerous environment full of things they know nothing about, such as speeding cars and poisons under the sink. 



liero133 said:


> Although I suspect it stems from a flawed understanding of dominance in dogs.


Good thing that you're here to tell us about the UNflawed understanding of dominance in dogs and how it relates to Ecollars. I eagerly await your description. 



liero133 said:


> Traditional, dominance-based training techniques are based on the idea of asserting yourself as the dogs pack leader through dominance. The problem with this approach lies in the fact that this is not how dogs become pack leaders naturally. Rather, this approach is based on old, outdated and flawed research.


Then it's a good thing that modern use of the Ecollar has NOTHING to do with dominance, isn't it? 



liero133 said:


> To those who do not agree, please take the time to read the science behind why this is a flawed and simplistic view of a much more complex social system before speaking out against it. I am more than happy to discuss it, but not unless you actually go read the science.
> 
> Please start here:


A link is provided to a commercial site. I believe it's a violation of the rules of this site to link to sites promoting sales or commercial services, so I won't repeat the link. 

In any case, that's just someone's opinion. It's no more valid than mine. 



liero133 said:


> Once you see that it is failing, may I suggest that instead of becoming more aggressive (you've already seen that it leads to failure), you investigate a different approach instead?


Ecollars rarely fail when used with modern methods. This site, and many others like it, are full of threads that begin with something like, "HELP, Fluffy just chased a deer into the woods and he won't come back." And "I can't get my dog to recall, what should I do?" On sites that deal with Ecollar training, problems like this are never heard. Rather people ask for tips to improve their heeling or details of teaching the recall, not horrendous and complete failures of the method. Something to think about, I think.


----------



## Ljilly28

liero133 said:


> Once you see that it is failing, may I suggest that instead of becoming more aggressive (you've already seen that it leads to failure), you investigate a different approach instead?




I agree that positive, reward based training has let my dogs reach all my goals for them, and built the relationships with them in which I feel so much trust. Clicker training is very effective, and teaches dogs how to learn, and to be joyful learners who actively offer rewardable behaviors. I would never use an e collar nor allow one to be used at our training facility, especially for a young dog learning basics. Imagine learning AP Calculus, and having someone shock you when you made a mistake? Positive does not mean permissive and it does not mean cookie pushing.


----------



## Lou Castle

Ljilly28 said:


> * I agree * that positive, reward based training has let my dogs reach all my goals for them, and built the relationships with them in which I feel so much trust.


When did anyone make such a statement for you to _"agree"_ with? 

In any case, I'm glad to hear that reward based training, BTW my use of the Ecollar IS "reward based" has allowed your dogs to reach the _"goals [you have set] for them."_ But your dogs are not the dogs of others. They don't have the drives, or the issues, or the training that they've had. And so what you've done with your dogs, has nothing to do with their issues. 

As to trust, the Ecollar is the fastest way to build trust with a dog. I worked with a dog that literally tried to kill me when we first met. After about 25 minutes of teaching the recall with the Ecollar, the dog climbed up into my lap and was licking my face. I know of (and can supply a link to) a similar situation where someone with no Ecollar knowledge had a similar result and saved a dog from being PTS in only two days. 

The folks that I train, among them law enforcement K−9 handlers and SAR K−9 handlers place a great deal of trust in their dogs. In many cases, each time they deploy they trust in their dog to save lives. In the case of the LEO's they place their lives in their dog's "paws." In the case of the SAR folks, the lives of others are entrusted to the skills, training, and determination of the dogs. Dogs that I've trained have made hundreds of finds of concealed felons and lost persons. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Clicker training is very effective, and teaches dogs how to learn, and to be joyful learners who actively offer rewardable behaviors.


I'll fix this for you. _"clicker training is very effective * for some dogs and for some behaviors."*_ Dogs are born knowing how to learn. 



Ljilly28 said:


> I would never use an e collar nor allow one to be used at our training facility, especially for a young dog learning basics.


Your choice, here's mine. I will probably never train another dog without using a Ecollar at some stage of his training. In order to be called a "trainer" I think that one must have knowledge and experience with ALL TOOLS available to train a dog, even if you choose not to use some of them. If there are holes in one's knowledge and experience, well then, there are holes. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Imagine learning AP Calculus, and having someone shock you when you made a mistake?


Here's a perfect example of one of these holes. _"Shock[ing a dog] when he makes a mistake"_ is NOT the only way that an Ecollar can be used. But it's the only way that some folks trot out when these debates occur. Notice that Ecollar advocates don't go into discussions about clickers, treat training or the like, and expound on how ineffective they are, but the anti Ecollar crowd has no such ethos about attempting to interfere with someone's gathering of knowledge, when the topic of Ecollars comes up. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Positive does not mean permissive and it does not mean cookie pushing.


It does not have to, but it sometimes does mean those things. In any case, no one has made such statements in this discussion. Not sure why you are so defensive that you bring it up? Can you tell us?


----------



## Kylie

Lou Castle, has anyone ever put an ecollar around your neck to get you to do what they want?


----------



## Claudia M

While I agree that using an ecollar for long distance recall in the field can be useful, I will never see myself using one, especially on a young pup.


----------



## Alaska7133

I use an invisible fence that does give a beep or a variable shock. It's not exactly the same as an e-collar, but it does use negative reinforcement to keep the dog from leaving the yard. I like using it. My dogs always figure the fence out in a matter of minutes. All my dogs are on different levels of reinforcement, some are beep only, it all depends on the dog. This is a modified version of re-call.

I am getting ready to train my boy Reilly on an e-collar for re-call. When he's out more than 200' off leash, he comes back gradually at his own speed. I think it's necessary that he come back quicker and more directly. Since he has experience with the invisible fence on a low shock setting, I think this will be an easy transition for him. We are training him for hunt and field, I really don't think he should he should walk off with the duck and eat it. My hunt trainer is very experienced with e-collars and will train him for me. 

By the way I have felt an e-collar and there are many different levels of shock, some so light you can't hardly feel it.


----------



## Nairb

I won't comment on the method described in the OP, but my preference for me and my dog, is thorough training on a long line prior to transitioning to the remote collar. I have one for Bella, because she spent 100% of her yard time searching out and eating small twigs and pine cones while off leash. Her "leave it" was great, even on the long line. Imagine that. 

The stimulation necessary to reinforce off leash "leave it" was so low, I could barely feel it on my hand. After about 2 days, I transitioned to the beep, and that is rarely needed now. She chases her Chuckit ball instread now. 

I will also be using it for recall, but only for reinforcement. I can set her up from 100 yards and she comes at full speed, but am not as confident if off leash when there are several distractions present. My Mike Lardy video is scheduled to arrive today. Apparently, his methods stress training the traditional way, and transitioning to the collar to reinforce learned behavior. 

By the way, Bella knows full well that the stimulation comes from me. She figured that out within about a day. 

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions, but I'm not really concerned if others have a problem with any of this. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Lou Castle

Kylie said:


> Lou Castle, has anyone ever put an ecollar around your neck to get you to do what they want?


What some may regard as a stupid question or one that has no bearing on the discussion, I think is a good example of someone who knows little of modern Ecollar use. 

To answer your question directly, something that many seem to have problems with, no. Of course, you are referring to the method of using an Ecollar where the dog is shocked when he does the wrong thing. THAT'S NOT WHAT I DO. THAT'S NOT WHAT I ADVOCATE. AND, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ECOLLAR ARTICLE THAT STARTS THIS THREAD DESCRIBES. So why do you even bring this up? 

At many of my seminars I put an Ecollar on one of the participants. I've taught many people the recall this way. While in the UK I placed a 100 pound note on the table and trained the person wearing the Ecollar, not to go towards it. 

I suggest that you actually read the article that starts this discussion. Then perhaps you'll know what's being discussed. 



Claudia M said:


> While I agree that using an ecollar for long distance recall in the field can be useful, I will never see myself using one, especially on a young pup.


That's GREAT Claudia. Not sure how the topic of _"young pup"_ came up, no one has mentioned them to my knowledge. And the term is so vague that it has no real meaning. I know people who consider their 5 year old dog to a _"young pup."_ But I'm happy that you can see the use for Ecollars.


----------



## tippykayak

Ljilly28 said:


> I agree that positive, reward based training has let my dogs reach all my goals for them, and built the relationships with them in which I feel so much trust.


You are so right. The more I move away from methods that teach the dog to avoid discomfort or intimidation, the happier I've been with my dogs' reliability and attitude.



Ljilly28 said:


> Clicker training is very effective, and teaches dogs how to learn, and to be joyful learners who actively offer rewardable behaviors. I would never use an e collar nor allow one to be used at our training facility, especially for a young dog learning basics.


One of the things I love about my center is the consistent emphasis on low-force or force-free methods for shaping behavior. People and dogs are always having a blast, and the dogs are doing stuff that's amazing and heartwarming to watch. I truly love dogs, so I love watching people train them with kindness, respect, and rewards. I really think a big part of the bonding and the reliability of the behavior is based on the use of rewards in teaching.



Ljilly28 said:


> Imagine learning AP Calculus, and having someone shock you when you made a mistake? Positive does not mean permissive and it does not mean cookie pushing.


Even worse, imagine having the collar going on low all the time, and it only shuts off when you get a right answer.


----------



## liero133

I won't dignify your effort with a prolonged reply because I doubt it would do much good. You seem very set in your ways and it's not likely that anything I say can change that. I will however say a few things.

While I can't be sure, it is my assumption that you base your training on mostly punitive methods, and that you have done so for many years. And I get it, change doesn't come easy.

From looking at your website it appears that you run a business based on the use of these outdated techniques, which probably serves to cement your position further.

You accuse me of producing statements I can't back up when you are no better yourself. You claim that an ecollar is the "fastest way to build trust with a dog". Can you back that up? (Rhetorical question)

The fact that a dog started licking your face after being shocked could just as well be the dog signaling that he wanted no more confrontation. But who knows, maybe you got lucky with your timing and the dog didn't associate you with the negative stimuli.

I am not accusing you of this, but I think it's safe to say that shock collars are often used to suppress behavior without addressing the underlaying cause, thus it doesn't take the dog into account. I know I'm going off topic now, but while we are here, I feel it is important to mention because the **risk of abuse is so high**. Norway f.ex has banned the sale of these devices in part due to this fact. People get the wrong idea and the abuse starts (although in my view it is immoral to use it in the "right" way as well). Thus it is dangerous to advocate its use, especially when there are safer methods out there, proven to produce lasting and good effects.

If it is really true that I am not allowed to post a link to a site explaining my position further (notice I am not selling anything), then I apologize in advance, because I'm about to do it again.

I know that I have gone way off topic here, but there's a reason behind it. It is my view, and people much smarter than me, including leaders in the field such as Ian Dunbar, Victoria Stilwell, Karen Pryor, Patricia McConnell to name a few, that while you might be using the shock collar on a low intensity level and doing it "the right way", the risk of abuse is so high, that by even advocating its use, you are contributing to a much larger problem where dog owners end up abusing their dogs all over the world. And by the way, if it wasn't clear, even the "right way" is viewed as wrong by those against its use.

I just fear that once you start going down this road, it's easy to get sucked in and become guided towards dated material not supported by current scientific standard.

So this will be my final word, because arguing on the internet for long periods of time serve's no good.

To all those who are on the fence on what direction to take next, please set off at least a few hours to read some material that might make the decision easier for you.

And now, to "break the rules again", here is a nicely sorted collection of material to that end: Read the science..

Thank you to all that listen.


----------



## tippykayak

liero133 said:


> If it is really true that I am not allowed to post a link to a site explaining my position further (notice I am not selling anything), then I apologize in advance, because I'm about to do it again.


It's not prohibited at all! On GRF, we love outside sources, and in fact, members like me often request that people provide their source material when we make claims. You can't advertise your own website or attempt to profit off the forum, but you can absolutely link to topics of interest! You just can't use the forum to advertise yourself.

So unless one of your links is to your own website for promoting your business or otherwise personally profiting, you're well within the rules.


----------



## Ljilly28

Just came in from teaching 6 back to back classes- STAR Puppy, CGC, Rally Excellent, and now a few people are working on their Utility signals for the collie club trial on Friday. It is fun living at a training center. 59 teams came to class today, even on a snow day, and I love seeing the busy working atmosphere. Since people meet their own goals for their dogs with reward-based training on a regular basis, I have so much faith in it. I would not want to be responsible for advising people to shock their dogs in the name of training them basics.


----------



## AmbikaGR

I know it was not asked for but I will give my opinion anyway. An E-collar should NEVER be used to "teach" anything to a dog.


----------



## MikaTallulah

AmbikaGR said:


> I know it was not asked for but I will give my opinion anyway. An E-collar should NEVER be used to "teach" anything to a dog.


Most of the time I believe this statement to be true.

However, I know Buddy learned to stop escaping the house to run into the woods and through the neighborhood when he got put onto the invisible fence system. I believe he honestly thinks I have superhuman skills now.


----------



## GoldensGirl

Friends, let me remind you that attacking another member is not ever acceptable here. It is fine to disagree and to debate with passion, provided you state your position courteously and do not simply repeat yourself ad nauseam. 

The words "you," "your," and "you're" are warnings that a post is about another person, not about the issue or facts under discussion. Please don't go there. 

If this thread continues to slip into the murky territory of attacks, it will be closed.

Thank you.


----------



## Leslie B

Ljilly28 said:


> I agree that positive, reward based training has let my dogs reach all my goals for them, and built the relationships with them in which I feel so muust. Clicker training is very effective, and teaches dogs how to learn, and to be joyful learners who actively offer rewardable behaviors. I would never use an e collar nor allow one to be used at our training facility, especially for a young dog learning basics. Imagine learning AP Calculus, and having someone shock you when you made a mistake? Positive does not mean permissive and it does not mean cookie pushing.


The correct use of the ecollar never involves using a correction for a mistake or for confusion over a command. The correction only happens when the dog understands the command and the concept and then chooses a different behavior. 

We have used ecollars for years and have all of my dogs cannot wait to get the ecollar on. They dance and wiggle with delight when I bring it out. It means that we are going to do something FUN. Since our dogs have been collar conditioned using the Lardy method, our dogs understand that they can turn off the pressure by complying with the command.

Ecollars are a useful tool that is effective and humane in the knowledgeable trainers hands. It should NOT be used by anyone who does not understand how to use them or how to collar condition their dog.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> You are so right. The more I move away from methods that teach the dog to avoid discomfort or intimidation, the happier I've been with my dogs' reliability and attitude.


I agree completely with this except that I use an Ecollar in my training. I've never seen dogs with such good attitudes and with such a high degree of reliability. 



tippykayak said:


> One of the things I love about my center is the consistent emphasis on low-force or force-free methods for shaping behavior.


One of the things that I love about my methods is the consistent emphasis on using the Ecollar as a low force or force−free method for modifying behavior. 



tippykayak said:


> People and dogs are always having a blast, and the dogs are doing stuff that's amazing and heartwarming to watch. I truly love dogs, so I love watching people train them with kindness, respect, and rewards. I really think a big part of the bonding and the reliability of the behavior is based on the use of rewards in teaching.


Yep, ditto. Except for one thing. The reason that many people come to the Ecollar is that they find that other methods don't give them results at all, or they are extremely unreliable. I've never heard of anyone leaving the Ecollar and going to other methods to gain reliability. 



tippykayak said:


> Even worse, imagine having the collar going on low all the time, and it only shuts off when you get a right answer.


Probably if you were guessing at the answer, this would, indeed be horrible. Since this IS NOT how modern training is done with the Ecollar, it's another statement that has nothing to do with anything ... much less this discussion.


----------



## Lou Castle

liero133 said:


> I won't dignify your effort with * a prolonged reply * because I doubt it would do much good. You seem very set in your ways and it's not likely that anything I say can change that. I will however say a few things. [Emphasis Added]


You say this but then you write _"a prolonged reply."_ lol



liero133 said:


> While I can't be sure, it is my assumption that you base your training on mostly punitive methods, and that you have done so for many years. And I get it, change doesn't come easy.


Sorry to point this out but you're wrong. I've used, and still use, whatever method is appropriate for the behavior I'm training and the dog that I'm training. 



liero133 said:


> From looking at your website it appears that you run a business based on the use of these outdated techniques, which probably serves to cement your position further.


Actually I'm a retired police officer, a former police K−9 handler/trainer/instructor. Nowadays I work with law enforcement, SAR K−9's, and a few pet owners. As to your opinion that my methods are _"outdated"_ I've have to say that modern use of the Ecollar is a more recent innovation than the so−called "kinder gentler methods. 

I know nothing of you, especially since you're here under a pseudonym. Is the website you linked to earlier yours? If so, isn't the accusation of _ "running a business ... which serves to cement your position ..."_ a bit hypocritical? 



liero133 said:


> You accuse me of producing statements I can't back up


Are you referring to my response to your statement about Ecollars being _"harmful to the dogs [sic] psyche."_ Surely you have scientific data to support such a claim, right? 



liero133 said:


> when you are no better yourself. You claim that an ecollar is the "fastest way to build trust with a dog". Can you back that up? (Rhetorical question)


I’m expressing an opinion that's based on having trained several thousand dogs with various methods, mostly the Ecollar. And my experience with dozens of highly aggressive dogs. If you've been to my site, I suggest that you look at the heading "Success Stories" to see these incidents in detail. 



liero133 said:


> The fact that a dog started licking your face after being shocked could just as well be the dog signaling that he wanted no more confrontation. But who knows, maybe you got lucky with your timing and the dog didn't associate you with the negative stimuli.


ROFL. Sorry to disappoint, but there was no confrontation. The dog got 25 minutes of learning to recall with the Ecollar with my methods. This teaches the dog that approaching the trainer brings relief from the small discomfort that an Ecollar, set on the level that the dog can just barely perceive, brings. Staying near the trainer also has this effect. Previous to this work this dog, who received a small noise as a stimulus, came up at my face to try to kill me. This was not a "get away from me nip" from a shy dog. This was an "I have to kill you to survive" response from the most reactive dog I've ever seen. If this dog walked from the shade into the bright sunlight, someone was going to get bit! 

The timing with my methods is quite simple and anyone who can clap their hands at the same time that they tap their foot, can do it. It's hardly, as you state, a matter of luck. 



liero133 said:


> I am not accusing you of this, but I think it's safe to say that shock collars are often used to suppress behavior without addressing the underlaying cause, thus it doesn't take the dog into account.


Thanks for not making this assumption. You're right, this is sometimes done. BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT WHAT I DO. IT'S NOT WHAT THE ARTICLE THAT STARTS THIS THREAD SAYS, EITHER. 



liero133 said:


> I know I'm going off topic now, but while we are here, I feel it is important to mention because the **risk of abuse is so high**. Norway f.ex has banned the sale of these devices in part due to this fact. People get the wrong idea and the abuse starts (although in my view it is immoral to use it in the "right" way as well). Thus it is dangerous to advocate its use, especially when there are safer methods out there, proven to produce lasting and good effects.


I haven't heard this about Norway. Can you post a link to the legislation please? As far as I know only one country has completely banned Ecollars, that's Wales. They are restricted in a few places but easily obtained in most of them and not regulated at all, in most of the world. 

I'll disagree as to the safety of many of the so−called "kinder gentler methods and it's a fact that they sometimes don't work with highly driven dogs, they take an inordinate amount of time for some people to learn, and to put to use, and they don't work for many behaviors. 

I'd "bet the farm" that the reason that the second post in this thread, the one asking for the full article (rather than the edited, short version that appears here, came about, was due to the failure of other methods. 



liero133 said:


> If it is really true that I am not allowed to post a link to a site explaining my position further (notice I am not selling anything), then I apologize in advance, because I'm about to do it again.


Rule #4 of this forum states * "GoldenRetrieverForum.com Members are not to engage in spamming or any advertising without permission. – Unsolicited advertising which will also include links to sales oriented websites. This applies not only to the body of a posting but also to signatures, titles, PMs, emails through the website, etc." * 

The site you linked to is a site about offering training in the form of group lessons, private lessons and seminars for sale. I'm not permitted to post links to my site which contains about 50,000 words about how to use an Ecollar and about 100 words talking about my Ecollar sales and seminars. If my site can't be linked, then the same is true of this one. 



liero133 said:


> I know that I have gone way off topic here, but there's a reason behind it. It is my view, and people much smarter than me, including leaders in the field such as Ian Dunbar, Victoria Stilwell, Karen Pryor, Patricia McConnell to name a few,


Would this be the same Karen Pryor, the one who wrote the book, _"Don't Shoot the Dog?"_ Is this the same Karen Pryor who killed her own cat because she could not train him to stop peeing on her stove top? How good is the work of someone who would put an animal to death for such a harmless (albeit annoying) behavior? 



liero133 said:


> that while you might be using the shock collar on a low intensity level and doing it "the right way", the risk of abuse is so high, that by even advocating its use, you are contributing to a much larger problem where dog owners end up abusing their dogs all over the world. And by the way, if it wasn't clear, even the "right way" is viewed as wrong by those against its use.


There is not a tool extant that can't be abused. ANYTHING from a screwdriver to a chain saw can be misused or abused. To not recommend them because THEY MIGHT BE ABUSED is the height of absurdity. 



liero133 said:


> I just fear that once you start going down this road, it's easy to get sucked in and become guided towards dated material not supported by current scientific standard.


Do you have some _"current scientific literature"_ that speaks against using Ecollars? Please supply the links. Please make sure that. As you say, it's not _"dated material."_ 



liero133 said:


> So this will be my final word, because arguing on the internet for long periods of time serve's no good.


I'll disagree. It allows the readers to learn the truth about things. When people make specious claims about Ecollars, it allows them to see that often these are just someone's opinion, not backed up with science. When someone posts myths as fact, it allows me to show the readers the truth. When someone hints that they have _"current scientific literature"_ that speaks against Ecollars, it allows me to ask them to present it and then to show the holes in it, if they even have such material. 



liero133 said:


> To all those who are on the fence on what direction to take next, please set off at least a few hours to read some material that might make the decision easier for you.
> 
> And now, to "break the rules again", here is a nicely sorted collection of material to that end: Read the science..
> 
> Thank you to all that listen.


The site that you linked to has nothing to do with this discussion AT ALL. My methods have nothing to do with dominance, but still, it's an interesting site. Nothing there that I don't already know, but some may find it educational.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> It's not prohibited at all! On GRF, we love outside sources, and in fact, members like me often request that people provide their source material when we make claims. You can't advertise your own website or attempt to profit off the forum, but you can absolutely link to topics of interest! You just can't use the forum to advertise yourself.


See Rule #4, cited above. It's not just that members can't advertise themselves, we can't advertise anyone. It says, _"Members are not to engage in ... advertising without permission."_ It doesn’t allow advertising for others, either. But it's really a question for the mods.


----------



## Lou Castle

Ljilly28 said:


> Just came in from teaching 6 back to back classes- STAR Puppy, CGC, Rally Excellent, and now a few people are working on their Utility signals for the collie club trial on Friday. It is fun living at a training center. 59 teams came to class today, even on a snow day, and I love seeing the busy working atmosphere. Since people meet their own goals for their dogs with reward-based training on a regular basis, I have so much faith in it. I would not want to be responsible for advising people to shock their dogs in the name of training them basics.


I just came back from working with the K−9 handlers of a large northern CA police department. The Ecollar was used to bring out the natural drives of the dogs and to establish a proper working relationship between the dogs and handlers. They had previously been using operant conditioning methods including using balls and tug of war toys to get the dogs to perform . The work was a shambles and they were completely unable to get the dogs to perform a mandated function reliably. This was worse than just a complete failure of dog training. They put the lives of those handlers, the public and other officers at risk. The Ecollar was the key to fixing these issues, and more.


----------



## Lou Castle

AmbikaGR said:


> I know it was not asked for but I will give my opinion anyway. An E-collar should NEVER be used to "teach" anything to a dog.


Thanks for your opinion Ambika. I've been doing just this for decades, and so have the folks who have found my website and used my articles to train their dogs to their complete satisfaction.


----------



## AmbikaGR

Lou Castle said:


> Thanks for your opinion Ambika. I've been doing just this for decades, and so have the folks who have found my website and used my articles to train their dogs to their complete satisfaction.


Not exactly sure what you mean but if you are implying that simply because your way has worked in the past that there is no better way, THAT is plain silly. ANYONE involved in any kind of dog training for decades knows and understands we have come a long way from where it was. If not we would still be firing rock salt and/or bird shot at dogs from a distance to get the desired results wanted JUST because it worked in the past.
And just to clarify I have owned and used (still do) Tritronic e-collars in my field training for decades.


----------



## Claudia M

Lou Castle said:


> At many of my seminars I put an Ecollar on one of the participants. I've taught many people the recall this way.
> 
> That's GREAT Claudia. Not sure how the topic of _"young pup"_ came up, no one has mentioned them to my knowledge. And the term is so vague that it has no real meaning. I know people who consider their 5 year old dog to a _"young pup."_ But I'm happy that you can see the use for Ecollars.




Sorry Lou, but most people TEACH their dogs before the age of 2. That is the time to teach and obtain an obedience foundation before you go on further to any other training. I consider a recall as part of basic obedience training. To me a young pup is under the age of 2 and that is the time to teach recalls. E-collar should not be used to teach IMHO but to reinforce something already taught (as I stated in my other post - I can see it used as a "hearing device" in long distance recalls). And most certainly I would encourage people to seeks professional training classes instead of reading or watching a video and start "beeping" the heck out of their dog with an e-collar.


----------



## Nairb

Claudia M said:


> Sorry Lou, but most people TEACH their dogs before the age of 2. That is the time to teach and obtain an obedience foundation before you go on further to any other training. I consider a recall as part of basic obedience training. To me a young pup is under the age of 2 and that is the time to teach recalls. E-collar should not be used to teach IMHO but to reinforce something already taught (as I stated in my other post - I can see it used as a "hearing device" in long distance recalls). And most certainly I would encourage people to seeks professional training classes instead of reading or watching a video and start "beeping" the heck out of their dog with an e-collar.


Well.....according to Mike Lardy (in the video / booklet I just ordered and watched / read), it shouldn't be used as a "hearing device." The dog should be able to hear your command (could be a whistle) if you're going to give a correction. He actually goes as far as to say you don't need one with a range of over a mile for that reason. 

I'll go on record disagreeing with the method described in the OP. I don't think these methods should be used to "teach" a skill either......for me, my dog, and any of my future dogs. I want the reason for the correction to be known, and I want no question in the dog's mind that it's coming from me.


----------



## Claudia M

Sorry Nairb but are you saying that if you whistle or command your dog to come back to you, he/she would not know that it is coming from you? I am sure by now Bella knows your voice and your command tone as well as whistle; I don't think there is any question in her mind where the command comes from. 
If the dog is still in view and hearing range than any need for an e-collar becomes nil.


----------



## Nairb

Claudia M said:


> Sorry Nairb but are you saying that if you whistle or command your dog to come back to you, he/she would not know that it is coming from you? I am sure by now Bella knows your voice and your command tone as well as whistle; I don't think there is any question in her mind where the command comes from.
> If the dog is still in view and hearing range than any need for an e-collar becomes nil.


Actually, Bella doesn't know whistle commands. Lardy's point is that the dog won't know why they're getting the correction if they can't hear your command. The same could hold true if they're up wind from you, or in the water. They need to be able to hear you. I'm just paraphrasing a guy who has trained 90 FCs. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Claudia M

see that is the difference, correction is used as punitive. And I personally would not use any punitive methods. If the dog can hear you and has a strong recall taught over a period of a year or two as basic obedience why the need for correction? 
I would highly recommend reading James B Spencer. 
Also if you look at those videos you will see them use a Chessie or a lab retriever not a golden retriever.


----------



## Nairb

Excerpt from the Lardy booklet (Guidelines for Corrections ; Retriever Journal, Oct/ Nov 1998)

"Always precede a correction with a command. 

(...)

The most significant corollary to this rule is: Don't correct a dog that can't hear you. 

(...)

You see, your dog should think he's doing great until you tell him otherwise. If he gets burned right out of the blue, it will create uncertainty, and he will never be quite sure when he's going to "get it."


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Nairb

That's fine, Claudia. Nobody is saying you have to use a remote collar. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## tippykayak

Ljilly28 said:


> I agree that positive, reward based training has let my dogs reach all my goals for them, and built the relationships with them in which I feel so much trust.


It is such a blast to spend an afternoon walking in the woods with a pair or a pack of well trained dogs. Watching my 2—or more, depending on who I've got for board and train—dogs wheel around and sprint back joyfully when I whistle, watching the serious faces when they're lined up for the daily stay, snapping a silly photo when I say "OK" to release the stay, letting little kids we meet play with the dogs—after both the dogs and the child receive permission from their respective guardians, of course.

And it's even more fun when you and I find a place between Maine and CT to hike for the afternoon with a big mixed pack of such different Golden personalities and do all of that with 350 pounds of Golden going in different directions, all under voice or whistle control. LOL, can you imagine juggling six e-collar remotes? One bag of treats—or praise and games if I've forgotten the bag—works to reinforce recalls and stays and keep the skills sharp even if you're handling a half dozen dogs at once.

For me, that's what training is all about, building those good habits and wonderful bonds. A dog's name becomes a cue to look at the handler because he's about to do something awesome. "Come" turns into a race back for a quick scratch or a "good dog." "Stay" becomes a game of red-light-green-light. Dogs get to play with anybody they meet on the trail who says it's OK.

I'm not saying you _can't_ do any of that with an e-collar. I'm saying why would you if you didn't have to? Why use an e-collar to teach your dog to come back when you can learn to shape his behavior without one?


----------



## Nairb

> (...)
> 
> I'm not saying you _can't_ do any of that with an e-collar. I'm saying why would you if you didn't have to? Why use an e-collar to teach your dog to come back when you can learn to shape his behavior without one?


I have done most of that without an ecollar. I probably give too much praise, too many treats, and am more reluctant than most dog owners I've met to give a leash pop. 

I live on a very large park in a suburban area where about 1/2 of the dogs are walked off leash. There are also multiple wooded trails nearby where dogs are walked off leash. The dogs that do the best with it tend to be accompanied by an owner carrying a transmitter. I will never, ever allow my dog to approach strange dogs and people. This is not to say that it's not possible to train them to not do this without an ecollar, but I don't like not having any means of enforcing a command with an off leash dog. It only takes one time for something to go horribly wrong, no matter how well trained a dog is.


----------



## liero133

While it can't be argued that aversive methods can yield results, they are still outdated and potentially harmful. Since you're citing other work, I'm guessing you like to read. That's good  maybe the following is of interest to you?  

Welfare in Dog Training (it's only a few pages so it's a quick read) 

Believe me, I used to be a huge fan of more aversive methods. I loved cesar when I first saw him, for instance. I've also read many old books, including the monks of new skete as well as all the books cesar millan has written.

However when I started digging deeper and reading works by Patricia McConnell, Dunbar, Stilwell and others, I have found that there is, based on more developed understanding of how dogs work, a much better way of doing things, which effectively eliminates many of the risks that go along with the older methods 

Remember, even if the resource you're getting your information from is a person with much experience, that alone is not a good qualifier. The science behind it also has to be considered. 



Nairb said:


> Excerpt from the Lardy booklet (Guidelines for Corrections ; Retriever Journal, Oct/ Nov 1998)
> 
> "Always precede a correction with a command.
> 
> (...)
> 
> The most significant corollary to this rule is: Don't correct a dog that can't hear you.
> 
> (...)
> 
> You see, your dog should think he's doing great until you tell him otherwise. If he gets burned right out of the blue, it will create uncertainty, and he will never be quite sure when he's going to "get it."
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Nairb

Ahh....I was merely pointing out that a correction shouldn't be given unless the dog knows why. Do you disagree with that basic point?

As for the rest, I see that your mind is made up. I'm not going to debate it with you. What would be the point?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## liero133

I would also like people to notice all the large organizations who support modern methods of dog training and oppose aversive, and of course also support the position statement of the dog welfare campaign which I linked to in my previous post. 

Further, please consider the weight of these organizations by looking at the standards they adhere to (evidence, research, leading experts etc) 
ORGANISATIONS SUPPORTING THE POSITION STATEMENT


----------



## tippykayak

Nairb said:


> This is not to say that it's not possible to train them to not do this without an ecollar, but I don't like not having any means of enforcing a command with an off leash dog. It only takes one time for something to go horribly wrong, no matter how well trained a dog is.


I agree with you on the principles here. If I thought it would keep him from being hurt or killed, I'd shoot my dog in the butt with rock salt in a heartbeat. I'd certainly be willing to shock him. But I make a different judgment call than you about the real world risks and about the usefulness of the e-collar in reducing those risks. Things can still go horribly wrong whether you have this or that piece of equipment on a dog. Training and habits are more likely to save a dog than any equipment. I think an e-collar can give a handler a sense of security, but I'm not sure that sense is merited.

First, enforcing off leash commands with a remote is less and less practical the more dogs you're handling at once. I just don't see myself taking two remotes everywhere I hike or investing in some kind of two-collar, one-remote system (if that's even available), just in case my dog decides to blow me off. My hands are free, and everything, including a treat bag, is in my backpack. I can't imagine many situations in which an e-collar would keep my dogs out of harms way by the time I got it out; I sure as heck am not hiking with a remote in each hand. And I certainly don't see myself taking along three if I have a board-and-train dog along with us. 

However, as a practical issue, I don't handle the dogs off-leash next to anything dangerous. If we're walking by the road, I'll take the leashes out of the backpack, even though their outdoor heel (it's a "right here" command to distinguish it from precision heeling for obedience) is one of their strongest behaviors. I don't put even the most solid behaviors up against a dangerous situation because I recognize that things can go wrong (more likely that I'll screw up a handling cue than that they'll blow the command).

I've been doing this for literally a decade, several times a week, and I've never been in a situation in which I needed to correct my dog at a distance for a safety issue. I also take board-and-train dogs with me sometimes to train their real-world recall. I just don't gauge the real world risks as meriting a piece of equipment that would allow me to correct them at a distance. My recall training is based around using rewards to train dogs to take interruptions to their attention and then to return to my side. I don't see a necessity to train them that I can cause them discomfort at a distance if they blow me off.

If a dog blows me off, that's my fault for not training him. I'd consider shocking myself in that situation, but not him.


----------



## liero133

No, I do not disagree with that, however that is not the issue. The issue is the method used to correct. The American veterinary society of animal behavior has put out a good position statement that some might find interesting. 

http://www.4pawsu.com/avsabpuinshment.pdf

I do apologize for quoting you in my post as that was largely unnecessary to make my point. 

And yes, based on the current scientific available evidence, you can be sure that my mind is made up. That's how science works: by following the evidence where it leads. 



Nairb said:


> Ahh....I was merely pointing out that a correction shouldn't be given unless the dog knows why. Do you disagree with that basic point?
> 
> As for the rest, I see that your mind is made up. I'm not going to debate it with you. What would be the point?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Nairb

Tippy,

Most transmitters allow for controlling multiple collars. Mine will work for up to three. 

I suspect I train recall much like you do. A long line...lots of treats, praise, and belly rubs. I've already stated (and have been for weeks) that an ecollar is not a substitution for training. I figured that out long before I ordered Lardy's video.

Having said all of that, I would be hesitant to recommend an ecollar to someone without knowing their training habits, and their commitment to using it properly. Everyone needs to make their own training choices.


----------



## tippykayak

Nairb said:


> I live on a very large park in a suburban area where about 1/2 of the dogs are walked off leash. There are also multiple wooded trails nearby where dogs are walked off leash. The dogs that do the best with it tend to be accompanied by an owner carrying a transmitter.


This must be a regional thing. Almost nobody carries a transmitter around here, even though there are dozens of small town preserves with hiking trails. The one guy I saw who had an e-collar on a beagle made her cry out audibly when he shocked her after she blew off his recall to run over to us. Obviously, the e-collar wasn't the problem there, it was the fact that the owner was just making it up as he was going along, but I really felt bad for his dog.

The ineffective people I see are using neither punishment nor rewards. They usually just repeat their dog's name and look exasperated. When they finally get the dog back, they're usually pretty stern. None of the ineffective people I've seen have EVER rewarded a dog when he actually came back.



Nairb said:


> I will never, ever allow my dog to approach strange dogs and people. This is not to say that it's not possible to train them to not do this without an ecollar, but I don't like not having any means of enforcing a command with an off leash dog. It only takes one time for something to go horribly wrong, no matter how well trained a dog is.


My dogs must return to my side before they're allowed to greet. It's actually one of the strongest reinforces of recall/stay behavior. I call them back to me, and I park them on the side of the trail in a sit-stay. If the person asks to greet the dogs, I release them and allow the greeting. That Premacks the recall/sit-stay behavior beautifully. If the person doesn't want to greet, the dogs remain by the side of the trail until the person passes, and then I release them forward. 

Same thing with strange dogs, though I typically wait until the dog is close before releasing mine, so I can be right there if something happens. I park my dogs and ask the owners if they feel a greeting is appropriate. If I don't like the look of the strange dog, I'll tell the handler my guys are working on their training, and I'll stay between it and my guys as they pass. I strongly prefer this to leashing my dogs, which I used to do, since leashing actually interferes with dog body language and actually makes the other dog more likely to be nervous about the encounter.

In my experience, the most dangerous, untrained dogs come to you regardless of what you do, so a leash, a strong stay, and an e-collar are equally useless. In those situations, I'll park my dogs and get between them and the oncoming dog. Fortunately, that's exceedingly rare, as only a handful of people are that stupid and irresponsible.


----------



## tippykayak

Nairb said:


> Most transmitters allow for controlling multiple collars. Mine will work for up to three.


That's cool tech. So I'd only have one transmitter in the bag if I went that route.



Nairb said:


> I suspect I train recall much like you do. A long line...lots of treats, praise, and belly rubs. I've already stated (and have been for weeks) that an ecollar is not a substitution for training. I figured that out long before I ordered Lardy's video.
> 
> Having said all of that, I would be hesitant to recommend an ecollar to someone without knowing their training habits, and their commitment to using it properly. Everyone needs to make their own training choices.


I suggest the long line for clients whose dogs are out of puppyhood and don't have solid recall, but I don't use it on my own dogs. 

And I don't think we disagree on very much here, just the value of the e-collar in providing safety on a trained dog and the value of distance corrections in making behavior more solid.


----------



## Swampcollie

liero133 said:


> The science behind it also has to be considered.


An even greater consideration is results. The entire purpose of of teaching/training is to get the dog to comply with the goals and wishes the handler sets forth, consistently, and in a pleasing manner. That is after all the reason you train the dog. 


Lou is an advocate of using direct pressure to teach. This is similar to what Dobbs was doing back in the early 80's. In fairness to him, it does work and in some instances it is still the preferred method, such as training police dogs. 

The approach Lardy and most other Ecollar users undertake today is one that uses far less direct pressure, more indirect pressure, and a substantial abount of praise. It advocates teaching basic skills the conventional way on a lead and collar, before transitioning to the Ecollar. The Ecollar simply replaces the conventional collar allowing more precise timing of corrections at longer distances. The Ecollar isn't magic nor does it impart some supernatural powers on the trainer. If you can't train a dog without an Ecollar, you can't train a dog with an Ecollar either.


----------



## Nairb

In fairness to the OP, I did a search, and found that he does have an extensive history training police and SAR dogs with his methods. I like the Lardy technique better, but that doesn't mean that Lou's opinions don't deserve merit. In fact, I respect the opinions just as much of those who choose not to use a remote collar. We can all learn a lot from each other despite differences in opinion on these matters. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Hi all, just a reminder to keep your replies polite and respectful. I know there are strong opinions on both sides, but please keep the discussion civil.


----------



## liero133

Results at what cost...? An especially relevant question is given the viable, very effective alternatives.


----------



## Nairb

goldenjackpuppy said:


> Hi all, just a reminder to keep your replies polite and respectful. I know there are strong opinions on both sides, but please keep the discussion civil.


I thought we were doing pretty good here! 

I realize I've only been here for a year, but this is the most civilized discussion on the topic I've seen. 

I assume that was preemptive?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## HiTideGoldens

Nairb said:


> I thought we were doing pretty good here!
> 
> I realize I've only been here for a year, but this is the most civilized discussion on the topic I've seen.
> 
> I assume that was preemptive?
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Somewhat. There were a few posts, not necessarily the ones immediately prior to my post, that warranted a general reminder  This is one of those hot button issues, however, so I will be keeping my eye on the thread, as will the other mods.


----------



## Ljilly28

Brian, your dogs have some of the staunches recalls I have ever seen, no matter who or what the temptation. It's one of the reasons it is fun to hike with your dogs- they are so under voice control by you. I am thankful for having owned so many generations of goldens easily trained to recall without punishment. I was smiling today bc I called my four away from a few deer on our hike- from the old field style dog from MH parents to the baby show dog, all wheeled right around when called. Right from babyhood, teaching recall with reward-based games to get it installed in the "hardrive" is my first priority after housebreaking, and will continue to be as long as I have goldens.


----------



## Nairb

Bella still has a long way to go on her recall, before she is "ready" to handle a lot of distraction. I'm able to set her up from 100 yards, walk away, call her...and she comes at full speed, with plenty of enthusiasm. She was about 70 yards away in this video.






Other than a guy sitting in a truck, there were not many distractions. Otherwise, I wouldn't even attempt it. By the way, no ecollar training has been used for recalls yet. 

I intend to work A LOT with the long line with lots of distractions, in different locations, before I trust her off leash (other than low distraction recalls from a sit stay, like the one in the video)......to avoid putting Bella in a position of requiring many corrections. I'm fairly certain not many will be needed with the long line, because I've been training with it since she was 4 months old. 

Even if she had the best recall in town, I would still want the collar on as reinforcement when off leash, but that's just me.


----------



## liero133

Lou Castle wrote



> No scientific study ever done has shown any lasting "damage of ANY kind" to a dog. Since you seem to disagree, perhaps you can show us some studies that support your statement?


In a fairly recent study, for instance, the use of shock collars were showed to produce exactly these effects.

The study was published in the journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science in 2004.

I highly encourage everyone to read the entire study for themselves: http://eldri.ust.is/media/ljosmyndir/dyralif/Trainingdogswithshockcollar.pdf

However if you don't want to, I have summed it up in an article here: Short And Long Term Effects Of Shock Collars In Training - RespectYourDog.Com (Mod: Please note that I stand to make _no_ money off that article, neither through advertizing or direct sale - it is 100% for educational, non-profit purposes)

Very short though, here are some key takeaways.

(1) shocked dogs are more stressed than control dogs on the training grounds;
(2) shocked dogs are also more stressed than control dogs in the park;
(3) shocked dogs connect their handlers with getting shocks;
(4) shocked dogs may also connect orders given by their handlers with getting shocked.

However again, please read the full study to see the context in which this was measured. Control dogs being a big factor. If you don't read the entire study, read the article on it.

Thank you to anyone who takes the time


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Swampcollie said:


> Lou is an advocate of using direct pressure to teach. This is similar to what Dobbs was doing back in the early 80's. In fairness to him, it does work and in some instances it is still the preferred method, such as training police dogs.


Fair enough. But that raises a question for me. This may be the preferred method in a highly specialized (and very high pressure) arena such as police dog training... and though I may question the wisdom of using such methods when others may be equally effective, I'm really in no position as I know very little about it. But beyond that, is the method used in this highly specialized (and high pressure) arena really appropriate for your average pet? I personally do not think so.

I understand the methods used by most trainers who employ e collars, especially when it comes to field work... and although it's not my method of choice, I get it. But again, that's a pretty specialized area and somewhat different from what the average pet owner is training for. In this case at least I can see some parallels that can be drawn when we are talking about taking hikes in the woods and the distractions/dangers that lie within but again, is this extra step really necessary for your every day Joe? When I see so many people with dogs who have been trained without this type of indirect pressure to produce consistent and reliable results (for example, LJilly and Tippy in this thread... though they're certainly not alone), it certainly leaves room for doubt that an e collar should be necessary for many (perhaps most) dogs in many (perhaps most) situations. 

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Nairb

Jersey's Mom said:


> Fair enough. But that raises a question for me. This may be the preferred method in a highly specialized (and very high pressure) arena such as police dog training... and though I may question the wisdom of using such methods when others may be equally effective, I'm really in no position as I know very little about it. But beyond that, is the method used in this highly specialized (and high pressure) arena really appropriate for your average pet? I personally do not think so.
> 
> I understand the methods used by most trainers who employ e collars, especially when it comes to field work... and although it's not my method of choice, I get it. But again, that's a pretty specialized area and somewhat different from what the average pet owner is training for. In this case at least I can see some parallels that can be drawn when we are talking about taking hikes in the woods and the distractions/dangers that lie within but again, is this extra step really necessary for your every day Joe? When I see so many people with dogs who have been trained without this type of indirect pressure to produce consistent and reliable results (for example, LJilly and Tippy in this thread... though they're certainly not alone), it certainly leaves room for doubt that an e collar should be necessary for many (perhaps most) dogs in many (perhaps most) situations.
> 
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


I probably don't HAVE to use one, but I WANT to use one. It's all about personal choices. You choose a different technique from me, and I'm OK with that. 

It's also not necessary to take weekly obedience classes, or participate in hunt tests for the life of the average dog, but many people do that too.


----------



## Loisiana

liero133 said:


> While it can't be argued that aversive methods can yield results, they are still outdated


Who gets to decide it's outdated?


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Nairb said:


> I probably don't HAVE to use one, but I WANT to use one. It's all about personal choices. You choose a different technique from me, and I'm OK with that.
> 
> It's also not necessary to take weekly obedience classes, or participate in hunt tests for the life of the average dog, but many people do that too.


I'm sorry if it seemed like I was somehow referring to your choice of using an e collar. I wasn't at all. I didn't intend my post to suggest that no one should use one ever under any circumstances... that's not my choice to make for anyone other than myself. I was referring more to the original intent of this thread and the method described. Good luck with your pup.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Nairb

Jersey's Mom said:


> I'm sorry if it seemed like I was somehow referring to your choice of using an e collar. I wasn't at all. I didn't intend my post to suggest that no one should use one ever under any circumstances... that's not my choice to make for anyone other than myself. I was referring more to the original intent of this thread and the method described. Good luck with your pup.
> 
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


OK. I apologize if I took it the wrong way.


----------



## Lou Castle

AmbikaGR said:


> Not exactly sure what you mean but if you are implying that simply because your way has worked in the past that there is no better way, THAT is plain silly.


Well obviously if I've been doing it for decades and I'm still doing it, I DO think that it's the best way. That is not to say that there are not other ways that people may decide to go. But to say that my way is wrong or that it can't or should not be done my way, is, as you've said, _"plain silly."_ It CAN be done and it is done very easily. Just because you, or anyone else for that matter, does it another way, hardly means that this way is not just as viable, if perhaps not moreso. 



AmbikaGR said:


> ANYONE involved in any kind of dog training for decades knows and understands we have come a long way from where it was. If not we would still be firing rock salt and/or bird shot at dogs from a distance to get the desired results wanted JUST because it worked in the past.


If you're insinuating that this method is outdated, I'll remind you that modern use of Ecollars, at low levels with guidance, is a more recent innovation than using clickers or the rest of the so−called "kinder gentler methods." 



AmbikaGR said:


> And just to clarify I have owned and used (still do) Tritronic e-collars in my field training for decades.


That's great! But field training is not the end all of be all of Ecollars. We're talking about training pets here and the methods commonly used in field training are not completely applicable.


----------



## Lou Castle

Claudia M said:


> Sorry Lou, but most people TEACH their dogs before the age of 2.


NOT everyone does this. MANY people here have gotten dogs past the age of two that have not received any training or at least not any training that has been effective. The pounds are full of such dogs. I'd suggest that you widen your horizons a bit. 



Claudia M said:


> That is the time to teach and obtain an obedience foundation before you go on further to any other training.


If you have the opportunity I think that _"the time to teach and obtain an obedience foundation"_ is as soon as the puppy comes home. I start teaching on my first contact with such dogs. BUT not everyone here obtains their dogs as puppies. 



Claudia M said:


> E-collar should not be used to teach IMHO but to reinforce something already taught


If one has obtained a puppy, I'll agree. But if not, then the Ecollar can easily be used to teach new behaviors with. My articles describe, in detail, how this can be done. 


Claudia M said:


> And most certainly I would encourage people to seeks professional training classes instead of reading or watching a video and start "beeping" the heck out of their dog with an e-collar.


Some people learn best at such classes. Some people learn best with one−on−one lessons. Some people learn best by reading and some learn best by watching videos. Some will benefit from a combination of these. Your recommendation is but one way to learn to use an Ecollar. And probably the most expensive way, beyond the means of many people. My website is free and so is the forum that is attached to it, where folks can ask questions that the website doesn't answer for them. 

It would seem that you haven't read the article that started this thread. There is no _" 'beeping' the heck ouf of ... dog with an Ecollar."_ How can you comment on the method if you haven't read about it?


----------



## Lou Castle

Nairb said:


> Well.....according to Mike Lardy (in the video / booklet I just ordered and watched / read), it shouldn't be used as a "hearing device." The dog should be able to hear your command (could be a whistle) if you're going to give a correction. He actually goes as far as to say you don't need one with a range of over a mile for that reason.


Mike Lardy is one of the giants of the Ecollar industry. But he works in a very specialized field and so his advice should not be taken to apply to all areas where the Ecollar might be used. In fact, having a long range model is NOT just about "long range" i.e. When the dog is a long distance from you. It's useful in situations where the reception quality is affected not only by range, but also by terrain or in a building, where the dog may be a good distance from the handler. 



Nairb said:


> I'll go on record disagreeing with the method described in the OP. I don't think these methods should be used to "teach" a skill either......for me, my dog, and any of my future dogs.


Thanks for your input. Please tell us why you think that teaching behaviors with the Ecollar is a bad idea. 



Nairb said:


> I want the reason for the correction to be known, and I want no question in the dog's mind that it's coming from me.


If the dog has been properly trained there is no doubt in his mind why the stim comes. Many people want the dog to know that it came from them. But in many situations it's quite an advantage if the dog thinks that the stim comes from either his behavior or the environment. In many situations the owner is out of sight. If the dog thinks that the stim comes from him, he's liable to test the training. If the dog thinks it came from his own behavior or from the environment, he's less likely to try. 

Your continual use of the word _"correction"_ in a discussion of Ecollars tells us how you view the tool, and quite a bit about how you use it. I rarely use the tool in this way. I prefer to use it as guidance to show the dog the correct behavior.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> And it's even more fun when you and I find a place between Maine and CT to hike for the afternoon with a big mixed pack of such different Golden personalities and do all of that with 350 pounds of Golden going in different directions, all under voice or whistle control. LOL, can you imagine juggling six e-collar remotes? One bag of treats—or praise and games if I've forgotten the bag—works to reinforce recalls and stays and keep the skills sharp even if you're handling a half dozen dogs at once.


One might just as well ask "What happens to your control when you run out of treats, or when you drop the bag into the creek and the current pulls it away.?" The answer to both questions is the same, once the dogs are trained the tools should not be necessary at every second. But if one is interested, it's possible to obtain Ecollars that can control up to four dogs with one transmitter. So AT MOST, in your situation, one would only need two remotes. 



tippykayak said:


> I'm not saying you _can't_ do any of that with an e-collar. I'm saying why would you if you didn't have to? Why use an e-collar to teach your dog to come back when you can learn to shape his behavior without one?


It's quite simple really. Some people are unable or unwilling to spend huge amounts of time getting reliable behavior with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." And in many cases, even when years have been spent, the dogs do what their instincts make them do. Ecollar reliability comes very fast and then, even if the dog decides to follow his instincts, it's available to intercede.


----------



## Lou Castle

liero133 said:


> While it can't be argued that aversive methods can yield results, they are still outdated and potentially harmful. Since you're citing other work, I'm guessing you like to read. That's good  maybe the following is of interest to you?


Modern methods of using the Ecollar are more recently developed than the so−called "kinder gentler methods." They are hardly, as you've said a couple of times, _"outdated."_ 

As to _"potentially harmful..."_ we've seen the single study that you posted to support this study. I've commented on it in a later post. In short, it proves NOTHING. It's probably the most flawed study extant on Ecollars. Even a well known behaviorist, who supports the so−called "kinder gentler methods," punches holes in it. 



liero133 said:


> However when I started digging deeper and reading works by Patricia McConnell, Dunbar, Stilwell and others, I have found that there is, based on more developed understanding of how dogs work, a much better way of doing things, which effectively eliminates many of the risks that go along with the older methods


As has been said quite a few times now, the so−called "kinder gentler methods" are in fact, _"the older methods."_ But even if modern use of the Ecollar was not "more modern" than these methods, the age of a method has nothing to do with how effective it is, how useful it is, or how based in science it is (as if that had any bearing). In fact modern use of the Ecollar is based just as much on the _"developed understanding of how dogs work,"_ as other methods. 



liero133 said:


> Remember, even if the resource you're getting your information from is a person with much experience, that alone is not a good qualifier. The science behind it also has to be considered.


I agree. The science completely supports Ecollar use.



liero133 said:


> I would also like people to notice all the large organizations who support modern methods of dog training and oppose aversive, and of course also support the position statement of the dog welfare campaign which I linked to in my previous post.


Most of these organizations have members who are commercial trainers who use the so−called "kinder gentler methods." They have a vested interest in keeping their members in work.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I agree with you on the principles here. If I thought it would keep him from being hurt or killed, I'd shoot my dog in the butt with rock salt in a heartbeat.


HOW INHUMANE AND ABUSIVE! If I saw you do this, you'd be under arrest and on your way to jail for animal abuse. 



tippykayak said:


> First, enforcing off leash commands with a remote is less and less practical the more dogs you're handling at once.


One shouldn't be taking six dogs afield at once no matter what tools/methods have been used in the training until the training is "complete." (Yes, of course there's no such thing). When it is, rarely is there a need for reinforcement. Most often it's just one dog with an issue. That's easy to handle. 



tippykayak said:


> I just don't see myself taking two remotes everywhere I hike or investing in some kind of two-collar, one-remote system (if that's even available)


They're available and quite common. There are units available that can handle up to four dogs on one transmitter. 



tippykayak said:


> My hands are free, and everything, including a treat bag, is in my backpack.


That treat bag in your backpack is going to be useless when the pack of dogs starts chasing a cat towards a busy street. 



tippykayak said:


> I can't imagine many situations in which an e-collar would keep my dogs out of harms way by the time I got it out; I sure as heck am not hiking with a remote in each hand. And I certainly don't see myself taking along three if I have a board-and-train dog along with us.


Those of us who use Ecollars see this as "not a problem." There are holsters available that can be placed on the belt to hold the transmitters so they're available very quickly, far quicker than the treat bag in your backpack. Some brands even come equipped with clips on the back of them for this purpose. 



tippykayak said:


> However, as a practical issue, I don't handle the dogs off-leash next to anything dangerous. If we're walking by the road, I'll take the leashes out of the backpack, even though their outdoor heel (it's a "right here" command to distinguish it from precision heeling for obedience) is one of their strongest behaviors. I don't put even the most solid behaviors up against a dangerous situation because I recognize that things can go wrong (more likely that I'll screw up a handling cue than that they'll blow the command).


I don't blame you. If I relied on the so−called "kinder gentler methods" to provide reliability, I'd NEVER let my dogs off leash. Instead I take my Ecollar trained dogs into the most dangerous situations. Working alongside heavy traffic (in one case, alongside an active freeway while searching for a robbery suspect) into the densest of crowds, and onto airport runways and the adjacent field areas. It's nothing special, in fact, it's _routine. _ I you use tools/methods that give high levels of reliability, it's not a big deal. The police and SAR dogs that I work with do this on a regular basis. There's no reason that the pets can't either. I understand that some folks don't trust their training enough to do this sort of thing. 

I suggest that you take a look at "THE MISBEHAVIOR OF ORGANISMS" by Keller and Marian Breland. Classics in the History of Psychology -- Breland & Breland (1961) There it's discussed, how instinctive behavior sometimes trumps behaviors trained with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." This is especially true of highly driven individuals. 



tippykayak said:


> I've been doing this for literally a decade, several times a week, and I've never been in a situation in which I needed to correct my dog at a distance for a safety issue.


It's a mistake to try to predict the future based on history. TOMORROW, you could need it. 



tippykayak said:


> I also take board-and-train dogs with me sometimes to train their real-world recall. I just don't gauge the real world risks as meriting a piece of equipment that would allow me to correct them at a distance. My recall training is based around using rewards to train dogs to take interruptions to their attention and then to return to my side. I don't see a necessity to train them that I can cause them discomfort at a distance if they blow me off.


This from the fella who just told us that he'd _"shoot [his] dog in the butt with rock salt"_ to prevent him from being hurt or killed.


----------



## Lou Castle

liero133 said:


> And yes, based on the current scientific available evidence, you can be sure that my mind is made up. That's how science works: by following the evidence where it leads.


It's funny how people can look at something that agrees with their POV and not see how flawed it is. "You see what you want to see, and hear what you want to hear" – Harry Nilsson.


----------



## Lou Castle

Swampcollie said:


> Lou is an advocate of using direct pressure to teach. This is similar to what Dobbs was doing back in the early 80's. In fairness to him, it does work and in some instances it is still the preferred method, such as training police dogs.
> 
> The approach Lardy and most other Ecollar users undertake today is one that uses far less direct pressure, more indirect pressure, and a substantial abount of praise. It advocates teaching basic skills the conventional way on a lead and collar, before transitioning to the Ecollar.


Gonna have to clarify here. My method uses pressure and works on all kinds of dogs, not just police dogs. I use similar methods on the SAR dogs and the pets I work with. Last I heard, Mr. Lardy was also using pressure, but perhaps there's some confusion. Please tell us what you mean by "direct" and "indirect pressure." I'm not familiar with the terms. BOTH methods apply pressure as does, for example, treat training. 

You mentioned _"praise:_ when discussing Mr. Lardy's work, but did not mention it when discussing my work. That makes it appear that I don't use praise. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'd bet I use far more praise, in various forms than Mr. Lardy does. I know that I use far lower levels of stim than the does. 



Swampcollie said:


> The Ecollar simply replaces the conventional collar allowing more precise timing of corrections at longer distances.


It does more than that. It allows for pressure to be maintained until the dog is right. The dogs quickly learn that when the stim stops they've done the right thing. Other tools don't allow for this. 



Swampcollie said:


> The Ecollar isn't magic nor does it impart some supernatural powers on the trainer. If you can't train a dog without an Ecollar, you can't train a dog with an Ecollar either.


Agree completely.


----------



## Lou Castle

Nairb said:


> In fairness to the OP, I did a search, and found that he does have an extensive history training police and SAR dogs with his methods.


You left off pets. I've been training them for almost as long as I've been working with police dogs. That started in 1979, some 34 years ago. I've been working with Ecollar for over two decades now. 



Nairb said:


> I like the Lardy technique better, but that doesn't mean that Lou's opinions don't deserve merit.


Gee, thanks, lol. The Lardy method of using the Ecollar starts with training the basic OB some other way. That way has changed from time to time as he learned new methods. It requires that the dog already know some basic OB before the Ecollar is used. The problem here, in dealing mostly with pet owners, is that it requires the same approach. The dog must understand the commands and know the behaviors well, BEFORE the Ecollar is applied. But many people don't know how to train basic OB with ANY method. Doing it the "Lardy way" requires that the owner FIRST learn some other method of training and THEN that he learn how to use an Ecollar. My methods doesn't require this, Instead the behaviors are taught with the Ecollar. 

Mr. Lardy's method also uses MUCH higher levels of stim than do my methods, something that many owners will not want to do. I work at the level that the dog first can perceive. The "Lardy way" works at a much higher level, where the stim makes the dog jerk his head, a much higher level of discomfort. This worries the dogs, and makes them overly concerned with the Ecollar stim. It's a bit faster but my way is plenty fast enough. 



Nairb said:


> In fact, I respect the opinions just as much of those who choose not to use a remote collar. We can all learn a lot from each other despite differences in opinion on these matters.


I agree. I have no problem if someone wants to use other methods. But as almost always happens, those who oppose the Ecollar, jumped in to this thread, decrying the use of the tool. They simply can't (or wont) stop themselves from having someone learn about the tool. They probably know that when this happens, that person, and more, will switch over to the tool due to its reliability and efficiency. Almost universally, the people who oppose the Ecollar, who do this, have never used one themselves, have never seen modern use of the Ecollar, know almost nothing about the tool and have either imagined how it's used or have seen (or heard of) poor work. Yet, at the same time, they ignore the problems that exist with their chosen methods. I find it amazing that, again, almost universally, they only discuss the Ecollar when it's used improperly or even only when it's abused, but ONLY talk about their own methods when they achieve success or when they are used properly. A fascinating example of hypocrisy and blindness.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier liero133 wrote, that the Ecollar is _"harmful to the dogs [sic] psyche."_ and _"To those who do not agree, please take the time to read the science behind why this is a flawed and simplistic view of a much more complex social system before speaking out against it."_ So naturally I asked for some of this science. Liejro133 now supplies one of the worst examples of junk science available 



liero133 said:


> In a fairly recent study, for instance, the use of shock collars were showed to produce exactly these effects.
> 
> The study was published in the journal of Applied Animal Behaviour Science in 2004.


I was hoping that you'd supply at least something recent. This study was done over ten years ago. I've written a lengthy critique of it on my website. If you want to read the whole thing, write privately for the link. Here's a bit about it for now ... http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com...sion/112370-shock-collars-20.html#post1710997 It's post #195, in case this link doesn't take you straight to my post. 



liero133 said:


> I highly encourage everyone to read the entire study for themselves: http://eldri.ust.is/media/ljosmyndir/dyralif/Trainingdogswithshockcollar.pdf


Me too. It's a great example of how emotions and having a bias, can make a mockery of science! 



liero133 said:


> However if you don't want to, I have summed it up in an article here: Short And Long Term Effects Of Shock Collars In Training - RespectYourDog.Com (Mod: Please note that I stand to make _no_ money off that article, neither through advertizing or direct sale - it is 100% for educational, non-profit purposes)


If folks are going to read it, they should read the original version, not someone's summary of it. Such summaries often are incomplete, leaving out vital details that are necessary to completely understand the study. Especially in this case, where the person doing the summary has an even stronger bias than the original researchers. 



liero133 said:


> Very short though, here are some key takeaways.
> 
> (1)	shocked dogs are more stressed than control dogs on the training grounds;


Actually the latest research on this shows that dogs trained with an Ecollar are less stressed than dogs trained with either a pinch collar or one of the so−called "kinder gentler methods. In fact, the gentler method was found "not to be effective." http://elib.tiho-hannover.de/dissertations/salgirliy_ws08.pdf



liero133 said:


> (2) shocked dogs are also more stressed than control dogs in the park


This is perhaps the most ludicrous of the findings of the study. These researchers were biased against the Ecollar. The people funding the study held the same bias. These findings arose from completely subjective observations of such things as "ear carriage" and "lip licking." The researchers made no allowance for these behaviors OTHER THAN the Ecollar. These are associated with many other factors than stress due to Ecollar use, yet they made no mention of this fact. 

Steven Lindsay is a K−9 behaviorist and trainer who provides a variety of behavioral and counseling services. He previously trained and evaluated military working dogs as a member of the US Army Biosensor Research Program, commonly known as the Superdog Program. He also does seminars and workshops. He wrote the three-volume set of books called "Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training."

Lindsay writes (regarding this study specifically)


> The main differences observed between dogs receiving ES (Electrical Stim) and those receiving other forms of correction included an altered ear posture detected during obedience work and free walking, tongue flicking (appeasement licking) during protection work, and submissive pawing actions during obedience work.
> 
> These observations can be the result of many other things besides "fear," which is what the "observers" noted. Yet they only reported that one result, and never remarked that any other stimuli could be responsible. The "altered ear posture" is completely subjective, and these anti-Ecollar people could have easily interpreted the ear carriage any way that they wanted to. The same criticism applies to tongue-flicking and pawing actions, other behaviors that they measured.





liero133 said:


> (3) shocked dogs connect their handlers with getting shocks;
> (4) shocked dogs may also connect orders given by their handlers with getting shocked.


One of the reasons that many people go to the Ecollar is that, when done properly, the dogs DO NOT CONNECT their handlers with the stim. 

Lindsay says of this,


> The notion that Dutch working dogs might have become fearful of their handlers as a result of shocks received in training is reported as an obvious fact that is never actually tested, leaving it to the reader to accept the speculation "as fact" or not. * In practice, dogs do not appear to link ES with the handler, especially persons with whom the dog is closely attached and familiar. In fact, the most interesting uses of the collar depend on this lack of aversive association, including lasting reward and opponent safety effects * (Denny, 1991). Interestingly, the IPO system has devised a good behavior test for detecting mishandling and abuse. Surely, if an IPO dog had developed a fear or aversion towards its handler as the result of electrical training, the following IPO Watchdog Test [WH (Wachhunde Certificate)] requirement would likely reveal it, causing a great many dogs to fail if they were treated as badly as alleged by the present report.


Lindsay continues to comment generally,


> *Most scientific evidence supports the notion that the cessation of aversive ES in the context of escape/avoidance training is more likely to enhance social attraction, promote feelings of safety, and calm a dog rather than make a dog afraid or apprehensive. These secondary effects of shock termination and pain reduction have long been recognized to promote conditioned and unconditioned effects conducive to reward and safety * (see "Electrical Stimulation Controllability and Safety"). * Instead of instilling social aversion and anxiety as suggested by the authors, competent electronic training may actually promote social attachment, reward, and safety. * With the behavior- contingent cessation or avoidance of ES, * dogs experience immediate emotional relief that subsequently merges into a state of progressive relaxation incompatible with social aversion and fear * - a sequence of opponent emotional effects contrary to those alleged to occur in the case of working dogs exposed to ES in the context of training.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jersey's Mom said:


> Fair enough. But that raises a question for me. This may be the preferred method in a highly specialized (and very high pressure) arena such as police dog training...


It's apparent that you don't know of the problems that exist in training police service dogs. In efforts to avoid liability (from inappropriate bites and from lawsuits for the dog failing to release bites) and to gain control of the dogs many of today's police K−9 trainers hammer the dogs with punitive methods, including the Ecollar. They try to force the dogs into letting go of their bites with high level of correction from manual devices as well as Ecollars. This winds up causing chaos in the training for several reasons. The dogs may become aggressive towards their handlers, and they focus their attention on the handler, instead of using their instincts, during searches. This results in the dogs missing suspects or false alerting. The Ecollar is best used in law enforcement as a tool of guidance to allow the natural drives of the dog to come out. It's hardly as you characterized it, _"a very high pressure arena."_ In reality, the less pressure, the better. 



Jersey's Mom said:


> and though I may question the wisdom of using such methods * when others may be equally effective, * I'm really in no position as I know very little about it. [Emphasis Added]


For decades I've been looking for a police patrol K−9 (not a detection dog) that has been trained solely with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." There is a $1,000 reward available to anyone who can point me to such a dog. NO ONE has ever pointed me to such a dog. 



Jersey's Mom said:


> But beyond that, is the method used in this highly specialized (and high pressure) arena really appropriate for your average pet? I personally do not think so.


As you say, you _"know very little about it."_ The "arena" should not be _"high pressure."_ Instead the less pressure, the better, while still achieveing reliability. The probme here is that you, like many others, only seem to know about using the Ecollar to correct misbehavior. 

The Ecollar is actually the key to getting reliability. It removes the handler from the equation because when used properly, the dog associates the stim with his own behavior, not the handler. I was recently involved in training a LE agency that had tried to use the so−called "kinder gentler methods" to accomplish their work. It was a complete failure, giving misses (not finding hiding felons, who should have been found, arrested and taken to jail) as well as false alerts. The Ecollar was the key to turning them around. 



Jersey's Mom said:


> I understand the methods used by most trainers who employ e collars, especially when it comes to field work... and although it's not my method of choice, I get it. But again, that's a pretty specialized area and somewhat different from what the average pet owner is training for.


I agree and this is why I don't care for those who try to apply Mr. Lardy's methods to their pets. OTOH, my method was designed especially for working with pets. It uses stim at the level that the dog can first perceive and provides guidance to show the dog what is expected of him. 



Jersey's Mom said:


> In this case at least I can see some parallels that can be drawn when we are talking about taking hikes in the woods and the distractions/dangers that lie within but again, is this extra step really necessary for your every day Joe?


That really is up to Mr. and MS. everyday Joe. In most cases people who inquire about the Ecollar have tried the so−called "kinder gentler methods" and found them wanting. Either they weren't able to apply them correctly. They didn't give results in a timely manner. Or they didn't provide acceptable results at all! 

Yet anti−Ecollar folks feel that it's OK to intrude into discussion about the tool and we get what we've got here. If their methods were as good as they'd like us to believe, there'd be no discussions about the Ecollar. Notice that Ecollar advocates don't do this with threads discussing the so−called "kinder gentler methods." 



Jersey's Mom said:


> When I see so many people with dogs who have been trained without this type of indirect pressure to produce consistent and reliable results (for example, LJilly and Tippy in this thread...


I'm sorry but you're overlooking an obvious fact. When LJilly and Tippy are training their dogs they are applying pressure, just as is done with the Ecollar. It's done with a different tool, but the pressure is present nonetheless. Ecollars are capable of causing pain, but it's not necessary to do this to get results. Who is to say which pressure is more discomforting? ONLY the dog. Ye in these discussions we find people who are claiming that they have some insight into this. They don't. Theirs is an emotional argument with little basis in fact. 



Jersey's Mom said:


> though they're certainly not alone), it certainly leaves room for doubt that an e collar should be necessary for many (perhaps most) dogs in many (perhaps most) situations.


This is just another straw man argument. NO ONE has said that an Ecollar is necessary. But many find them very helpful, especially when other methods have been tried and failed.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier liero133 wrote,


> While it can't be argued that aversive methods can yield results, they are still outdated


And Loisiana replied,


Loisiana said:


> Who gets to decide it's outdated?


LOL. Great question Loisiana. It's just another emotional appeal. They think that newer is better. What they fail to realize is that modern Ecollar use, with extremely low levels of stim and guidance, is much more modern than their methods.


----------



## Nairb

Lou, I'm sitting here at the emergency vet, and don't have time to respond to your entire response, but I'm one of those that DID get my dog as a puppy, and started training her from day one. So, using it to reinforce learned behaviors suits my needs best. In addition, I haven't needed high stim rates to get results. 1.5 to 2 with a Tritronics collar. 

I'm one of the few that stuck my neck out and defended you! Cut me some slack here! I only mentioned what I thought was best for me and my dog. I know nothing about training police and SAR dogs. Your way probably works better for those. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## AmbikaGR

Lou Castle said:


> That's great! But field training is not the end all of be all of Ecollars. We're talking about training pets here and the methods commonly used in field training are not completely applicable.



Agreed again, but the same can also be said about training pets as compared to police dogs.



Lou Castle said:


> It's funny how people can look at something that agrees with their POV and not see how flawed it is. "You see what you want to see, and hear what you want to hear" – Harry Nilsson.



Ain't that the truth. :doh:


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Lou Castle said:


> It's hardly as you characterized it, _"a very high pressure arena."_ In reality, the less pressure, the better.
> As you say, you _"know very little about it."_ The "arena" should not be _"high pressure."_ Instead the less pressure, the better, while still achieveing reliability. The probme here is that you, like many others, only seem to know about using the Ecollar to correct misbehavior.


First of all, I don't appreciate your tone, nor your assumptions about me. There's no need to attack me for a post that wasn't even directed to you. I'm not getting into the fray with you, Lou. Sorry to disappoint. The only thing I would like to clarify is my use of the term "high pressure" in my post. I was referring to the job itself, not the training. Police and SAR dogs are routinely put into high adrenaline, life or death situations. That is the "high pressure" I was referring to in my post. And now, I'm done.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## GoldensGirl

Enough is enough. I am closing this thread, which is going nowhere good. If you don't understand why, you are welcome to send me a PM.


----------



## Rob's GRs

The Mod team has reviewed this thread and has come to the conclusion a few members in this thread were very close to having actions or disciplines taken upon them, and in the future this will end one way or another.*We do not care if you disagree with each other but the manner in which you express your disagreement , or words used , should be carefully considered before making a post.


----------

