# Sit Means Sit (a.k.a. Sit Happens) Dog Training?



## Michelle4

welcome and good luck in your training.


----------



## LibertyME

Mr. Mustard said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> I'm new to the forum...I have a 12-week-old boy named Mustard. I am looking into obedience programs for Mustard. I found Sit Means Sit dog training on the web. I think it's a national obedience franchise. I was very impressed with their pitch--however it is a bit pricey ($700 for unlimited group classes + a few in-home private classes). I'm wondering if anybody has had any experience with SMS and, if so, would recommend them? In addition, I've never enrolled a dog in training classes and I don't know how much I should expect to pay. Is $700 too much to pay for obedience? I do want Mustard to become a well-behaved dog and am willing to pay if it's worth it.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any responses!!!!


I know nothing about the SMS program...but the price tag is IMO high...

If you really like group class training and are looking for a well mannered family dog you can enroll in a puppy socialiazation class, two intermediate and one advance series of classes...add in a good 18-24 months of faithful training, end up with a well mannered family dog. In most parts of the country it would cost less then $500.00.
If you have trained a dog before...I would still attend a well run socialization class and consider additional classes are fun but optional.
However, when you get into Competitive Obed Classes you _can_ spend lots more and (if the dog is willing & able) will train for the life of the dog....


----------



## Brady's mom

We've been through 3 classes (14 sessions total) and one private in-home lesson (90 minutes) for our 8-month old puppy. All told we've spent about $500. We're approaching the amount you would spend on your unlimited classes. But do you really want to constantly be in classes? We like to take a break in between each series. We don't have any plans for more classes...we'd probably be more inclined for another private lesson rather than commit to 5 or 6 weeks of hour-long classes.


----------



## Jessi

Hi! I'm a lurker but had to put my 2 cents in on this one. As a positive reinforcement dog trainer I have to encourage you to go another route for your puppy's training. After spending a considerable amount of time on the Sit Means Sit website, I confirmed my sinking feeling that there was something fishy going on. Low and behold, they are using electronic shock collars to train the dogs. Please, please, please seek a positive, professional dog trainer to help you with your puppy's training! Your puppy will thank you!

Consider doing a search here for a trainer in your area -- www.apdt.com


----------



## LibertyME

crap - went to their site...
this kind of aversive training does not interest me at all....and in my opinion is not in the best interest/wellbeing of the dog...would never pay for this program...


----------



## kirst1

Hiya

I think the price is quite high. I live in England and took my pup to an obidience class which cost £45 for 8 lessons. It covered all the basic commands- sit, stay, come when called and basic socialisation skills. I found this to be quite effective (although Poppy stills decides to ignore me when I call if she doesnt want to come back)


----------



## Pointgold

Wow. I need to raise my prices! Just kidding... I have kept the prices for my classes such that they are accessible to everyone, particularly to young families. The price of the Sit Means Sit programs is too high, IMO, even beyond the fact that I have real issues with their methodology. I'd highly recommend looking elsewhere. Another resource would be to contact a Golden Retriever club near you and see who they might recommend, Also, all breed kennel clubs often hold classes which are taught by obedience competitors. They might be of some help.
Good luck!


----------



## Swampcollie

While I don't always agree with Fred on technique, I can't argue with the level of success his system has had with thousands upon thousands of dogs and their owners.

His methodolgy is derived from the working dog world where the dog is taught to rapidly comply with all commands given by its' handler regardless of the situation or environment it's in. The expectations of refinement and precision in a dogs performance are very different in these venues and the methods used to achieve them are different than is usually found at your neighborhood Petsmart or APDT trainer. The training methods employed in the APDT world will never deliver the kind of precision and relibility required of a k9 Officer or advanced handling competition dog.

Every dog owner has a minimum level of trained behavior that is acceptable in their home. If they can't attain that minimum level of success with their dog, well, the dog will be off to the shelter in short order. For some homes the level of success achieved through Petsmart classes or with APDT methods are good enough, for other homes that degree of performance doesn't reach the minimum level of acceptable behavior required to stay. 

I would much prefer to see a dog trained via Fred's approach than see it end up in a shelter because the owner couldn't find success quickly enough with positive method approach for the dog to remain in their home.

.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

*The training methods employed in the APDT world will never deliver the kind of precision and relibility required of a k9 Officer or advanced handling competition dog.*

I'm sorry, but that simply just isn't true. Non- e-collar training, as employed by APDT trainers, can and does deliver precision and reliability. There are several well-known trainers who have been using non- e-collar methods for years in very complex training situations such as military work, detection dogs, animals for intelligence agencies around the world, police dogs. 

I understand that some people prefer to train with an e-collar and that's their choice. However, it's quite unnecessary, let alone, inaccurate, to make a claim that it *can't* be done another way. Perhaps the person *making* the claim that it can't be done cannot, him/herself do it, but that certainly doesn't mean it cannot be done.

I'm certainly not saying that e-collar training doesn't work. Sure, it'll train your dog. But you're training with positive punishment, and research has shown that punishment-based methods are not w/o the potential for heavy fallout.


----------



## Jessi

Thanks, Flying Quizini! I couldn't have said it better myself! 

I also have to admit that I wasn't really interested in getting into a debate over it, so was glad to see your response


----------



## FlyingQuizini

Here's one of the things I don't get about Fred and his training...

I've seen video after video of him working a dog at demonstrations... all with the remote stil in his hand. My question is: IF you so choose to train with an e-collar, don't you wish to, at some point, wean the dog off the collar? I'm just not sure why it's supposed to look so impressive to see a dog working in the context of "do it right or else I'll push the button." It makes the e-collar look more like a training *crutch* than a training *tool* as touted by its proponents.


----------



## Swampcollie

Boy I must be getting old and completely out of touch with reality.

Where are the multitudes of k9 Officers, Security Dogs, Protection Dogs, or North American Field Champions that are solely trained utilizing non-aversive methods of training? I don't believe there are any.

To my knowledge there are a few dug/explosives detection roles that could be achieved without some degree of aversive training, but no active general service k9 Officers (physical active participant in finding and subdueing fugitives) that are solely trained without some degree of aversive training.

There are no North American Field Champions (U.S. or Can), nor has there ever been even one that did not undergo some form of aversive stimulous training enroute to becoming proficient at its' job. 


More power to you if you can design a positive only training approach that can allow a dog to achieve those goals, but to date nobody has designed a program that has delivered consistent *proven* success in those venues. On the other hand, there are numerous training programs that employ at least some degree of aversive stimulous that have consistently delivered *consistent proven* results for many many decades.


----------



## tintallie

Let's say your retriever is out working or hunting and is separated from you at a distance on a retrieve. What is the farthest distance your dog would be away from you?
How far away can your dog hear your voice (you may scream, but let's say you aren't using a whistle like a shepherd)

Is it realistic to assume that your dog will obey your command when it CAN'T see you and maybe even barely hear you if you resorted to something other than using an electronic collar?

Just as an example, when I'm coaching high school girls field hockey and I YELL for a player to come off to sideline for a substitution, most of the girls can BARELY hear me in a situation where I am less than 50 yards from them.

Perhaps the use of an electronic collar is better in that you aren't shocking your dog, but sending a small vibrating signal to let them know what you want them to do.


----------



## fostermom

> I would much prefer to see a dog trained via Fred's approach than see it end up in a shelter because the owner couldn't find success quickly enough with positive method approach for the dog to remain in their home.


Personally, I don't believe it is an either/or situation. It has a good spin, but personally, I would prefer to see a dog trained using postive methods than see it wind up in a shelter because an owner didn't want to pay $700 for training.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

tintallie said:


> Let's say your retriever is out working or hunting and is separated from you at a distance on a retrieve. What is the farthest distance your dog would be away from you?
> How far away can your dog hear your voice (you may scream, but let's say you aren't using a whistle like a shepherd)
> 
> Is it realistic to assume that your dog will obey your command when it CAN'T see you and maybe even barely hear you if you resorted to something other than using an electronic collar?
> 
> Just as an example, when I'm coaching high school girls field hockey and I YELL for a player to come off to sideline for a substitution, most of the girls can BARELY hear me in a situation where I am less than 50 yards from them.
> 
> Perhaps the use of an electronic collar is better in that you aren't shocking your dog, but sending a small vibrating signal to let them know what you want them to do.


Well, even those who train on e-collars aren't competing with the e-collar on, so that tells me that it is expected that the dog would w/in signaling range of the handler - via a whistle (used in field trials), hand signals and/or verbal cues. 

I strongly believe that if the behaviors required for upper level fieldwork (or police work or whatver) were were actuallly *fluent* at a closer range, they would hold up at the distances required.


----------



## Debles

My husband has worked with many hunting dogs and has NEVER needed a shock collar. They are trained so well that if they can't see him, they retrieve and come back!
Otherwise he uses hand signals if they are too far away to hear (dogs can hear for a long way!)
Our dog club obedience class was $45. for 8 classes. It may have gone up but not that much! And their classes are excellent!


----------



## katieanddusty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d7xS1vzCLw

One of his other videos says the dog is 8 months old. And this is not so the dog can do police work, SAR, etc but rather just so he can get clients for his business by showing off "The Million Dollar Dog."

APDT doesn't really require any sort of expertise, so there are going to be good trainers and bad trainers (and there are good non-APDT trainers who don't bother spending the money because they know it doesn't have any requirements). A lot of "positive" trainers, including most at Petsmart and probably a good percentage of APDT, just jumped on the bandwagon and decided to stop using corrections without learning how to effectively train a dog with positive reinforcement. But there are many who are very good at using positive reinforcement to train a well-behaved pet dog (without resorting to overly harsh methods that were meant for very high-drive Malinois and GSDs working every day in life-threatening situations).


----------



## Griffyn'sMom

I guess depending on your dog's personality you need to do what you need to do to reach your training goal. But please do not use that kind of training on a 3 month old puppy! Try other ways first.

Griff is not a working dog - he's a family companion. The only way I would use such a device is if he was doing something that would harm someone or himself.

What is the youngest age recomended for one of these electronic devices?


----------



## lovegoldensny

*The Facts of Sit Means Sit*

I am a professional dog trainer for Sit Means Sit and came across your postings. Unfortunately, the description of "aversion" type training is not the system of Sit Means Sit Dog Training. Aversion training is basically anything to get the dog to stop doing something (hey, even the use of bitter sprays and bitter apple is aversion training too.)

SMS Dog Training it is in fact a very fast and effective form of neutral to positive training based on guiding a dogs' attention. There is art and there is science behind the Sit Means Sit Dog Training System (btw, science has come a long way beyond just Pavlov's dog training experiment!). The dog training system is founded upon a series of cutting-edge techniques of positive associations and guidance of the attentional focus via the dog's various sensory perceptions (i.e. sight, sound, etc)

The trademarked system can not be found in any dog training book or product manual, therefore any description of the SMS dog training based on those types of electronic collar training IS INACCURATE. The dog training system is not based on the tool (ecollar) - but on the relationship, communication, and bond built through the training process - where the remote collar is merely one aspect / option of the SMS dog training system.

As such, the electronic collar - being merely a "tool" - is something with a wide range of applications. Not all e-collars feel the same. There are many many dog trainers who use this "tool", but that does not mean all of the methods are the same. 

So the poster who described SMS as "aversion" training is in error. I have worked with veteran animal behaviorists, APDT / CPDT clicker trainers, etc who observe the Sit Means Sit Dog Training System in action, haved used it on their own dogs and realize why and how it is so effective in training dogs - from puppies to older dogs, and little to big ones.

I will describe a training of a working class dog, whose aggression was made worse by other forms of dog training in the next post.


----------



## K9-Design

<<I strongly believe that if the behaviors required for upper level fieldwork (or police work or whatver) were were actuallly *fluent* at a closer range, they would hold up at the distances required.>>

In field work the ecollar is not just about distance, it's about proper timing, meaningful correction (more aversive than an unwanted behavior is rewarding), confidence to conquer pressure, and the ability to deliver a correction that is not emotional or associated with the handler. 
There is a reason 99% of field trial retrievers and probably over 95% of Master Hunters are trained with an ecollar....and it's not because their trainers are lazy or get off on hurting dogs. They are an extremely valuable device for communicating to the dog. 
As far as the demo handler holding the transmitter during a demo -- well, probably the same reason the trainers at Sea World use the whistle (clicker substitute thingy) during a show even though the dolphin or whale has been reinforced 1000 times on the exercise and it's obvious to the audience. Because unless someone requires you not to (i.e. AKC during a hunt test  you ALWAYS train with the tool be it clicker or ecollar, unless you want your dog to become wise to the training and tune you out if you don't have the right equipment. 
I have no personal knowledge of Sit Means Sit training -- I have only seen a few videos and thought it was funny that most of the impressive "Tricks" are just extended versions of common retriever training concepts and drills. I particularly liked the "no no drill" over the lawn chair!! I would encourage the original poster to talk to the head of that training school and get references from former students. 
I am a big proponent of long term obedience training in a class or lesson setting, meaning, going to classes regularly for the first 2-4 years of a dog's life. Yeah I know few people are willing to do that but the results are an amazingly well behaved dog. If my original obedience instructor offered me a flat $700 fee for unlimited classes I'd have done a backflip and said ABSOLUTELY!!! 
Best of luck,
Anney


----------



## lovegoldensny

*Sit Means Sit Dog Training System case exp*

As professional dog trainer, it is my hope that dog trainers will step back and not point the finger and continue a never-ending argument of "what is the best way to train the dog."

At the end of the day, all that matters is that the dog is safer, more reliably obedient and happier. A few of my clients are certified CPDT / APDT dog trainers themselves, and yet, despite all their clicker training / leash / corrective collar / treat / behavioral modification training they have not been able to solve their dog's aggression.

Until they met me and asked me to solve their dog's aggression. In one client, they were having a severely socially anxious, dominant and defensive aggressive dog, it would lunge and bite not just other people, dogs, but its own owners (before training with SMS).

These clients were told everything in the dog training world - from using tons of treats to dominating their dog, etc. I was the first to tell them to stop focusing on the aggression problems, but focus on the anxiety first, as that will reduce the aggression naturally.

They chose to pursue the SMS remote collar training as way to rebuild their relationship and communication with the dog - it gave them an opportunity to enhance their communication with the dog and talk to the dog around anxiety causing distractions, and instantly guide the dog's attentional focus to happy and pleasant things (no matter how far or near). The immediacy of such positive focus / communication allowed the dog to reduce its overall social and environmental anxiety, which in turn, dramatically reduced its aggressive behaviors.

And I will explain why previous dog training worsened this particular dog's situation. The clients were told if the dog was about to bite another dog, person or animal, that they were to put a toy in its mouth. Another dog trainer told my client to hold out a big treat if he is about to attack ( a person / dog, etc). As I explained to my client, "distracting the dog" does not teach the dog what to do. And in fact, putting a big toy in the dog's mouth right before it is to attack bite only 1) gives more exercise to the dog's aggressive mouth behavior 2) give the dog a sense of reward for the aggressive emotional state that it is in.

THREE YEARS my client pursued this type of training, until the dog gained a higher level of confidence in aggressive biting. It was not until they realized that they were going down the wrong path and needed another method to solve their dog's issues. And I am very happy (and they are too) to have the opportunity to solve their dog's problems.


----------



## GoldenSail

lovegoldensny said:


> At the end of the day, all that matters is that the dog is safer, more reliably obedient and happier.


I agree, and I have seen some pretty sick videos of dogs being trained to do a basic sit using 'stimulation.' I saw one video (sorry, can't find it right now) of someone using SMS with a puppy, and yes, the puppy did everything but he was clearly showing distress signs. Licking his lip, tilting his head, being anxious. Not happy.

On the other note, I have seen some videos of dogs doing really well--almost being really 'amped' up by this type of training. But, I tend to think that it takes the right type of dog to do well with this method (namely your belgian malinois, german shepherd, etc not your little lap dogs), and wouldn't be a first method of choice IMO for the public.


----------



## Swampcollie

K9-Design said:


> In field work the ecollar is not just about distance, it's about proper timing, meaningful correction (more aversive than an unwanted behavior is rewarding), confidence to conquer pressure, and the ability to deliver a correction that is not emotional or associated with the handler.
> There is a reason 99% of field trial retrievers and probably over 95% of Master Hunters are trained with an ecollar....and it's not because their trainers are lazy or get off on hurting dogs. They are an extremely valuable device for communicating to the dog.


 
Awwwe, now you went and let the cat out of the bag!


----------



## GoldenSail

Ok, I did it! Here is a thread talking about it with a link to the video.

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/showthread.php?t=50289

Here is the video link, in case you don't want to read the thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du_mMDN7p74

IMO, this dog does not look like she is having fun or is happy.

And again, to be fair I tried to find a very interesting youtube video I watched a long time ago but can't find now. It was of a belgian trained using and e-collar and the video actually showed you when the dog was being stimulated--very interesting. This dog seemed to get amped up by it...


----------



## GRM

I do not have any experience with the Sit Means Sit program you have mentioned. However, I will say from personal experience that with some basic classes, mainly for socializing your puppy around other dogs, accompanied by some research and regular training sessions, you can have a very well behaved Golden. Take a look at some training tips at http://www.golden-retriever-magic.com/free-basic-dog-training-tips.html. There are also some videos included which show how to teach Goldens some basic commands. I think $700 is a pretty steep price tag! All the best with training your puppy!


----------



## lovegoldensny

*Re: look at dogs the individuals...*

As I had written before, the argument is not which method or dog training system is better or best. SMS puts themselves out there to show dog training with videos - but how many other dog trainers (clicker trainers, leash trainers, choke / pinch, etc) would themselves put so many videos out there? 

Like I said, some of my clients ARE CPDT / APDT professional dog trainers, veterinarians and animal behaviorists themselves who admittedly could not resolve their own dog's problems and issues (some made their problems worse), until they turned to an SMS trainer. Some puppies or older dogs are shy, avoidant, exuberant, some easily spooked or aggressive. Dogs are individuals. That said, the characteristic personality traits you see in the videos are a result of an improvement of where the dog was before - in terms of spirit & attitude, not a result of training.

Having worked with animals all my life, I find it tremendously unfortunate that people will shut down from the possibility of finding another answer, another solution, another way that will take their dog to the fullest potential of happiness and reliability training. I know from experience, that were it not from the SMS dog training my dog WOULD STILL not socialize with other dogs, stand motionless and shaking. Today she is a dramatically exuberant and social dog - not because she changed into a different dog with a different personality, but because her true potential - a much more socially confident dog - was unleashed via SMS training.


----------



## meadowmist

We start classes with Scout July 23, which is much later than we wanted to start him. His classes are group classes that meet once a week for 6 weeks. They cost $90. The trainer only teaches positive reinforcement, which is why we went with her. She seems to be well respected in my area and has wrtten/published about 5 books on training.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

*As I had written before, the argument is not which method or dog training system is better or best. SMS puts themselves out there to show dog training with videos - but how many other dog trainers (clicker trainers, leash trainers, choke / pinch, etc) would themselves put so many videos out there? *

I'm just curious. I've seen the videos. It seems no matter where the dog is working, or whose dog it is, the dog is still wearing the collar. Does SMS consider the collar to be a tool that is eventually weaned off of, or is it always used on the dog?


----------



## K9-Design

Swampcollie said:


> Awwwe, now you went and let the cat out of the bag!


I know, sorry -- Captain Obvious strikes again!! HA HA


----------



## K9-Design

FlyingQuizini said:


> I'm just curious. I've seen the videos. It seems no matter where the dog is working, or whose dog it is, the dog is still wearing the collar. Does SMS consider the collar to be a tool that is eventually weaned off of, or is it always used on the dog?


<<As far as the demo handler holding the transmitter during a demo -- well, probably the same reason the trainers at Sea World use the whistle (clicker substitute thingy) during a show even though the dolphin or whale has been reinforced 1000 times on the exercise and it's obvious to the audience. Because unless someone requires you not to (i.e. AKC during a hunt test  you ALWAYS train with the tool be it clicker or ecollar, unless you want your dog to become wise to the training and tune you out if you don't have the right equipment.>>

The ecollar is like any other tool, be it leash & buckle collar, pocketfull of treats, clicker, or whatever, if you are a smart trainer you ALWAYS are consistent about using these tools in EVERY training scenario. The first time you don't use it and the dog either is not corrected for a known infraction OR not rewarded appropriately for a big effort (be it voice, treat, toy or pet) -- that casts a huge shadow of doubt in the dog's mind. He very quickly learns the difference between collar on (or pocketfull of treats, or happy talking voice) and off, and knows he either has totally free will without it OR that the job is no fun without the rewards. 
SAME scenario as someone who trains for obedience with gobs of treats, playtime and happy chatter, waltzes in the ring, offers none of that, and the dog figures out after one time that the ring is no fun. 
I can only speak from my own experience with the ecollar -- which is admittedly limited but I try to follow the best advice and be very consistent. I train with an ecollar in field work. It doesn't matter if I am doing ONE hand-thrown mark or ONE wagon-wheel drill where I have absolutely ZERO intention (or need) to use the collar -- Fisher still wears the collar. I might not even take the transmitter with me but he still wears the collar. If someone asked me to do a demo of basic retrieving skills he would still wear the collar. 
Only at the point in training where the collar is rarely used would I dream of entering him in a hunt test where obviously collars are not allowed. If I had a problem that was consistently addressed in training (by collar corrections, repeating or otherwise) I would not enter a test. This is how dogs become test wise!!!
(As a side note -- even though he wears the collar 100% of the time in training, really corrections from the collar are relatively rare. To be honest in the past month or so of training he's probably received 2-3 nicks from the collar total, and this is training every other day. This is typical.)
Likewise in obedience (where I do not use an ecollar) -- if I was having an exercise with lower than 95% success rate in training and run throughs, or I had to do a lot of cheerleading to keep confidence up -- I would not enter a trial.
By using any effective training tool -- by using it very consistently and not testing/trialing too soon -- you set up good habits for the lifetime of the dog. The day will come when the dog is expected to perform WITHOUT the tool, and if you have been consistent and fair up to this point, the dog will perform just as if he had the tool to help him. That may be at a hunt test, field trial, obedience trial, or when you need an instant recall to prevent him from running in the street.
I cannot speak for those who train basic obedience to pets with an ecollar, for I have not done that. However, done correctly with an experienced person I think it could be very successful. I can only speak from using and witnessing ecollar use in hunt test training, and it is the fairest and most effective means of communicating to dogs. 
Okay, I know this has gone round and round on many threads in the past but I implore people who are skeptical and want to dismiss great results to actually go watch someone who is successful in that venue train, ask them and watch their dogs and see what the training really is like. Or ya know, don't knock it til ya try it


----------



## FlyingQuizini

K9-Design said:


> <<As far as the demo handler holding the transmitter during a demo -- well, probably the same reason the trainers at Sea World use the whistle (clicker substitute thingy) during a show even though the dolphin or whale has been reinforced 1000 times on the exercise and it's obvious to the audience. Because unless someone requires you not to (i.e. AKC during a hunt test  you ALWAYS train with the tool be it clicker or ecollar, unless you want your dog to become wise to the training and tune you out if you don't have the right equipment.>>
> 
> The ecollar is like any other tool, be it leash & buckle collar, pocketfull of treats, clicker, or whatever, if you are a smart trainer you ALWAYS are consistent about using these tools in EVERY training scenario. The first time you don't use it and the dog either is not corrected for a known infraction OR not rewarded appropriately for a big effort (be it voice, treat, toy or pet) -- that casts a huge shadow of doubt in the dog's mind. He very quickly learns the difference between collar on (or pocketfull of treats, or happy talking voice) and off, and knows he either has totally free will without it OR that the job is no fun without the rewards.
> SAME scenario as someone who trains for obedience with gobs of treats, playtime and happy chatter, waltzes in the ring, offers none of that, and the dog figures out after one time that the ring is no fun.
> I can only speak from my own experience with the ecollar -- which is admittedly limited but I try to follow the best advice and be very consistent. I train with an ecollar in field work. It doesn't matter if I am doing ONE hand-thrown mark or ONE wagon-wheel drill where I have absolutely ZERO intention (or need) to use the collar -- Fisher still wears the collar. I might not even take the transmitter with me but he still wears the collar. If someone asked me to do a demo of basic retrieving skills he would still wear the collar.
> Only at the point in training where the collar is rarely used would I dream of entering him in a hunt test where obviously collars are not allowed. If I had a problem that was consistently addressed in training (by collar corrections, repeating or otherwise) I would not enter a test. This is how dogs become test wise!!!
> (As a side note -- even though he wears the collar 100% of the time in training, really corrections from the collar are relatively rare. To be honest in the past month or so of training he's probably received 2-3 nicks from the collar total, and this is training every other day. This is typical.)
> Likewise in obedience (where I do not use an ecollar) -- if I was having an exercise with lower than 95% success rate in training and run throughs, or I had to do a lot of cheerleading to keep confidence up -- I would not enter a trial.
> By using any effective training tool -- by using it very consistently and not testing/trialing too soon -- you set up good habits for the lifetime of the dog. The day will come when the dog is expected to perform WITHOUT the tool, and if you have been consistent and fair up to this point, the dog will perform just as if he had the tool to help him. That may be at a hunt test, field trial, obedience trial, or when you need an instant recall to prevent him from running in the street.
> I cannot speak for those who train basic obedience to pets with an ecollar, for I have not done that. However, done correctly with an experienced person I think it could be very successful. I can only speak from using and witnessing ecollar use in hunt test training, and it is the fairest and most effective means of communicating to dogs.
> Okay, I know this has gone round and round on many threads in the past but I implore people who are skeptical and want to dismiss great results to actually go watch someone who is successful in that venue train, ask them and watch their dogs and see what the training really is like. Or ya know, don't knock it til ya try it


You use the clicker consistently while you're *training* the animal what you want. Once the animal has learned the behavior, you no longer need the clicker.

It just seems to me that by using the collar all the time, you create a dependence on it... that that's how you'd make an animal collar-wise and he'd learn to perform great while the collar is on. Take it off, and it's another story. I would think that during a demo, you'd want to see a *trained* dog who is now willing to perform w/o the "help" of whatever the user claims the collar is providing ("communication" or a "punisher" or whatever).

I don't use e-collars and I don't really care for them. IMO, whatever fancy name you give it, it still scientifically falls w/in the quadrant of positive punishment and I choose to work hard to avoid that in my training. As for the risk of the dog blowing you off and learning he can (in the absence of the collar or whatever training tool you use) well, sure, it can happen... but if you train it right, statistically, it's not very likely. I can go into the obedience ring and pull near-perfect performances w/o anything on me; no food, no clicker, no toys, no leash on my dog, etc. Choosing to keep the collar on all the time would be like choosing to lure with food all the time. Sure, it ups the odds that the dog will for sure do what you want, but it just doesn't seem very impressive to me.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Personally, I am not a fan of the e-collar. However, a part of me does understand what Anney and others are saying about high level field (and other work venues) training. I've witnessed it with the folks I train with and don't feel they are being cruel or abusive to the dogs. 

That said, I'm really confused. I was under the impression that this thread was about basic obedience for a young puppy. We're not talking about training a police K9, or a Field Trial Champion, but rather about basic skills and manners. No part of me can see the justification of using this tool as a first/early choice in this situation. 

And as to needing a clicker/bait bag at all times to reinforce behaviors... it's simply not true. As Quiz said, these tools are used consistently in the learning stage at which time the trainer moves to a variable schedule of reinforcement. If the dog thinks a treat "may" be coming, he willingly performs the requested behaviors in hopes of a payoff. As has been said, you can't "variably" correct a dog for known infractions... it seems the best you can hope is that during the course of a given test/trial the dog doesn't realize that he's getting away with anything and/or continue to use said aversive/communication device ad inifinitum.

As to the OP's question, I would strongly recommend looking into positive training for your pup. Should some random major problem arise out of the blue or you delve into high level field work (or something comparable) down the line, you can cross this e-collar bridge when you come to it. In the meantime, work on building a strong positive relationship with your dog and build his desire to want to work for and with you. I firmly believe that should higher level work be sought in the future or a serious behavioral problem arise necessitating a tool such as an ecollar, it is the relationship and the trust built through early training that will be a trainer's best hope of avoiding the possible fallout. Good luck with your training!

Julie and Jersey


----------



## AcesWild

Jessi said:


> Hi! I'm a lurker but had to put my 2 cents in on this one. As a positive reinforcement dog trainer I have to encourage you to go another route for your puppy's training. After spending a considerable amount of time on the Sit Means Sit website, I confirmed my sinking feeling that there was something fishy going on. Low and behold, they are using electronic shock collars to train the dogs. Please, please, please seek a positive, professional dog trainer to help you with your puppy's training! Your puppy will thank you!
> 
> Consider doing a search here for a trainer in your area -- www.apdt.com



I think anyone who says they only use "positive" training has never actually learned much about animal behavior. I think "all positive" training is just a cover up because there has to be negative reinforcers and punishers to do away with unwanted behaviors


----------



## Jersey's Mom

AcesWild said:


> I think anyone who says they only use "positive" training has never actually learned much about animal behavior. I think "all positive" training is just a cover up because there has to be negative reinforcers and punishers to do away with unwanted behaviors


I would strongly disagree. I started off training Jersey with leash pops and other physical corrections, your generic "Traditional Training." I have since (mostly in the last year) done far more research and am far better versed in animal behavior than I was 3 years ago. I have also moved to what you call an "all positive" approach (which is, of course, a misnomer. Generally the inclusion of negative punishment is necessitated with positive reinforcement). I intend to handle training differently with my next dog, but in the meantime am crossing over with Jersey to the best of my ability (which gets better as I continue to read and learn). 

What I have now is a dog who is "afraid" (for lack of a better term, it isn't really fear but I'm at a loss for a better word) to make a mistake. It's not an uncommon result with traditional training, as dogs are generally taught to do what they are told... no more, no less. It has severely hampered us as we train for upper levels of obedience. As we continue to experiment with more positive methods, I hope to find myself with a confident, curious dog who is willing to try even if he doesn't know the answer.

Julie and Jersey


----------



## AcesWild

It is impossible to have a dog or anyone learn all experiences through positive (the presentation of something) reinforcement (an increase in the behavior). There has to be something that decreases the likely hood of a behavior happening and that is where punishment comes it, what you mentioned yes is a punishment, but it is POSITIVE PUNISHMENT. You are introducing something aversive (positive as I said being the presentation of something) however you are decreasing a behavior.

A "physical" correction is not the only type of correction or punishment that can be given and it is that thinking where "positive reinforcement" and "clicker trainers" get all of their money.

http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Wasserman/Glossary/punishment.html

You really should read this because it explains it very well.

I will continue to assert that anyone who says they train with ONLY positive reinforcement is not only full of it, but has probably never been in a serious or legitimate animal behavior course.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

I know the terms used in operant conditioning, thanks for the link though. I am, however, very curious how you can suggest that negative punishment does not decrease behavior. That's the nature of the beast with punishment, be it positive or negative... it decreases the likelihood of the animal repeating said behavior. Or maybe you just missed the part where I mentioned that so called "positive only" training is a misnomer and that negative punishment is usually the quadrant of choice to compliment positive reinforcement in so called positive training? I'm not saying that to be snippy, just not sure where we miscommunicated there.

We can debate learning theory if you would like. I've been through a few psych classes, granted it was a few years back.... but as I said, I've recently been picking up all the lit I can find on training, so I've had a bit of a refresher. Personally I don't see it being fair (or effective) to teach with positive punishment. If we're talking about reinforcement stages, then it's a bit different, though some would argue still not necessary (perhaps myself among them, as I said I'm still learning and am just newly venturing into the actual training). Example: How quickly would you learn if I asked you questions on quantum physics and gave positive punishment (in any form) for incorrect answers? Or would you be very likely to shut down and not want to play my "game" anymore? Again, we're talking about the learning stage here, so I am assuming (sorry if I'm wrong) that you're not already knowledgeable in quantum physics. 

And yes, there are other types of aversives outside of physical corrections. Certain noises are displeasing, and sound aversion training isn't uncommon (often for things like counter surfing or garbage diving... where the trainer/owner isn't necessarily present to witness the offending behavior. Though that's not the only use). But generally when someone mentions "traditional" dog training, it's in reference to collar corrections, physical displays of dominance, etc. E collars fall in there too, though as many have mentioned in this thread they are usually reserved for specific high-level or high-risk behaviors. 

I still don't see any validity to the statement that those who focus on positive reinforcement/negative punishment (so that we're clear that it's not "all positive") have no/little knowledge of animal behavior. As always though, just my humble opinion. 

Julie and Jersey


----------



## K9-Design

FlyingQuizini said:


> It just seems to me that by using the collar all the time, you create a dependence on it... that that's how you'd make an animal collar-wise and he'd learn to perform great while the collar is on. Take it off, and it's another story. I would think that during a demo, you'd want to see a *trained* dog who is now willing to perform w/o the "help" of whatever the user claims the collar is providing ("communication" or a "punisher" or whatever).


Ahh yes but if the collar is always on, HOW does the dog learn the difference? If he never experiences the collar being off (***in a training setting, I'm not suggesting someone have their dog wear a collar 24/7***), committing a known infraction and NOT receiving a correction, how does he know that the collar off equals time to do whatever the heck he wants? 
It only creates a dependency if the dog regularly experiences training sessions WITHOUT the collar where he realizes there is no consequence. He then is on his best behavior with the collar on, but blows you off with the collar off. So what happens when you show up for a test? See ya.
Many people think they are doing their dog favors by training without the ecollar leading up to the test. What a mistake. Another similar mistake is entering a test when you are still having consistent mistakes that require corrections in training. Why set yourself up, not only to fail the test, but to give the dog the opportunity to repeat the error and NOT get corrected for it? This is how dogs get collar wise and/or test wise.
We could go on with ecollar vs. not ad nauseum, I know I won't change too many minds but leave it to say, maybe more people will realize that there are some fantastic trainers out there who DO use an ecollar, use it wisely and fairly, and their dogs are very successful and very enthusiastic workers under their training programs.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

K9-Design said:


> Ahh yes but if the collar is always on, HOW does the dog learn the difference? If he never experiences the collar being off (***in a training setting, I'm not suggesting someone have their dog wear a collar 24/7***), committing a known infraction and NOT receiving a correction, how does he know that the collar off equals time to do whatever the heck he wants?
> It only creates a dependency if the dog regularly experiences training sessions WITHOUT the collar where he realizes there is no consequence. He then is on his best behavior with the collar on, but blows you off with the collar off. So what happens when you show up for a test? See ya.
> Many people think they are doing their dog favors by training without the ecollar leading up to the test. What a mistake. Another similar mistake is entering a test when you are still having consistent mistakes that require corrections in training. Why set yourself up, not only to fail the test, but to give the dog the opportunity to repeat the error and NOT get corrected for it? This is how dogs get collar wise and/or test wise.
> We could go on with ecollar vs. not ad nauseum, I know I won't change too many minds but leave it to say, maybe more people will realize that there are some fantastic trainers out there who DO use an ecollar, use it wisely and fairly, and their dogs are very successful and very enthusiastic workers under their training programs.


I'm not looking to debate the merits of e collar vs. not. I don't use them. I don't like them. I'd *maybe* be able to wrap my head around a skilled trainer using one for a specific purpose such as field work, but even then, frankly, dogs have been retrieving birds to hand since before electricity, and at a time where, if they didn't get it right, man didn't eat -- so you can't convince me that it's "necessary" for field work. Rather, maybe it's a nice convenience.

My original question is at what point are SMS dogs "trained," and therefore no longer need a collar, and the fact that I find it odd that every single demo video I see shows dogs in collars - even dogs who appear to be the trainers' dogs, which I'd assume would be "trained" and if they're "trained" why are they still in the collar?


----------



## FlyingQuizini

AcesWild said:


> It is impossible to have a dog or anyone learn all experiences through positive (the presentation of something) reinforcement (an increase in the behavior). There has to be something that decreases the likely hood of a behavior happening and that is where punishment comes it, what you mentioned yes is a punishment, but it is POSITIVE PUNISHMENT. You are introducing something aversive (positive as I said being the presentation of something) however you are decreasing a behavior.
> 
> A "physical" correction is not the only type of correction or punishment that can be given and it is that thinking where "positive reinforcement" and "clicker trainers" get all of their money.
> 
> http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Wasserman/Glossary/punishment.html
> 
> You really should read this because it explains it very well.
> 
> I will continue to assert that anyone who says they train with ONLY positive reinforcement is not only full of it, but has probably never been in a serious or legitimate animal behavior course.


Yes, the term "all positive" training is scientifically incorrect unless you're claiming to train with ONLY R+ and P+. "Positive" = adding something -- either a goodie or an aversive. However, I think it's safe to assume that in modern day language, in MOST cases, people who say they're all positive are describing a style of training that is rooted in R+ and P- and uses as little as possible of R- and P+.

_A "physical" correction is not the only type of correction or punishment that can be given and it is that thinking where "positive reinforcement" and "clicker trainers" get all of their money._

I'm thinking you must have worked with some pretty lousy clicker/R+ trainers if that sweeping generalization is your honest opinion!


----------



## AcesWild

FlyingQuizini said:


> Yes, the term "all positive" training is scientifically incorrect unless you're claiming to train with ONLY R+ and P+. "Positive" = adding something -- either a goodie or an aversive. However, I think it's safe to assume that in modern day language, in MOST cases, people who say they're all positive are describing a style of training that is rooted in R+ and P- and uses as little as possible of R- and P+.
> 
> _A "physical" correction is not the only type of correction or punishment that can be given and it is that thinking where "positive reinforcement" and "clicker trainers" get all of their money.[/I]
> 
> I'm thinking you must have worked with some pretty lousy clicker/R+ trainers if that sweeping generalization is your honest opinion!_


_


I've worked with some good and some bad, some who "market" a certain way even though they don't use ALL POSITIVE or whatever, and others who just think that's what they're doing even if they're not.

I would argue that anyone who says that they use ONLY positive reinforcement is false advertising, or just not a very good trainer. I know that it is scientifically impossible to do that and therefore wouldn't trust them. 

I feel like it's an honesty thing and I think that's why it annoys me so much.

But just my two cents._


----------



## FlyingQuizini

AcesWild said:


> I've worked with some good and some bad, some who "market" a certain way even though they don't use ALL POSITIVE or whatever, and others who just think that's what they're doing even if they're not.
> 
> I would argue that anyone who says that they use ONLY positive reinforcement is false advertising, or just not a very good trainer. I know that it is scientifically impossible to do that and therefore wouldn't trust them.
> 
> I feel like it's an honesty thing and I think that's why it annoys me so much.
> 
> But just my two cents.


I think most of the time, people say "all positive" b/c to the general public, it's the easiest way to differentiate between traditional compulsion training. I think "all positive" as become the slang for "I don't use choke chains, leash pops, pinch collars, e-collars, etc." 

Most clients don't "speak science." I can say to them, "I use only positive methods" to quickly paint a picture of the type of training they can expect from me; reward-based. They won't have the first clue and don't care, that when I ask them to disengage from their dog when he jumps, that we're using negative punishment. And while I may add aversives here and there (citronella collar, squirt bottle, aversive noise) to me, that's on a very different level from leash pops, scruff shakes, alpha rolls, e-collars, etc. Where that line is drawn (defining what aversives you're willing to use) is a very personal decision for each trainer. I can still comfortably say that on the whole, my training program is designed to be "positive."


----------



## gabbys mom

FlyingQuizini said:


> I don't use e-collars and I don't really care for them. IMO, whatever fancy name you give it, it still scientifically falls w/in the quadrant of positive punishment and I choose to work hard to avoid that in my training. As for the risk of the dog blowing you off and learning he can (in the absence of the collar or whatever training tool you use) well, sure, it can happen... but if you train it right, statistically, it's not very likely. I can go into the obedience ring and pull near-perfect performances w/o anything on me; no food, no clicker, no toys, no leash on my dog, etc. Choosing to keep the collar on all the time would be like choosing to lure with food all the time. Sure, it ups the odds that the dog will for sure do what you want, but it just doesn't seem very impressive to me.


Don't take this the wrong way, but this statement really comes off the wrong way to me--kind of holier than thou. 

I know that you don't mean it like that - but it just seems really unnecessary to tell other people, especially other accomplished trainers, that their training methods are unimpressive, unnecessary or worse.


----------



## AcesWild

gabbys mom said:


> Don't take this the wrong way, but this statement really comes off the wrong way to me--kind of holier than thou.
> 
> I know that you don't mean it like that - but it just seems really unnecessary to tell other people, especially other accomplished trainers, that their training methods are unimpressive, unnecessary or worse.


I tihnk that all dog learns differently and what works for one might not work for another.

I do take issue with "appeasing" the public because one is too lazy or doesn't think they have the time to properly explain. If the person really cares about their dog, then they'll be eager to learn, if you care about training and educating, then you will take the time to do so.


----------



## K9-Design

FlyingQuizini said:


> I'm not looking to debate the merits of e collar vs. not. I don't use them. I don't like them. I'd *maybe* be able to wrap my head around a skilled trainer using one for a specific purpose such as field work, but even then, frankly, dogs have been retrieving birds to hand since before electricity, and at a time where, if they didn't get it right, man didn't eat -- so you can't convince me that it's "necessary" for field work. Rather, maybe it's a nice convenience.


10,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong.
:doh:


----------



## tippykayak

Swampcollie said:


> Where are the multitudes of k9 Officers, Security Dogs, Protection Dogs, or North American Field Champions that are solely trained utilizing non-aversive methods of training? I don't believe there are any.
> 
> To my knowledge there are a few dug/explosives detection roles that could be achieved without some degree of aversive training, but no active general service k9 Officers (physical active participant in finding and subdueing fugitives) that are solely trained without some degree of aversive training.


Police dogs are trained on a military model of precision training that is actually fairly old-fashioned. It works, so it continues to propagate itself, but that fact does not mean that it's the best way of training.

But to claim that precision can only be achieved through a heavy dose of aversive training is simply untrue.


----------



## K9-Design

tippykayak said:


> Police dogs are trained on a military model of precision training that is actually fairly old-fashioned. It works, so it continues to propagate itself, but that fact does not mean that it's the best way of training.


"Best way"??? Is there a documented "Best Way" to train dogs? If so I'm not aware of it. There are popular ways, effective ways, and your favorite way, but no "Best Way."



tippykayak said:


> But to claim that precision can only be achieved through a heavy dose of aversive training is simply untrue.


He did not say "heavy dose of aversive training." He said, "some degree of aversive training." It's not all or nothing.


----------



## tippykayak

AcesWild said:


> I would argue that anyone who says that they use ONLY positive reinforcement is false advertising, or just not a very good trainer. I know that it is scientifically impossible to do that and therefore wouldn't trust them.


I essentially agree that, using definitions from behavioral psychology, that "100% positive reinforcement" is a bit misleading. Withholding a treat until a dog sits isn't 100% positive reinforcement by a technical definition. However, it is absolutely possible and desirable to train without aversive stimuli, which I think is what people often mean when they say their training is 100% positive (notice, I left off "reinforcement" this time).

I think removing aversives from training wherever possible is an admirable goal, and I know from experience that many common undesirable behaviors (jumping, for example) do _not_ require a negative stimulus in order to be extinguished. My dogs don't jump on company, but they've never been yelled at, shocked, kicked, pushed, scruff-shaken, alpha rolled, or provided any other kind of negative stimulus for jumping. The same goes for puppy biting. We reinforce desired alternative behaviors (sit for greetings instead of jumping, bring me a toy instead of mouthing my skin), and non-reinforce (by withdrawing our attention) the undesired behavior. You could describe that as an example of a technique that's 100% positive, even though it is not one that relies 100% on positive reinforcement.

I've never seen a trainer claim "100% positive reinforcement," but I have seen claims of training that are "positive-only," and I look for that when I look for a training environment.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> "Best way"??? Is there a documented "Best Way" to train dogs? If so I'm not aware of it. There are popular ways, effective ways, and your favorite way, but no "Best Way."


There are better and worse ways. There are effective and ineffective techniques, there are ethical and unethical techniques, and there are humane and inhumane techniques. So we can absolutely judge a given technique as better or worse than another. I didn't say I knew the "best way," but I do constantly seek to improve my training and to make it better, and I don't apologize for the fact that I regard some training methods as inferior to others.

I'll stand by the claim that the schutzhund training of the early 20th century, which still heavily influences the way police dogs are trained today, was unethical, inhumane, and less effective than what's done today. It's not the best way.

I'd also make the argument that police dog training is still currently too influenced by those harsh methods and that it's a myth that precision requires consistent use of aversion.



K9-Design said:


> He did not say "heavy dose of aversive training." He said, "some degree of aversive training." It's not all or nothing.


"A heavy dose" does not mean "all" by any stretch of the imagination. Don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## tippykayak

lovegoldensny said:


> And I will explain why previous dog training worsened this particular dog's situation. The clients were told if the dog was about to bite another dog, person or animal, that they were to put a toy in its mouth. Another dog trainer told my client to hold out a big treat if he is about to attack ( a person / dog, etc). As I explained to my client, "distracting the dog" does not teach the dog what to do. And in fact, putting a big toy in the dog's mouth right before it is to attack bite only 1) gives more exercise to the dog's aggressive mouth behavior 2) give the dog a sense of reward for the aggressive emotional state that it is in.


The positive techniques here, the way you've described them, have no way of working. Your client met with some pretty poor trainers if these were the positive methods described. I have no thing against SMS training, but these people, as they're being described here, got poor advice before they came to you. Your story does not demonstrate the superiority of SMS training to a more positively-focused methodology, but rather that you know what you're doing where the previous trainers did not.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

AcesWild said:


> I tihnk that all dog learns differently and what works for one might not work for another.
> 
> I do take issue with "appeasing" the public because one is too lazy or doesn't think they have the time to properly explain. If the person really cares about their dog, then they'll be eager to learn, if you care about training and educating, then you will take the time to do so.


How is it appeasing the public? I'm explaning how I train in a way that makes sense to them. Saying "I use all positive methods" - when I know how it's likely to be interpreted (to mean it's not "traditional" or "compulsion" training) paints a picture of what to expect in my class. If that's what they want, they can come. If not, they don't.


----------



## K9-Design

Tippykayak writes:
<<There are better and worse ways. There are effective and ineffective techniques, there are ethical and unethical techniques, and there are humane and inhumane techniques.>>

In someone's opinion.

<<So we can absolutely judge a given technique as better or worse than another. I didn't say I knew the "best way," but I do constantly seek to improve my training and to make it better, and I don't apologize for the fact that I regard some training methods as inferior to others.>>

YOU can judge a technique as better or worse and YOU can regard some training methods as inferior to others. However that does not MAKE IT SO. And you cannot force your opinions on others and say their results are invalid because you don't agree with them.

<<I'll stand by the claim that the schutzhund training of the early 20th century, which still heavily influences the way police dogs are trained today, was unethical, inhumane, and less effective than what's done today. It's not the best way.>>

What you just said contradicts itself. If the early 20th century methods heavily influence today's methods, how can they be less effective. 
I also am very curious to know how many years of schutzhund, police, or military dog training experience you have to judge this.

<<I'd also make the argument that police dog training is still currently too influenced by those harsh methods and that it's a myth that precision requires consistent use of aversion.>>

You can make this argument if you are actively training in these venues and have a equal or higher degree of success than the "mainstream" with your different techniques. If not, how can you judge what they do?

<<"A heavy dose" does not mean "all" by any stretch of the imagination. Don't put words in my mouth.>>

I didn't. However you did. You turned Swampcollie's "some degree of aversive training" into "a heavy dose of aversive training."

Everyone is at liberty to train THEIR dogs however the heck they want and that is great! But it amazes me how many people stand up and denounce the training methods of established, successful trainers IN A VENUE OR AT A LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY THEY HAVE NEVER EVER TRAINED AT THEMSELVES. I took PE basketball in high school but that doesn't mean I'm going to go go tell Phil Jackson how to coach the Lakers. Seriously.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

gabbys mom said:


> Don't take this the wrong way, but this statement really comes off the wrong way to me--kind of holier than thou.
> 
> I know that you don't mean it like that - but it just seems really unnecessary to tell other people, especially other accomplished trainers, that their training methods are unimpressive, unnecessary or worse.


Wasn't my intention at all. Sorry if that's how it came across. I'm just REALLY trying to understand... if an e-collar is a tool to train a dog, at what point is the dog "trained?" I'm looking at an e-collar as a tool just as food in training is a tool. I don't understand why SMS demo dogs are out there demo-ing in collar. Wouldn't you want your demo dog to perform as reliably w/o a collar as with it on? And since I have the experience of my own dogs eventually working as reliably in the obedience ring during competition as in backyard training, to me it seems like a very achievable goal. (And I don't say that to brag, but it's the most realistic example I can think of.)


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Tippykayak writes:
> <<There are better and worse ways. There are effective and ineffective techniques, there are ethical and unethical techniques, and there are humane and inhumane techniques.>>
> 
> In someone's opinion.


So if I savagely beat my dog with a whip when he doesn't sit, you're going to stand back and say, "live and let live?" Some things are matters of opinion, but that doesn't mean it's inappropriate to judge a technique as more or less humane. I'm not likening an e-collar to a whip, but not all things are matters of taste. If you really believe all things are a matter of opinion, why are you bothering to go point by point through my posts to try to refute them?




K9-Design said:


> <<So we can absolutely judge a given technique as better or worse than another. I didn't say I knew the "best way," but I do constantly seek to improve my training and to make it better, and I don't apologize for the fact that I regard some training methods as inferior to others.>>
> 
> YOU can judge a technique as better or worse and YOU can regard some training methods as inferior to others. However that does not MAKE IT SO. And you cannot force your opinions on others and say their results are invalid because you don't agree with them.


I'm not forcing my opinions on anybody. I'm stating them. Heck, I'm not even telling people not to use e-collars, simply stating that some training programs rely more heavily on aversives than is necessary or truly humane. Why are you taking it so personally, and what is so insane about that statement?




K9-Design said:


> <<I'll stand by the claim that the schutzhund training of the early 20th century, which still heavily influences the way police dogs are trained today, was unethical, inhumane, and less effective than what's done today. It's not the best way.>>
> 
> What you just said contradicts itself. If the early 20th century methods heavily influence today's methods, how can they be less effective.
> I also am very curious to know how many years of schutzhund, police, or military dog training experience you have to judge this.


There's no contradiction, so let me break it down for you. Schutzhund doesn't refer to a method of training, but rather to a skill set that can be trained in a multitude of ways. Popular methods of training for Schutzhund competition in the beginning of the 19th century included methods that would be considered abusive by today's standards. Those methods aren't used today, because they are widely regarded as inferior in terms of effectiveness and humaneness. Some of the methods, however, still are. Some are great, but some aspects are not. 

And I didn't train Schutzhund dogs in 1910, but I can still read about it and speak on it fairly reliably. I haven't trained police dogs personally, but I can still learn about it and use my brain.



K9-Design said:


> <<I'd also make the argument that police dog training is still currently too influenced by those harsh methods and that it's a myth that precision requires consistent use of aversion.>>
> 
> You can make this argument if you are actively training in these venues and have a equal or higher degree of success than the "mainstream" with your different techniques. If not, how can you judge what they do?


If proof was only in pudding, nobody would ever change and try new things. I am not a schutzhund trainer, nor do I train police dogs. I never claimed to. The fact that I don't have a pack of attack GSDs in my house doesn't mean I can't make the argument that precision can be achieved positively. Dog training has shifted dramatically towards more positive methods over the last fifty years. This is a matter of history, not of personal experience. That shift is good, empirically so, and I'm saying I'd like to see it continue.



K9-Design said:


> <<"A heavy dose" does not mean "all" by any stretch of the imagination. Don't put words in my mouth.>>
> 
> I didn't. However you did. You turned Swampcollie's "some degree of aversive training" into "a heavy dose of aversive training."


Then let him defend himself. He's a smart, articulate, experienced guy. If he feels I exaggerated his words unfairly, I'll apologize. To him.




K9-Design said:


> Everyone is at liberty to train THEIR dogs however the heck they want and that is great! But it amazes me how many people stand up and denounce the training methods of established, successful trainers IN A VENUE OR AT A LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY THEY HAVE NEVER EVER TRAINED AT THEMSELVES. I took PE basketball in high school but that doesn't mean I'm going to go go tell Phil Jackson how to coach the Lakers. Seriously.


The fact that you have titled your dog in several venus does not automatically make you right about all issues of dog training. I am denouncing nobody except for Colonel Konrad Most, who is dead. If you really want to pick up _Training Dogs, A Manual_ and defend it, I think you're going to look very silly. And the fact that I don't have a MACH on my dog doesn't mean that I can't say I don't like some of the methods of people who do.

It would be like me waving my masters' around and saying you're not allowed to write sentences.


----------



## K9-Design

Well, ya got me, I don't have much to add except, happy training and best of luck at your next event.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> Well, ya got me, I don't have much to add except, happy training and best of luck at your next event.


I'm still not really sure how I drew such bitterness from you. I didn't denounce your training methods. I did say I would like to see accepted methods continue to shift away from aversion and towards reinforcement. You've been responding like I've taken a personal assault at you, though I have not done so.

And your parting shot isn't subtle enough to fly under anyone's radar, least of all mine. I'm sorry you made this so personal. Frankly I'm glad you have the time to spend titling your dog in so many venues, and I admire what you've done with him. It shows a love of the breed, a love of training, and real skill. Don't cheapen your accomplishments by denigrating mine.

You have no idea what my credentials are, what my training experience is, or who I am. Argue with my points on their own merits, but please don't take shots at me personally.


----------



## gabbys mom

I use an e-collar in field work when teaching a behavior, proofing, and practicing and eventually wean off using a weighted collar system. We'll see how it works- we're doing started hunter and JHs with Gabby in the fall. 

I do agree with Anney on that I would like to see more pure positives title their dogs at high levels in multiple venues. I think that will be much more persuasive than arguing about it on a message board - I think currently, especially at a national level, the results speak for themselves on who has accomplished titles at a high level, etc. 

I think the words "inhumane" and "unnecessary" are particularly poisonous to any actual discussion of training methodology. If you want to get danders up, go ahead and use them...But really, again, telling people that their training methods are inhumane is not conducive to an actual discussion. 

Here's some food for thought: http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/LA/koutsky.htm I had a chance to do a seminar with her last summer, and really enjoyed it. Thoughts? 

- Laura
&
Ozzie the puppy in training
U-CD Gabby CDX RE CGC (and NJP NAP legs too!)


----------



## tippykayak

gabbys mom said:


> I do agree with Anney on that I would like to see more pure positives title their dogs at high levels in multiple venues. I think that will be much more persuasive than arguing about it on a message board - I think currently, especially at a national level, the results speak for themselves on who has accomplished titles at a high level, etc.


Field trial nationals aren't the only place that training methods are relevant, and dogsport venues are not the only place that training methods can or should be judged. I never once in this thread made the point that an e-collar was an inappropriate tool for hunt/field training, but I do think it's often used in basic obedience by unskilled people, which is hugely problematic.



gabbys mom said:


> I think the words "inhumane" and "unnecessary" are particularly poisonous to any actual discussion of training methodology. If you want to get danders up, go ahead and use them...But really, again, telling people that their training methods are inhumane is not conducive to an actual discussion.


If I had referred to any individual technique or person as "inhumane" or "unnecessary," I'd agree with you. I did say something about the harsh nature of dog training a hundred years ago, but I certainly never applied those terms to what mainstream people to do get dogs through obedience competition. 

But seriously, haven't you ever been at an event or training with people and watched them do something unnecessarily harsh and counterproductive? That's what I'm talking about; I'm definitely not saying that integrating corrections into training is somehow inhumane.




gabbys mom said:


> Here's some food for thought: http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/LA/koutsky.htm I had a chance to do a seminar with her last summer, and really enjoyed it. Thoughts?


I thought that was a really helpful article, and helped highlight that wide variation of meanings people give to "pure positive" training. Her mistake of "leading with the cookie," as she calls it, is a great clarification of how food reinforcement can become problematic.


----------



## Golden River of Dreams

*"sit means sit"*



GoldenSail said:


> Ok, I did it! Here is a thread talking about it with a link to the video.
> 
> http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/showthread.php?t=50289
> 
> Here is the video link, in case you don't want to read the thread.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du_mMDN7p74
> 
> IMO, this dog does not look like she is having fun or is happy.
> 
> And again, to be fair I tried to find a very interesting youtube video I watched a long time ago but can't find now. It was of a belgian trained using and e-collar and the video actually showed you when the dog was being stimulated--very interesting. This dog seemed to get amped up by it...


 
This particular dog not only didn't look happy, but also did not seem extremely reliable either. For example he may have eventually performed all the behaviors he was asked to do but it often took several commands before the dog complied. This dog was tuned out and half heartily doing behaviors. Does the dog get shocked each time he does not listen?


----------



## DNL2448

Just to stir the pot, as if it needs stirring, and I may be totally wrong, but I believe the SMS program may advocate stringing up the dog almost until they pass out. Has anyone else heard this or am I thinking of another "system"? I will try to find it, but it has been a while....


----------



## DNL2448

Some random comments off the internet (so take it with a grain of salt unless you are the kind that subscribe that if it is on the World Wide Web it must be true)...

I would never use or send anyone to Sit Means Sit. They have been caught using the 'suspend and strangle' method-- hang the dog by their neck until unconscious... lay them on the ground and repeat when they wake up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have a friend who when the collar was taken off, the dog bolted down the street. If the collar was on it was obedient. She did the sit means sit classes. They will also dread you putting it on and there wasn't that bond there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I've heard a bit about SMS. Unless I knew the individual trainer I wouldn't recommend them. There are some folks who were excellent trainers before they went to the school, who attended the classes and ADAPTED the methods to their work, and now have incorporated part of the method into their work. 

But many, if not most of their trainers are people who have never trained a dog but went to the SMS three-week-school and came out as "Certified Remote Specialists." A title awarded to them by the head of that school no matter how well they did, no matter how little they know about dogs in general and no matter how many dogs they've ever trained. 

This is not an indictment of the Ecollar, I'm probably it's biggest proponent on this forum, but I don't care for their methods. The biggest difference between what I do and what they do is the stim level. I work at the level where the dog first feels it. The dog feels minor discomfort there. They work at a level just below where the dog screams in pain!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> Police dogs are trained on a military model of precision training that is actually fairly old-fashioned. It works, so it continues to propagate itself, but that fact does not mean that it's the best way of training.


 
Just to be precise, SOME _"police dogs are trained on a military model ... that is actually old fashioned."_ Quite a few are not 




tippykayak said:


> But to claim that precision can only be achieved through a heavy dose of aversive training is simply untrue.


 
I don't think that anyone has said that a "heavy dose of aversive training" is necessary. But there are very few people using the so−called positive methods that rise to the top tiers of competition in any kind of competition that places value on precision and reliability. And I don't believe that there is even ONE police patrol dog (that means one who does searches for humans and when appropriate bites them) who has EVER been trained only with those methods. For years I've offered a substantial finder's fee to anyone who can find such a dog. No one has ever pointed me to such a dog


----------



## Lou Castle

DNL2448 said:


> Some random comments off the internet (so take it with a grain of salt unless you are the kind that subscribe that if it is on the World Wide Web it must be true)...I would never use or send anyone to Sit Means Sit. They have been caught using the 'suspend and strangle' method-- hang the dog by their neck until unconscious... lay them on the ground and repeat when they wake up.


I've never heard this. I spent three long training days with the founder of the school and attended one of his seminars and never saw this. Now, of course that does not mean that it does not happen, just that in my personal experience he and his franchisees didn't do it. 




DNL2448 said:


> I have a friend who when the collar was taken off, the dog bolted down the street. If the collar was on it was obedient. She did the sit means sit classes. They will also dread you putting it on and there wasn't that bond there.


I've seen this sort of issue (dog is obedient when the collar is on, and not obedient when it's off) myself. SMS advocates that your dog ALWAYS has the Ecollar on. So do I BTW, but in my case it's for insurance, not management. I can demonstrate OB with them off. 




DNL2448 said:


> I've heard a bit about SMS. Unless I knew the individual trainer I wouldn't recommend them. There are some folks who were excellent trainers before they went to the school, who attended the classes and ADAPTED the methods to their work, and now have incorporated part of the method into their work. But many, if not most of their trainers are people who have never trained a dog but went to the SMS three-week-school and came out as "Certified Remote Specialists." A title awarded to them by the head of that school no matter how well they did, no matter how little they know about dogs in general and no matter how many dogs they've ever trained.


Yep this is quite accurate. In fact it sounds like something I might have written. 




DNL2448 said:


> This is not an indictment of the Ecollar, I'm probably it's biggest proponent on this forum, but I don't care for their methods. The biggest difference between what I do and what they do is the stim level. I work at the level where the dog first feels it. The dog feels minor discomfort there. They work at a level just below where the dog screams in pain!


LOL. I probably DID write that! 

I'm very curious. It's now been nearly three years since the OP wrote the post that started this discussion and I don't see that he's been back to tell us how the training when, if he went with SMS or not or where he is today. He popped up about a month after his post here and said that his dog was "being a snot." Eight months later the dog was "a freak around other dogs." Over a year later there's a question about running with the dog and then ............. nothing. Anyone know what he decided?


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> Just to be precise, SOME _"police dogs are trained on a military model ... that is actually old fashioned."_ Quite a few are not


Certainly, and since 2009 when I wrote that comment, presumably further changes have taken place. Dog training evolves, and the story of the last hundred years has involved the reduction of reliance on aversives and the fine tuning of aversive stimuli that are used. I think training best practices will continue in this direction. I don't believe people beat retrievers with a switch anymore, generally, though that "technique" appears in nearly every training manual from the early 20th century I've ever seen.



Lou Castle said:


> I don't think that anyone has said that a "heavy dose of aversive training" is necessary. But there are very few people using the so−called positive methods that rise to the top tiers of competition in any kind of competition that places value on precision and reliability. And I don't believe that there is even ONE police patrol dog (that means one who does searches for humans and when appropriate bites them) who has EVER been trained only with those methods. For years I've offered a substantial finder's fee to anyone who can find such a dog. No one has ever pointed me to such a dog[/SIZE][/FONT]


It depends on your definition of "positive." I don't know many people who train with ONLY positive reinforcement and negative punishment. I do know lots of people who train successfully without using pain. Nobody in this thread has argued for that theoretical "PO" model, simply against certain aversives they regard as potentially unnecessary.

And your "finder's fee" offer is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Does anybody train police dogs with a pure positive approach? I don't know, and that isn't a kind of training I'd argue for anyway. However, if we're talking about losing the e-collar or the prong collar or something more concrete that people will actually argue, then until lots of people are trying and refining a new method, you're not going to see somebody be successful. The new techniques need to be tried and refined before they have a chance to perform at or above the level of the old techniques. That's been the story throughout the evolution of dog training. 

Aren't field people proud of how few dogs "wash out" anymore? Isn't that a move towards more humane, more refined, more successful training techniques?

The lack of a successful dog trained without aversives doesn't prove that the aversives are necessary; it simply proves that they're part of the mainstream training tradition. I don't think anybody shoots their retrievers with birdshot to enforce long-distance compliance anymore, but at one point, it was a more mainstream technique, wasn't it? Wasn't it more clumsy and cruel than an e-collar? Will we one day look back at the e-collar with the same eyes?


----------



## tippykayak

Hey Lou, is this article about teaching the sit with an e-collar by you?

The technique you describe includes showing the dog the sit behavior with stimulation and then, you say:



> Say the word “sit.” Press the button on the Ecollar. Move the leash straight up over the dog’s head to pull him gently into a sit. And press gently on his hips to push his butt towards the ground. As soon as his butt hits the ground release the button on the transmitter.


So you recommend holding the button down to shock the dog all the way through his behavior, only releasing it when his compliance is complete? Are the rest of your techniques based around this kind of principle?


----------



## Loisiana

tippykayak said:


> I don't believe people beat retrievers with a switch anymore, generally, though that "technique" appears in nearly every training manual from the early 20th century I've ever seen.


Then you haven't seen much of a variety of retriever training groups...



> Aren't field people proud of how few dogs "wash out" anymore? Isn't that a move towards more humane, more refined, more successful training techniques?


maybe it has to do with the training. Or maybe it's more emphasis on breeding towards those qualities that would excell. Or maybe it's more people recognizing early on what makes a successful retriever and don't bother trying with those that they know won't make the cut. Who knows?


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> It depends on your definition of "positive." I don't know many people who train with ONLY positive reinforcement and negative punishment.


 

I know many who claim that they don't use punishment at all. That's absurd. It's completely impossible to train without using punishment in some form. 




tippykayak said:


> I do know lots of people who train successfully without using pain.


 
As long as we're talking about definitions I think it's necessary that we talk about "pain." When most people talk about pain they're referring to physical pain. Pain is a continuum. It ranges from the highest possible level that makes you scream, jump up and run out of the room. To the lowest level, where my basic work with the Ecollar is done, it's closer to _"It's chilly; I think I need a sweater." _ We should also talk about psychological pain. How much "pain" of this kind is inflicted when a trainer (for example) offers a treat but then withholds it. To answer my own question ... I don't know. But I know that there's discomfort there which many who call themselves "positive trainers" choose to ignore. 




tippykayak said:


> And your "finder's fee" offer is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Does anybody train police dogs with a pure positive approach? I don't know


 
Several have tried but they've never succeeded. 




tippykayak said:


> then until lots of people are trying and refining a new method, you're not going to see somebody be successful. The new techniques need to be tried and refined before they have a chance to perform at or above the level of the old techniques. That's been the story throughout the evolution of dog training.


 
The methods that you're referring to as "new" have been around PLENTY long enough for trainers who use them exclusively to have succeeded in these venues, if, in fact, they gave the control and reliability that is necessary. But they're not. Not even close. 




tippykayak said:


> Aren't field people proud of how few dogs "wash out" anymore? Isn't that a move towards more humane, more refined, more successful training techniques?


 
It could be a move towards better selection methods and better breeding. 




tippykayak said:


> The lack of a successful dog trained without aversives doesn't prove that the aversives are necessary; it simply proves that they're part of the mainstream training tradition.


 
It shows that while those so called "positive methods" have been in the mainstream for quite some time, Pryor's book was published 26 years ago, so far no one has successfully done it.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> Hey Lou, is this article about teaching the sit with an e-collar by you?


Yep, that's my article. 




tippykayak said:


> The technique you describe includes showing the dog the sit behavior with stimulation and then, you say:
> 
> 
> 
> Say the word “sit.” Press the button on the Ecollar. Move the leash straight up over the dog’s head to pull him gently into a sit. And press gently on his hips to push his butt towards the ground. As soon as his butt hits the ground release the button on the transmitter.
Click to expand...

 

Yep, that's what it says. 




tippykayak said:


> So you recommend holding the button down to shock the dog all the way through his behavior, only releasing it when his compliance is complete? Are the rest of your techniques based around this kind of principle?


For some of the behaviors, yes. It's that way for the sit and the down. For the recall the button is only held down until the dog is headed towards the handler. This occurs for about a second and is at the level of stim that the dog first can perceive.


----------



## tippykayak

Loisiana said:


> Then you haven't seen much of a variety of retriever training groups...


No, I've never trained with people who beat their dogs with sticks. And if somebody did so in my presence, they would be the recipient of a lecture about ethics, and then they wouldn't be my training buddy anymore. Even if it's common in your area, I certainly don't see anybody on the forum defending it, so I would argue that it's no longer considered mainstream, ethical dog training, even if some people out there still do it.



Loisiana said:


> maybe it has to do with the training. Or maybe it's more emphasis on breeding towards those qualities that would excell. Or maybe it's more people recognizing early on what makes a successful retriever and don't bother trying with those that they know won't make the cut. Who knows?


I think training's pretty different. I assume you aren't arguing that little significant progress has been made in retriever training in the last hundred years.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> I know many who claim that they don't use punishment at all. That's absurd. It's completely impossible to train without using punishment in some form.


Are you using "punishment" in the behavior science sense or in the common sense sense? Lots of people claim to work without aversives, and some really seem to do so. I don't know anybody who doesn't work without negative punishment.



Lou Castle said:


> As long as we're talking about definitions I think it's necessary that we talk about "pain." When most people talk about pain they're referring to physical pain. Pain is a continuum. It ranges from the highest possible level that makes you scream, jump up and run out of the room. To the lowest level, where my basic work with the Ecollar is done, it's closer to _"It's chilly; I think I need a sweater." _ We should also talk about psychological pain. How much "pain" of this kind is inflicted when a trainer (for example) offers a treat but then withholds it. To answer my own question ... I don't know. But I know that there's discomfort there which many who call themselves "positive trainers" choose to ignore.


I think withholding a treat until a dog performs an action and stimulating a dog's skin with an electrical current are in two different worlds. The first really cannot be accurately described as "pain" except by a person trying to make a point. The second could easily be described as "pain" by anybody willing to put an e-collar on their own neck and to hold the button down (even on the lowest setting).

Not having done this myself, I can't promise that it's any worse than having a vague urge to put a sweater on. But it certainly seems like it would be.



Lou Castle said:


> Several have tried but they've never succeeded.


Who?



Lou Castle said:


> The methods that you're referring to as "new" have been around PLENTY long enough for trainers who use them exclusively to have succeeded in these venues, if, in fact, they gave the control and reliability that is necessary. But they're not. Not even close.


I constantly hear both the argument that all the serious trainers use e-collars (so we should all use them) but also that lots of serious people don't (so we have proof that they don't really work because all these serious people are trying and failing). Which is it? And just to clarify, I'm not saying that a positive reinforcement, clicker-only model would work for a field competition. So if you're assuming the "method" I'm talking about is some kind of version of PO, that's not a philosophy I've ever advocated.



Lou Castle said:


> It could be a move towards better selection methods and better breeding.


You honestly don't think the training methods themselves have improved over the last hundred years?



Lou Castle said:


> It shows that while those so called "positive methods" have been in the mainstream for quite some time, Pryor's book was published 26 years ago, so far no one has successfully done it.


I don't subscribe to nor do I endorse Karen Pryor's methods. She makes a great straw man for your argument, but I'm not arguing from her point of view. I'm not against the use of all aversives in dog training. I simply wonder if dog training has some more evolving to do. And the direction of its evolution in recent history seems to me to be towards more humane methods that emphasize punishment less and behavioral psychology more.

I also don't agree with the point of view that compliance and precision cannot be obtained at all unless you cause your dog discomfort.


----------



## tippykayak

I'm going to bow out of this now that I've learned a bit more about Mr. Castle. I suggest any GRFers who are interested in his points of view simply read his website (his name, then .com). The articles on there will tell you all you need to know, especially the ones on stopping puppies from biting, teaching sit, teaching down, and stopping unwanted jumping.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Lou Castle said:


> I don't think that anyone has said that a "heavy dose of aversive training" is necessary. But there are very few people using the so−called positive methods that rise to the top tiers of competition in any kind of competition that places value on precision and reliability. And I don't believe that there is even ONE police patrol dog (that means one who does searches for humans and when appropriate bites them) who has EVER been trained only with those methods. For years I've offered a substantial finder's fee to anyone who can find such a dog. No one has ever pointed me to such a dog


The vast majority of agility dogs are trained using positive methods, many pure positive with NO punishments and those are the top competitors. Agility requires both precision and reliability.

My obedience coach trains using "motivational" techniques that uses no physical aversives and only a "wrong" or a "uh uh." She has put 3 OTCHs on dogs and numerous UDXs and won High in Trials in a very competitive area. She argues that precision is gained through practice not harsh techniques. Her heeling work is beautiful!


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Lou Castle said:


> I don't think that anyone has said that a "heavy dose of aversive training" is necessary. But there are very few people using the so−called positive methods that rise to the top tiers of competition in any kind of competition that places value on precision and reliability. And I don't believe that there is even ONE police patrol dog (that means one who does searches for humans and when appropriate bites them) who has EVER been trained only with those methods. For years I've offered a substantial finder's fee to anyone who can find such a dog. No one has ever pointed me to such a dog


Training Police Dogs and Military Dogs Using Positive Methods - Whole Dog Journal Article

I can't read the whole article because I'm not a subscriber, but this was written by one of our members.... you can forward the reward to her.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> Are you using "punishment" in the behavior science sense or in the common sense sense? Lots of people claim to work without aversives, and some really seem to do so. I don't know anybody who doesn't work without negative punishment.


Since we're talking about training a dog I'm using the term in the training sense. What you refer to as the _"common sense" sense _is often a perversion of the term favored by the PP folks who mean ONLY hitting, kicking, yelling, etc. I also know lots of people who claim to train without aversives. I've repeatedly shown those folks that they ARE using aversives. Some of them pretend that they're not and have gone so far as to invent new terms so avoid using the word "punishment." 




tippykayak said:


> I think withholding a treat until a dog performs an action and stimulating a dog's skin with an electrical current are in two different worlds.


I don't and since our opinions matter not even a little, it makes no difference that we disagree. The dogs are the final arbiter of which is more uncomfortable. 




tippykayak said:


> The first really cannot be accurately described as "pain" except by a person trying to make a point.


Again I'll disagree and I've seen many dogs that find withholding a treat to be more aversive than an Estim at the level that they first perceive. 




tippykayak said:


> The second could easily be described as "pain" by anybody willing to put an e-collar on their own neck and to hold the button down (even on the lowest setting).


I'm sorry but there's no polite way to say this. You're VERY wrong. On the lowest setting, on the Ecollars that I use, no human (and no dog) can even feel it. 




tippykayak said:


> Not having done this myself, I can't promise that it's any worse than having a vague urge to put a sweater on. But it certainly seems like it would be.


Perhaps we should stay away from conjecture? 


Earlier I wrote (referring to trainers who have tried to train police patrol dogs with a pure positive approach)


> Several have tried but they've never succeeded.


 




tippykayak said:


> Who?


Steve Dean in the UK and Steve White here in the US. Even given the softer nature of police K−9 work (and the dogs) in the UK, it was still impossible. 




tippykayak said:


> I constantly hear both the argument that all the serious trainers use e-collars (so we should all use them)


You've not heard either argument from me. Who have you heard such arguments from?




tippykayak said:


> but also that lots of serious people don't (so we have proof that they don't really work because all these serious people are trying and failing). Which is it?


Let's try it this way. Can you show us a list of pure positive trainers who have stood on national podiums in such venues as AKC OB, Field Trials, Retriever Trials, or Police K−9 competitions? MOST of those folks have trained with the Ecollar at some point. 




tippykayak said:


> And just to clarify, I'm not saying that a positive reinforcement, clicker-only model would work for a field competition. So if you're assuming the "method" I'm talking about is some kind of version of PO, that's not a philosophy I've ever advocated.


OK. For the sake of clarification, can you tell us specifically what philosophy you are advocating? 

Earlier I wrote (in responding to your statement that fewer field trial dogs wash out these day due to _"more humane, more refind, more successful training techniques.") _


> It could be a move towards better selection methods and better breeding.


 




tippykayak said:


> You honestly don't think the training methods themselves have improved over the last hundred years?


I'd say it was a combination of the three with "training methods" coming in last. You'll notice that the top finishers are using Ecollars. (Ecollars have only been around for about 40 years but the method hasn't really changed much until very recently, just the tool). 




tippykayak said:


> I don't subscribe to nor do I endorse Karen Pryor's methods. She makes a great straw man for your argument


I only mentioned her because she's probably more responsible for the so called pure positive methods coming into common knowledge than others. 




tippykayak said:


> but I'm not arguing from her point of view. I'm not against the use of all aversives in dog training. I simply wonder if dog training has some more evolving to do. And the direction of its evolution in recent history seems to me to be towards more humane methods that emphasize punishment less and behavioral psychology more.


 

I don't think this is really happening. I think that there is "more talk" about placing less emphasis on punishment but it's still being used by everyone, even those who pretend that they don't. I think we've been doing the same thing that we were doing ages ago. Trainers of old knew that if they punished a behavior it would tend not to be repeated and if they reinforced a behavior it would tend to repeat. Now we have the terms of OC (Operant Conditioning) but the basics haven't changed and they're not likely to. 




tippykayak said:


> I also don't agree with the point of view that compliance and precision cannot be obtained at all unless you cause your dog discomfort.


Why don't you describe, in detail, how you teach a dog to sit and I'll show you where the discomfort lies?


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I'm going to bow out of this now


Well that's a shame. Just when I was about to show that in spite of your comments that you DO use aversives. 



tippykayak said:


> I suggest any GRFers who are interested in his points of view simply read his website (his name, then .com). The articles on there will tell you all you need to know, especially the ones on stopping puppies from biting, teaching sit, teaching down, and stopping unwanted jumping.


Thanks for asking people to read my articles. That's why I wrote them. I'm always happy to answer questions that people have about them. I'm sure that many will find them useful.


----------



## Lou Castle

Selli-Belle said:


> The vast majority of agility dogs are trained using positive methods, many pure positive with NO punishments and those are the top competitors. Agility requires both precision and reliability.


You think that agility requires _"both precision and reliability?"_ I'll disagree STRONGLY. I can post video after video of even the top competitors and trainers showing UNreliable performances: dogs missing obstacles, dogs not following commands, dogs taking obstacles out of order even when directed to the correct one. While you're welcome to your opinion that agility requires precision and reliability I'll say that using either term is a perversion of their true meanings. Agility is a big happy fun game! I think that it was invented so that people who are unable of getting precision and reliability would have something to do. 




Selli-Belle said:


> My obedience coach trains using "motivational" techniques that uses no physical aversives and only a "wrong" or a "uh uh."


I believe that saying "wrong" or a "uh uh" is to many dogs, devastating when compared to a light stim from an Ecollar. 




Selli-Belle said:


> She has put 3 OTCHs on dogs and numerous UDXs and won High in Trials in a very competitive area. She argues that precision is gained through practice not harsh techniques. Her heeling work is beautiful!


Putting titles on dogs and getting a few HITs is NOT the same as rising (as I said) "to the top tiers of competition." Please let's not try to move the goalposts. You're talking about a relatively low level of OB and I'm talking about the highest levels. What I said earlier is true and accurate. Here it is again with emphasis in the appropriate places. 




> ... there are *very few people *using the so−called positive methods that rise to the *top tiers *of competition in any kind of competition that places value on *precision and reliability. *


----------



## Lou Castle

Jersey's Mom said:


> I can't read the whole article because I'm not a subscriber, but this was written by one of our members.... you can forward the reward to her.


I've spoken to Steve White many times. We even taught at the same seminar a few years back. He's NEVER trained a patrol dog using only _"a pure positive approach."_ He'll admit it if you ask the question directly. But it was a nice try! lol


----------



## FlyingQuizini

Lou Castle said:


> I've spoken to Steve White many times. We even taught at the same seminar a few years back. He's NEVER trained a patrol dog using only _"a pure positive approach."_ He'll admit it if you ask the question directly. But it was a nice try! lol


This is true. And he started at Lackland AFB at a time where choke-and-jerk training was the norm, so he's seen both sides of it.

However, he no longer teaches behaviors with punishment. His punishers are reserved as "emergency brakes," and due to the type of training he now personally employs and teaches to thousands of others (pet owners, competition handlers, police and military K9 teams), punishers are rarely used -- because they're rarely needed.

I don't think anyone here suggested that training should be ONLY reward-based - and as a someone who considers myself a positive reinforcement trainer I personally HATE the term "pure positive." I hate it for two reasons: 1. Scientifically speaking, it actually means you use positive reinforcement AND positive punishment. Duh. 2. Withholding a cookie or access to something the dog wants is using negative punishment. The reality is that most people who say they're "pure positive", IMO, are intending to mean that they avoid using positive punishment.

Those of us who advocate against e-collars are simply expressing a belief that there are less-aversive ways to accomplish things.

Everyone is welcome to their opinion. I respect that some people choose to use e-collars, and personally, I believe that w/in the e-collar camp, some people can do it well and some people can really screw it up.... which can also happen with reward-based training.

However, to say things like "you can't achieve precision" and whatnot w/o tools like e-collars is rather bold, and I will argue, factually untrue. I really don't understand why some of the "e collar die-hards" (for lack of a better term) must be so hell-bent on speaking down on training techniques that don't employ the same technology.


----------



## mdoats

There's something about a new poster that comes on the forum, reopens a thread that is more than 3 years old and comes on like gangbusters disagreeing with everyone who posts... not the greatest way to get to know people on the forum.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Lou Castle said:


> You think that agility requires _"both precision and reliability?"_ I'll disagree STRONGLY. I can post video after video of even the top competitors and trainers showing UNreliable performances: dogs missing obstacles, dogs not following commands, dogs taking obstacles out of order even when directed to the correct one. While you're welcome to your opinion that agility requires precision and reliability I'll say that using either term is a perversion of their true meanings. Agility is a big happy fun game! I think that it was invented so that people who are unable of getting precision and reliability would have something to do.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that saying "wrong" or a "uh uh" is to many dogs, devastating when compared to a light stim from an Ecollar.
> 
> 
> 
> Putting titles on dogs and getting a few HITs is NOT the same as rising (as I said) "to the top tiers of competition." Please let's not try to move the goalposts. You're talking about a relatively low level of OB and I'm talking about the highest levels. What I said earlier is true and accurate. Here it is again with emphasis in the appropriate places.


I disagree, I know that Bridget Carlson does not use ecollars to train, and she also uses the "motivational" label. Is Bridget a top tier competitor? I also know that Adele Yunck uses motivational methods and that Laura Romanik doesn't use ecollars to train obedience. Are these people top tier? My coach has been invited to the NOI many times as have many of her students. Do you know who trials in the SE Michigan area? Of course her students have breeds other than Goldens so it is easier to get the invite. Please, getting a HIT, an OTCH and high scores beating out other major players in the obedience world IS the highest level obedience. Give me a break!

As to agility, yeah there are tons of videos of dogs taking the wrong obstacles. There are also tons of videos of dogs who do a course with no faults. There hardly seems to be a point in you statement. To get a MACH you need 20 double Qs. That means twenty trials with no faults (plus the 700 points). There are many dogs who have completed that requirement more than 10 times. If that is not consistency, please tell me what is? And please list off the top agility trainers who use physically aversive methods.

Please stop patronizing us. Some of us do know what we are talking about. Just because you don't agree with us, doesn't mean we are stupid.


----------



## Bender

I just love how someone who clearly has never stepped into a ring to compete can be such an expert!

Take a look at the crufts videos for obedience or agility. E collars are not very popular over there at all, in most areas I think they are banned in fact. And yes, sometimes in agility there are close calls and such. Do you understand that the course is never the same? 

Is there anyone using the e collar methods you use to do any agility or other events that you can use as an example? I'd like to see that. Of course they can't wear the collar into the ring so that might be tricky.

Now, I do own, and use, e collars for some situations, but in general the dogs do not live in them nor do I rely on them 24/7. I do think anyone getting something like that should have to have taken a lot of courses and such before going to that level as it is very easy to screw up on the dog if you're not careful as to how it's used and when.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

Selli-Belle said:


> My obedience coach trains using "motivational" techniques that uses no physical aversives and only a "wrong" or a "uh uh." She has put 3 OTCHs on dogs and numerous UDXs and won High in Trials in a very competitive area. She argues that precision is gained through practice not harsh techniques. Her heeling work is beautiful!





Lou Castle said:


> Putting titles on dogs and getting a few HITs is NOT the same as rising (as I said) "to the top tiers of competition." Please let's not try to move the goalposts. You're talking about a relatively low level of OB and I'm talking about the highest levels. What I said earlier is true and accurate. Here it is again with emphasis in the appropriate places.


An OTCH is the top tier of competition in obedience. Achieving 3 of them is hardly just "putting titles on dogs and getting a few HITs." Why don't you specify exactly what you mean by these "top tiers of competition," because you've completely lost me.



Lou Castle said:


> I've spoken to Steve White many times. We even taught at the same seminar a few years back. He's NEVER trained a patrol dog using only _"a pure positive approach."_ He'll admit it if you ask the question directly. But it was a nice try! lol


Like I said, couldn't read the whole article. Then again, if you actually read through the threads in this forum, you'll find that none of us advocate a "pure positive" approach. FlyingQuizini clearly explained why, so I won't bother repeating it. But as Tippy pointed out earlier -- it's much easier to dismiss a philosophy that is way on the outer edge of the spectrum than to address the legitimate alternatives that lie between.



FlyingQuizini said:


> However, to say things like "you can't achieve precision" and whatnot w/o tools like e-collars is rather bold, and I will argue, factually untrue. I really don't understand why some of the "e collar die-hards" (for lack of a better term) must be so hell-bent on speaking down on training techniques that don't employ the same technology.


Easy: Acknowledging the efficacy of least-invasive-minimally-aversive training would mean examining why one chooses to cause physical pain or discomfort to one's dog when none is needed. That's a far harder sell than trying to convince people there is no viable alternative.


----------



## Sally's Mom

I think Mr Lou Castle doth protest too much. I remember a local OTCH person telling me my dogs would never have a reliable retrieve without an ear pinch. So as an amateur, who shows very infrequently, I have put a CDX on 3 dogs and a UD on one. My dogs have never not retrieved. I for one, am grateful, that I no longer work with a trainer who "strings up" aggressive dogs. And I believe that in the correct hands(certainly not mine) an E collar has its' place.


----------



## Lou Castle

FlyingQuizini said:


> [referring to Steve White] However, he no longer teaches behaviors with punishment.


Sure he does. Ask him to explain in detail how he teaches a sit and bring it here. I'll be glad to show you that he DOES use punishment. 




FlyingQuizini said:


> His punishers are reserved as "emergency brakes," and due to the type of training he now personally employs and teaches to thousands of others (pet owners, competition handlers, police and military K9 teams), punishers are rarely used -- because they're rarely needed.


My statement is really quite simple but I'm always amazed at how it gets twisted in these discussions. Allow me to clarify ... NO ONE has ever trained a police patrol dog using ONLY a positive approach. Not Steve White and NOT ANYONE ELSE! 




FlyingQuizini said:


> The reality is that most people who say they're "pure positive", IMO, are intending to mean that they avoid using positive punishment.


I think that the reality is that they hope to fool people into believing that they don't use punishment or aversives at all. I think it's nothing but clever marketing. 




FlyingQuizini said:


> Those of us who advocate against e-collars are simply expressing a belief that there are less-aversive ways to accomplish things.


There may be for some dogs for some behaviors given enough time. But I've seen too many people who have gone to such trainers and NOT had them be able to accomplish even a simple recall. I know of one trainer who spent four years in trying to train a recall to a dog of her own. I have no problem with people who want to use other methods (I use them myself when they're appropriate for what I'm teaching and if the dog in question responds to them) as long as they get reliable results in a timely manner. But I do have a problem with people who automatically decry the use of the Ecollar and spew the usual nonsense, myths and misinformation about them. 




FlyingQuizini said:


> Everyone is welcome to their opinion.


I agree. But in order for that opinion to influence others it's best if it's based on facts, rather than feelings. 




FlyingQuizini said:


> I respect that some people choose to use e-collars, and personally, I believe that w/in the e-collar camp, some people can do it well and some people can really screw it up.... which can also happen with reward-based training.


The ability to "screw up" training lies, not in the tool that's in use, but in the trainer's ability to use that tool. I've never been a fan of the term "reward based training" because its meaning is so vague. Every button press of an Ecollar has both +P and –R. Throw in some praise and the use of my methods and the Ecollar is "reward based training." More than 50% of the input from the handler is reinforcement. 




FlyingQuizini said:


> However, to say things like "you can't achieve precision" and whatnot w/o tools like e-collars is rather bold, and I will argue, factually untrue.


You've misquoted me. I was very clear when I wrote, _"... there are *very few people *using the so−called positive methods that rise to the *top tiers *of competition in any kind of competition that places value on *precision and reliability." *_




FlyingQuizini said:


> I really don't understand why some of the "e collar die-hards" (for lack of a better term) must be so hell-bent on speaking down on training techniques that don't employ the same technology.


You might notice that my posts are in response to those who have made statements (to the effect) that Ecollars are not necessary when the fact is that sometimes other methods don't work, they don't work well or they don't work in a timely fashion; that they cause pain; that they are a "heavy dose of aversion." I've also commented when someone has said that they don't use aversives at all in their training.


----------



## Lou Castle

mdoats said:


> There's something about a new poster that comes on the forum, reopens a thread that is more than 3 years old and comes on like gangbusters disagreeing with everyone who posts... not the greatest way to get to know people on the forum.


 
"Getting to know people on the forum" is not a big thing to me. Correcting myths and misconceptions about Ecollars is. BTW the last comment on the thread before I came along was not 3 years ago. It was only 1 year ago. In fact I misread the date and so thought it was just a few days ago. I'm still writing "2010" on my checks occasionally. In any case, I was referred to the thread by someone on another forum who was amazed at the misinformation about Ecollars and SMS that it contained. After reading the thread, I agreed, and so set out to clear a few things up. 

Also BTW, I notice that you did not comment about Golden River of Dreams who reopened the discussion after some eight months [about the same time delay as for me] after the last comment and after having been a member for only a month. Could it be because you agree with him? Hmmm.


----------



## Lou Castle

Selli-Belle said:


> I disagree


With what point? There were several ideas discussed in the post that you replied to. 




Selli-Belle said:


> I know that Bridget Carlson does not use ecollars to train, and she also uses the "motivational" label.


So do I. But since there is no widely accepted definition for this term, it means little. I know Ecollar trainers who use massively high levels of stim, so high that the dogs scream in pain, who say that they're "motivating the dog." And in fact. from a twisted standpoint, they are, but it's certainly not what you (or I, for that matter) mean when we use the term. 




Selli-Belle said:


> Is Bridget a top tier competitor? I also know that Adele Yunck uses motivational methods and that Laura Romanik doesn't use ecollars to train obedience. Are these people top tier?


You tell me. Have any of them won national championships? I looked at Bridgit's website but didn't see any mention of one. Ditto for Adele. Laura also does not mention such a championship and she says on her site that she uses _"a balanced training approach."_ usually that means that the trainer acknowledges that both reinforcement and punishment are used. That's my approach BTW. 




Selli-Belle said:


> My coach has been invited to the NOI many times as have many of her students. Do you know who trials in the SE Michigan area? Of course her students have breeds other than Goldens so it is easier to get the invite. Please, getting a HIT, an OTCH and high scores beating out other major players in the obedience world IS the highest level obedience. Give me a break!


I'd love to give you a break except that you keep "begging the question" and so I can't. My statement is quite precise and you conveniently keep trying to bend it to suit your agenda. I wrote this, _" ... there are *very few people *using the so−called positive methods that rise to the *top tiers *of competition in any kind of competition that places value on *precision and reliability."*_




Selli-Belle said:


> As to agility, yeah *there are tons of videos of dogs taking the wrong obstacles. *There are also tons of videos of dogs who do a course with no faults. There hardly seems to be a point in you statement.


Here's the point. You claimed that Agility required "precision and reliability." You've just admitted that it does not. And for the record, my comment was not about run−of−the−mill trainers and their dogs. It was about, as I clearly wrote, _" the top competitors and trainers."_ How come people keep missing these important details? 

To get a MACH you need 20 double Qs. That means twenty trials with no faults (plus the 700 points). There are many dogs who have completed that requirement more than 10 times. If that is not consistency, please tell me what is? And please list off the top agility trainers who use physically aversive methods.




Selli-Belle said:


> Please stop patronizing us.


I don't think that I'm patronizing anyone. I do know that you keep trying to move the goalposts on my statement. Is that "patronizing?" 




Selli-Belle said:


> Some of us do know what we are talking about. Just because you don't agree with us, doesn't mean we are stupid.


Please show me anywhere that I've said that ANYONE is stupid. I've never done so. Please don't try to put words into my mouth.


----------



## Lou Castle

Bender said:


> I just love how someone who clearly has never stepped into a ring to compete can be such an expert!


 
When have I ever claimed to be an expert on anything that occurs in any type of ring? In fact, when have I ever claimed to be an expert on ANYTHING. 




Bender said:


> Take a look at the crufts videos for obedience or agility.


 
Seen them. Not impressed. They're nowhere near the top tiers of OB competition here in the movements that are the same. 




Bender said:


> E collars are not very popular over there at all


 
That's true. Few people in the UK are familiar with modern methods of using modern versions of the tool. Most ONLY know about older tools that had one (very high) setting and could only be used to punish non−compliance. Most pet owners are not even aware that modern versions of the tool have adjustable stim levels 




Bender said:


> in most areas I think they are banned in fact.


 
They are only banned in Wales, a very small part of the UK. 




Bender said:


> Is there anyone using the e collar methods you use to do any agility or other events that you can use as an example?


 
Not for agility, but virtually every top finisher in field trials for years has used an Ecollar. Would you like names? 




Bender said:


> I'd like to see that. Of course they can't wear the collar into the ring so that might be tricky.


 
It's not any trickier than weaning a dog off a clicker, treats or toys which are also not allowed "in the ring." 




Bender said:


> Now, I do own, and use, e collars for some situations, but in general the dogs do not live in them nor do I rely on them 24/7.


 
I don't think anyone here is advocating that dogs "live in them" or wear them "24/7." Can you point out anyone who's made such a statement? 




Bender said:


> I do think anyone getting something like that should have to have taken a lot of courses and such before going to that level as it is very easy to screw up on the dog if you're not careful as to how it's used and when.


 
I think that an Ecollar is a very easy tool to learn to use properly. I've written a few articles that teach this. I've received many letters from people who have never before used the tool, who have used my articles to train their dogs to their complete satisfaction. Check the "testimonials" page of my website. 

It's not any easier or any harder to "screwup on the dog" with the Ecollar than with any other tool.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jersey's Mom said:


> An OTCH is the top tier of competition in obedience.


 

An OTCH is certainly an impressive achievement but it's NOT the "top tier." To clarify ... I'm referring to winning consistently at the national level. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> Like I said, couldn't read the whole article.


 
Perhaps I'm being too sensitive. Were you trying to be something other than "smug" when you wrote, _"this was written by one of our members.... * you can forward the reward to her." * _ 




Jersey's Mom said:


> Easy: Acknowledging the efficacy of least-invasive-minimally-aversive training would mean examining why one chooses to cause physical pain or discomfort to one's dog when none is needed.


 
As you say, "Easy." It's because those methods don't work for all things on all dogs. And to pretend that those methods don't inflict "discomfort" is to be disingenuous. Usually when those methods fail the advice given is to "do more of the same." Even when they do give results, they need much more upkeep to maintain the quality and they take more work and more time. Simple fact is, not everyone is going to keep at something that hasn't worked. They're going to take those problem dogs to the shelter or have them put down. The Ecollar used with my methods gives those folks an alternative.


----------



## Lou Castle

Sally's Mom said:


> I think Mr Lou Castle doth protest too much.


LOL. I think I doth protest just enough! 




Sally's Mom said:


> I remember a local OTCH person telling me my dogs would never have a reliable retrieve without an ear pinch. So as an amateur, who shows very infrequently, I have put a CDX on 3 dogs and a UD on one. My dogs have never not retrieved.


Another case of "begging the question." Unless that is, you're a consistent winner at the national level. Since you're not using your true name I don't know. Are you? 




Sally's Mom said:


> I for one, am grateful, that I no longer work with a trainer who "strings up" aggressive dogs.


I believe that "stringing up a dog" up a dog is a self−defense move to be used only when a dog attacks the handler. It's not a training technique. And I have no idea what it has to do with this discussion. 




Sally's Mom said:


> And I believe that in the correct hands(certainly not mine) an E collar has its' place.


Some people can't even admit that the tool has a place in dog training.


----------



## Debles

Back to the OP's question. Do you have a dog obedience club in your area? Our club only charges $45. per 6 week session and the classes are taught by experienced trainers who have titles on their own dogs. None use ecollars.

There are other places in town who charge $800. or more for the lifetime of the dog but I have received excellent help/training for our dogs taking classes at our dog club.


----------



## mdoats

Lou Castle said:


> "Getting to know people on the forum" is not a big thing to me. Correcting myths and misconceptions about Ecollars is. BTW the last comment on the thread before I came along was not 3 years ago. It was only 1 year ago. In fact I misread the date and so thought it was just a few days ago. I'm still writing "2010" on my checks occasionally. In any case, I was referred to the thread by someone on another forum who was amazed at the misinformation about Ecollars and SMS that it contained. After reading the thread, I agreed, and so set out to clear a few things up.
> 
> Also BTW, I notice that you did not comment about Golden River of Dreams who reopened the discussion after some eight months [about the same time delay as for me] after the last comment and after having been a member for only a month. Could it be because you agree with him? Hmmm.


Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't you take your condescension back to the other forum? You can go "clear a few things up" over there.

Turning on the "ignore" feature now. Thank heavens for that.


----------



## Bender

Well ok then. Guess it's ok to criticize agility even though you don't understand it at all. Good to know. I know lots of field people use them. But if you're not impressed by crufts I guess the thing to do is hit the button till you do.

Don't worry, you'll hardly feel it.

Off to set traps for little green men who come in the night, likely more productive than this.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

I hate multi quoting. My comments are below, in color.



Lou Castle said:


> Sure he does. Ask him to explain in detail how he teaches a sit and bring it here. I'll be glad to show you that he DOES use punishment.
> 
> He generally free shapes, waiting for the dog to offer the behavior, or an increment of the behavior, and rewarding/building on that. Yes, he is withholding the reward until he gets the desired behavior. I am clear that your position is that withholding the reward in an aversive. It is not, however, positive punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> My statement is really quite simple but I'm always amazed at how it gets twisted in these discussions. Allow me to clarify ... NO ONE has ever trained a police patrol dog using ONLY a positive approach. Not Steve White and NOT ANYONE ELSE!
> 
> I've already agreed with you here. Yes, he uses positive punishment, but it's used sparingly and not used to initially teach behaviors. To quote White directly: “Through the years, the more positive reinforcement I used, the less aversives I use. I’m not 100 percent pure positive; I sometimes need to use an emergency brake (such as a verbal reprimand or leash correction) -- but I no longer use aversives as a teaching tool.”
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the reality is that they hope to fool people into believing that they don't use punishment or aversives at all. I think it's nothing but clever marketing.
> 
> The same might also be said about how e-collar proponants claim to know how the dog feels about e-stim. Or the users who have developed a host of fancy new names for it.
> 
> 
> 
> There may be for some dogs for some behaviors given enough time. But I've seen too many people who have gone to such trainers and NOT had them be able to accomplish even a simple recall. I know of one trainer who spent four years in trying to train a recall to a dog of her own. I have no problem with people who want to use other methods (I use them myself when they're appropriate for what I'm teaching and if the dog in question responds to them) as long as they get reliable results in a timely manner. But I do have a problem with people who automatically decry the use of the Ecollar and spew the usual nonsense, myths and misinformation about them.
> 
> And I've seen dogs who develop serious problems following the use of e-collars. I've also had great results with my own dogs w/o actively using positive punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. But in order for that opinion to influence others it's best if it's based on facts, rather than feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> The ability to "screw up" training lies, not in the tool that's in use, but in the trainer's ability to use that tool. I've never been a fan of the term "reward based training" because its meaning is so vague. Every button press of an Ecollar has both +P and –R. Throw in some praise and the use of my methods and the Ecollar is "reward based training." More than 50% of the input from the handler is reinforcement.
> 
> I'm glad that works for you and your clients. I've not said one thing to bash the use of e-collars in general. I've simply said they aren't for me.
> 
> 
> 
> You've misquoted me. I was very clear when I wrote, _"... there are *very few people *using the so−called positive methods that rise to the *top tiers *of competition in any kind of competition that places value on *precision and reliability." *_
> 
> I do believe that in a lot of sports, the use of aversives is still prevalent. I know of several people who are very successful w/o the use of positive punishment. Do they use some aversives? Yes. But I've already established that I don't believe in pure positive training. I do, however, believe that there are several ways to train that don't involve an e-collar or other forms of positive punishment.
> 
> 
> 
> You might notice that my posts are in response to those who have made statements (to the effect) that Ecollars are not necessary when the fact is that sometimes other methods don't work, they don't work well or they don't work in a timely fashion; that they cause pain; that they are a "heavy dose of aversion." I've also commented when someone has said that they don't use aversives at all in their training.


In some cases, I think all those statement can be true. Just like, in some cases, the use of food rewards can be bribes, etc. Every method has it's potential user-induced issues.

Bottom line is that for some people, the use of e-stim represents a line they aren't willing to cross. I am one of those people. If a collar works for you, and you can use it humanely, more power to you. I like red. You like blue. Done deal. These types of conversations always seem to turn into a pissing contest. Neither side is going to change the other's mind. I appreciate passionate beliefs... right up until one side feels the need to talk down to the other - which is often what these types of conversations deteriorate into.


----------



## K9-Design

I think somewhere in the Sit Means Sit franchise development manual there is a chapter called "Harassing People On the Internet While Inflating One's View Of Self"
Old Fred whats-his-name, the SMS originator, pulls the same pranks on RTF. He constantly posts videos of himself training his dog to do ridiculous tasks in the name of "retriever training" yet never explains how or what he is doing. He has achieved thus far, only entry level titles in the field of hunt tests, much less field trials. Any advice from REAL retriever trainers is scoffed at. Looks like Lou is from the same mold. A-N-N-O-Y-I-N-G!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ljilly28

> *The training methods employed in the APDT world will never deliver the kind of precision and relibility required of a k9 Officer or advanced handling competition dog.*
> 
> I'm sorry, but that simply just isn't true. Non- e-collar training, as employed by APDT trainers, can and does deliver precision and reliability. There are several well-known trainers who have been using non- e-collar methods for years in very complex training situations such as military work, detection dogs, animals for intelligence agencies around the world, police dogs.
> 
> I understand that some people prefer to train with an e-collar and that's their choice. However, it's quite unnecessary, let alone, inaccurate, to make a claim that it *can't* be done another way. Perhaps the person *making* the claim that it can't be done cannot, him/herself do it, but that certainly doesn't mean it cannot be done.
> 
> I'm certainly not saying that e-collar training doesn't work. Sure, it'll train your dog. But you're training with positive punishment, and research has shown that punishment-based methods are not w/o the potential for heavy fallout.


[/QUOTE]
I agree with this, especially about the heavy fall out. The one person i know offering pet dog training with this recipe is a wash out from other dog activities with 6 months of lifetime training experience. No force on earth would make me trust him with my dog or a client's. What goes in to training/ certifying an instructor for this franchise who is not Fred?



> gabbys mom said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . I would like to see more pure positives title their dogs at high levels in multiple venues. I think that will be much more persuasive than arguing about it on a message board - I think currently, especially at a national level, the results speak for themselves on who has accomplished titles at a high level, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a chicken/egg question for me. Are any of the trainers working in the field with ecollars/aversives _capable_ of achieving the same titles through different skill sets?
Click to expand...


----------



## Ljilly28

*!*



Swampcollie said:


> The training methods employed in the APDT world will never deliver the kind of precision and relibility required of a k9 Officer or advanced handling competition dog.


I just watched on of my favorite positive trainers work her dog the day before yesterday. The dog is UCDX HR SR / ACK UDT, MH, WCX ** . No E collar/ No FF. Positive training is not all cookie pushing at pet smart. With skills and timing, it is a legit way of training. I think someone should try it, study it, and give it 100 percent effort before knocking it this hard. Look at Jess and Mira!



tippykayak said:


> I am denouncing nobody except for Colonel Konrad Most, who is dead.


This is a good and important point. It is too bad when differences in training ideology get personal and create lasting bad feelings between golden people on the forum. 

I think E Collars obviously do work in skilled hands for retriever training, but I admire more the dogs who succeed without them. I just read an article by the person who breeds Elysian goldens about training one of her well known dogs without an e collar. I was so interested in what she had to say. I am lucky bc there is a core group of people here in my real life achieving UD/MH who have "crossed over" to positive training. Their journies engage and interest me, so it is my choice for my dogs. I can live and let live with everyone else, and take these women as role models. Great- no problem. I may not really admire an aversively trained dog's accomplishment as much as one trained with positive methods, but I do accept it is a legit part of retriever training for most.

However, E collar training by franchises in the pet market is another story. I do not believe all of the instructors are well trained enough, and I believe much inhumane treatment of dogs results. That is NOT personal to even one forum member, it is simply my experience training pet dogs in the real world.


----------



## Ljilly28

DNL2448 said:


> But many, if not most of their trainers are people who have never trained a dog but went to the SMS three-week-school and came out as "Certified Remote Specialists." A title awarded to them by the head of that school no matter how well they did, no matter how little they know about dogs in general and no matter how many dogs they've ever trained.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,


This is certainly a concern I hear voiced in the training community where I live. If it is true, it is sad for dogs.


----------



## Svan

I have to say I don't think I'd care to work my dog at a level where I have to use the equivalent of a cattle prod to get him to obey me! Maybe I just don't have enough of a competitive drive or something but for me working any dog has always been about both of us enjoying the experience as much as possible. That doesn't mean there's never a NO but that it's only used when absolutely required. I just feel a little bit ill at the idea of putting an electric current through my dog:yuck:

Sorry to those of you who feel different but I wouldn't be able to do it, I feel bad enough already at the look on his little face when I say no, can't imagine how it would be to deliberately inflict physical pain on him:vomit:


----------



## fostermom

Lou Castle said:


> "Getting to know people on the forum" is not a big thing to me. Correcting myths and misconceptions about Ecollars is. BTW the last comment on the thread before I came along was not 3 years ago. It was only 1 year ago. In fact I misread the date and so thought it was just a few days ago. I'm still writing "2010" on my checks occasionally. In any case, I was referred to the thread by someone on another forum who was amazed at the misinformation about Ecollars and SMS that it contained. After reading the thread, I agreed, and so set out to clear a few things up.
> 
> Also BTW, I notice that you did not comment about Golden River of Dreams who reopened the discussion after some eight months [about the same time delay as for me] after the last comment and after having been a member for only a month. Could it be because you agree with him? Hmmm.


No it's more likely because Golden River of Dreams didn't continue to pound their point. You, on the other hand. have done nothing but go on and on. I can't understand coming to a forum and searching for a post just to start a debate. But then again, I don't advertise my business in my signature like you are doing. What better way to try to get free advertising.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Lou Castle said:


> You tell me. Have any of them won national championships? I looked at Bridgit's website but didn't see any mention of one. Ditto for Adele. Laura also does not mention such a championship and she says on her site that she uses _"a balanced training approach."_ usually that means that the trainer acknowledges that both reinforcement and punishment are used. That's my approach BTW.


Being invited to the AKC NOI, especially in Goldens is being recognized as a "top tier competitor." Only one person wins the Cy Young Award every year for each league, does that mean that those two are the only top tier pitchers in major league baseball? Only one college football player wins the Heisman Trophy, does that mean that all other college football players are "run of the mill" players? Add to that fact that most people who compete in obedience do it as a hobby while they hold down jobs and have families. Many of the invitees to the NOI don't go, not because they are not competitive, but because they choose to spend their money in other ways and winning the NOI is less important to them than other goals.

I stated that Laura Romanik does not use shock collars to train obedience. How do I know? Because I know her and have discussed it with her! That's the thing, I don't have to look at their websites to try and figure out how they train. As for Bridget, I certainly do not have to defend her standing in the obedience world. Petra Ford (look she has NOI champs) doesn't use ecollars for obedience training. Can you name one top AKC obedience person who uses ecollars in obedience training? 




> I'd love to give you a break except that you keep "begging the question" and so I can't. My statement is quite precise and you conveniently keep trying to bend it to suit your agenda. I wrote this, _" ... there are *very few people *using the so−called positive methods that rise to the *top tiers *of competition in any kind of competition that places value on *precision and reliability."*_
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the point. You claimed that Agility required "precision and reliability." You've just admitted that it does not. And for the record, my comment was not about run−of−the−mill trainers and their dogs. It was about, as I clearly wrote, _" the top competitors and trainers."_ How come people keep missing these important details?


How did I admit that agility does not require precision and reliability? Yes not all run are qualifying runs. But that is why it is a sport where you need to train a dog. And you work on getting a more precise and reliable performance. To get a MACH or a MACH15 a trainer needs precision and reliability (plus speed), that is the whole point of those titles. Having a MACH is the demonstration of being a "top trainer and competitor". I am willing to state that none of the top agility trainers (who have the national champion dogs) use ecollars to train their dogs and most of them do not use any physical aversives. Can you prove me wrong? Can you give me names of top agility trainers who do use ecollars or detail their use of physical aversives?


----------



## Loisiana

Bridget and Adele both use ecollars on their dogs.


----------



## GoldenSail

Just a few thoughts--

Firstly, I do not like the SMS franchise or their training methods.

I think it is very difficult to compare agility with obedience with field with other forms of competition. They are different, and there are proven or more common ways to train dogs in each venue for a reason. Change is good when it is for the better.

There is a trainer in my area who uses an ecollar and has obtained two OTCHs on two blue tick hounds. Whether you agree with the collar or not, getting and OTCH on a blue tick hound is no simple feat, and I would argue way more difficult than our goldens. She was the first and might still be the only one to get an OTCH on that breed. Still, there are plenty of people in other breeds with success without ecollar. And I love competitive obedience, but will not use my ecollar for it. Just in field, as needed. 

And I feel like the ecollar has helped us over hurdles quickly and more efficiently in some instances than avoiding its use altogether would have. JMO of course.


----------



## tippykayak

K9-Design said:


> I think somewhere in the Sit Means Sit franchise development manual there is a chapter called "Harassing People On the Internet While Inflating One's View Of Self"
> Old Fred whats-his-name, the SMS originator, pulls the same pranks on RTF. He constantly posts videos of himself training his dog to do ridiculous tasks in the name of "retriever training" yet never explains how or what he is doing. He has achieved thus far, only entry level titles in the field of hunt tests, much less field trials. Any advice from REAL retriever trainers is scoffed at. Looks like Lou is from the same mold. A-N-N-O-Y-I-N-G!!!!!!!!!!


I believe the tactic is to create an argument with lots of replies so your name and site (which is probably why he had it in his signature) show up higher in search engine rankings. That is one reason of many that I haven't wanted to continue discussing things with him.

A little further searching into Google may tell you all you would ever need to know about the individual, but as long as the site he maintains himself is the top hit, this negative publicity is good for his business.

I don't know if this applies to Mr. Castle, but it's becoming an increasingly common tactic for people running unsavory businesses. Here's a _New York Times_ article on the subject.


----------



## Lou Castle

Bender said:


> Well ok then. Guess it's ok to criticize agility even though you don't understand it at all.


 
I really don't think you have any idea of what I do or don't understand. If you disagree, please let us know of the source of your knowledge about me. It would seem that you've jumped to a conclusion after making a couple of assumptions about me. In any case, on needn't understand a thing to simply watch as dogs skip obstacles or fail to follow their handler's commands.


----------



## Lou Castle

FlyingQuizini said:


> He [referring to Steve White] generally free shapes, waiting for the dog to offer the behavior, or an increment of the behavior, and rewarding/building on that. Yes, he is withholding the reward until he gets the desired behavior. I am clear that your position is that withholding the reward in an aversive. It is not, however, positive punishment.


I never said that it is +P. You wrote this, _"However, he no longer teaches behaviors with punishment."_ Using an aversive in this fashion IS punishment. You said that he does not use it. You're wrong. Withholding the treat tends to make the behavior not repeat. That's the definition of punishment. 




FlyingQuizini said:


> I've already agreed with you here. Yes, he uses positive punishment, but it's used sparingly and not used to initially teach behaviors.


Using something "sparingly" is still using it. And you've just told us that he uses an aversive during the teaching phase. 




FlyingQuizini said:


> To quote White directly: “Through the years, the more positive reinforcement I used, the less aversives I use. I’m not 100 percent pure positive; I sometimes need to use an emergency brake (such as a verbal reprimand or leash correction) -- but I no longer use aversives as a teaching tool.”


Since he's withholding a treat during free shaping he's using an aversive. Despite his denial he IS using aversive as a teaching tool. How is it that some can't see this? 

Earlier I wrote,


> I think that the reality is that they hope to fool people into believing that they don't use punishment or aversives at all. I think it's nothing but clever marketing.


 




FlyingQuizini said:


> The same might also be said about how e-collar proponants claim to know how the dog feels about e-stim. Or the users who have developed a host of fancy new names for it.


Please show us someplace that I've talked about how a dog "feels about Estim?" What "fancy new names" are you talking about? 




FlyingQuizini said:


> And I've seen dogs who develop serious problems following the use of e-collars. I've also had great results with my own dogs w/o actively using positive punishment.


And I've seen dogs that had no reliability after their owners used the so−called "kinder gentler methods." Not sure what this has to do with the topic though. An Ecollar isn't going to turn a crap trainer into a genius. Neither is any other tool. Competence or incompetence isn't inherent in the tool. 

It's great that you have been able to train your dogs like this. Many dogs don't respond to those methods for many behaviors and many trainers are not skilled enough or willing to spend the time to apply them correctly. OTOH the Ecollar is easy for people to learn to use. 





FlyingQuizini said:


> I do believe that in a lot of sports, the use of aversives is still prevalent.


There is no sport where aversives are not "prevalent." It's impossible to train a dog to do anything without using them. 




FlyingQuizini said:


> I know of several people who are very successful w/o the use of positive punishment. Do they use some aversives? Yes. But I've already established that I don't believe in pure positive training.


 

The term "very successful" has different meanings to different people. The trainer I know who took four years to train a recall thought that she was "very successful." I would not agree. 




FlyingQuizini said:


> I do, however, believe that there are several ways to train that don't involve an e-collar or other forms of positive punishment.


Of course there are several way to train that "don't involve an Ecollar or other forms of +P." I've never said anything different. IN FACT, I've said that I use those methods myself, but not for everything and not for every dog. BTW is there some reason that you have consistently overlooked the fact that Ecollar training is balanced? It uses both +P and –R? 




FlyingQuizini said:


> Every method has it's potential user-induced issues.


I agree. 




FlyingQuizini said:


> These types of conversations always seem to turn into a pissing contest.


Some people are simply not capable of having their core beliefs questioned and remain polite and professional. 




FlyingQuizini said:


> Neither side is going to change the other's mind. I appreciate passionate beliefs... right up until one side feels the need to talk down to the other - which is often what these types of conversations deteriorate into.


I’m not trying to change anyone's mind but I get the distinct impression that quite a few are trying to change mine. I'm merely clearing up several misconceptions about the Ecollar that some people spout as if they were fact. Along the way I'm showing some, that in spite of some claims to the contrary, that punishment and aversions are used in ALL training no matter how hard people work to avoid it. Some want to think that they don't use them during teaching as with Steve White. But the facts are obvious whether he or you will admit them or not.


----------



## Lou Castle

Ljilly28 said:


> I do not believe all of the instructors are well trained enough, and I believe much inhumane treatment of dogs results. That is NOT personal to even one forum member, it is simply my experience training pet dogs in the real world.


 
I'll agree. Many of the people who run through the three week school have never before trained a dog. Yet they come out "certified" as "remote collar specialists." I don't think that anyone can appropriately call themselves a dog trainer after only three weeks of instruction. I'm told by a couple of graduates who have "left the fold" that much of that time is devoted to instruction in marketing, not dog training.


----------



## Lou Castle

Svan said:


> I have to say I don't think I'd care to work my dog at a level where I have to use the equivalent of a cattle prod to get him to obey me!


 
I'm sorry but this is one of those myths I've been talking about. No Ecollar, has anywhere near the power of a cattle prod. Eitther you don't know this or you're using it as an emotional argument. I hope it's the former. To give you some idea of the relative power of a few tools that use electricity ... An Ecollar used, as I advocate, emits 0.000005 Joules. An abdominal energizer, one of those passive tummy exercisers advertised on TV, emits 0.914 joules, almost 183,000 times more powerful. An electric fence charger emits 3.2 Joules, 640,000 times more powerful. A cattle prod is just a bit more powerful than the fence charger. 




Svan said:


> I just feel a little bit ill at the idea of putting an electric current through my dog


 
As I feared, the emotional approach. Might I suggest that you investigate the healing power of electrical current? I've had hundreds of hours of TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation). It's commonly used in the rehabilitation of patients from all sorts of injuries. It's also used during childbirth (but at fairly high levels of discomfort) to harmlessly distract the mother from the pain of the birth. 

Do a search for "electricity wound healing" and you'll find quite a few articles that discuss the fact that "putting al electric current through [your] dog, can speed healing. Perhaps that will ease your tummy? 




Svan said:


> Sorry to those of you who feel different but I wouldn't be able to do it, I feel bad enough already at the look on his little face when I say no, can't imagine how it would be to deliberately inflict physical pain on him


 
You might want to take a look at post #67 where pain, as a continuum, is discussed. Meanwhile, You might want to take a look at this video of a JRT who's feeling his first stim. He's not in any pain. 

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1718526843747129672#docid=7857735919357023488 

How come it's OK for you to inflict mental pain on your dog but the thought of physical pain makes you ill?


----------



## Lou Castle

fostermom said:


> No it's more likely because Golden River of Dreams didn't continue to pound their point. You, on the other hand. have done nothing but go on and on.




I'm sorry that you don't like that I answer each and every question asked of me (with a few certain exceptions) and that I respond to people who quote me and then say something that's incorrect, but that's just how I am. I think that when people ask questions they deserve answer, even if they disagree with me. It's sad, however that many have not answered my questions. 

I also think it's sad that there are so many who think that they are up to date on the "latest innovations in dog training" but have so many misconceptions about a tool that's been around for four decades. It's also sad that so many think that they are not using punishment or aversives in their teaching/training when they clearly are. 




fostermom said:


> I can't understand coming to a forum and searching for a post just to start a debate.


 
I was sent to this discussion by a direct link. No searching was necessary. I didn't start this debate. It was going on long before I wrote my first post.


----------



## Lou Castle

Selli-Belle said:


> Being invited to the AKC NOI, especially in Goldens is being recognized as a "top tier competitor."


 
I've already clarified once but apparently you missed it. Using separate definitions like this is pointless so I'll amend my statement so that we don't have to do this any more. _"there are very few people using the so−called positive methods that rise to winning at the *national level *in any kind of competition that places value on precision and reliability."_ Is that clearer to you now? 

Overwhelmingly those people are using conventional methods, that means using a leash and corrections. 




Selli-Belle said:


> I stated that Laura Romanik does not use shock collars to train obedience. How do I know? Because I know her and have discussed it with her!


 
I don't recall ever saying (or asking) if she used Ecollars. Not sure why you bring this up? 




Selli-Belle said:


> As for Bridget, I certainly do not have to defend her standing in the obedience world.


 
Ditto. And please refer to my clarification. Hmm. It's odd that you didn't come right out and say that she does not use Ecollars. Could it be that she does? I have no idea, but the way you wrote this leads me to believe that she might; that you know it; and you don't want to admit it because it will weaken your argument. 




Selli-Belle said:


> Petra Ford (look she has NOI champs) doesn't use ecollars for obedience training.


 
Ditto. Hmm. There's that odd feeling again. Could it be that she does use Ecollars just not for OB training? Again, just guessing. 




Selli-Belle said:


> Can you name one top AKC obedience person who uses ecollars in obedience training?


 
Nope. But then I've NEVER SAID THAT ANYONE IN AKC OB USES THEM! Not sure why you bring this up. My statement CLEARLY, apparently except to you says NOTHING about Ecollars. It has to do with the so−called "positive methods." It CLEARLY says that. 




Selli-Belle said:


> How did I admit that agility does not require precision and reliability? Yes not all run are qualifying runs.


 
Here's another admission of it. 




Selli-Belle said:


> But that is why it is a sport where you need to train a dog.


 
Are there sports (involving a dog) where you don't need to train them? 




Selli-Belle said:


> I am willing to state that none of the top agility trainers (who have the national champion dogs) use ecollars to train their dogs and most of them do not use any physical aversives. Can you prove me wrong?


 

No, and I don't need to. My statement is NOT that any of these folks use Ecollars. My statement AGAIN is _"there are very few people using the so−called positive methods that rise to winning at the *national level *in any kind of competition that places value on precision and reliability."_ Please read it carefully once more and realize that it DOES NOT SAY that those who ARE standing on the podium at the national level are using Ecollars. It says that they're NOT using the so called "positive methods." They're not the same and it's fascinating that you keep trying to twist my words to suit some argument that you are having all by yourself.


----------



## Lou Castle

Loisiana said:


> Bridget and Adele both use ecollars on their dogs.


 
@ Selli-Belle. Oops. Thanks Loisiana. 

Selli-Belle your response? Kinda shoots holes through some of your previous comments.


----------



## Lou Castle

GoldenSail said:


> And I feel like the ecollar has helped us over hurdles quickly and more efficiently in some instances than avoiding its use altogether would have. JMO of course.




I think that the opinion of someone who has actually used an Ecollar beats the heck out of the opinions of people who have not.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I believe the tactic is to create an argument with lots of replies so your name and site (which is probably why he had it in his signature) show up higher in search engine rankings. That is one reason of many that I haven't wanted to continue discussing things with him.


 
Didn't you earlier write this? _"I'm going to bow out of this now."_ Do you often have trouble keeping your word or is it just today with me? 

I notice that you completely failed to answer my questions. Some reason that you're evading them? If you can't find them I'll be happy to post them again for you. Meanwhile, watch out for those black helicopters. LOL




tippykayak said:


> A little further searching into Google may tell you all you would ever need to know about the individual


 
If it's on the Net it must be true! ROFLMAO. A little digging will bring you to a website put up by my psycho−cyber−stalker. This nutball has devoted hundreds of hours to stalking me around the net and on the phone. What kind of a mental case puts up a website with hundreds of pages about someone that he's never even met? It may bring some folks some entertainment but I've always said that the site says more about the nut than it does about me. But feel free to go look. It's moderately entertaining unless you have some affinity for the truth. I've also said that anyone who believes a word of that nonsense is an idiot. Hmm. 




tippykayak said:


> but as long as the site he maintains himself is the top hit, this negative publicity is good for his business.


 
Negative publicity? I'll have to disagree. I know that I'm making progress, even though most of you are arguing against me. I've gotten several emails from people asking questions about the Ecollar. They don't want to stand up publicly and take this kind of beating. 

In any case, as I've already said, my "business" costs me money. I'm thrilled that my site shows up so often in searches. It means that people can easily find the training articles that make up the overwhelming majority of the site. 




tippykayak said:


> I don't know if this applies to Mr. Castle, but it's becoming an increasingly common tactic for people running unsavory businesses. Here's a New York Times article on the subject.


 
_"unsavory businesses."_ How rude. My site has dozens of letters from people who have used my methods with the Ecollar to train their dogs to their complete satisfaction. Those letters come from pet owners, police K−9 handlers, SAR workers and owners of working dogs of other types as well. I've done 50 seminars (with several more scheduled for this year) most of them teaching the Ecollar, but other topics as well. Fourteen of them were annual seminars where I was invited back. On one of those annual seminars I've been invited back four times and will probably repeat again this year. 

I've taught for such national organizations as DAD/DAC (Dogs Against Drugs/Dogs Against Crime) and NASAR (National Assn for Search and Rescue). I've taught for CARDA (CA Rescue Dog Assn) Washington State SAR, LCSAR (Larimer County [CO] SAR), SKIDDS (Swat and K−9 Interacting During Deployjments), CATS (Canine Tactical School), UTT (Urban Tactical Training School), CSAR (Canine Search and Recovery) GSRNC (German Shepherd Rescue of Northern CA), LACPCA (Los Angeles County Poice Canine Assn) and more. 

I've judged a SAR competition in the UK and have taught the Ecollar and other topics in Spain, Canada and in 19 states and 38 cities. 

I'd be willing to bet that I'm the only trainer here who offers a money back guarantee to my private clients if they're not happy with the results. Other guarantees that I've seen from dog trainers offer the owner the opportunity to come back for more classes, but NOT a full refund. I've never had a client ask for a refund. 

_"Unsavory"_ indeed. As is typical, when someone can't present a cogent argument on the topic, they attack the person. Disgusting, simply disgusting. 

Now back to those questions you've been avoiding. You ever going to answer them?


----------



## RedDogs

Lou Castle said:


> I never said that it is +P. You wrote this, _"However, he no longer teaches behaviors with punishment."_ Using an aversive in this fashion IS punishment. You said that he does not use it. You're wrong. Withholding the treat tends to make the behavior not repeat. That's the definition of punishment.



My understanding was that this would be extinction (nothing is added, nothing is taken away)? Can you elaborate on the differences between the above and extinction?

If you are holding out the reinforcer and then upon an error/incorrect response, remove it from sight, that would (arguably) be negative reinforcement, correct? Taking away something the learner will work for in order to decrease the frequency of a behavior (the error)?


----------



## Megora

> _unsavory businesses." How rude. My site has dozens of letters from people who have used my methods with the Ecollar to train their dogs to their complete satisfaction. Those letters come from pet owners, police K−9 handlers, SAR workers and owners of working dogs of other types as well. I've done 50 seminars (with several more scheduled for this year) most of them teaching the Ecollar, but other topics as well. Fourteen of them were annual seminars where I was invited back. On one of those annual seminars I've been invited back four times and will probably repeat again this year.
> 
> I've taught for such national organizations as DAD/DAC (Dogs Against Drugs/Dogs Against Crime) and NASAR (National Assn for Search and Rescue). I've taught for CARDA (CA Rescue Dog Assn) Washington State SAR, LCSAR (Larimer County [CO] SAR), SKIDDS (Swat and K−9 Interacting During Deployjments), CATS (Canine Tactical School), UTT (Urban Tactical Training School), CSAR (Canine Search and Recovery) GSRNC (German Shepherd Rescue of Northern CA), LACPCA (Los Angeles County Poice Canine Assn) and more.
> 
> I've judged a SAR competition in the UK and have taught the Ecollar and other topics in Spain, Canada and in 19 states and 38 cities.
> _




Please don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to very much involved with police dog training and search and rescue dogs. <- I will assume that like field training, there are points where the dog is a distance away from his owner and needs an ecollar to get precision and focus. 

But how does this apply to show obedience and agility competition? Have you competed in either field using your ecollar methods? Have you gotten the same results as somebody using a combination of traditional training and food/praise/play reward positive reinforcement? Have you ever been invited to the NOI? Or gotten an OTCH on your dog using your own methods? 

Nothing against ecollars - as long as they are in the right hands. I SERIOUSLY detest websites and books which recommend that anyone pick up an ecollar and start training their dog without going to classes and learning how to train a dog with an ecollar properly. 

I'm just trying to figure out why you are bringing up obedience and agility if your specialty is police work?


----------



## Ljilly28

Lou, I just went to see if you introduced yourself as a new member? I feel like I missed something! Do you have a golden retriever or two? Even though we disagree often about ideology, we do have a solid bond through the goldies. I would love to hear about yours.


----------



## FlyingQuizini

> I never said that it is +P. You wrote this, "However, he no longer teaches behaviors with punishment." Using an aversive in this fashion IS punishment. You said that he does not use it. You're wrong. Withholding the treat tends to make the behavior not repeat. That's the definition of punishment.


Perhaps I was not clear. He no longer teaches behaviors with POSITIVE punishment.

I'll buy that withholding a reward can be considered aversive. However, I feel it's quite different than introducing a form of positive punishment such as a leash correction or e-collar stim.

You are entitled to your opinion of otherwise.

This horse is dead. Shall we continue to beat it further?


----------



## Loisiana

sure why not


----------



## Loisiana

Apparently not having coffee makes me post ridiculous stuff. It seems to be a pattern in my posts today. I REALLY want some dang coffee.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Loisiana said:


> Bridget and Adele both use ecollars on their dogs.


For obedience?


----------



## FlyingQuizini

Selli-Belle said:


> For obedience?


I know I've heard that Bridgett does, for some things, although it's not her primary method of training.


----------



## Loisiana

and I know that just a few months ago Laura was looking into using one on her rescue sheltie. I don't know if she ended up using one or not, but I know she was seriously considering it, and that she stated she saw the benefit of them.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Lou Castle said:


> Let's try it this way. Can you show us a list of pure positive trainers who have stood on national podiums in such venues as AKC OB, Field Trials, Retriever Trials, or Police K−9 competitions? MOST of those folks have trained with the Ecollar at some point.





> Nope. But then I've NEVER SAID THAT ANYONE IN AKC OB USES THEM! Not sure why you bring this up. My statement CLEARLY, apparently except to you says NOTHING about Ecollars. It has to do with the so−called "positive methods." It CLEARLY says that.


HMMMMMMMM.......so most trainers have used ecollars at some point or you are not saying anyone in AKC obedience uses them, which one is it?



> I don't think that anyone has said that a "heavy dose of aversive training" is necessary. But there are very few people using the so−called positive methods that rise to the top tiers of competition in any kind of competition that places value on precision and reliability.


 

Then




> I've already clarified once but apparently you missed it. Using separate definitions like this is pointless so I'll amend my statement so that we don't have to do this any more. _"there are very few people using the so−called positive methods that rise to winning at the *national level *in any kind of competition that places value on precision and reliability."_ Is that clearer to you now?


Who is moving the goalpost now. First it was "top tier competitor " now it is winning at a national level, a standard which in itself displays a lack of understanding of what is considered "top tier competitor" in AKC obedience.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Selli-Belle*
> _ How did I admit that agility does not require precision and reliability? Yes not all run are qualifying runs._





> Here's another admission of it.


 An admission of what? There are non-qualifying runs in obedience and at field trials, but the point is that those dogs are not qualifying and they don't win!

I realized that maybe you don't understand the rules in agility. Yes, in the lower levels dogs get to make a certain number of mistakes and still qualify. However, when you get to the level where you are competing for a MACH the handler and dog cannot make any mistakes and still qualify. Therefore, to get a MACH a dog needs to get 20 double Qs, qualifying (having no mistakes) in both the jumpers and standard courses at the same trial plus gain 700 championship points gained for running under course standard time.

You never answered my question the first time I asked about how seeing non-qualifying runs proved that agility does not require precision and reliability. Now that you understand a bit about how a dog gets a MACH, can you explain how getting a MACH does not require precision and reliability?

And finally,




> No, and I don't need to. My statement is NOT that any of these folks use Ecollars. My statement AGAIN is _"there are very few people using the so−called positive methods that rise to winning at the *national level *in any kind of competition that places value on precision and reliability."_ Please read it carefully once more and realize that it DOES NOT SAY that those who ARE standing on the podium at the national level are using Ecollars. It says that they're NOT using the so called "positive methods." They're not the same and it's fascinating that you keep trying to twist my words to suit some argument that you are having all by yourself.


Two points here, the first being that you did state that "most" top competitors have used ecollars while training (see above). The second is that for agility, the people standing on the podiums do use "so called 'positive methods.'" And since I have now demonstrated that agility trialing at the top levels does require "precision and reliability" your argument has been shown to be baseless.


----------



## Jersey's Mom

FlyingQuizini said:


> I'll buy that withholding a reward can be considered aversive.


You're kinder than I am... personally I think someone who has to twist the terminology to suit their needs is generally compensating for their shortcomings by trying to pull one over on people. I know I'm going to kick myself for getting sucked back into this but I'm lacking in self control today, so here goes anyway.

Even though we frequently use the phrase "an aversive," let's remember that we're actually dealing with an adjective. When speaking of positive punishment, the word being modified is stimulus. We add an aversive stimulus to decrease the probability of a behavior being repeated. Negative punishment (withholding the cookie) is the removal of a rewarding or desired stimulus. _By definition_ there is no aversive stimulus in negative punishment. Yes, it is still punishment and by definition that means that we are trying to stop a behavior from recurring... but throwing out the word aversive to try and convince people that it is the same thing as the shock of an e-collar is either the product of one being ignorant or disingenuous... either way, not someone I want to take training advice from. 

Mr. Castle - if your training methods are "balanced" due to your use of Positive Punishment (e-collar shock when the dog does something wrong) and Negative Reinforcement (continuing to shock until the dog has fully complied with what you want) then mine is equally balanced. After all, I use Positive Reinforcement (rewarding my dog with a cookie for a job well done) and Negative Punishment (not giving him a cookie when he chooses wrong). Yes, I just admitted that I punish my dog. I never claimed otherwise... no one here did. If I were dealing with a starving dog, you might rightly claim that I am causing mental anguish and pain but as my dog is always well fed I'm fairly certain I'm doing him no harm... he just tries something else until he figures it out and gets his cookie. Yum.

And one quick note about Agility - When looking at well trained dogs, 99% of the ones you see taking the wrong obstacle or knocking down a bar are doing exactly what their handler has told them to do (whether meaning to or not). This is a sport where the human is generally the weak link and by turning the wrong way or in the wrong place we frequently tell our dogs something very different than the words leaving our mouths. 3 bars knocked by my boy last weekend -- all because he did exactly what my body told him to do. 1 refusal in standard because he went exactly where I was pointing him (I was too slow and hadn't finished my turn). He is reliable and precise. I am not. Maybe I'm the one who needs the collar... but who would teach Jersey how to push the button? 

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Selli-Belle

Jersey's Mom said:


> And one quick note about Agility - When looking at well trained dogs, 99% of the ones you see taking the wrong obstacle or knocking down a bar are doing exactly what their handler has told them to do (whether meaning to or not). This is a sport where the human is generally the weak link and by turning the wrong way or in the wrong place we frequently tell our dogs something very different than the words leaving our mouths. 3 bars knocked by my boy last weekend -- all because he did exactly what my body told him to do. 1 refusal in standard because he went exactly where I was pointing him (I was too slow and hadn't finished my turn). He is reliable and precise. I am not. Maybe I'm the one who needs the collar... but who would teach Jersey how to push the button?


Thank you for pointing that out. We need to become reliable and precise and most of us fail. Shock collars on all of us (or maybe just a leash correction).


----------



## GoldenSail

Loisiana said:


> sure why not


ROFLMAO x100


----------



## Selli-Belle

O.K., just got off the phone with my coach Kathy Cox, who said Adele does not use ecollars in obedience training (Kathy and Adele are good friends). She will use them for field work though. She also told me that Petra Ford who won the NOI in two years straight in obedience considers herself a "positive (motivational) trainer." The same goes for Celeste Mead. Boy am I glad I spoke to her! Unlike me, she is in the know about top obedience trainers.


----------



## GoldenSail

Selli--I'd like to think the vast majority of good trainers are mostly positive and motivational. IMHO, that's what all training should be built on. How much corrections or aversives they use may vary depending on the trainer, dog, venue, skill level etc.

Even people I see training with ecollars, many of them are positive and motivational. They just use an extra tool, but the overall theme is this is fun. Many field people (the only venue I have used my collar) will be the first to say let's make it fun before we make it hard and before we force.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Lou Castle said:


> @ Selli-Belle. Oops. Thanks Loisiana.
> 
> Selli-Belle your response? Kinda shoots holes through some of your previous comments.


Lou, some of have to, you know WORK and can't hang out on the web all day. 

In addition, my dogs (who are more important to me than national placement in obedience trials) deserved a nice long romp in the fields. In fact Selli made me promise that I not spend any of my free time in pointless arguments when I could be walking her.


----------



## Selli-Belle

GoldenSail said:


> Selli--I'd like to think the vast majority of good trainers are mostly positive and motivational. IMHO, that's what all training should be built on. How much corrections or aversives they use may vary depending on the trainer, dog, venue, skill level etc.
> 
> Even people I see training with ecollars, many of them are positive and motivational. They just use an extra tool, but the overall theme is this is fun. Many field people (the only venue I have used my collar) will be the first to say let's make it fun before we make it hard and before we force.


I am not saying that ecollars never have a place in training or that they cannot be used effectively in specific situations. I used an ecollar to train Selli not to chase deer. It took one session four years ago and I can still call her off deer today (and we have tests at least once a week). 

What I am saying is that they are not necessary or necessarily the best technique in most training situations including training for competitive obedience. I am also making the point that there are positive trainers who are at the top of their sports and in sports that require reliability and precision (and ones who never use ecollars in obedience).

However I do think that it also requires a mindset of doing everything you can to find or create a positive motivational method to use rather than using an aversive method. It may take longer, probably because you are working on the technique as well as working on the dog, but it is a ideological position. I always keep in mind that any competitive dog sport is just a game I am playing with my best friend.


----------



## Megora

Selli-Belle said:


> O.K., just got off the phone with my coach Kathy Cox, who said Adele does not use ecollars in obedience training (Kathy and Adele are good friends). She will use them for field work though.


^ I thought so about Adele, but wasn't sure if that meant she didn't use them back during the training stages. I couldn't see her using them for obedience though.  I haven't noticed what her dogs wear in fun matches and shows, but when she pulls her flatcoats out for stays and distractions during class, I'm pretty sure they just have regular collars on.


----------



## Svan

Lou there is nothing you can say to me that will change my mind. You are not "dispelling myths" for me, you are wasting time with me because I could never, ever be in your head without feeling physically sick. We have a basic difference that goes down to the soul of us. I believe that my relationship with my dog is that of pack leader & other, you believe yours is that of god & dog. I believe in working with my dog's natural instinct to get the best*out of him, you believe in doing whatever you feel forces the dog to your will in the shortest possible timeframe. We will NEVER agree.

You are right I'm emotional about my dog. *The fact is that I have an animal, with the mental capacity of a young child, *and the instinct and "language" of a dog/wolf, absolutely dependent on me, living in my home. "Human" is a foreign language to him that he tries to learn in order to better please me & relate to me. *He hasn't got the capacity to rationalise about the "strange" pain I am inflicting upon him if I use an ecollar, all that happens is I confuse him, make him insecure & keep doing it until he figures out what gets him the stick & what gives him the carrot. That is your idea of training. It is cruel and unreasonable and abusive.*

It doesn't fit in anywhere in the dogs instinctive understanding of pack & his relation to it, it doesn't even pretend to nod at trying to use the dogs instinct or working with the animal. It's the imposition of the will of a stronger creature upon that of a weaker utilising pain & confusion. In psychological terms it's abuse.*

I am a rational intelligent human being and if someone suddenly inflicted pain*on me without my understanding why & how to make it stop it would drive me*crazy & destroy my trust in that person completely. How hard must it be for a*dog to understand given their instinctive frame of reference?*

Quite frankly if I had to I'd rather growl at my dog, at least that's a language he*understands.*

I'm not per se opposed to negatives, just to a negative that isn't part of the*dog instinctive framework & "language". *Electrocution isn't part of that*framework. Witholding treats, attention & approval is part of the instinctual framework for dog communication. *

The reason why humans & dogs can form a bond is because we are both pack creatures, because we understand the values inherent in a group: love, loyalty, self-sacrifice, communication, sharing & enjoying life together. *Historically dogs helped us in the hunt in exchange for the benefits they got from being part of our pack. Not because we dominated & forced them to submit to us. The origins of our inter-species cooperation is multiple as people & wolves found themselves voluntarily working together in the hunt wherever they came together. *You try dominating a wolf and see how well you fare! But we bred the fierceness & independence out of them & then we use this against them by inflicting things upon them that we wouldn't think of inflicting upon human members of our pack, or do you use the ecollar on your kids too? I'm sure it would be equally effective. Except you'd probably end up in jail for abuse.*

I do use a TENS-machine myself daily for an ongoing work injury & it does it's job but I'd never say I enjoy the experience, nor would I inflict it on a child or someone with diminished*capacity. It is painful.*

Your collar works because it causes physical pain. That's what you rely on. My*issue with it is that my dog wants to please me and unless he threatens me I*can't see any reason why I would need to inflict physical pain on him. And*even in that situation he would understand the language of that pain because it's in his instinct to expect a fight or challenge might result in pain. In fact if a dog ever challenges me it would be because I have failed as a leader in which case the dogs' natural inclination is to remove me, even kill me if he must in order to ensure the survival of the pack.*

It is NOT in a dog's *instinct or "vocabulary" to expect his collar to give him an electric shock while he is trying his best to learn a second language to please me. Because "human" is a second language to my dog, sitting, coming & jumping at command is not a natural thing for him, I have to harness his desire to please me with his team-working (packhunting) capabilities whilst teaching him the rudiments of a new language to train him. Using your method is not only cruel but also lazy. You do not have to build a relationship with the dog, you do not need to win his trust or loyalty and you do not have to be an excellent alpha to enjoy his support. You simply bully him into submission.*

Basically the only way to not care about how confusing being electrocuted by your collar is for a dog is to not be emotionally involved with the dog at all. As my dog is a member of my pack and I appreciate his uniqueness and individuality and the strength he lends to the pack I value him very much and am therefore absolutely emotionally attached to him. If anyone should EVER try to put an electric current through my dog they will find out just exactly how much he means to me as I will litterally be at their throat! Just watch the wolf come out in me!


----------



## K9-Design

Svan said:


> I am a rational intelligent human being and if someone suddenly inflicted pain*on me without my understanding why & how to make it stop it would drive me*crazy & destroy my trust in that person completely. How hard must it be for a*dog to understand given their instinctive frame of reference?*


I try not to get into these ecollar vs. not debates because I absolutely 100% understand and agree with what you say yet I quite willingly use an ecollar in field training my dogs.
The only part of your post I had to comment on was the above. In all modern retriever training programs, an ecollar is used and there are very specific steps in the initial training process that conditions the dog not only to the feel of the collar but HOW to turn it off. It IS confusing and painful at first -- but that is why we condition and teach the dog the behaviors that turn the collar off. Confusion has NO place in training especially if it is caused by corrections. Any good trainer knows that confusion only leads to fight or flight behaviors, shut down, mental fatigue, and learned helplessness, all very undesirable things. So in collar conditioning the dog we teach them that their behavior both causes and eliminates the pain of the collar.
However I do not know if SMS subscribes to this method and cannot speak for Lou or Fred's training methods. They do not seem to be retriever trainers so I have no idea of the proven steps they go through.
Of course the collar causes pain, that's why it works. However it is a testament to the breeding and mentality of the dog -- a training retriever -- that they willingly subscribe to that and are quite ecstatic to work despite the possibility of a correction. My dogs come running when they hear the collar "beep" on! That means time for fun stuff! Training, birds, swimming, running, being with me. 
I liken it to a football player that about kills themselves physically with two-a-days, intense workouts, degradation from their coaches, but yet they LOVE football and wouldn't trade it for the world.
I have tried the collar on my self. I put it around my calf and got up to a 3-high which is the highest I've used on my dogs. It was very unusual and VERY uncomfortable, definitely something I would work very hard to avoid. THAT experience was a heavy dose of reality!


----------



## Svan

K9-design, 

I respect your right to have a difference of opinion about this with me. Lou states in his training manuals that it's good for the dog to be temporarily insecure as he learns being next to the trainer is not a safe place anymore unless he sits. Paraphrased, but that's the gist of it. That is what I was referring to. 

As for training with pain : 
Abused children also learn to depend on the abusive relationship they have with the important people in their lives, they even love the people who hurt them fiercely & will protect them, that doesn't make the abuse any less traumatic or wrong. Your dogs love being with you, if tolerating pain is what it takes they will do it, but IMHO that should never be part of the relationship. I'm sure if you could ask them they would prefer to be painfree when with you. 

I mean imagine your partner came up to you & said: "We can be together, but from now on everytime you step out of line I'm tazering you." imagine you depend on this person for your life; food, shelter, protection, and that you really love them absolutely, would that relationship work for you? Would you learn to enjoy the pain cause it makes him/her happy? I think if you had no choice you would accept it, but you would never, ever like it & that it would always colour your relationship with your partner. Similarly our canine partners may submit to pain but just cause they can't tell you different, don't make the mistake of thinking they like it. 

A football player CHOOSES to put himself through that pain, your dogs have 
no choice. You choose for them. Now if you chose for them to save their lives or keep them healthy (surgery/neutering/vaccination etc) then I would agree with you, but to inflict pain to win a trophy? Doesn't work for me. 

Using pain to train violates the relationship because it says: "I don't care what I have to do to make you submit to me, all I care about is results."


----------



## K9-Design

Svan said:


> K9-design,
> 
> I respect your right to have a difference of opinion about this with me. Lou states in his training manuals that it's good for the dog to be temporarily insecure as he learns being next to the trainer is not a safe place anymore unless he sits. Paraphrased, but that's the gist of it. That is what I was referring to.


Again, I have no idea of the SMS training method so I can't really comment on it. The above quote is not something I would really ascribe to how I've trained my dogs.



> Similarly our canine partners may submit to pain but just cause they can't tell you different, don't make the mistake of thinking they like it.
> 
> A football player CHOOSES to put himself through that pain, your dogs have
> no choice. You choose for them.


I hear ya, I really do, but --- BUT --- you are assuming how my dogs act and feel without actually seeing it. I know they do not like the pain caused by the ecollar, otherwise the collar would be worthless. But it is OBVIOUS they enjoy the work, training, that goes hand in hand with the collar. As in, dragging me to the training field, barking to get out of their crates in the car, tails wagging furiously, basically these dogs are ten times more happy to train than to sit around or take a stroll around the block. I am not dismissing your opinion at all and am very glad that most people have a healthy dose of apprehension when it comes to the ecollar, but as I've said many many times before, if you believe the ecollar is abuse in 100% of circumstances, you are welcome to come watch me train and work with my guys in the field any time and see for yourself their attitudes. A little difficult if you are in Australia but I hope the sincerity comes through 

I am not saying this to try to make you an ecollar proponent but rather, to help you see that there are positives to it, it is a tool that can be used rather fairly and successfully with none of the emotional fallout that comes with NOT BAD TOOLS BUT BAD TRAINERS.


----------



## Loisiana

Selli-Belle said:


> O.K., just got off the phone with my coach Kathy Cox, who said Adele does not use ecollars in obedience training (Kathy and Adele are good friends). She will use them for field work though.


And you think that using an ecollar in one venue has absolutely no carry-over to another venue? What if someone force-fetched a dog for field work, and did a good enough job of it that they never had to use a their force fetch correction for retrieves in obedience - wouldn't it be questionable if that person said they used a force fetch in field but not in obedience?


But I just brought up that those people did use ecollars because people reading the thread would think you were implying they didn't use them at all. I don't think anyone in this thread has said you have to use an ecollar to achieve success at any level of obedience. And every one of the trainers mentioned in this thread does use some type of physical corrections on their dogs when training for the obedience ring. Some use an ecollar at times, others use different methods and tools of correction, but they do all use something. I think (but am not sure) that was the point that Lou was trying to make.


----------



## ActionJackson

this is getting good


----------



## Lou Castle

RedDogs said:


> My understanding was that this would be extinction (nothing is added, nothing is taken away)? Can you elaborate on the differences between the above and extinction?


 
Extinction is when a behavior fades away because it is ignored. Even if we disagree on the definition of what's going on, extinction is also aversive and so, he's using aversion in teaching in spite of his denials. 

I don't think it's extinction but it depends on how he's free shaping. Some people hold up the treat and a dog that is familiar with this scenario starts to offer behaviors. At this point you've added something to the situation (the + side) and it's something that will tend to make the dog offer more behaviors (the R side) so you have +R. But then it's withheld from the dog (the – side) and that will tend to make the behavior of not doing the correct action not repeat (the P side) and so you have –P, negative punishment. 




RedDogs said:


> If you are holding out the reinforcer and then upon an error/incorrect response, remove it from sight, that would (arguably) be negative reinforcement, correct? Taking away something the learner will work for in order to decrease the frequency of a behavior (the error)?


 
Negative reinforcement is when you remove something and that removal will tend to make a behavior repeat, such as turning off the stim from an Ecollar. This is –P, removing something from the situation and that removal will tend to make the behavior not repeat. 

Remember that you're not punishing or reinforcing the dog, you're punishing or reinforcing _ the behavior. _


----------



## Lou Castle

Megora said:


> Please don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to very much involved with police dog training and search and rescue dogs. <- I will assume that like field training, there are points where the dog is a distance away from his owner and *needs * an ecollar to get precision and focus.


 
I don't think that such work (or any work for that matter _"needs"_ an Ecollar. We were training dogs long before Ecollars came along. But using them makes this sort of work go faster and easier on both the handler and the dog. 




Megora said:


> But how does this apply to show obedience and agility competition?


 
I didn't bring either one up. Someone else did. I was talking about competition that emphasizes precision and reliability. 




Megora said:


> Have you competed in either field using your ecollar methods?


 
Nope. Never competed in either field. 




Megora said:


> Nothing against ecollars - as long as they are in the right hands. I SERIOUSLY detest websites and books which recommend that anyone pick up an ecollar and start training their dog without going to classes and learning how to train a dog with an ecollar properly.


 

It's not necessary that one attend classes to learn how to use an Ecollar. My articles were written in a step−by−step fashion that allows anyone who can read and follow simple instructions to train their dog. Not everyone needs a trainer at their elbow to learn how to do something. I know people who choke up when a trainer is watching them and can't do a thing right. Many people needs something visual and for them, watching someone else or having a DVD may be best. But there are many people who can read and follow simple instructions. My site is designed for them. 




Megora said:


> I'm just trying to figure out why you are bringing up obedience and agility if your specialty is police work?


 
I didn't bring up either one. But since you ask ............ When a dog owner says, "Come" to his dog, it doesn't make any difference if he's a pet, a police K−9 or wearing a SAR vest. And since they're all dogs they can all be trained for this using similar methods. And if they have trouble in learning because their level and balance of drives interferes, or for some other reason, there are tools that can aid in that training. The Ecollar is one of them.


----------



## Lou Castle

Ljilly28 said:


> Lou, I just went to see if you introduced yourself as a new member? I feel like I missed something! Do you have a golden retriever or two? Even though we disagree often about ideology, we do have a solid bond through the goldies. I would love to hear about yours.


 
I'm pretty sure that I checked and that this forum does not require one to post an introduction. Some do but I don't think that this one does. And so I just dove right in. If I'm wrong, could a moderator please let me know. I realize that some forums like to think of themselves as a family but I'm not into that ethos except on my own forum which is about Ecollars. But if the rules require it, of course, I'll comply.


----------



## Lou Castle

FlyingQuizini said:


> Perhaps I was not clear. He no longer teaches behaviors with POSITIVE punishment.


 
Well that's completely different. Earlier you wrote this, _"However, he no longer teaches behaviors with punishment."_ 




FlyingQuizini said:


> I'll buy that withholding a reward can be considered aversive. However, I feel it's quite different than introducing a form of positive punishment such as a leash correction or e-collar stim.


 
Two comments, first, you quoted Steve "directly" (your word) ... _"I no longer use aversives as a teaching tool."_ He's wrong. You just said in the paragraph above that _"withholding a reward can be considered aversive ..."_ 

Second, I'll agree that it's different. But the final arbiter on which is more aversive is the dog. What we think about this is interesting but is not controlling. Some dogs find +P in the form of a leash correction more aversive and some find -P in the form of withholding a treat more aversive. The ethos of the PP movement thinks that withholding a treat is somehow "kinder and gentler." I'm not convinced. 




FlyingQuizini said:


> This horse is dead. Shall we continue to beat it further?


 
Allow me to draw your attention to a phenomenon that seems to have escaped some. Every post that I've written has been in response to something that someone else wrote. I didn't start this thread and I'm not on a solo rant. I didn't create the confusion in our exchange, you did. Had you said "+P" in your initial comment re Steve instead of merely "punishment" our exchange might have taken this turn right at the start. But you left out an essential word that completely changed your meaning. Now you've clarified and we agree that in spite of what he says that he DOES use aversion in his teaching. Everyone does, it's unavoidable


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> Let's try it this way. Can you show us a list of pure positive trainers who have stood on national podiums in such venues as AKC OB, Field Trials, Retriever Trials, or Police K−9 competitions? MOST of those folks have trained with the Ecollar at some point.


 

And this


> Nope. But then I've NEVER SAID THAT ANYONE IN AKC OB USES THEM! Not sure why you bring this up. My statement CLEARLY, apparently except to you says NOTHING about Ecollars. It has to do with the so−called "positive methods." It CLEARLY says that.


 




Selli-Belle said:


> HMMMMMMMM.......so most trainers have used ecollars at some point or you are not saying anyone in AKC obedience uses them, which one is it?


 

First, is there some reason that you think it's OK that you not answer my questions while at the same time you want me to answer yours? Just above I've highlight a question I asked several posts back and you have yet to answer. There are more BTW. I'd suggest by your avoidance that there is NOT ONE PP trainer who has stood on a nation podium in either AKC OB, Field Trials, Retriever Trials or Police K−9 competitions. I KNOW without a doubt that there is not a police patrol dog on the planet that has been trained exclusively with the so called "positive methods" much less one who has won competitions at the national level. 

It seems to me that if these methods gave such fantastic results that those folks would not only be winning occasionally, they'd be DOMINATING. They'd quickly push the conventional trainers right off the podium. 

Second, those two statements are not exclusive. One says that most trainers who have reached the top in national level competitions have used Ecollars and the other says that I've not named anyone in AKC who uses them. So AGAIN I'll clarify for you. _"MOST folks who compete in such venues as AKC OB, Field Trials, Retriever Trials, or Police K−9 competitions have trained with the Ecollar at some point."_ I have not named any names. Not before and not now. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I don't think that anyone has said that a "heavy dose of aversive training" is necessary. But there are very few people using the so−called positive methods that rise to the top tiers of competition in any kind of competition that places value on precision and reliability.


When you started talking about small competitions where people you named have won high awards I clarified what I meant by "top tiers of competition" as winning at the national level. I did the same when Jersey's Mom expressed her opinion that an OTCH was "top tier." Then I wrote, _"To clarify ... I'm referring to winning consistently at the national level."_ 




Selli-Belle said:


> Who is moving the goalpost now. First it was "top tier competitor " now it is winning at a national level, a standard which in itself displays a lack of understanding of what is considered "top tier competitor" in AKC obedience.


Still you. I meant from the start "national level competitions" when I wrote "top tier." Never before has anyone tried to pass off local or even regional competitions when I've written "top tier." But you immediately started (because it serves your narrow purpose) using folks who had some achievements at a much lower level. AS SOON I WAS ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION I said that I was referring ONLY to national level competition, but because it serve you better, you pretended not to notice. 




Selli-Belle said:


> An admission of what? There are non-qualifying runs in obedience and at field trials, but the point is that those dogs are not qualifying and they don't win!


One can turn in a performance that's full of errors and still qualify. That competitor won't win but will still qualify. 




Selli-Belle said:


> I realized that maybe you don't understand the rules in agility.


Another assumption. You folks are getting pretty good at jumping to conclusions! LOL




Selli-Belle said:


> Yes, in the lower levels dogs get to make a certain number of mistakes and still qualify.


Yes, I know and just said so. Hmm I thought I didn't understand the rules?!





Selli-Belle said:


> And since I have now demonstrated that agility trialing at the top levels does require "precision and reliability" your argument has been shown to be baseless.


I have yet to see you demonstrate that agility requires "precision and reliability." Therefore your argument has been shown to be baseless. ROFL. 

Please look at this agility video. 

http://www.ehow.com/video_2348607_use-during-dog-agility-training.html

Look at how obedient the dog is when he gets the squeaky toy at about 1:21. The trainer gives the "bring command" and the dog RUNS in the opposite direction. The dog can't get away fast enough. Notice that at about 1:48 the trainer gives a "sit" command and the dog does not obey. The trainer takes the tug toy from the dog's mouth, and the dog, just a second or so later, grabs it AGAIN. At about 1:50 the trainer gives the dog a down command and that without a release, at about 2:04 the dog breaks the down and goes to a sit. Yeah! There's some reliability and precision! LOL. Want to see some more of the AMAZING precision and control? I gottem!


----------



## ActionJackson

Lou Castle said:


> I'm pretty sure that I checked and that this forum does not require one to post an introduction. Some do but I don't think that this one does. And so I just dove right in. If I'm wrong, could a moderator please let me know. I realize that some forums like to think of themselves as a family but I'm not into that ethos except on my own forum which is about Ecollars. But if the rules require it, of course, I'll comply.


You didn't answer the question about whether or not you own a golden


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier FlyingQuizini wrote,


> I'll buy that withholding a reward can be considered aversive.


 




Jersey's Mom said:


> You're kinder than I am... personally I think someone who has to twist the terminology to suit their needs is generally compensating for their shortcomings by trying to pull one over on people.


I'm twisting nothing. I'm simply applying the definitions of OC to what's going on. For decades the PP folks have ignored this or pretended it didn't exist. I'm just shifting the focus to show folks who buy into those methods that they too use aversion. Many of them, like Steve White, deny it. Doing so is just clever marketing. 





Jersey's Mom said:


> Even though we frequently use the phrase "an aversive," let's remember that we're actually dealing with an adjective.


We're dealing with BOTH and adjective and a noun. It depends on how the word is used. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> When speaking of positive punishment, the word being modified is stimulus. We add an aversive stimulus to decrease the probability of a behavior being repeated.


It's completely appropriate to say that one "added an aversive to the situation to decrease the probability of a behavior being repeated." 




Jersey's Mom said:


> Negative punishment (withholding the cookie) is the removal of a rewarding or desired stimulus.


It's completely appropriate to say that one "withheld an aversive from the situation." 

It's the dog's desire for the cookie, if he has it, that makes the cookie reinforcing to the behavior. But if he's not interested, it may have no effect on the behavior. Then it would be neither P nor R. If he has an unpleasant association with the cookie, it may be punishing to the behavior. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> By definition there is no aversive stimulus in negative punishment.


 


Yes there is. Before something can be removed (the – side) it must be present or presented. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> but throwing out the word aversive to try and convince people that it is the same thing as the shock of an e-collar is either the product of one being ignorant or disingenuous...


 

Please show us ANYWHERE that I've said that removing a cookie from a situation is _"the same as the shock of an Ecollar."_ Please don't try to put words into my mouth. In truth, to some dogs it may be far worse. More than likely (especially since you favor the word "shock") you are thinking of the painful administration of stim. Since that's not what I do, you are wrong. 

I work at the level where the dog first feels the stim. (Wondering now if you watched the video I supplied of a dog feeling his first stim). It's not painful, it's merely uncomfortable. Perhaps less uncomfortable than the removal of a treat that the dog wants. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> either way, not someone I want to take training advice from.


My clients and the people who have attended my seminars probably would not agree with you as to the wisdom of taking my advice. LOL. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> Mr. Castle - if your training methods are "balanced" due to your use of Positive Punishment (e-collar shock when the dog does something wrong) and Negative Reinforcement (continuing to shock until the dog has fully complied with what you want)


Somehow you've managed to overlook the fact that I throw in quite a bit of reinforcement in various forms. The ratio in my training is about 10 reinforcements to 1 punishment. Had you asked, you'd have learned this. Instead, you assumed, and that took you down another road. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> then mine is equally balanced.


I don't believe I've commented on your training. I know nothing about what you do, so I've said nothing about it. I have talked about people who call themselves PP and those who make the absurd claim that they don't use aversion in their teaching. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> After all, I use Positive Reinforcement (rewarding my dog with a cookie for a job well done) and Negative Punishment (not giving him a cookie when he chooses wrong).


Sorry but here's another error in your use of OC. NOT giving a dog a cookie is not negative punishment unless you've offered it to him. Nothing is taken away in your description of what you do. Had you wrote that you "denied him an offered cookie" THAT would be –P. But since you merely did not give it to him, it's not part of OC. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> Yes, I just admitted that I punish my dog. I never claimed otherwise... *no one here did. *


Steve White is not here but YOU brought him up as someone who has trained police patrol dogs _"with a PP approach."_You mentioned him when I said that I was looking for a police patrol dog that had been trained _exclusively _with the so called "positive methods." And then FlyingQuizini said that Steve _"... no longer teaches behaviors with punishment."_ FluingQuizini later amended that statement so that it was that he no longer _"teaches behaviors with positive punishment"_ 




Jersey's Mom said:


> If I were dealing with a starving dog, you might rightly claim that I am causing mental anguish and pain but as my dog is always well fed I'm fairly certain I'm doing him no harm...


A dog does not have to be "starving" (your word) for him to DESPERATELY want a treat. Some dogs would kill for one right after they finished a meal. 

I wonder why you mention _"doing him no harm."_ No Ecollar has ever "harmed" a dog by way of its current. Like some other tools, if left on the dog for too long, sores can develop but there's no harm from an Ecollar as used with my methods. In any case I've not talked about depriving a dog of a treat as doing him any harm, so I have no idea why you bring it up. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> And one quick note about Agility - When looking at well trained dogs, 99% of the ones you see taking the wrong obstacle or knocking down a bar are doing exactly what their handler has told them to do (whether meaning to or not). This is a sport where the human is generally the weak link and by turning the wrong way or in the wrong place we frequently tell our dogs something very different than the words leaving our mouths.


Please look at this video. 

http://www.expertvillage.com/video/6954_dog-agility-independence.htm

The trainer does not indicate "the wrong obstacle" or "knock down a bar." The dog simply does not obey commands that ARE given. 

In this video that the trainer is trying to get a VERY experienced dog (probably her competition dog – or at least her demo dog) to run three obstacles at once with her not running with the dog. At about 0:50 she gives a command for the poles, the tunnel and the jump BUT THE DOG DOES NOT do the jump! When the dog refuses the jump she simply says LAUGHINGLY "Oh you messed up!" Great example of how NOT to train a dog. Praise him for NOT complying with a command! 

The trainer tells us that she teaches this "going ahead of the handler" by having the dog touch a target after running some obstacles. Notice that after she gets the dog to do the jump (on another run–through) of the three obstacles, at about 1:05 she gives the dog a command to touch the target (a white spot on the floor) AND THE DOG DOES NOT COMPLY! The trainer seem oblivious to this as she makes not comment on it. IN FACT she praises the dog who's just refused a command. More great training! 

Notice that at about 1:09 after the dog has run the obstacles and the trainer is digging in her pocket for a treat, the dog is focused NOT ON THE TRAINER, BUT IS INTENTLY STARING AT THE TRAINER'S HAND! Notice that at about 1:20 the dog JUMPS UP on the handler in an effort to get the treat. The dog is showing NO INTEREST in the handler AT ALL. He just wants his treat. 

In just 6–7 commands we see the dog REFUSE two of them! This is precision and reliability? I think not.


----------



## Lou Castle

Selli-Belle said:


> Lou, some of have to, you know WORK and can't hang out on the web all day.





Selli-Belle said:


> In addition, my dogs (who are more important to me than national placement in obedience trials) deserved a nice long romp in the fields. In fact Selli made me promise that I not spend any of my free time in pointless arguments when I could be walking her.




I apologize for being retired and having too much spare time. I notice that you managed to find the time to ask me more questions and write this bit of nonsense but SOMEHOW didn't find the time to answer MY questions.


----------



## Lou Castle

Selli-Belle said:


> I am not saying that ecollars never have a place in training or that they cannot be used effectively in specific situations. I used an ecollar to train Selli not to chase deer. It took one session four years ago and I can still call her off deer today (and we have tests at least once a week).


 
Is this the extent of your Ecollar knowledge? Blasting a dog off a chase? If so, I suggest that you spend some time learning about the possibilities of what they can do. It sounds as if you used the tool as it was done in 1968, when it was invented. 

Calling some dogs off deer is quite difficult for many dogs and some never get it. A few years back I developed a protocol to stop police dogs from chasing cats during yard−to−yard searches. It does this without the handler giving any commands, a far better situation than the one you describe, where you must give the dog a command. If you don't see the chase start you don't know the chase is going on. The dog might be out of voice or whistle range before you even start to call him. But you can't do this by simply pressing the button at the moment the chase starts or even during the chase. 

Turns out that it also works to stop SAR dogs from chasing game and it also works on dog−to−dog aggression. Readers can PM or email me for the protocol. Or if there's enough interest, I'll post a summary of the protocol in a separate post. 




Selli-Belle said:


> What I am saying is that they are not necessary or necessarily the best technique in most training situations including training for competitive obedience.


 
I don't think that anyone has said that the Ecollar is the best technique (actually it's not a technique, it's a tool) _"for most training situations." Perhaps you can post someone saying this? It is the best tool for some things and for others, not so much. __




Selli-Belle said:



I am also making the point that there are positive trainers who are at the top of their sports and in sports that require reliability and precision (and ones who never use ecollars in obedience).

Click to expand...

 
There's a vast gulf between your definition of "top of their sports" and mine. Yours is winning competitions at a MUCH lower level. LOL. 




Selli-Belle said:



However I do think that it also requires a mindset of doing everything you can to find or create a positive motivational method to use rather than using an aversive method. It may take longer, probably because you are working on the technique as well as working on the dog, but it is a ideological position. I always keep in mind that any competitive dog sport is just a game I am playing with my best friend.

Click to expand...

 
That's a healthy approach. I'm sure that you're aware (and may even admit) that there are some dogs for whom the so called "positive methods" don't give satisfactory results in a timely manner for even the most basic of commands, the recall and sit. It may be that the owners are just not capable of doing it right or won't spend the time. Sometimes those owners turn to conventional leash and collar methods and still meet with failure. Sometimes those dogs wind up in the shelter or being PTS. Sometimes they find their way to me. I've never failed to give those folks reliable and precise OB with an Ecollar. _


----------



## Lou Castle

Svan said:


> Lou there is nothing you can say to me that will change my mind.


Thanks for letting us know that your mind is closed to learning new things. As the addicts say, admitting it is the first step to recovery. 




Svan said:


> You are not "dispelling myths" for me


I am for those who realize that they don't know all there is to know about dog training and who have accepted the type of nonsense that you put out in the rest of your post. 




Svan said:


> you are wasting time with me


You are not the only one reading this thread. ACTUALLY, if you feel this way YOU are wasting YOUR time by reading this. I wonder why, since you feel this way, that you keep reading? 




Svan said:


> because I could never, ever be in your head without feeling physically sick.


The thought of "you in my head" makes me "physically sick." ROFL. 




Svan said:


> We have a basic difference that goes down to the soul of us. I believe that my relationship with my dog is that of pack leader & other, you believe yours is that of god & dog.


You have no idea of what you're talking about. You might want to read an article I wrote called _Establishing Dominance. _It tells readers how to become a fair and just leader. I just put it up on this forum. 

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94625-establishing-dominance.html#post1391834




Svan said:


> I believe in working with my dog's natural instinct to get the best*out of him, you believe in doing whatever you feel forces the dog to your will in the shortest possible timeframe.


 

I believe that every dog on the planet should have two bombproof commands; a recall and a stationary command (a sit or a down). "Bombproof" means that the dog obeys quickly with one command, no matter how far he is from the handler and no matter what distractions are present. These commands are lifesavers. The recall calls the dog away from danger and the stationary command stops him from approaching danger if it's between the dog and the handler. Anything beyond those two commands is gravy. Many dogs will not attain reliability or precision with the so called "positive methods" with those commands. If they don't, the Ecollar is a way to get there. 




Svan said:


> We will NEVER agree.


Somehow I'll mange to live with that. 




Svan said:


> You are right I'm emotional about my dog.


Nice twist to my words. What I ACTUALLY wrote was that you were using an emotional, rather than a rational and/or logical approach to the argument. You made the absurd statement that an Ecollar was _"equivalent"_ to cattle prod. I showed you that this was both wrong and irrational. It has NOTHING to do with how you feel about your dog and everything to do with how you pose your argument. 




Svan said:


> Human" is a foreign language to him that he tries to learn in order to better please me & relate to me.


 

No dog tries to "learn human." He learns all sorts of cues, from body language to looks to sounds that we make in order to please FIRST himself and THEN us. If what you said about him wanting to please you was true then no one would EVER have an issue of a dog misbehaving. No dog would EVER pee inside, eat the baseboards or steal food off the table. 




Svan said:


> *He hasn't got the capacity to rationalise about the "strange" pain I am inflicting upon him if I use an ecollar


He doesn't have to "rationalize" a thing. He's shown through the training , how to make the minor discomfort (not _"pain)"_ stop. It's a simple association. But since your mind is closed and I doubt that you understand how this is done, you'll never learn about it. I'm confident that some of those with open minds, EVEN IF THEY NEVER INTEND TO USE AN ECOLLAR will read my articles and learn the truth about this. 




Svan said:


> all that happens is I confuse him, make him insecure & keep doing it until he figures out what gets him the stick & what gives him the carrot.


That would probably be the result of you using an Ecollar given your present state of knowledge. It's foolish to think that you have all the answers. It's also foolish of you to assume how I work. 




Svan said:


> That is your idea of training. It is cruel and unreasonable and abusive.*


I think this is one of the most vile of statements that one can make about a trainer and/or his methods. Since you have little idea of what is done and you've never seen my work or any dogs that I've trained (if I'm wrong about this, please correct me) you HAVE NO FREAKIN IDEA of what you're talking about! 




Svan said:


> It doesn't fit in anywhere in the dogs instinctive understanding of pack & his relation to it, it doesn't even pretend to nod at trying to use the dogs instinct or working with the animal. It's the imposition of the will of a stronger creature upon that of a weaker utilising pain & confusion. In psychological terms it's abuse.*


A great deal of my work is with police dogs where the handler literally puts his life in his dog's paws. I also do quite a bit of work with SAR dogs. Those dogs use THEIR INSTINCTS to search for, find and then tell their handler that they've made the find. They search for hiding felons, lost children, Alzheimer's patients, suicide wannabes, lost and confused elderly folks who have wandered off from their homes, and more. In ALL of that work the dog's instincts are PARAMOUNT in his selection, training and handling. Thinking that I don't care about the dog's instincts just show ignorance. I use the dog's instincts far more than the average pet owner. You are as ignorant of how I do what I do as one can be. Nothing wrong with that until you start making stupid comments as you've just done. 




Svan said:


> if someone suddenly inflicted pain*on me without my understanding why & how to make it stop it would drive me*crazy & destroy my trust in that person completely.


You think that you know how I use an Ecollar, but you've just made another assumption and exposed the fact that you have no idea of what I do. I don't inflict what any reasonable, rational person would call "pain." The worst that happens if some minor discomfort. I'll assume that you didn't watch this video that I posted earlier. EVERY MAMMAL ON THE PLANET responds to the sudden onset of pain in the same, or similar ways. They quickly move away from it. Often they vocalize. The dog shown here displays a very common first response to stim at the level that I use. HE LOOKS AT THE GROUND! My God, the horror! Other signs of feeling the stim are flicking an ear, scratching as if bitten by a flea and shaking as if to remove water. OMIGOD how terrible to make a dog do these sorts of things! The cruelty! The abuse! The absurdity! 

Here's the video again. 

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1718526843747129672#docid=7857735919357023488




Svan said:


> How hard must it be for a*dog to understand given their instinctive frame of reference?*


You're right. It takes about 3-4 minutes for the dog to figure it out. ROFL. 




Svan said:


> Quite frankly if I had to I'd rather growl at my dog, at least that's a language he*understands.*


All he understands is that you're making a weird noise that expresses a dislike for what he's doing. I doubt that there's much training effect in doing this once. And for some dogs you could do it all day and they'd continue to do as they pleased. 




Svan said:


> I'm not per se opposed to negatives, just to a negative that isn't part of the*dog instinctive framework & "language".


A clicker is part of the dog's "instinctive framework and language?" Don't think so. A head halter is part of the dog's "instinctive framework and language?" Again, don't think so. In any case, that's why we train. So that the dog learns the associations. It happens very quickly; within minutes. 




Svan said:


> *Electrocution isn't part of that*framework. Witholding treats, attention & approval is part of the instinctual framework for dog communication. *


At once, ignorant, irrational and emotional. Electrocution is "killing with electricity." No dog has EVER been killed or even suffered the slightest injury from the current from an Ecollar. 




Svan said:


> The reason why humans & dogs can form a bond is because we are both pack creatures, because we understand the values inherent in a group: love, loyalty, self-sacrifice, communication, sharing & enjoying life together. *Historically dogs helped us in the hunt in exchange for the benefits they got from being part of our pack. Not because we dominated & forced them to submit to us.


Please show us ANYWHERE that I've mentioned "dominat[ing] or forc[ing] a dog into submi[ssion]." AGAIN you're using your knowledge of Ecollars and pretending that mine is the same. AGAIN you're wrong. 




Svan said:


> But we bred the fierceness & independence out of them


Really? Try telling that to a crook who's just been apprehended physically by a police K−9. I bet he'll disagree. LOL. 




Svan said:


> & then we use this against them by inflicting things upon them that we wouldn't think of inflicting upon human members of our pack, or do you use the ecollar on your kids too? I'm sure it would be equally effective. Except you'd probably end up in jail for abuse.*


I have put Ecollars on many humans to give them some insight into what the training is like and what the stim feels like. At a seminar in the UK I taught a woman to recall away from a 100£ note (about $145US). In Florida I taught a man to walk from the door to a room to stand in front of his wife and then to turn and to sit in her lap. In the NE US I taught a teenager to jump up and down, spin to her left three times and then to put her hand into a circle drawn on a chalkboard. EVERY one of my clients and just about everyone in my smaller seminar classes feels the stim at the level that they can first perceive it. 




Svan said:


> I do use a TENS-machine myself daily for an ongoing work injury & it does it's job but I'd never say I enjoy the experience, nor would I inflict it on a child or someone with diminished*capacity. It is painful.*


That just means that you have it turned up too high. Here's a clue for you, turn it down. ROFLMAO It works just as effectively. In fact it's supposed to be adjusted to JUST BELOW the level at which it hurts I've had hundreds of hours of TENS. I'm a real wussy when it come to pain yet I often fell asleep when it was on. 




Svan said:


> Your collar works because it causes physical pain.


Sorry but AGAIN, you're wrong. Minor discomfort is what an Ecollar used with my methods causes. I'll also say that due to your ignorance, you've made an assumption about how I use an Ecollar. The articles are there for anyone to read but apparently instead of learning the facts, you'd rather jump to conclusions. 




Svan said:


> That's what you rely on.


 

AGAIN, you're wrong. I use many tools to train dogs, including the so called "positive methods". 




Svan said:


> My*issue with it is that my dog wants to please me


Some dogs do. Many don't care. 




Svan said:


> and unless he threatens me I*can't see any reason why I would need to inflict physical pain on him.


Use an Ecollar with my methods and you won't be "inflict[ing] physical pain on him!" ROFL. 




Svan said:


> And*even in that situation he would understand the language of that pain because it's in his instinct to expect a fight or challenge might result in pain. In fact if a dog ever challenges me it would be because I have failed as a leader in which case the dogs' natural inclination is to remove me, even kill me if he must in order to ensure the survival of the pack.*


Wondering just how many aggressive dogs that are trained to bite you've worked with? I'd bet they could be counted on the fingers of no hands. Lol. In any case, I've been training such dogs for about 32 years. I was bitten by my own dog once because I was brand new, and I was doing something that I was told to do by an experienced trainer in a training situation. I quickly saw the error of my ways. I changed them and in those 32 years that I've been training such dogs and their handlers have NEVER had a handler bitten by his own dog. My methods remove the conflict that methods commonly used with those dogs, bring. 

You really have no idea what you're talking about AGAIN. 




Svan said:


> It is NOT in a dog's *instinct or "vocabulary" to expect his collar to give him an electric shock while he is trying his best to learn a second language to please me.


You're right. That's one reason that Ecollar training goes so fast. Because it's so foreign to the dog it gets his attention faster than other tools. 




Svan said:


> Because "human" is a second language to my dog, sitting, coming & jumping at command is not a natural thing for him, I have to harness his desire to please me


What if he has no such desire? What if his desire to please himself is more important to him? I realize that you probably stay away from such dogs but what about those of others on this forum whose dogs are like that? 




Svan said:


> with his team-working (packhunting) capabilities whilst teaching him the rudiments of a new language to train him. Using your method is not only cruel but also lazy.


MORE RUDENESS based only on your ignorance. 




Svan said:


> You do not have to build a relationship with the dog, you do not need to win his trust or loyalty and you do not have to be an excellent alpha to enjoy his support. You simply bully him into submission.*


Ditto. 




Svan said:


> Basically the only way to not care about how confusing being electrocuted by your collar is for a dog is to not be emotionally involved with the dog at all.


Ditto. 




Svan said:


> As my dog is a member of my pack and I appreciate his uniqueness and individuality and the strength he lends to the pack I value him very much and am therefore absolutely emotionally attached to him.


For over five years I place my very life on my dog. He save me from certain injury, if not death quite a few times. I too, "value[d] him very much and [was] therefore absolutely emotionally attached to him." You seem to think that because I use a tool that you don't care for and know, just about nothing about, that I don't love my dogs. Just another ignorant assumption. 




Svan said:


> If anyone should EVER try to put an electric current through my dog they will find out just exactly how much he means to me as I will litterally be at their throat!


The current from an Ecollar for all practical purposes goes from one contact point to the other, a distance of about 1 1/4 inches. Saying that the "current" runs "through [a] dog" is just another attempt to use an emotional, rather than a logical, argument. Not unexpected at all. ROFL. 




Svan said:


> Just watch the wolf come out in me!


I'd suggest that you spend a few minutes learning about wolves. For the most part they spend their time in running from opponents. Walt Disney movies notwithstanding.


----------



## Lou Castle

K9-Design said:


> Of course the collar causes pain, that's why it works.




That's the way that you use the tool. This is common in field training. It's not how I use it. The worst that is inflicted is minor discomfort. More than likely you are using it to reinforce commands that the dog already knows. I'm not. I'm teaching the dog new behaviors with it.


----------



## Lou Castle

Svan said:


> Lou states in his training manuals that it's good for the dog to be temporarily insecure as he learns being next to the trainer is not a safe place anymore unless he sits. Paraphrased, but that's the gist of it. That is what I was referring to.




I don't think I've said this. Perhaps if you quoted me, rather than paraphrased me, we might get to the bottom of this.


----------



## Lou Castle

ActionJackson said:


> You didn't answer the question about whether or not you own a golden


Oops, sorry. No I don't.


----------



## ActionJackson

Lou Castle said:


> Oops, sorry. No I don't.


:uhoh:.............


----------



## Lou Castle

Loisiana said:


> But I just brought up that those people did use ecollars because people reading the thread would think you were implying they didn't use them at all.


Of course that was her intent. Glad that you caught it too. 




Loisiana said:


> I don't think anyone in this thread has said you have to use an ecollar to achieve success at any level of obedience.


Again, you're correct. 




Loisiana said:


> And every one of the trainers mentioned in this thread does use some type of physical corrections on their dogs when training for the obedience ring. Some use an ecollar at times, others use different methods and tools of correction, but they do all use something. I think (but am not sure) that was the point that Lou was trying to make.


And once more, you're correct. I find it fascinating that it's so obvious to some and so invisible to others. But that's one thing that happens when emotions, rather than reason, rule.


----------



## K9-Design

Lou Castle said:


> That's the way that you use the tool. This is common in field training. It's not how I use it. The worst that is inflicted is minor discomfort. More than likely you are using it to reinforce commands that the dog already knows. I'm not. I'm teaching the dog new behaviors with it.


Yup. I can get the dog to learn the behaviors without an ecollar, and you're right, in field work the collar is generally used to reinforce commands or correct with indirect pressure.
But again -- what is "minor discomfort" and "pain" is up to the dog, not you. If it were not irritating or painful the ecollar would not work.


----------



## Lou Castle

K9-Design said:


> Yup. I can get the dog to learn the behaviors without an Ecollar


So can I but learning (or relearning) the behaviors with the Ecollar is key to my methods. 





K9-Design said:


> But again -- what is "minor discomfort" and "pain" is up to the dog, not you. If it were not irritating or painful the ecollar would not work.


Agree again. But there's a vast gulf between "minor discomfort" or "irritation" and "pain."


----------



## Selli-Belle

Loisiana said:


> And you think that using an ecollar in one venue has absolutely no carry-over to another venue? What if someone force-fetched a dog for field work, and did a good enough job of it that they never had to use a their force fetch correction for retrieves in obedience - wouldn't it be questionable if that person said they used a force fetch in field but not in obedience?
> 
> 
> But I just brought up that those people did use ecollars because people reading the thread would think you were implying they didn't use them at all. I don't think anyone in this thread has said you have to use an ecollar to achieve success at any level of obedience. And every one of the trainers mentioned in this thread does use some type of physical corrections on their dogs when training for the obedience ring. Some use an ecollar at times, others use different methods and tools of correction, but they do all use something. I think (but am not sure) that was the point that Lou was trying to make.



However, I know that Adele had top rated obedience dogs before she ever tried field work with her dogs. Therefore she developed her methods for training obedience (which she is best known for) well before she used a ecollar for field work. Therefore her use of ecollars in the field can be said to have no effect in her obedience work.

And I think I was quite specific that they did not use them for obedience. That was my whole point. I do not do field work, so I was not addressing that competitive arena, I was sticking with what I know about.

Second, Lou Castle did say that that most of the top obedience dogs were trained for obedience with an ecollar. And no, Kathy Cox does not use physical corrections with her dogs. She may not be up on the podium, but at any given day or trial she can and does beat those other trainers.


----------



## Lou Castle

Selli-Belle said:


> However, I know that Adele had top rated obedience dogs before she ever tried field work with her dogs. Therefore she developed her methods for training obedience (which she is best known for) well before she used a ecollar for field work. Therefore her use of ecollars in the field can be said to have no effect in her obedience work.


 
What nonsense. I have little doubt that her experience with an Ecollar has affected her other work. Thinking that a trainer compartmentalizes each bit of knowledge that he comes by and doesn’t consider it in relation to previous knowledge is silly. 




Selli-Belle said:


> Second, Lou Castle did say that that most of the top obedience dogs were trained for obedience with an ecollar. And no, Kathy Cox does not use physical corrections with her dogs. She may not be up on the podium, but at any given day or trial she can and does beat those other trainers.


 
Yes of course someone who wins at local or regional competitions BUT NOT at the national level can beat those national level champions any day of the week. Yes, if course they can. ROFLMAO


----------



## Svan

Hey Lou so tell us, how many GR have you trained since you don't own one? I believe this is the GR forum, and we were discussing training GR.*We have some excellent trainers on this forum who get real results with GR and other dogs without the need for pain.*

Now if you don't have a GR *& never even trained one why are you here? Or is it just for cheap publicity? You don't seem to be very busy "training" as you have heaps of time to spam us with your opinions. *Looking for work?

*As for what I'm doing reading the crap you write.....I happen to have a GR & have always had them, bred them, trained & worked them. I love the breed so I'm guessing I've got the right to challenge your statements about a good way to train GR if I disagree, which I do. I'd be sad to think any fair & intelligent person might imagine your bully tactics to be a fair training method for a GR, or any dog for that matter.

I don't doubt for a second that you get results, but as anyone can tell you results without ethics is meaningless. *Anyone can get results with pain. It doesn't make you a good trainer, it only makes you a bully.*

It's obvious that bullying is your forte because that's pretty much what you have been doing to every single *person on this thread. You try to bully, harass, humiliate and dominate anyone who doesn't agree with you, but guess what? We aren't those poor dogs you can push around, so why don't you go try your tactics somewhere else?

I am as closed-minded about using pain as an incentive as you are about the alternative. I find your methods abusive and you can say what you like about that, it's how I feel and you can lump it if you don't like it. As for being irrational omg! what century are you from macho man?*

The corny Disney joke aside you don't know anything about me, so let's assume I've spent the last 10 years of my life not only studying wolves, but actively taking part in research about wolves and their conservation in Europe (USSR, Croatia and parts of Asia) with the SSC & UK Wolf Conservation Trust.*Let's pretend canine studies are a hobby of mine & that I actually have a very good background in human/dog/wolf interaction & the history & possible touchpoints of that bond. *It's just a bit of a hobby of *mine, but one I am very keen about. Then take your sarky comments & shove them.*

Wolves are very noble creatures. Their social structure is very similar to that of man. And wolves can and will protect each other in the pack.*

Electrocute....mmm did you just google it or do you actually own a dictionary? It means to injure or kill by means of electricity. I reckon you are injuring your dogs using electricity so the word is correct in that context.*

Now we have people who own other breeds come on here to chat & I like an intelligent conversation as much as the next, but I think you're on the wrong forum. The forum for blockheaded bullies is elsewhere, please go find it & relieve us of your presence.


ActionJackson....pass the popcorn please


----------



## Ljilly28

Lou Castle said:


> I'm pretty sure that I checked and that this forum does not require one to post an introduction. Some do but I don't think that this one does. And so I just dove right in. If I'm wrong, could a moderator please let me know. I realize that some forums like to think of themselves as a family but I'm not into that ethos except on my own forum which is about Ecollars. But if the rules require it, of course, I'll comply.


There's no rule- it is just friendly. It is nice to establish common ground, and participate in many aspects of the forum. Certainly, you are free to just post about your e collar opinions on this one thread instead. It might get boring for you though, and the forum has lots more to offer .


----------



## ActionJackson

Svan said:


> Hey Lou so tell us, how many GR have you trained since you don't own one? I believe this is the GR forum, and we were discussing training GR.*We have some excellent trainers on this forum who get real results with GR and other dogs without the need for pain.*
> 
> Now if you don't have a GR *& never even trained one why are you here? Or is it just for cheap publicity? You don't seem to be very busy "training" as you have heaps of time to spam us with your opinions. *Looking for work?
> 
> *As for what I'm doing reading the crap you write.....I happen to have a GR & have always had them, bred them, trained & worked them. I love the breed so I'm guessing I've got the right to challenge your statements about a good way to train GR if I disagree, which I do. I'd be sad to think any fair & intelligent person might imagine your bully tactics to be a fair training method for a GR, or any dog for that matter.
> 
> I don't doubt for a second that you get results, but as anyone can tell you results without ethics is meaningless. *Anyone can get results with pain. It doesn't make you a good trainer, it only makes you a bully.*
> 
> It's obvious that bullying is your forte because that's pretty much what you have been doing to every single *person on this thread. You try to bully, harass, humiliate and dominate anyone who doesn't agree with you, but guess what? We aren't those poor dogs you can push around, so why don't you go try your tactics somewhere else?
> 
> I am as closed-minded about using pain as an incentive as you are about the alternative. I find your methods abusive and you can say what you like about that, it's how I feel and you can lump it if you don't like it. As for being irrational omg! what century are you from macho man?*
> 
> The corny Disney joke aside you don't know anything about me, so let's assume I've spent the last 10 years of my life not only studying wolves, but actively taking part in research about wolves and their conservation in Europe (USSR, Croatia and parts of Asia) with the SSC & UK Wolf Conservation Trust.*Let's pretend canine studies are a hobby of mine & that I actually have a very good background in human/dog/wolf interaction & the history & possible touchpoints of that bond. *It's just a bit of a hobby of *mine, but one I am very keen about. Then take your sarky comments & shove them.*
> 
> Wolves are very noble creatures. Their social structure is very similar to that of man. And wolves can and will protect each other in the pack.*
> 
> Electrocute....mmm did you just google it or do you actually own a dictionary? It means to injure or kill by means of electricity. I reckon you are injuring your dogs using electricity so the word is correct in that context.*
> 
> Now we have people who own other breeds come on here to chat & I like an intelligent conversation as much as the next, but I think you're on the wrong forum. The forum for blockheaded bullies is elsewhere, please go find it & relieve us of your presence.
> 
> 
> ActionJackson....pass the popcorn please


Hopefully this will last until the end of the day :curtain:


----------



## Selli-Belle

Lou Castle said:


> Earlier I wrote,
> 
> First, is there some reason that you think it's OK that you not answer my questions while at the same time you want me to answer yours? Just above I've highlight a question I asked several posts back and you have yet to answer. There are more BTW. I'd suggest by your avoidance that there is NOT ONE PP trainer who has stood on a nation podium in either AKC OB, Field Trials, Retriever Trials or Police K−9 competitions. I KNOW without a doubt that there is not a police patrol dog on the planet that has been trained exclusively with the so called "positive methods" much less one who has won competitions at the national level.
> 
> It seems to me that if these methods gave such fantastic results that those folks would not only be winning occasionally, they'd be DOMINATING. They'd quickly push the conventional trainers right off the podium.
> 
> Second, those two statements are not exclusive. One says that most trainers who have reached the top in national level competitions have used Ecollars and the other says that I've not named anyone in AKC who uses them. So AGAIN I'll clarify for you. _"MOST folks who compete in such venues as AKC OB, Field Trials, Retriever Trials, or Police K−9 competitions have trained with the Ecollar at some point."_ I have not named any names. Not before and not now.


First, your first question was asking for top tier comeptitors that were "positive" trainers......I answered with Petra Ford. Is she good enough for you?

Then I gave you other competitors like Celeste Mead and my coach, Cathy Cox. 

I don't think you understand obedience competition very well based on your comments. Although the NOI crowns a champion every year, the performances at any given trial are just as impressive as they are at the NOI. If a dog and handler gets a 200 or a 199.5 at a trial it is judged to the same standard as at the NOI. The performance is judged against a standard of absolutely no errors not against the other competitors. If at a trial or a series of trials anywhere in the country, a certain dog and handler beats or ties the NOI champ or other title holders, then it logically follows that that dog and handler is at the same level. So it is not some little trials as anyone who actually competes in obedience can tell you.



> Earlier I wrote,
> 
> When you started talking about small competitions where people you named have won high awards I clarified what I meant by "top tiers of competition" as winning at the national level. I did the same when Jersey's Mom expressed her opinion that an OTCH was "top tier." Then I wrote, _"To clarify ... I'm referring to winning consistently at the national level."_


O.K. still displaying your lack of understanding about AKC obedience. There is only ONE national competition in obedience every year. In the fifteen years that the NOI has existed I think there were three dogs who won it twice, so there are NO DOGS who can be said to win consistently at a national level. However, the most recent of the two time winners in Petra Ford who is a positive trainer!



> Still you. I meant from the start "national level competitions" when I wrote "top tier." Never before has anyone tried to pass off local or even regional competitions when I've written "top tier." But you immediately started (because it serves your narrow purpose) using folks who had some achievements at a much lower level. AS SOON I WAS ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION I said that I was referring ONLY to national level competition, but because it serve you better, you pretended not to notice.


See above!

[/quote]
One can turn in a performance that's full of errors and still qualify. That competitor won't win but will still qualify. 



Another assumption. You folks are getting pretty good at jumping to conclusions! LOL

[/quote]

NO YOU CAN'T. I can not be any more clear than that! To earn a MACH or go to the National Agility Invitational or the National Agility Championship the handler and the dog CAN NOT make any mistakes and qualify. At the excellent level you can not make mistakes! The fact that you believe or maybe just state that you can turn in a performance full of mistakes and qualify demonstrates that you don't know how agility works. This is not just me saying this, it is also what the AKC says! Check out the AKC Agility Trial Manual pages 85-90.



> I have yet to see you demonstrate that agility requires "precision and reliability." Therefore your argument has been shown to be baseless. ROFL.
> 
> Please look at this agility video.
> 
> http://www.ehow.com/video_2348607_use-during-dog-agility-training.html
> 
> Look at how obedient the dog is when he gets the squeaky toy at about 1:21. The trainer gives the "bring command" and the dog RUNS in the opposite direction. The dog can't get away fast enough. Notice that at about 1:48 the trainer gives a "sit" command and the dog does not obey. The trainer takes the tug toy from the dog's mouth, and the dog, just a second or so later, grabs it AGAIN. At about 1:50 the trainer gives the dog a down command and that without a release, at about 2:04 the dog breaks the down and goes to a sit. Yeah! There's some reliability and precision! LOL. Want to see some more of the AMAZING precision and control? I gottem!


You have to be kidding, really! This is your demonstration that agility does not require precision and reliability? Really? Talk about ROFL! People, this video, if you haven't watched it is of a trainer talking about using treats of toys to train with, it has NOTHING to do with a dog running agility. I can't even stop myself from laughing to type more about it. 

As I showed before, both in this post by linking to the AKC Agility Trial Manual and in previous posts by explaining the requirements for a MACH, top level agility requires precision and reliability. In fact it requires it in a way not needed in other venues that rely more on a dog's instinctual drives (field work) or exact trained patterns (obedience). In agility a dog needs the precision to take specific obstacles in a pattern it has never seen before based not on what is obvious or logical, but based on small cues from their handler, many times a cue as small as a turned shoulder or the way the handler's foot is pointed (cues most observers don't even see). In addition, the dog must reliably take those obstacles in the correct way (weave poles or contact obstacles) while running at full speed.

This is a 



 and is in addition Jeep is the Dad of my Dad's new puppy Kelsey (yeah Jeep)! Linda, the handler, trained this all using only positive reinforcement. She is 73 years old about 5' tall and just a sweetheart. Note the distance between Linda and Jeep and yet Jeep is so keyed into Linda that he still takes his ques on what obstacle to take from her. A stunning demonstration of reliability and precision, chosen not completely at random but because I really like Linda, loved Jeep and he was Selli's cousin! However, I could have chosen any number of other similar runs from dogs I know and dogs I don't know.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Lou Castle said:


> Is this the extent of your Ecollar knowledge? Blasting a dog off a chase? If so, I suggest that you spend some time learning about the possibilities of what they can do. It sounds as if you used the tool as it was done in 1968, when it was invented.


Did I say I "blasted a dog off a chase? You corrected others for assuming what you know, please have the same courtesy. I learned how to use the ecollar from an experienced field trainer. I have to say though, the collar, a Sport Dog came with a booklet on using the collar for basic training and I almost threw up when reading it. Among other things it advised that if the dog runs away from you and hides when you start using it, you should continue to shock it until it comes back. This is what passes for basic training with a shock collar (oh and we bought the collar new in 2006).



> Calling some dogs off deer is quite difficult for many dogs and some never get it. A few years back I developed a protocol to stop police dogs from chasing cats during yard−to−yard searches. It does this without the handler giving any commands, a far better situation than the one you describe, where you must give the dog a command. If you don't see the chase start you don't know the chase is going on. The dog might be out of voice or whistle range before you even start to call him. But you can't do this by simply pressing the button at the moment the chase starts or even during the chase.
> 
> Turns out that it also works to stop SAR dogs from chasing game and it also works on dog−to−dog aggression. Readers can PM or email me for the protocol. Or if there's enough interest, I'll post a summary of the protocol in a separate post.


Thank you (I guess), but I don't need your protocol, as I stated I acheived my goal and I can call Selli off deer. I also keep close track of my dogs when we are out and about so we don't have a situation where she is out of range before I call her.





> That's a healthy approach. I'm sure that you're aware (and may even admit) that there are some dogs for whom the so called "positive methods" don't give satisfactory results in a timely manner for even the most basic of commands, the recall and sit. It may be that the owners are just not capable of doing it right or won't spend the time. Sometimes those owners turn to conventional leash and collar methods and still meet with failure. Sometimes those dogs wind up in the shelter or being PTS. Sometimes they find their way to me. I've never failed to give those folks reliable and precise OB with an Ecollar.


Sometimes people are lazy and many people should not own dogs. I have yet to meet a dog who can not be trained to sit using positive methods. If you can't get a reliable recall a dog should not be off a leash. 

I am not a live and let live, everybody do their own thing kind of person when it comes to how people treat their dogs. I have very high standards because I believe dogs are sentient creatures that deserve to experience humans' most humane side.


----------



## Loisiana

Celeste Meade most definately uses physical corrections in her training. Yes she uses a lot of positive motivation in her training (like most trainers do), but she still uses corrections. I've been to seminars with her and have taken a private lesson with her.


----------



## Loisiana

So there seems to be a disagreement on what would be a top-tiered competitor in obedience. My definition is different from any of the definitions I've seen on here. When I think of a top-tiered obedience competitior, I think of someone who is regularly nationally ranked in the top 10 or so all-breed national rankings. 

I don't think just getting an OTCH puts one at the top of this sport. Plenty of OTCH handlers out there that while good at what they do, I would not consider "top-tier"

Being able to beat those competitors doesn't mean that person has risen to the same caliber. Heck, I beat those competitors enough to be noticed locally but I certainly don't consider myself a "top-tiered" competitor.

There are some hanlders who are much more well-known than equally good handlers because they have written books, given seminars, etc. Just having an OTCH dog and being well known doesn't meet my definition.

So it doesn't just come down to being able to get top scores some of the time, it is about getting those scores consistently, time after time, trial after trial. If we were to look at just one competition to judge that on, then the NOI would be the best b/c it takes into account many many runs over two days, not just a single run. But there are competitors that I would consider being "top-tier" that don't go to the NOI.


----------



## Selli-Belle

Lou Castle said:


> What nonsense. I have little doubt that her experience with an Ecollar has affected her other work. Thinking that a trainer compartmentalizes each bit of knowledge that he comes by and doesn’t consider it in relation to previous knowledge is silly.


Lou, I explained that Adele was a top trainer and developed her methodology for obedience training BEFORE she did any field training. In addition, how can knowing how to use an ecollar in field training effect her obedience training if she doesn't use it in obedience training. I know how to use autocad for drawing an architectural floor plan, but that knowledge doesn't effect the was I sketch a building free hand. Both images need straight lines and angles but in completely different contexts.



> Yes of course someone who wins at local or regional competitions BUT NOT at the national level can beat those national level champions any day of the week. Yes, if course they can. ROFLMAO


Yes they can and do. National rankings are a matter of week in and week out attendance at trials. Not everyone trials every weekend, that doesn't mean their dogs are less well trained, it just means they don't trial every weekend. I don't in any way discount the training skills of those people who do trial every weekend, but I think they know more than anyone else that each trial is a new game and they may win or they may not.

As to the NOI, as I said before, not everyone who is invited goes. That is especially true for people who live in the east when the NOI is held in Long Beach. Maybe they can't afford to go, maybe they don't want to fly their dogs and can't take the time to drive away from their families. Obedience is not like NASCAR where a team has sponsors that pay for them to compete. Some trainers are professional trainers, they own training businesses, for them going to the NOI is a business expense. Other trainers do it as a hobby and the money comes out of their own pockets. Is a professional trainer inherently a better trainer than a hobby one? No. I would hazard a guess that most of the invitees to the NOI are hobby trainers.

Well, I have to go and earn a living and all that other nonsense! Selli said "Aunt Care you made your points, obviously some people already have their minds made up and some people just like arguing (how unGolden like) to argue, don't waste your time" (or maybe that was my boyfriend saying that). Enjoy your dogs, be kind to them and remember (especially those who are taking the side of those who advocate ecollar use for basic training for a reason I can't figure out) these are games we play with our dogs. They really don't need to play them, they are doing it to please us. Do we have the right to inflict pain on them to get them to play our games? Think about it.


----------



## Ljilly28

Selli-Belle said:


> Sometimes people are lazy and many people should not own dogs. I have yet to meet a dog who can not be trained to sit using positive methods.


I agree with this. I spend a good part of many days trying to repair trust in dogs who have owners that answered a local trainer's ad claiming to be a "dog whisperer" who can train any dog in 7 days with an e collar. It is nonsense, and some of the dogs emerge neurotic messes. 

Live and let live to the old school obedience people as long as their dogs do not slink around the utility ring in visible fear - something you may not see in the top ten, but that you do see in every regional show and match I've attended. Those people working on UDs with wonderful senior dogs who live in fear of making mistakes are disgraceful. Those people who take their CDX dog around a back corner and give it twenty corrections in a row before going in the ring and those people who amp up the e collar when they get mad- well, there are a lot of them and they totally turn me off to those methods. The fact is, for the temper-losers, of which I am not one, a clicker is a better thing to have in one's hand than a leash attached to a prong collar or an e collar remote. Fine, don't blame the tool, blame the person. . . However, it is very, very common to see some pretty tough stuff in local, rural obedience competiton- maybe not as much with golden people though as other breeds. Personally, if someone is in the national top ten for fifty years in a row, and they need an ecollar to train for those scores in obedience, I am just uninterested. People who innovate and train dogs creatively to high achievements without force fetch and an e collar, but with impeccable timing and a dynamic bag of tricks- inspiring and interesting to me. That is just a personal preference and neither here nor there. It is the frequent misuse of these tools that upsets me, not the correct and judicious use of them. And yes, it is also no fun to see someone whale on a flat buckle collar either.


----------



## Ljilly28

Loisiana said:


> Celeste Meade most definately uses physical corrections in her training. Yes she uses a lot of positive motivation in her training (like most trainers do), but she still uses corrections. I've been to seminars with her and have taken a private lesson with her.


 Agree. The flexi leash pop, the collar correction followed immediately by the treat. . . There is a band of people from my area who take a biweekly lesson with her. I can't imagine thinking of her as a purely positive trainer.


----------



## FinnTastic

ActionJackson said:


> You didn't answer the question about whether or not you own a golden


They probably don't. They just want to get their name and what not on the internet as much as possible. At least that is what it seems like since I don't think they've contributed to any other thread except this one which is an old thread.


----------



## Svan

ActionJackson said:


> Hopefully this will last until the end of the day :curtain:


Thanks!:You_Rock_:thanks:

Carolyn I am 100% with you. I personally have not seen an ecollar used in any way I could approve of. The though of using it on my little clown facey boy really makes me feel ill. 

Jill, dearest moderator, I promise to be more polite, I can't promise to live and let live because the very basis of this training offends. Also Lou just pushes my buttons (pun intended) & I find the aggressive and down-putting manner in which he speaks to everyone here very annoying. We have some people here for whom I have a LOT of respect because of their knowledge of GR & of training these beautiful dogs, I find it very difficult to watch this guy just bulldoze them until he now just about owns the thread. Sorry, I'll go kick a lamppost somewhere. :banghead:


----------



## Jersey's Mom

As I suspected Mr. Castle, you are disingenuous. If using negative punishment disqualifies one from being called a positive trainer, then no such thing exists. There's nothing more to debate. Even everyone's favorite straw woman -- Karen Pryor -- uses negative punishment. You associate negative punishment with the word aversive because it serves your purpose, not because it is technically correct. And please show me where in the dictionary the word "aversive" is considered to be a noun. (For the record, the noun form of the word is aversiveness). You pick a poorly shot video and paint the entire agility world with that one brush even as you protest generalizations about the ecollar. (for the record, the dog missed the jump on the first run because she was late with her command. Her saying "Oh you messed up" to the dog doesn't make it true... she messed up, the command should have been given before that dog came out of the tunnel. And you're right, she didn't seem to notice that he didn't hit the target on the second run... chances are she was too busy worrying about the camera. Some people aren't cut out to make training videos. That doesn't mean that agility does not require accuracy and precision, it only means that's a crappy video). Let's get real for a moment here: Please explain how it is that I cannot understand what effect withholding a treat from my dog will have as you sit there and tell me with a straight face that you are certain you are producing "only mild discomfort" and not "pain or irritation" to your dog. LOL, nice try. You are a slick operator, sir, but you overplayed your hand on that one. I'm through wasting my time with this... it's impossible to have a rational discussion or debate with someone who twists the very definition of words to suit their own purpose and who moves the standard with each post and then cries foul. 

I respect trainers like K9 Design who are at the very least honest about their techniques (it works because it hurts/is irritating) and fair to their dogs (use the collar to reinforce known commands, not to teach new ones). Trainers like that don't need to do fancy footwork around the definitions of behavioral psychology because they have nothing to hide. I respect what they do and accomplish with their dogs even as I choose different techniques for myself. You, on the other hand, come off as a charlatan. I'm through helping you advertise.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Svan

Jerseys mom, hear hear:appl:


----------



## Lou Castle

Svan said:


> Hey Lou so tell us, how many GR have you trained since you don't own one?


 
Well, let's see. I've put Ecollars on over 3,000 dogs. I've never kept track of how many of what breed they were (it never seemed important since they all obey the same principles of training) but since you asked ... I'd estimate the number of Goldens at about 15. Most of them were dogs for whom the so called "positive methods" had failed rather completely. I think it was two of them had been hit by cars when they failed to recall. I gave their owners reliable recall in the face of distraction at great distances, beyond where their commands could be heard. 




Svan said:


> I believe this is the GR forum, and we were discussing training GR.*We have some excellent trainers on this forum who get real results with GR and other dogs without the need for pain.*


 
I don't use pain to train them either.  Minor discomfort is sufficient. 




Svan said:


> Now if you don't have a GR *& *never even trained one *why are you here?


 
Is it possible for you to write a post without making an assumption and then jumping to a silly conclusion based on that assumption? Here's some news for you; it's not necessary for someone to own a breed to have trained it! You probably missed the post (posts?) where I've mentioned that I've done 50 seminars. Many of them have been open to pet owners and/or for SAR. Those owners bring what dogs they own and I work with them. I've also had 2-3 private clients who own Goldens. Do you think that there's some special technique that's necessary with them? 




Svan said:


> Or is it just for cheap publicity?


 
MORE rudeness. 




Svan said:


> You don't seem to be very busy "training" as you have heaps of time to spam us with your opinions. *Looking for work?


 
What part of "retired" do you not understand? Nowadays I work when I want to. And since some of you folks are so ignorant about Ecollars, I've decided to spend some time here. I doubt that many, if any of you, will learn anything. You seem to think that you know everything there is to know about training a dog. But there is quite a bit of interest from people who are not posting on the thread! 




Svan said:


> *As for what I'm doing reading the crap you write


 
Is this a reference to your "paraphrasing" me so that it's impossible to tell you how wrong you are because it's not even close to anything that I've written? 




Svan said:


> I happen to have a GR & have always had them, bred them, trained & worked them. I love the breed


 
Well, that's simply wonderful. Congrats! I love ALL breeds and the mixes too. 




Svan said:


> so I'm guessing I've got the right to challenge your statements about a good way to train GR if I disagree, which I do.


 
Of course you do. But I've yet to see you _"challenge [ANY of my] statements about a good way to train"_ Goldens. Rather you've argued against the Ecollar in general and along the way demonstrated a vast ignorance about how I use the tool. I welcome some debate that's actually on the topic and that's NOT more name calling or personal attacks. It doesn't seem to be your style though, so I'm not holding out much hope. 




Svan said:


> I'd be sad to think any fair & intelligent person might imagine your bully tactics to be a fair training method for a GR, or any dog for that matter.


 
Looks as if you're too lazy to have read the article that I put on this forum that I linked to in a previous post. I guess all that clicking on links is just so tiresome!? In that article I specifically rail again the physical force that's used in an alpha roll and physical dominance in general. I say this, _"And so when you do the alpha roll thing you're doing something that's completely foreign to the dog, rather than something he's familiar with. You're showing him that you're bigger and stronger than him, but he already knows that. *It's the action of a bully, not a fair and just leader." * _ 

So you can call my methods "bullying" all you like. It just shows your ignorance of what I do over and over again. Just because you only know how to use an Ecollar in that fashion doesn’t mean that it's the only way. You're just showing us your inexperience with and ignorance of the tool. 




Svan said:


> I don't doubt for a second that you get results, but as anyone can tell you results without ethics is meaningless. *


 
More rudeness. I'm quite sure the many−more−than−3,000−people who have actually seen the work would disagree. 




Svan said:


> Anyone can get results with pain. It doesn't make you a good trainer, it only makes you a bully.*


 
Well not really. Pain can cause all sorts of fallout. So I'll disagree that _"anyone can get results with"_ it. But minor discomfort, all that's necessary for the basic work, gets EXCELLENT results. There's no bullying involved no matter how many times you say it. Again, you just look silly and now you're just looking desperate. LOL




Svan said:


> It's obvious that bullying is your forte


 
That record is definitely broken. 




Svan said:


> because that's pretty much what you have been doing to every single *person on this thread.


 
Nah. I've been pretty polite in my responses, in spite of the rudeness of quite a few; you included. Heck, you especially. 




Svan said:


> You try to bully, harass, humiliate and dominate anyone who doesn't agree with you


 
I guess answering every question (which has eluded you), knocking down myths and misconceptions on the Ecollar (many of them yours) and generally expressing my opinion, based on 32 years of dog training, is "bully[ing], harass[ing], humiliate[ing]," and "dominat[ing]" in your world. I'd call it discussion on an Internet forum where some can remain polite and professional even though they disagree. Of course, some, mostly you, can't do this. 




Svan said:


> but guess what? We aren't those poor dogs you can push around, so why don't you go try your tactics somewhere else?


 
As long as the moderators allow me to stay here, here I'll stay for as long as I like. If anyone is doing any bullying, it's you with your continuous rudeness and name-calling. I've treated everyone who's shown me respect with the same in return. I've not even returned your nastiness, your personal attacks or your vile name calling. 




Svan said:


> I am as closed-minded about using pain as an incentive as you are about the alternative.


 
The alternative? You mean not using pain? I never use pain. I use minor discomfort. Probably about the same level of discomfort as when you withhold a treat. 




Svan said:


> I find your methods abusive


 
Oddly not one person who has ACTUALLY SEEN THEM agrees with you. So you can sit behind your computer and spew rudeness and BS all you like. It has no effect on reality. 




Svan said:


> and you can say what you like about that, it's how I feel and you can lump it if you don't like it.


 
You're losing it Svan. 




Svan said:


> As for being irrational omg! what century are you from macho man?*


 
Characterizing what you wrote as "irrational" makes me a "macho man" from another century? ROFLMFAO Here's a clue. When put forth a weak effort to twist the meaning of my words, as you did, I'll call it what it is, irrational. 




Svan said:


> The corny Disney joke aside you don't know anything about me


 
I know a bit. I know that you know nothing about the modern use of modern Ecollars. I know that you can't (or won't) accurately quote from my website. I know that you really don't have an intelligent argument against Ecollars, otherwise you'd not spend so much time in personal attacks. I know that your mind is closed to what is a tool that everyone who calls them self a dog trainer should know how to use, even if they choose not to. I know that sometimes you are rude, irrational and make little sense. 




Svan said:


> so let's assume I've spent the last 10 years of my life not only studying wolves, but actively taking part in research about wolves and their conservation in Europe (USSR, Croatia and parts of Asia) with the SSC & UK Wolf Conservation Trust.*Let's pretend canine studies are a hobby of mine & that I actually have a very good background in human/dog/wolf interaction & the history & possible touchpoints of that bond. *It's just a bit of a hobby of *mine, but one I am very keen about. Then take your sarky comments & shove them.*


 
ROFL. More rudeness. Too bad really that you can't (or won't) express yourself without it. It just weakens everything you have to say and destroys your credibility. BTW can you tell us how all that time spent with wolves has anything to do with this discussion? You are aware that dogs, especially Goldens, are not wolves, right? You are aware that dogs DID NOT descend directly from wolves, right? You are aware that most domesticated dogs have had their instincts modified by decades breeding so that most of them bear little resemblance to what they were eons ago. 




Svan said:


> Wolves are very noble creatures. Their social structure is very similar to that of man. And wolves can and will protect each other in the pack.*


 
Yes and ... Any connection to the discussion? 




Svan said:


> Electrocute....mmm did you just google it or do you actually own a dictionary? It means to injure or kill by means of electricity.


 
Really? This site http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=electrocute gives this definition: *to kill *by electric shock and this one, *kill *by electrocution, as in the electric chair. This site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocute gives this definition: is the *stopping of life (determined by a stopped heart)* by any type of electric shock. And this: *death, murder or suicide *by electric shock. And this: deliberate *execution *by electric shock, usually involving an electric chair; the word "electrocution" is a portmanteau for "electrical execution." And this: Electrocution is also frequently used to refer to any electric shock received but is technically *incorrect. * My edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary says this: 1. To *execute *(a criminal) by electricity. 2. To *kill *by electric shock. 

Oddly none of those sources mention "injury." 




Svan said:


> I reckon you are injuring your dogs using electricity so the word is correct in that context.*


 
You "reckon?" LOL. Interestingly my vet disagrees.  But please tell us, exactly what "injury" you think I'm inflicting on my dogs. Can you show us any scientific studies that show "injuries" sustained by dogs wearing Ecollars? If this was really happening wouldn't EVERY dog that had an Ecollar used on him be getting injured? 




Svan said:


> Now we have people who own other breeds come on here to chat & * I like an intelligent conversation * as much as the next


 
The way that you've been conducting yourself shows otherwise. 




Svan said:


> but I think you're on the wrong forum.


 
I go on forums for all breeds and for general dog training alike. 




Svan said:


> The forum for blockheaded bullies is elsewhere, please go find it & relieve us of your presence.


 
More rudeness and name calling. The last refuge of someone who can't put together a reasonable, rational and logical argument. 




Svan said:


> ActionJackson....pass the popcorn please


 
How fitting that you run and hide from my questions. You know that they'd expose you for what you really are.


----------



## Lou Castle

Selli-Belle said:


> First, your first question was asking for top tier comeptitors that were "positive" trainers......I answered with Petra Ford. Is she good enough for you?


 
Still hung up on the "top tier thing" I see. LOL. This is the Petra Ford that uses Ecollars right? I have no idea what you mean when you ask "is she good enough for [me]."




Selli-Belle said:


> Then I gave you other competitors like Celeste Mead and my coach, Cathy Cox.


 

Are these like the others you mentioned previously when you said that they did not use Ecollars or physical punishments only to get corrected and learn that THEY DID? How are we to know? Loisiana can't know EVERYONE. LOL




Selli-Belle said:


> I don't think you understand obedience competition very well based on your comments.


 
Another assumption. You're wrong. 




Selli-Belle said:


> Although the NOI crowns a champion every year, the performances at any given trial are just as impressive as they are at the NOI. If a dog and handler gets a 200 or a 199.5 at a trial it is judged to the same standard as at the NOI. The performance is judged against a standard of absolutely no errors not against the other competitors. If at a trial or a series of trials anywhere in the country, a certain dog and handler beats or ties the NOI champ or other title holders, then it logically follows that that dog and handler is at the same level. So it is not some little trials as anyone who actually competes in obedience can tell you.


 
Yep, I know. My comment is the same. _"There are *very few *people using the so−called positive methods that rise to winning at the *national level *in any kind of competition that places value on precision and reliability."_ You've named a "very few" (and a couple of times been proven wrong) EXACTLY as I said. Thanks for AGAIN proving my point. 




Selli-Belle said:


> O.K. still displaying your lack of understanding about AKC obedience.


 
Wrong again! LOL




Selli-Belle said:


> There is only ONE national competition in obedience every year.


 
Yes, I know. That's all I'm talking about. 




Selli-Belle said:


> In the fifteen years that the NOI has existed I think there were three *dogs *who won it twice, so there are *NO DOGS *who can be said to win consistently at a national level. However, the most recent of the two time winners in Petra Ford who is a positive trainer!


 
Wondering about your ability to read now. Here's my statement AGAIN. _"there are very few *people *using the so−called positive methods that rise to winning at the *national level *in any kind of competition that places value on precision and reliability."_ I'm talking about people and you're talking about dogs. Some reason that you keep begging this simple question? 

Earlier I posted this video. http://www.ehow.com/video_2348607_use-during-dog-agility-training.html




Selli-Belle said:


> You have to be kidding, really! This is your demonstration that agility does not require precision and reliability?


 
No it's JUST ONE bit of evidence. As I wrote then, _"Want to see some more of the AMAZING precision and control? I gottem!"_ 




Selli-Belle said:


> Really? Talk about ROFL! People, this video, if you haven't watched it is of a trainer talking about using treats of toys to train with, it has NOTHING to do with a dog running agility. I can't even stop myself from laughing to type more about it.


 
Nice try. But anyone who watches the video will realize that this is someone who has a successful business (just a guess but she has her own building) where she teaches others how to do agility. More than likely she's either using her own competition dog or at least a demo dog and what she's showing at that moment is how she uses treats to train with. In the video it's obvious that she gives the dog quite a variety of commands that he fails to comply with. While she's not running an agility course at that moment, it's safe to assume that the dog's performance would be similar if she was. 




Selli-Belle said:


> As I showed before, both in this post by linking to the AKC Agility Trial Manual and in previous posts by explaining the requirements for a MACH, top level agility requires precision and reliability.


 
Nah. While I'm not fond of Wiki as a source of facts it will do here. Wiki says that Agility first appeared at Crufts in 1978 as entertainment. _"At the 1978 Crufts, the demonstration immediately intrigued dog owners *because of its speed and challenge and the dexterity *displayed by the dogs."_ Notice that it does NOT say, "because of its precision and reliability." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_dog_agility 



Selli-Belle said:


> Linda, the handler, trained this all using only positive reinforcement.




Nope quite impossible. Can't be done. No one can train using only +R no matter how many times you say it.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> Is this the extent of your Ecollar knowledge? Blasting a dog off a chase? If so, I suggest that you spend some time learning about the possibilities of what they can do. It sounds as if you used the tool as it was done in 1968, when it was invented.


 




Selli-Belle said:


> Did I say I "blasted a dog off a chase? You corrected others for assuming what you know, please have the same courtesy.


 

I apologize. Please tell us the specific steps you went through when teaching this. Your dogs reaction when you pressed the button and the approximate level of stim you used. Please include the make and model of the Ecollar. Why do I think that like many other questions I've asked, you won't answer this one? 




Selli-Belle said:


> I learned how to use the ecollar from an experienced field trainer.


 
Most field trainers use the Ecollar at pretty high levels of stim. Just a few posts back, K9-Design, who does among other things, field trial work, wrote, _"Of course the collar causes pain, that's why it works."_ Many of them will blast a dog for chasing. For the record, "blasting" means to use a high or fairly high level of stim to get a dog to stop chasing. The number on the dial means nothing. It's how the dog perceives it. You described your result like this, _"It took one session four years ago and I can still call her off deer today."_ It's very rare that that you get results this fast and this long lasting UNLESS high level stim is used. And so I made this assumption based on over 20 years of seeing this sort of thing done. 




Selli-Belle said:


> I have to say though, the collar, a Sport Dog came with a booklet on using the collar for basic training and I almost threw up when reading it. Among other things it advised that if the dog runs away from you and hides when you start using it, you should continue to shock it until it comes back. This is what passes for basic training with a shock collar (oh and we bought the collar new in 2006).


 
Yeah some people advocate that. I'm not one of them. It makes me ill too. 




Selli-Belle said:


> Thank you (I guess), but I don't need your protocol, as I stated I acheived my goal and I can call Selli off deer. I also keep close track of my dogs when we are out and about so we don't have a situation where she is out of range before I call her.


 
Nobody "needs" my protocol. But it's been used by hundreds of SAR and LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) K−9 handlers to stop their dogs from chasing game of various kinds. The fact that you tell us that you keep "close track of [your] dogs in interesting. But I'd bet that at least once in your history with dogs you've let them go into brush into where you could not see the dog every second. In that case, it's best if the dog does the work of not chasing, rather than to have you relying on a recall where you have to see the chase start. But you may be one of those perfect dog handlers and nothing like that could ever happen to you. 

Earlier I wrote,


> That's a healthy approach. I'm sure that you're aware (and may even admit) that there are some dogs for whom the so called "positive methods" don't give satisfactory results in a timely manner for even the most basic of commands, the recall and sit. It may be that the owners are just not capable of doing it right or won't spend the time. Sometimes those owners turn to conventional leash and collar methods and still meet with failure. Sometimes those dogs wind up in the shelter or being PTS. Sometimes they find their way to me. I've never failed to give those folks reliable and precise OB with an Ecollar.


 



Selli-Belle said:


> Sometimes people are lazy and many people should not own dogs.


 
Yep, they are. But our feelings are not going to change the fact that some lazy people will own dogs. 




Selli-Belle said:


> I have yet to meet a dog who can not be trained to sit using positive methods.


 
I have MANY times. Most of my work is with dogs for whom the so called "positive methods" have failed to give satisfactory results. It's not JUST the method, it's the application at times. But if the owners can't or won't apply it correctly, they're not going to get good results. I've never failed to give those folks reliable OB. 




Selli-Belle said:


> If you can't get a reliable recall a dog should not be off a leash.


 
Great advice. But it does not change the reality that people are going to let their dogs off leash even though they don't have a reliable recall. 




Selli-Belle said:


> I am not a live and let live, everybody do their own thing kind of person when it comes to how people treat their dogs. I have very high standards because I believe dogs are sentient creatures that deserve to experience humans' most humane side.


 
Me too. Of the two of us I'd bet that I'm the only one who has actually arrested someone I saw abusing a dog. That person was prosecuted and convicted based on my statements.


----------



## Lou Castle

Loisiana said:


> Celeste Meade most definately uses physical corrections in her training. Yes she uses a lot of positive motivation in her training (like most trainers do), but she still uses corrections. I've been to seminars with her and have taken a private lesson with her.


 
Selli Belle keeps telling us about these folks almost as if they're to be worshipped and you keep showing us that they have feet of clay! ROFL. I'd bet some good money that the rest of the folks that she's mentioned also use physical corrections. After all she's said in a recent post that "Linda" trained a dog "using only positive reinforcement" when anyone who understands dog training knows that's impossible!

Thanks again.


----------



## Lou Castle

Loisiana said:


> So there seems to be a disagreement on what would be a top-tiered competitor in obedience. My definition is different from any of the definitions I've seen on here. * When I think of a top-tiered obedience competitior, I think of someone who is regularly nationally ranked in the top 10 or so all-breed national rankings. * * I don't think just getting an OTCH puts one at the top of this sport. *Plenty of OTCH handlers out there that while good at what they do, I would not consider "top-tier" *Being able to beat those competitors doesn't mean that person has risen to the same caliber. *Heck, I beat those competitors enough to be noticed locally but I certainly don't consider myself a "top-tiered" competitor. There are some hanlders who are much more well-known than equally good handlers because they have written books, given seminars, etc. Just having an OTCH dog and being well known doesn't meet my definition.
> 
> [/b]So it doesn't just come down to being able to get top scores some of the time, it is about getting those scores consistently, time after time, trial after trial. [/b]If we were to look at just one competition to judge that on, then the NOI would be the best b/c it takes into account many many runs over two days, not just a single run. But there are competitors that I would consider being "top-tier" that don't go to the NOI.


 
Well at least someone understands. Thanks again.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> What nonsense. I have little doubt that her experience with an Ecollar has affected her other work. Thinking that a trainer compartmentalizes each bit of knowledge that he comes by and doesn’t consider it in relation to previous knowledge is silly.


 



Selli-Belle said:


> Lou, I explained that Adele was a top trainer and developed her methodology for obedience training BEFORE she did any field training.


 
Yes, you did. But conveniently you overlook the fact that NOW she uses and Ecollar and there's little doubt that NOW it's influenced other areas of her training ... as I said. 




Selli-Belle said:


> In addition, how can knowing how to use an ecollar in field training effect her obedience training if she doesn't use it in obedience training.


 
A little while ago you told us about your ethos that because you believe that dogs are _"sentient beings [they] deserve to experience human's most humane side."_ this affects everything you do with dogs. Just as will any new knowledge that a trainer comes by, even if it's not directly applicable to what he's doing at that second. Perhaps if you thought of the "big picture" instead of staying stuck in the minutiae as I mentioned earlier. 




Selli-Belle said:


> I know how to use autocad for drawing an architectural floor plan, but that knowledge doesn't effect the was I sketch a building free hand. Both images need straight lines and angles but in completely different contexts.


 
AGAIN you try to compartmentalize knowledge. It just doesn't work. Everything a trainer knows affects everything he does. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Yes of course someone who wins at local or regional competitions BUT NOT at the national level can beat those national level champions any day of the week. Yes, if course they can. ROFLMAO


 



Selli-Belle said:


> Yes they can and do.


 
It happens but to try to pretend that it happens AS I SAID, any day of the week, obviously meaning "on a routine basis" is to be wrong. 




Selli-Belle said:


> Do we have the right to inflict pain on them to get them to play our games? Think about it.


 
Nothing really for me to think about. I don't inflict pain, minor discomfort is as bad as it gets. Some reason that some of you seem to be incapable of getting that?


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier Selli Belle wrote


> Sometimes people are lazy and many people should not own dogs. I have yet to meet a dog who can not be trained to sit using positive methods.


 



Ljilly28 said:


> I agree with this.


 
Finding dogs that can't be trained to sit using positive methods (whatever that means) isn't that hard. It's just a matter of experience. Perhaps I see them more than others because I'm often the last guy they see before Fido goes to the shelter or doggie heaven. 




Ljilly28 said:


> I spend a good part of many days trying to repair trust in dogs who have owners that answered a local trainer's ad claiming to be a "dog whisperer" who can train any dog in 7 days with an e collar. It is nonsense, and some of the dogs emerge neurotic messes.


 
Anyone using any method who claims that they can train a dog in 7 days WITH ANY METHOD (an Ecollar is not a method it's a tool) OR TOOL is either an idiot, a liar or both.


----------



## Lou Castle

FinnTastic said:


> They probably don't.


 
Try to keep up. That question has already been answered. 




FinnTastic said:


> They just want to get their name and what not on the internet as much as possible.


 
Yeah cause it's SO EXCITING to see my name on the Net. ROFL. 




FinnTastic said:


> At least that is what it seems like since I don't think they've contributed to any other thread except this one which is an old thread.


 
Again, try to keep up. First I started a thread hours ago about my method for establishing dominance. Second, there have been more posts made on this thread since it was reopened than before it died.


----------



## Lou Castle

Svan said:


> I personally have not seen an ecollar used in any way I could approve of. The though of using it on my little clown facey boy really makes me feel ill.




Thanks for letting us know that I spite of your claimed EXTENSIVE experience, there are things that you have not seen. Too bad your mind is closed, you might admit that just because you haven't seen something it might exist. BTW ever seen the back side of the moon? Do you think that it exists? 




Svan said:


> Jill, dearest moderator, I promise to be more polite, I can't promise to live and let live because the very basis of this training offends.


 
Great news! But it's remarkable that I'm the one that you've been rude to and that it's a moderator that you apologize to! 




Svan said:


> Also Lou just pushes my buttons (pun intended) & I find the aggressive and down-putting manner in which he speaks to everyone here very annoying.


 
No one else has complained. Just in case, I apologize. 




Svan said:


> We have some people here for whom I have a LOT of respect because of their knowledge of GR & of training these beautiful dogs, I find it very difficult to watch this guy just bulldoze them until he now just about owns the thread. Sorry, I'll go kick a lamppost somewhere.


 
I just about own the thread? Interesting. It seem to me that it's basically just me against many members of the forum. I'm greatly outnumbered. But that's never bothered me before and it doesn't now either.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jersey's Mom said:


> As I suspected Mr. Castle, you are disingenuous. If using negative punishment disqualifies one from being called a positive trainer, then no such thing exists.


 
Congratulations. That's my point. The people who call themselves "positive trainers" do so as a marketing ploy, or to sound nicey nice to their training buddies. They want people to think that they use only "kinder, gentler" methods and that they never use punishment or aversives. But real dog trainers know that it's impossible to train a dog without using punishment or aversives. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> There's nothing more to debate. Even everyone's favorite straw woman -- Karen Pryor -- uses negative punishment.


 
She also killed an animal that she was unable to train. And since she's supposedly the real expert on this stuff, how well do you think JQ Public fares? 




Jersey's Mom said:


> You associate negative punishment with the word aversive because it serves your purpose, not because it is technically correct.


 
I'll disagree. I think that it is technically correct. I've shown it several times. If it ifits the description of punishment, that is, if it tends to make a behavior not repeat, it's punishment. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> And please show me where in the dictionary the word "aversive" is considered to be a noun.


 
From this site: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aversive a·ver·sive –adjective 
1. of or pertaining to aversion. 
2. of or pertaining to aversive conditioning. 
* –noun **
3. a reprimand, punishment, or agent, * used in aversive conditioning: Antabuse is a commonly used aversive in the treatment of alcoholism.

And let's keep in mind that there is not a dictionary of K−9 training jargon, at least not that I'm aware of. Many words used inside specialized industries do not appear in dictionaries until they've been use for years. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> (For the record, the noun form of the word is aversiveness).


 
BOTH aversive and aversiveness are nouns. I choose to use the shorter version. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> You pick a poorly shot video and paint the entire agility world with that one brush


 
Nope not hardly. I have about a dozen more videos that show similar errors. I just don't see the need. I've proven my point. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> (for the record, the dog missed the jump on the first run because she was late with her command.


 
I'll disagree. There's little doubt that she had a couple of rehearsals before the camera came on. So the dog should have known exactly what to do. But he still missed the jump. But even if, as you say, her command was late, he should have gone back and done it. Instead he just kept going. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> And you're right, she didn't seem to notice that he didn't hit the target on the second run... chances are she was too busy worrying about the camera.


 
I’m sure she'll be gratified that you've making excuses for her. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> That doesn't mean that agility does not require accuracy and precision, it only means that's a crappy video).


 
It's an example of what passes for precision and reliability. I have no idea where you came up with "accuracy." It has nothing to do with my statement. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> Let's get real for a moment here: Please explain how it is that I cannot understand what effect withholding a treat from my dog will have as you sit there and tell me with a straight face that you are certain you are producing "only mild discomfort" and not "pain or irritation" to your dog.


 
You probably can understand but because you don't want to and since you've started down the so called "positive methods" road you've not believed it. You've spent so much time swallowing the idea that it does not include aversive or use punishment that when the opposite side, the truth is present, you can't accept it. That hardly means that it's not very unpleasant for your dog. I've seen dogs completely shut down when a treat, praise or some other expected reinforcement was not delivered. 

As to the other side. I know, and so do you, what inexperienced dogs (inexperienced with the Ecollar) do when they feel the sudden onset of pain. (as is the case when an Ecollar is activated set to a high level) They try to quickly move away from the place where it's resting on their body. Sometimes that show up as the dog doing a backflip. Sometimes they move rapidly to one side or the other if the contact points are on the side of their neck. If it's on the top of their neck, they go down, towards the ground. Usually this is accompanied by a vocalization, often a loud "yip." 

Now look at this video of a dog feeling his first stim and tell me where the pain occurs and what the symptoms of it are. Let me save you the trouble of actually having to click on the link. At about 0:30 the dog feels the stim and he looks at the ground. It's the same kind of look as when a grasshopper lands on a dog unexpectedly. Then he spends a few moments sniffing and looking at the ground, as if he was looking for "this bug." About 15 seconds later the dog gives up looking for the bug and has forgotten all about it. 

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1718526843747129672#docid=7857735919357023488 




Jersey's Mom said:


> it's impossible to have a rational discussion or debate with someone who twists the very definition of words to suit their own purpose


 
I've shown you an online dictionary that clearly shows that you are wrong. And you may or may not know that dictionaries are NOT the final arbiter of how words are used. It's only a guide based on history. Dictionaries are constantly being published as the usage of words change and as new words are invented. 

You might want to read these articles. 

http://www.krysstal.com/wordname.html 

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0117962/newwords.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0117962/newwords.htm 




Jersey's Mom said:


> and who moves the standard with each post and then cries foul.


 
ROFL. Ya mean like the way that you brough up Steve White as someone who had trained police patrol dogs with only _"a pure positive approach?"_ Or perhaps when I clarified that by top tier I mean "winning consistently at the national level" and you kept bringing up local wins? Yamean like you’re your statement that "aversive" can ONLY be an adjective? 

Or do you mean the plethora of questions that I've asked of you that you have avoided answering? 

Or perhaps you mean your lack of understanding of the definitions of the various phases of OC? 




Jersey's Mom said:


> I respect trainers like K9 Design who are at the very least honest about their techniques (it works because it hurts/is irritating)


 
There is no need to cause pain with an Ecollar when my methods are used. Minor discomfort is all that's necessary. Interesting that when K9-Design used the word "irritating" I completely agreed with him but now you somehow (conveniently, I think) forget that. Back then I wrote, _"Agree again. But there's a vast gulf between *"minor discomfort" or "irritation" *and "pain."_ It makes no difference that you don't believe it, it just shows that you're incapable of learning something that conflicts with your beliefs. That's your loss. I doubt that you'll lose any sleep over it, but you and others have given me the opportunity to say it repeatedly. 

Even if you're not listening, some are. When I go onto a new forum, especially one with this ethos, I never hope to change everyone's mind. I only hope that the few out there who are struggling with the so called "positive methods" and not getting satisfactory results will try the Ecollar rather than take their dog to the shelter or have him put down, a result that happens more often than some will admit if an owner can't get a problem dog trained. I have little doubt that there are some here that would rather kill a dog than have an Ecollar used on him. I'm not one of them. I've been quite successful as quite a few members have written me privately, asking for information about Ecollars. If only one dog is saved as a result of my efforts here I'm thrilled. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> and fair to their dogs (use the collar to reinforce known commands, not to teach new ones).


 
Since you are so completely ignorant of my methods of using the Ecollar I'm not surprised that you don't think it's fair. But since you are so ignorant of those methods, your opinion probably carries little weight as to its influence on others. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> Trainers like that don't need to do fancy footwork around the definitions of behavioral psychology because they have nothing to hide.


 
ROFL. I'm not _"hiding"_ a thing. I'm correcting you and some others who simply either don't understand the definition of OC or can't apply them to real situations. 




Jersey's Mom said:


> I respect what they do and accomplish with their dogs even as I choose different techniques for myself. You, on the other hand, come off as a charlatan. I'm through helping you advertise.


 
Here are some letters sent to this "charlatan" by people who actually have done the work. Unlike your blind obedience to a theory that my methods don't work. As I told GoldenSail,


> I think that the opinion of someone who has actually used an Ecollar beats the heck out of the opinions of people who have not.


 

David wrote,


> The advice and techniques offered by you on your website have already been most helpful to me. Now that I have seen first-hand just how humane and easy training can be with the e-collar, I'd like to help to spread the word to the uneducated of which there seems to be NO shortage. In fact, it seems to me that every single time that "thing" around the dog's neck comes up in conversation, I find myself getting into an hour-long discussion to try to get people to understand that it's not there to "shock the dog when he doesn't obey". It's staggering to me just how many people think this is the purpose of the e-collar.


 
Andre wrote on another forum.


> I have seen more improvement in 7 days with the eCollar than I have in the 5 months previous using the prong.


 
Weber wrote,


> I purposely trained my high drive 2 yr. old Dobe not using the remote collar for two weeks. I was using treat and a pinch collar. Went back to the ecollar last night and it reaffirmed that the ecollar gets much better results and is clearer to the dog.


 
Brooke sent this email to a list about Ecollars,


> I am mainly a lurker and learner but wanted to share with you all that Ben my 4yo GSD has been training on an e-collar consistently since the beginning of this year … [about five months]. His obedience is wonderful and although we have a few minor issues to work on still (we are both still learning) he is a far more balanced dog and a joy to live and work with. Yesterday we were passed up to the top class at our GSD Obedience Training Club but we also won a place in the German Shepherd Demonstration Team which performs at school, old folks homes, fairs etc. I am so proud of my dog and just wanted to thank all of you (especially Dan, Lou and Alice) for their generous sharing of experience and encouragement!


 
I have lots more.


----------



## Lou Castle

Svan said:


> Jerseys mom, hear hear


 
LOL. Someone else ducking out leaving many unanswered questions. What is it that you folks are so afraid of? Seems to me that if your methods were even HALF as good as you pretend that you'd be HAPPY to answer questions. But somehow, you're not.


----------



## Rob's GRs

To all;

The forum moderator team knows this is a heated topic, and certainly not all parties agree with each other, but let's keep this thread a civil discussion.

Thanks


----------



## FinnTastic

I think it should just be closed.


----------



## Lou Castle

Are there books in the library that you think should be burned?


----------



## Phillyfisher

Lou, I certainly hope that this is another case of how written communication over the internet is not as effective as actually talking face to face. While I have never used an e-collar, nor am I a trainer, I am sure there is an appropriate time, place and method that they can used. While you may have the knowledge in proper use of an e-collar and determining when it is and is not appropriate, your position and credibility loses strength with the manner you choose to reply with those who disagree. You come across as quite arrogant, which is the one trait I despise in anyone. Perhaps a change in your approach would turn this into a more meaningful discussion.


----------



## Svan

Lou Castle said:


> LOL. Someone else ducking out leaving many unanswered questions. What is it that you folks are so afraid of? Seems to me that if your methods were even HALF as good as you pretend that you'd be HAPPY to answer questions. But somehow, you're not.


Actually pass the popcorn means I'm sitting back just watching you run around. There's no getting through to someone like you so watching you run around wasting your time is probably as entertaining as a B movie  <reminder to self -get a life!> 

I don't see any of our professional trainers on here debating with you so it's obvious they're giving you no cred, even the people who use ecollars disagree with you (mostly) and are distancing themselves from your behaviour, so as far as I can see you have no credibility and I can safely sit back knowing that anyone considering using the ecollar will most likely, after running into you, be put off it for life.

The only ecollar user on here who has in any way had an impact on me is K9 design who has the decency to admit she is inflicting pain on her dogs using the collar. I'm still not happy about it, but at least she will probably use it more judiciously than someone who is in absolute denial of basic facts. Eg electric current hurts.


----------



## GoldenSail

FinnTastic said:


> I think it should just be closed.


I agree, nothing good is coming out of it.


----------



## Lou Castle

Phillyfisher said:


> Lou, I certainly hope that this is another case of how written communication over the internet is not as effective as actually talking face to face. While I have never used an e-collar, nor am I a trainer, I am sure there is an appropriate time, place and method that they can used.


 
Thanks for having an open mind. 




Phillyfisher said:


> While you may have the knowledge in proper use of an e-collar and determining when it is and is not appropriate, your position and credibility loses strength with the manner you choose to reply with those who disagree. You come across as quite arrogant, which is the one trait I despise in anyone. Perhaps a change in your approach would turn this into a more meaningful discussion.


 
I've heard "this arrogance thing" before. But it only happens when people disagree and post in the rude manner that some here have. I've never been accused of it when people agree or there's only moderate disagreement. Perhaps it's my way of responding to personal attacks and nastiness of various sorts. I think it's better than responding in kind; that only escalates it and, on some forums, gets threads locked. 

I thank you very much for the words of advice but I wonder why you haven't asked those who have committed personal attacks, one after the other to settle down? Perhaps you have in PM's? 

People who know me know that I'm not arrogant, anything but. As you said perhaps this is one of the problems with this medium of communication.


----------



## Lou Castle

Svan said:


> Actually pass the popcorn means I'm sitting back just watching you run around. There's no getting through to someone like you so watching you run around wasting your time is probably as entertaining as a B movie <reminder to self -get a life!>


You may think that I'm wasting my time because your measure of that may be that I've not convinced you. You told us long ago that your mind is closed. But the six new members of my forum who are probably going to start using Ecollars because the so called "positive methods" have failed for them, would probably disagree. 




Svan said:


> I don't see any of our professional trainers on here debating with you so it's obvious they're giving you no cred


Interesting interpretation of the fact that none "of our professional trainers" here are staying out of the discussion. I'd say that they're going along to get along. Notice that not one of them has disagreed with anything that I've said. K9-Design commented on the differences in our methods, but that's about it. 




Svan said:


> even the people who use ecollars disagree with you (mostly)


Interesting that you assume that silence means that they disagree with me. Just about everywhere else in the world "silence is assent." 




Svan said:


> and are distancing themselves from your behaviour


Ditto. 




Svan said:


> so as far as I can see you have no credibility and I can safely sit back knowing that anyone considering using the ecollar will most likely, after running into you, be put off it for life.


 

Really? Here's A UK Pet Owner who disagrees. He wrote this to an Ecollar training list. 




> My Dane Dobe x, Zack, lunges and barks at other dogs when he is on his lead. This, amongst other things, was a major reason for him being *continually returned to rescue before he came to me. *Today was day one of the anti crittering protocol using a stooge dog. I have spent the time since getting the collar teaching him how to respond and conditioning the heel and come responses etc. He was doing these perfectly without major distractions. Today, for the first time ever, I managed to have him calmly sitting next to another dog while I gave them both treats. *I followed Lou's anti crittering protocol to the letter and we had a big time success. I am so happy. It took about half an hour to get him to the other dog calmly, but we did it. He sniffed at the other dog and was sniffed back very politely. *


 



Svan said:


> at least she will probably use it more judiciously than someone who is in absolute denial of basic facts. Eg electric current hurts.


THE BASIC FACT IS that electrical current CAN hurt and it CAN even kill. It's entirely dependent on the level of the current. It can also "tingle, buzz, or feel like a tapping." These are common descriptions of what the first perceivable stim feels like from people who have actually felt it, (as opposed to those who only imagine it). Children I've put it on often giggle. 

Tried that TENS unit at a lower level of power yet? LOL

I'm reminded of a woman who was at the seminar I did in the UK. I was passing the Ecollar around among the audience and having them feel the stim. Person after person were amazed that it was only a "buzz" or a "tingle," they were expecting a blast. Then one woman screamed, as if in pain. The audience was "shocked." (Yes, pun intended). You'd think that no one else would try it after that, but they did. It pretty much discredited the woman and her extreme reaction. After the seminar she came up to me and apologized. She admitted that the feeling was not anywhere near what her reaction to the stim showed. She was, like some here, fervently anti−Ecollar and said that she thought that it would "help her cause." 

That UK user I mentioned above? Here's what she wrote about ten days later.


> Yesterday I was taking my dog out scootering and it finally happened, we saw another dog on the other side of the road. My immediate reaction was my heart sinking. This situation has always resulted in the scooter being dragged across the road, me flat on my face and my dog going nuts trying to get to the other dog. We have been working the anti crittering protocol to resolve the issues but this was the first cold test where I was not in control of the environment. We got closer up behind the other dog and I will admit I was really worried about what was going to happen and fully expecting him to behave as he normally would have done. Instead, he glanced at the other dog to check it out (literally a micro second glance) and carried on past without breaking stride. No barking, no lunging, no twirling NOTHING!!!!! I am sooooo happy!!! Yay!


----------



## Lou Castle

GoldenSail said:


> I agree, nothing good is coming out of it.


 
The six new members of my forum would probably disagree.


----------



## RedDogs

What's the very basis of the concept/disagreement of this discussion/conversation/argument/exchange of words? 

I'm a bit confused about that!


----------



## Phillyfisher

Lou Castle; said:


> [/FONT][/SIZE]
> 
> I thank you very much for the words of advice but I wonder why you haven't asked those who have committed personal attacks, one after the other to settle down? Perhaps you have in PM's?
> 
> People who know me know that I'm not arrogant, anything but. As you said perhaps this is one of the problems with this medium of communication.


To be honest, I did not ask the others, it did not occur to me, and they got a break. Why, you may ask? Because I have gotten to know them over the past 3 years I have been on this forum. I have learned what they are passionate about, so what may seem to be arrogance to a newcomer is really passion. Based on your latest reply, I suspect you may be the same. I blame it on the nature of the Internet.

So you understand where at least I come from (may or may not apply to others), while goldens are fun loving, friendly, outgoing, intelligent, they are also very sensitive. I am not sure how many you have worked with, but live with one. They get their feelings hurt very easily. Case in point, my dog Tucker pulls on lead, so we used a gentle leader to help train him to walk with us better. I noticed his whole demeanor changed when I would put it on, but hadn't thought much about it. I was thrilled not to be pulled down the street. Then I read one of Suzanne Clothier's books, and her comments about why she doesn't like the gentle leader. I agreed with her insights, so now I am working without the GL and Tucker and I are slowly working together to figure it out, without crushing his spirit. Meaningful, lasting change takes time, there is no quick fix. If you haven't read one of Suzanne's books I encourage you to do so. I also recommend you read "Merle's Door", by Ted Kerasote. Personally, that is the type of understanding and relationship I want with my dog. And do I think an e collar would work for Tucker's heeling issue, yep it would. It just isn't the path I am choosing right now. So hang around Lou, get to know us and our dogs. Let us get to know your passion, and the type of person you are, thru this difficult media. Sorry to drag this so far off topic. I just felt like this needed to be said.


----------



## Lou Castle

Phillyfisher said:


> To be honest, I did not ask the others, it did not occur to me, and they got a break. Why, you may ask? Because I have gotten to know them over the past 3 years I have been on this forum. I have learned what they are passionate about, so what may seem to be arrogance to a newcomer is really passion. Based on your latest reply, I suspect you may be the same. I blame it on the nature of the Internet.


 
Wow, and I was expecting just another hammering. Instead, a calm, reasoned, well−thought−out reply. Thanks very much! 

I think you're right, my passion comes across as arrogance sometimes. It never occurred to me before. I have seen too many dogs given up or PTS because their owners can't get them trained. I've rescued quite a few myself and put many others onto such dogs. Most of the first owners of those dogs had tried to train them with the so called "positive methods" but for one reason or another they could not. Many owners were able to get good compliance when there were no distractions present but as soon as heavy distractions showed up the compliance disappeared. Sometimes it was a case of them not applying the methods properly and sometimes it was a matter of the dogs not responding to them because of their level and balance of drives. Either way, the dog didn't get trained and wound up losing his life. Many, if not most dogs, respond to those methods but many don't. For those who don't, I developed methods using the Ecollar that work well for both pets and working dogs alike. Many dogs have been saved from the needle by my methods. 

Some folks think they know all about how the Ecollar is used, but in reality they don't. They're only familiar with the tool as it's used for correcting known behaviors (usually at fairly high levels of stim) and so don't understand that the tool can be used at low levels of stim to teach the behaviors with. This lack of knowledge (and a refusal to admit that this lack of knowledge exists) has resulted in much back and forth about the use of the tool for this purpose. 




Phillyfisher said:


> So you understand where at least I come from (may or may not apply to others), while goldens are fun loving, friendly, outgoing, intelligent, they are also very sensitive.


 
This sort of sensitivity makes the Ecollar an ideal tool for working with those dogs. The level of stim can be adjusted so that it fits exactly with this sensitivity. If you're talking about "sensitive to the handler" again, the Ecollar is a good tool. Dogs rarely associate the stim with the owner. Instead it seems to come from the environment and the dog's behavior. The dog does not perceive that the stim comes from the owner and so any potential conflict does not occur. 




Phillyfisher said:


> I am not sure how many you have worked with


 
It's buried in the thread. I've put Ecollars on about 15 of them. I've never owned one. 




Phillyfisher said:


> They get their feelings hurt very easily. Case in point, my dog Tucker pulls on lead, so we used a gentle leader to help train him to walk with us better. I noticed his whole demeanor changed when I would put it on, but hadn't thought much about it. I was thrilled not to be pulled down the street.


 
Of the 15, probably 3-4 were of this type. The rest were pretty bombproof. The latter were working lines. 




Phillyfisher said:


> Then I read one of Suzanne Clothier's books, and her comments about why she doesn't like the gentle leader. I agreed with her insights, so now I am working without the GL and Tucker and I are slowly working together to figure it out, without crushing his spirit.


 
Here's the difference between you and some of the anti−Ecollar folks in this thread. YOU have an open mind. You noticed the change in your dog just from putting the GL on your dog but didn't recognize it for what it was. Reading Clothier's book opened your eyes. Just as I'm hoping to open a few eyes here about the Ecollar. At least one contributor has admitted that her mind is closed and I accept that. It's a shame because it means that her learning on certain topics is over. My mind is always open and I'm always willing to learn from just about anyone. I know that I don't have all the answers. In fact all of my seminars are called "Part of the Answer." 




Phillyfisher said:


> Meaningful, lasting change takes time, there is no quick fix.


 
While I'll agree that there is no quick fix, sometimes minds change in an instant. Sometimes it's a near miss with a car when a dog does not recall. Sometimes it's having a dog chase a deer into the brush or forest and not come back for 20 minutes or longer. Sometimes it's a tragedy. Then there are self recriminations and people "If only l had ..." I'd prefer to avoid all of these. 

I'm not advocating that everyone drop what they're doing and adopt my methods. I AN advocating that for people who can't get compliance in a timely manner or who discover in the face of some distractions that their methods haven't been as successful as they'd hoped and thought they were that they consider the Ecollar and my methods as alternatives. 




Phillyfisher said:


> So hang around Lou, get to know us and our dogs. Let us get to know your passion, and the type of person you are, thru this difficult media. Sorry to drag this so far off topic. I just felt like this needed to be said.


 
I plan to stick around in spite of some who would prefer that I leave. Some can't stand having other viewpoints proffered, especially if they go against their long held beliefs. I've posted in a few other threads and I hope to learn as well as to share what little I know. Thanks again. I knew there were some rational people here.


----------



## Svan

Hi Phillyfisher,

Very interesting post about the halters - thanks for that!


----------



## Phillyfisher

Svan said:


> Hi Phillyfisher,
> 
> Very interesting post about the halters - thanks for that!


Svan, believe me it was drastic with Tucker. He would actually "argue" with me about it. Mouth my hands, zoom quick circles around the room. I would hold my ground and insist he put it on. I never forced him, but just waited him out and he learned he would have to put it on to go on a walk. He would let me slip it on without a fuss. But his whole posture would change. Gone was his confident, jubilant self. He would slouch, and half heartedly wag his tail. I realize he was telling he would do it for me, but he wasn't happy about it. I want him to be happy doing whatever I ask of him. So we continue our training with our trainer, working on our communication between us. The loose leash walking will come in time. We have periods of it on our walks. I need to figure out what triggers it. I have noticed a few things I will review with our trainer, and I am sure she will have some insights. I know it is something I am doing or not doing.


----------



## Loisiana

I just thought I would throw in for those of you unfamiliar to the training world that "sit means sit" is an expression often used by trainers, and so when you hear a trainer use that phrase it usually has nothing at all to do with Fred's program or e-collars.

When I say "sit means sit" I mean that "sit" is the only command I'm going to give to have him sit. I'm not going to tell him to "stay" after I've told him to sit - if I told him to sit he should stay in a sit until I either give him a different command or release him. I can also use the phrase to mean if he's not sitting up to my standard of the definition, then I am going to correct the lack of a sit. For example, if my dog sniffs the ground during a sit, I'm not going to correct him for sniffing with a "no sniff," I am going to correct him for not sitting according to my standard with whatever correction I would normally use for not sitting.

So sit means sit with your paws still and your head up and your butt fully on the ground and continue to do so until I tell you otherwise.


----------



## Loisiana

I use an ecollar sometimes in training Flip, I've always been open about that. It's not something I'm ashamed of. I don't use it for everything, actually I only use it for very specific purposes that I have thought out and planned ahead of time to use for that purpose.

My ecollar has 8 levels. There is a setting I can put it on to make it also go to 1/2 levels, so it can go from 1/2 to 8 in 1/2 increments. Anytime I use it for something where my dog is not running, I use it at either 1/2 or 1. At this level it feels like when I went to the chiropractor and they first put those electric node things on my back at a high level. Not a relaxing, pleasant feeling, but certainly not painful. If my dog is running he won't even feel it at that level, so I will use a 1 1/2 or 2. If my dog is in really really high drive and really booking it I might bump it up to a 2 1/2 or 3. 

So out of a maximum of 8, most of the time I am using it for obedience work it is at a 1 or lower. It's not about hurting the dog, it's about getting his attention and being able to nonverbally correct him without moving towards him. 

There are times when moving the collar up would probably be more effective, but I am not comfortable doing that so I don't.

For anyone who has watched any of the videos I have posted of Flip working, you can see that he is not frightened, scared, dragging, hunkering, cowering, or showing any other negative signs of having the collar used. If you haven't seen any of the videos and are interested, my you tube username is golden6824. Search that name and plenty of videos will come up.


----------



## marshab1

Phillyfisher said:


> Svan, believe me it was drastic with Tucker. He would actually "argue" with me about it. Mouth my hands, zoom quick circles around the room. I would hold my ground and insist he put it on. I never forced him, but just waited him out and he learned he would have to put it on to go on a walk. He would let me slip it on without a fuss. But his whole posture would change. Gone was his confident, jubilant self. He would slouch, and half heartedly wag his tail. I realize he was telling he would do it for me, but he wasn't happy about it. I want him to be happy doing whatever I ask of him. So we continue our training with our trainer, working on our communication between us. The loose leash walking will come in time. We have periods of it on our walks. I need to figure out what triggers it. I have noticed a few things I will review with our trainer, and I am sure she will have some insights. I know it is something I am doing or not doing.


 
I had a similiar experience with Tinkerbell as a puppy. There was a lab in our puppy class, who just would not stop pulling, he was worse than Tinkerbell, so a gentle leader or a prong collar was recommended. They chose the gentle leader, that puppy did stop pulling immediately (afer he tried to rub and scratch it off), but his tail was stuck between his legs and he wouldn't lift his head. Play time came and he wouldn't play until they took it off. The next week he had scratches on his nose where he had tried to scratch it off. Decided I could never do that to my my dog and I bought a prong collar that week as did the lab's owner.


----------



## Lou Castle

Loisiana said:


> So sit means sit with your paws still and your head up and your butt fully on the ground and continue to do so until I tell you otherwise.




I train the same way. My reasoning comes from a LE background where sometimes you don't have time to give two commands.


----------



## Lou Castle

Loisiana said:


> At this level it feels like when I went to the chiropractor and they first put those electric node things on my back at a high level. Not a relaxing, pleasant feeling, but certainly not painful.


This, in direct contrast to Svan's statement _"electric current hurts."_ As I said, it CAN hurt but it's not necessary that it does to get results. That's true of both the TENS and the Ecollar. 




Loisiana said:


> So out of a maximum of 8, most of the time I am using it for obedience work it is at a 1 or lower. *It's not about hurting the dog, *it's about getting his attention and being able to nonverbally correct him without moving towards him.


I think someone agrees with you.


----------



## Svan

Phillyfisher I agree with you. For me training is utilising the relationship between me & my dog to teach him. I couldn't use anything in training that violates that relaionship or that diminishes my dog. He is 2 now so we've had our moments (had some initial issues with overly excited greeting) but with the help of some excellent positive training we have been able to overcome that. I've been very fortunate to find an excellent positive trainer to work with me and teach me. Sometimes I think it's more about training me than my dog  That's why I would never use something painful to train him, it would be like slapping a child because you lack parenting skills.

*For me the training issues boiled down to me unwittingly rewarding undesirable behaviour. I realised I was doing something very wrong when I had to tackle him to the ground to prevent him from rushing happily into a situation with another dog which would have had dire consequences for him. So I took us off to see a pro who helped me change the way I was interacting with my dog. Cody loves attention and praise and by focusing on the desired behaviour whilst not giving him the opportunity for undesired behaviour, *he finally got what was required of him. *At the off lease park I can now watch him run up to greet a stranger but he won't engage unless the person calls him and even then there is no jumping up or doing anything undesirable & if I call him he comes & if I tell him to leave it, it won't matter how much the person tries to engaged him he won't engage. He's an absolute joy and people just love him. I've done agility with him but I am seriously considering getting the necessary & taking him into the reading program for children with disabilities.*

I have a friend with an autistic boy & my Cody is so intuitive with her son & has had such an impact on his life that she is considering getting a dog for him. Cody is so gentle with him & this boy, who barely spoke two words when I met him now holds long conversations with my dog. He is also now hugging and allowing hugs whereas before he couldn't stand being touched. He hugs the dog & tells Cody about his day at school allowing my friend to hear for the first time ever how he experiences his world. He was afraid of the big dog at first, but Cody is especially well behaved with him (he seems to be aware of the little boy's issues) & now they are best friends.*

A well trained dog is a joy to have for everyone. Add to that the smiley face and clownish personality of a GR and you've got smiles all around. I have watched my dog try and try and try again, over and over to learn what I want in order to please me.*

In order to try & get my friends' son to vocalise more we taught the boy the basic commands to get Cody to heel, sit, come and stay. Then we added some cool tricks like "hi five" (basically a fancy shake) and "play dead" and silly things like that which would add some fun to their interaction. Then we watched the dog & the boy together. *Sometimes the commands came too quick or too garbled (the boy also has a speech impediment & is partially blind too) but I watched that dog try his damndest to do what that boy asked him to. Despite the fact that he never got a treat from the boy and only the occasional very tight hug. You should see them together, it's pure magic. And the change it has wrought in the boy is astonishing.*

This just impressed on me once again how hard our dogs try to please us & how sensitive they are to our verbal & non verbal cues. As someone else said, it's very, very seldom the dog who is wrong, most of the time it's the trainer giving the wrong signal.*

Good luck and thanks again for the informative post!


----------



## Lou Castle

Svan said:


> For me training is utilising the relationship between me & my dog to teach him. I couldn't use anything in training that violates that relaionship or that diminishes my dog.


Interesting that you should mention the _"relationship"_ with your dog. The Ecollar, contrary to what some folks who oppose them say, will help build a great relationship with your dog. I once worked with a highly fear−aggressive dog. The owner had tried, among other things, the so called "positive methods" for about two years. They had slight effect. Then she asked me to try with the Ecollar. When I first met the dog she came up at my face, trying to bite me, because there had been a sudden noise in the environment. This was not a fearful "get away from me" nip on the hand or the ankle. This was a "I have to kill you to survive" attack. Fortunately the owner restrained the dog and I was not bitten. But I was pretty sure that when I started working with the dog, I was going to be bitten. Such is the life of a dog trainer. LOL. 

I had the owner attach my retractable leash and did NOTHING but the recall work as described in another thread. http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94724-teaching-recall-ecollar.html 

After about 25 minutes the dog climbed into my lap and started licking my face. 

There's quite a bit more and you can read the full story by getting the link from me in a PM. If any of you have highly fearful dog and want to rehabilitate them, the Ecollar used with my methods, has been highly successfully for many people. 




Svan said:


> Sometimes I think it's more about training me than my dog That's why I would never use something painful to train him, it would be like slapping a child because you lack parenting skills.


That's why the Ecollar is such a great choice. Using one with my methods does not cause pain. Minor discomfort is quite enough to get excellent results. 




Svan said:


> I have watched my dog try and try and try again, over and over to learn what I want in order to please me.*


Some people get such a dog. Many don't. All it takes is a look around this forum to find people who describe problems in training their dogs. Some dogs live to please their owners. Many do not.


----------



## Megora

> Some dogs live to please their owners. Many do not.


 
I think that is the difference between the majority of golden retrievers.... and other breeds.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> Some dogs live to please their owners. Many do not.





Megora said:


> I think that is the difference between the majority of golden retrievers.... and other breeds.


I'll agree that Goldens tend to be more biddable than many other breeds. But that statement is a generalization and there are individuals of every breed who live to please themselves, not their owners. Here are a couple of examples form this forum. 

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/92779-desparate-help-aggressive-10-month-old-male.html

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/90846-scared-just-stubborn.html

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/90659-how-do-you-train-not-bolt-out-door.html

And every breed has individual for whom the so called "positive methods" do not give satisfactory results in a timely manner.


----------



## RedDogs

Lou Castle said:


> And every breed has individual for whom the so called "positive methods" do not give satisfactory results in a timely manner.




How do you evaluate to determine if the unsatisfactory results are due to the type of training or the specific application of the method (or variation of the method)?


----------



## Megora

Lou Castle said:


> Earlier I wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> I'll agree that Goldens tend to be more biddable than many other breeds. But that statement is a generalization and there are individuals of every breed who live to please themselves, not their owners. Here are a couple of examples form this forum.
> 
> http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/92779-desparate-help-aggressive-10-month-old-male.html
> 
> http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/90846-scared-just-stubborn.html
> 
> http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/90659-how-do-you-train-not-bolt-out-door.html
> 
> And every breed has individual for whom the so called "positive methods" do not give satisfactory results in a timely manner.


And if you went into every single one of those threads, you would have noticed people explaining possibly what is going on with the dogs based on the age of the dog or making reasonable recommendations as to how to fix the problems based on experience with training the breed. 

*Problems like the dog bolting out the door are reinforced by lack of training. They are corrected by using methods (positive or otherwise) to fix them. It is not an indication of the method failing, if it hasn't been carried out properly.*

Goldens are most definitely eager to please when compared to other breeds who were bred to act independantly of a trainer. You can't use a juvenile and untrained golden as an example of the breed.


----------



## Lou Castle

RedDogs said:


> How do you evaluate to determine if the unsatisfactory results are due to the type of training or the specific application of the method (or variation of the method)?


 
It makes no difference if the method isn't suited to the dog or if the owners can't get good results with the methods. Either way, they're not going to be happy with the results.


----------



## Lou Castle

Megora said:


> And if you went into every single one of those threads, you would have noticed people explaining possibly what is going on with the dogs based on the age of the dog or making reasonable recommendations as to how to fix the problems based on experience with training the breed.


Yep I saw that. But my comments have nothing to do with the advice. They have to do with your statement _"I think that is the difference between the majority of golden retrievers.... and other breeds."_ If these dogs were so eager to please their owners, they'd not be having issues in the first place. 




Megora said:


> Problems like the dog bolting out the door are reinforced by lack of training. They are corrected by using methods (positive or otherwise) to fix them. It is not an indication of the method failing if it hasn't been carried out properly.


If these dogs wanted to please their owners they wouldn’t be bolting out the door.


----------



## Svan

Lou I can see you are trying to be nicer & everything but can you please stop responding to my posts as if I am interested in your abusive training practices? I really, really am closed minded to the point of duh when it comes to any training that involves physical pain eg putting an electric current through a dog collar.

I have also dealt with dogs with fear aggression & I have been bitten once by such a type of dog, but never in all of that time did I feel the dog deserved to be hurt. Helped, trained, supported, yes - hurt, no.*

As I pointed out to you before I find the practice inhumane and the mere thought of applying such tactics to my dog makes me physically ill. So I can see no point to your pointification unless it is your intention to bully me. When someone tells you they are not interested in what you have to say the polite thing to do is to not continue trying to force-feed them your opinion. So say what you like to others, it's a free forum, but leave me alone.

I have a lovely dog from an excellent breed and I am not so arrogant as to think the fault for bad behaviour lies with my dog. The buck stops with the alpha so the only one in my pack that needs correction in the event of an issue is me, something I'm very willing to learn about. However since you believe in coercion instead of cooperation, neither my dog nor I have need of your*unsolicited "advice".

Megora you are right, there are many possible issues with a bolting dog(& other training issues) *& I don't think you can say what the problem is without having observed the situation closely. What*was the owner saying (& more importantly not saying), what was the situation, what was outside that enticed the dog, what was the training or non-training history of that dog & owner, what is the temperament of the dog, what is the pack situation in that*house? Eventually you dig and find quite quickly where the miscommunication lies.*

The dog always wants to please it's alpha, ALWAYS. Pack behaviour is encoded in a dogs DNA & critical to its survival. It needs to know its place in the pack & feel safe there to be able to fullfill its function and be a happy dog. With bad communication and confusion in the pack you get a dog with training issues. Often that issue is a communication issue due to the dog not speaking*human. If you resolve the underlying issues you resolve the training problem.

Or you could just jam some electric current through it and force it to do what you want I guess. It's only a dog after all hey?


----------



## Lou Castle

Svan said:


> Lou I can see you are trying to be nicer & everything


I've been "nicer" (than you) since this thread started. You OTOH have been exceedingly rude; so rude that apparently a moderator asked you to tone it down. 




Svan said:


> but can you please stop responding to my posts


I'm sorry Svan but isn't this a public forum? If you write here isn't anyone allowed to respond? Or did I miss something a memo and now I'm in your private, personal part of the forum? I'd suggest that if you don't want me to respond to something that you've written, that you send it in a PM. 




Svan said:


> as if I am interested in your abusive training practices?


And now you're back to being rude! 




Svan said:


> I really, really am closed minded to the point of duh when it comes to any training that involves physical pain eg putting an electric current through a dog collar.


Since an Ecollar does not necessarily involve physical pain you're wrong about "putting an electric current through a dog" you should be completely open to the use of Ecollars at low levels of stim. LOL. BTW having a closed mind is not something to brag about. 




Svan said:


> I have also dealt with dogs with fear aggression & I have been bitten once by such a type of dog, but never in all of that time did I feel the dog deserved to be hurt. Helped, trained, supported, yes - hurt, no.*


I agree. That's why I use an Ecollar. ONLY minor discomfort is necessary. Earlier I described a highly fear−aggressive dog. Her name was Roma and I was the last stop before she was PTS. Living in such fear, it would have been a kindness. I worked with her the next day (after the one I described where I worked the recall protocol) using an Ecollar again, this time to teach her the sit and sit−at−a−distance. Her owner saw such progress that she got an Ecollar and continued to work the protocol for just those two behaviors. Roma did a complete turnaround in a few weeks. Her owner would bring Roma to training and cut her loose. Roma who previously would bite someone if she walked from shadow to bright sunlight (not an exaggeration) ran from person to person nudging people's hands with her muzzle, asking to be petted. Anyone interested who wants to cure a fearful dog, PM me for the link. Ask for "Roma's Story." 




Svan said:


> As I pointed out to you before I find the practice inhumane and the mere thought of applying such tactics to my dog makes me physically ill.


That's because you only know one way of using an Ecollar.... "apply pain to correct misbehavior or to stop a dog from doing something." There's a great deal more to it than just that. It's your lack of knowledge that has you feeling this way. I'd suggest that you spend a little time educating yourself. Try it. Learning is _FUN!. _




Svan said:


> So I can see no point to your pointification unless it is your intention to bully me.


Nah. I don't think it's possible to bully an adult on the Net. Children yes, but not adults. Adults should be responsible for their own emotions. Bottom line if you don't like what I write, don't read my posts. Either get yourself some will power or use the ignore feature. 

But expect that anytime you make such silly anti−Ecollar statements, as the ones you've made here, that I'll be there to correct them. ESPECIALLY in an thread that's about use of the tool! Notice that I don't bust into threads that are about the so called "positive methods" and start talking about how useless they are. (Not that I think they are, it's just an analogy). How about if you show others the same courtesy? 




Svan said:


> When someone tells you they are not interested in what you have to say the polite thing to do is to not continue trying to force-feed them your opinion.


Guess what Svan, there are other people reading your comments. And since there are, I'll set the record straight when you post nonsense. I'm writing for those with open minds, which, as you've told us several times, does not include you. 




Svan said:


> So say what you like to others, it's a free forum, but leave me alone.


Since you admit that it's _"a free forum"_ you should realize that I'm free to respond to whatever posts I like. You're not required to read my responses but to ask that I not correct your flawed and inaccurate statements, just because it's you saying them, is silly. 




Svan said:


> I have a lovely dog from an excellent breed and I am not so arrogant as to think the fault for bad behaviour lies with my dog.


It's hardly arrogance. Since dogs are such great readers of body language he knows after a time or two of doing a behavior that he's displeasing you. If your dog truly "lived to please you" as some claim, he'd stop all behavior that drew that body language. But the fact is that dogs have their own agenda driven by their own instincts. HOWEVER, if you allow your dog to continue that behavior, then it is on you. But the mere fact that your dog needs training belies your opinion that he lives only to please you. 




Svan said:


> However since you believe in coercion instead of cooperation


There's a reason that it's called "obedience." It's because compliance is mandatory. We’ve created a very dangerous world for dogs, full of things such as busy roads, antifreeze and socks. It's up to us to keep them safe. When my dog is running towards a busy road and I call him, it's not his decision as to whether to obey or not. His compliance is not optional. But the training I do enlists the dog's cooperation as much as any method. When I apply a light stim at the level the dog first feels he's going to learn because it's to his advantage. The stim is uncomfortable and so he wants to make it stop. I show him how to do that. 

Using the so called "positive methods," you hold up a treat (for example) and the dog wants it so he can be (again, for example) lured into a behavior. Another way of looking at this is that he wants to escape the discomfort of NOT having the treat. Looking at it this way is just the other side of the coin; one that most people who use those methods conveniently overlook. 




Svan said:


> neither my dog nor I have need of your*unsolicited "advice".


Then feel free to ignore my posts and not read them. My feelings won't be hurt in the slightest. 




Svan said:


> Megora you are right, there are many possible issues with a bolting dog(& other training issues) *& I don't think you can say what the problem is without having observed the situation closely.


Not really, the problem is that the dog has not been taught that bolting through open doors is unacceptable. 




Svan said:


> What*was the owner saying (& more importantly not saying), what was the situation, what was outside that enticed the dog, what was the training or non-training history of that dog & owner, what is the temperament of the dog, what is the pack situation in that*house? Eventually you dig and find quite quickly where the miscommunication lies.*


Your course of action is at once silly, time consuming and often, as with a rescue where the dog's history is not known, impossible. I'm always amused by people who say that we must "first find the dog's motivation for the behavior" before we can fix it. Sometimes it's simply not possible. And even if we do know the dog's history, it's a guess. It may be an educated guess, but it's still just a guess. 

You can spend weeks doing that, during which the dog will keep up the behavior, perhaps to his death. You can manage the behavior (and management, because we're only human) always breaks down. Or you can simply train the dog in a few minutes over the course of a few days not to run out the door until and unless he's given permission. BTW I don't use an Ecollar for this. 

Here's a suggestion, why don't you start another thread in the training section where you discuss these considerations, the various possibilities, how you take them into account and finally how you'd treat this issue? I bet many with this issue would appreciate it Of course. I'll be there to help out. lol




Svan said:


> The dog always wants to please it's alpha, ALWAYS.


Any dog knows from the tone of his owner's voice and his body language that he's displeased when the dog bolts out the door. But some dogs will do it over and over. Not ALL dogs want to please _"its alpha."_ This isn't a Walt Disney film or an episode of Lassie yaknow. (And why did that darn Timmy keep falling down the well?) Telling owners this just perpetuates the myth. MANY members of this breed do want to please their owners, but some could not care less. In their mind THEY come first. 

BTW I just read your sentence above to my daughter. She laughed and said, "What if the dog thinks HE'S alpha!" lol. While there are very few dogs on the planet, especially in this breed, who think that they are alpha, there are quite a few who think that they are dominant. (They're not the same thing). It's not necessary that a pet think that his owner is alpha, just that he realizes that the owner and family are more dominant in the pack than the dog. 




Svan said:


> Pack behaviour is encoded in a dogs DNA & critical to its survival. It needs to know its place in the pack & feel safe there to be able to fullfill its function and be a happy dog.


Dogs aren't wolves and with your vast experience with them, you should know this. The breeding we've done to create the diversity of dogs that exist today has removed many of those instincts completely from some and weakened it in others. 




Svan said:


> With bad communication and confusion in the pack you get a dog with training issues.


DWDWDWD. Dogs wanna do what do wanna do. 




Svan said:


> Often that issue is a communication issue due to the dog not speaking*human. If you resolve the underlying issues you resolve the training problem.


People who use Ecollars will tell you that one reason they use them is that it allows for very clear communication of what the handler wants − to the dog. 




Svan said:


> Or you could just jam some electric current through it and force it to do what you want I guess. It's only a dog after all hey?


Please don't assume that just because YOU would use an Ecollar like that, that others must do it that way. That would be the height of arrogance!


----------



## Lou Castle

Here's an email I got three days ago. I’m putting it here specifically for Svan who thinks that using an Ecollar is _"cruel and unreasonable and abusive."_ Diana wrote,


> I have a 1 1/2 year old German Shepherd, "Stryker". I was having a huge problem with recall with him. I live on 3 acres with livestock everywhere and this was becoming an issue with him. I contacted a friend who is quite educated about the e-collar and suggested I try it. I printed out your training instructions, and with the help of my friend, I began training Stryker with the collar using your techiniques. The results were quit amazing, and I rarely need the collar any longer.





> *Now, for all the people who think that this in a inhumane way of training your dog, read the following account of what occurred last week while I was on a trail ride. *
> 
> My sister and myself took off on horseback with Stryker in tow last week. He always stays close by so he can "keep an eye" on me. We were about 1 mile out into the hills when I noticed he was not in sight. I called for him several times and he did not come. This is very unusual, after training with the collar he is always right with me. I became worried and started to turn back to look for him when he came running up to me exhausted. Thinking he had taken off after a rabbit or squirrel, he was verbally reprimanded and we went on our way. About 5 more minutes down the trail, a pack of 5 or 6 coyotes burst out from large bush next to us, spooking our horses. We had not even heard them. Stryker immediately took after them and immediately returned when I called him back. They had been shadowing us and Stryker.
> 
> We have all heard of stories where coyotes will lure a dog towards a pack to take the dog down. There is not a doubt in my mind that this is what happened. *I believe that if Stryker had not been trained in recall, I would have lost him when I tried calling him the first time. *
> 
> I will always be thankful that I learned of your collar and trained my dog per your instructions. *If anyone ever tells me that it is a cruel training method, my statement is simple "It saved my dogs life" *


----------



## Sally's Mom

"If these dogs want to please their owners they wouldn't be bolting out the door." Isn't that anthropomorphic? I mean, do you really believe that when the dog bolts out the door what it is thinking at that moment is "how can I make my owner really angry? Oh yeah, I've got it I'll bolt out the door." I believe that some dogs do things like that because they simply haven't been taught not to. Children will sometimes do things like that just to get their parents going. I just don't believe that dogs can put that kind of thought process into it.


----------



## Lou Castle

Sally's Mom said:


> "If these dogs want to please their owners they wouldn't be bolting out the door." Isn't that anthropomorphic? I mean, do you really believe that when the dog bolts out the door what it is thinking at that moment is "how can I make my owner really angry? Oh yeah, I've got it I'll bolt out the door."


Anthropomorphism is attributing human characteristics to an animal. I've not done that at all! In fact, I've pointed out one, of many DIFFERENCES between the species. No, I don't think that the dog is thinking, _"how can I make my owner really angry? Oh yeah, I've got it I'll bolt out the door."_ He's probably not thinking about the owner at all. My point is that he's only concerned with his own wants, needs, desires and drives. This will change with training very quickly if the work is set up so the dog is self−motivated and self−discovers how to achieve drive satisfaction. 





Sally's Mom said:


> I believe that some dogs do things like that because they simply haven't been taught not to. Children will sometimes do things like that just to get their parents going. *I just don't believe that dogs can put that kind of thought process into it. *


I don't think so either and I've never said as much. Where did you get the idea that I was saying this?


----------



## Sally's Mom

You did assign human characteristics to the dog's behavior in the context you wrote it in. And you do it again by saying that the dog is only "concerned with his wants, needs, etc". I don't think a dog "concerns" itself in that way. I think how dogs react and respond to situations is much more basic. And lo and behold, with words like back up and stay, my 7 dogs do not bolt out my front door.


----------



## Svan

Lou no moderator asked me to tone it down. I apologised to the mods because I realised I was out of line, something you can't seem to grasp yourself. I find your insistence to reply to answers/discussions specifically addressed to someone else very rude. Do you do that at home too, just roughshod stomps over everyone? No let me answer myself, a guy that forces obedience in one area probably reckons he can do it everywhere. Hey mate, I'm not a dog, comprende?


----------



## Lou Castle

Sally's Mom said:


> You did assign human characteristics to the dog's behavior in the context you wrote it in. And you do it again by saying that the dog is only "concerned with his wants, needs, etc". I don't think a dog "concerns" itself in that way.


 
You're stretching my use of the word "concerns" as it if was a conscious decision the dog makes. It's not. I wrote this, _"My point is that he's only concerned with his own wants, needs, desires and drives."_ Had I said, "he only takes into consideration his own ... " You might have a point. What I wrote is hardly anthropomorphism. If I said that dogs consciously think about their own needs, THAT would be anthropomorphism. 




Sally's Mom said:


> I think how dogs react and respond to situations is much more basic. And lo and behold, with words like back up and stay, my 7 dogs do not bolt out my front door.


 
No one said anything about your dog's training. Let me ask, before he learned these words, did he try to bolt out the door?


----------



## Lou Castle

Svan said:


> Lou no moderator asked me to tone it down. I apologised to the mods because I realised I was out of line


 
Interesting that you apologize to the moderators when it was me that you were _"out of line"_ towards. Do you often apologize like this, to someone other than the one you've been rude to? 




Svan said:


> something you can't seem to grasp yourself.


 
When Selli Belle called me on making an assumption when I was calling others on doing the same thing. I apologized. And I did so to her. When you said that I was _"down-putting"_ I apologized to you and to anyone who shared that feeling. When I said something to tippykayak that I could not soften, I apologized to her for the abrupt comment. When you made the ridiculous comparison of an Ecollar to a cattle prod, I apologized to you for correcting you. I've apologized for disagreeing with you and a few others several more times EACH ONE OF THEM directed at the person that may have been taking offense. 

But when YOU apologize you do so to a moderator. ROFLMFAO. 




Svan said:


> I find your insistence to reply to answers/discussions specifically addressed to someone else very rude.


 
If you want your discourse to be private then take it to PM's. When you write in a public forum anyone may reply and if it's about some nonsense about Ecollars, as it has been so often in this discussion, I'll comment. It's quite a convenient set of rules you have there especially considering that often I've been replying to someone else and YOU chimed in. But of course, when you do it, it's perfectly OK. Nice double standard you have there. 




Svan said:


> Do you do that at home too, just roughshod stomps over everyone?


 
They're called * PRIVATE * Messages for a reason. Where you're writing now is the PUBLIC part of the forum where ANY member may participate. For example, I was talking to you in this discussion about where dogs concerns lie when Sally's Mom entered the discussion. It's quite common on forums such as this. It's hardly rude, it's how things are done. 



Svan said:


> Hey mate, I'm not a dog, comprende?




A dog wouldn't adopt such an arrogant position and then when reminded gently that this forum is public, maintain it. 

BTW isn't this a bit off topic and shouldn't your initial request have sent privately? Now you're arguing about arguing, not even tangentially related to the topic. Or is it perfectly OK to thread jack like this here? On other forums such completely off−topic discussions like this are considered rude.


----------



## Sally's Mom

I'm not stretching anything. You just do not want to be called out on your words. Showing concern over something is a conscious, thinking thought process. So please do not twist things around as you do with just about every post that you do not agree with.

And it is not dog's, it's dogs'... I actually train my dogs, show them in obedience and conformation. I train my dogs to back up when my hand goes on the door knob. I take them to work with me, and the seven listen to me as I tell them who is coming to work, as I call then one by one.

Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You write something, then tell the rest of us how we should've interpreted it. I think that you are misguided.


----------



## Sally's Mom

And thanks for the definition of anthropomorphic.


----------



## DNL2448

Just going to put my two cents in here. This thread is really not going anywhere, just a p***ing contest between two members. Long (22 page thread) story short. Are e-collars inhumane, yes, they can be if used improperly seen it. Are they cruel, can be if used improperly seen it. Are they useful in advanced dog training Yes if used properly. If, when used properly, they were cruel and inhumane would I use them on my dogs....Absolutely Not. Would any of the trainers on this forum (and there are a lot of them) use them, if everytime the button was pushed their dogs cowered, or shrieked? Seriously doubt it. Svan, you will not "win" this. Lou, you will not "win" this either. You've both made your point let's move on.


----------



## FinnTastic

DNL2448 said:


> Just going to put my two cents in here. This thread is really not going anywhere, just a p***ing contest between two members. Long (22 page thread) story short. Are e-collars inhumane, yes, they can be if used improperly seen it. Are they cruel, can be if used improperly seen it. Are they useful in advanced dog training Yes if used properly. If, when used properly, they were cruel and inhumane would I use them on my dogs....Absolutely Not. Would any of the trainers on this forum (and there are a lot of them) use them, if everytime the button was pushed their dogs cowered, or shrieked? Seriously doubt it. Svan, you will not "win" this. Lou, you will not "win" this either. You've both made your point let's move on.


Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im tired of seeing this thread as it has run its course.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> When I said something to tippykayak that I could not soften, I apologized to her for the abrupt comment.


For the record, when you say "I'm sorry, but" and then go on to be insulting, it's not an apology in anything but name. That's like when people say "I'm not a bigot, but" and then go on to say something horribly racist.

And I notice you didn't apologize when you called me paranoid, disgusting, a liar, or an idiot (though you carefully worded each insult for plausible deniability).

I said I'm not going to engage you any further on training because I don't believe you're here to discuss and learn, so what would be the point in going back and forth with you? I believe you are here to publicize your business and to feel that you've won an argument because you honestly believe you know more than anybody else on GRF about training. So giving you honest discussion just gives you a long post to multi-quote and twist around in order to promote your methods. It's abundantly clear that you're not here for an exchange of ideas.

So feel free to multi-quote this post and insult me, take pot shots, change the definitions of words, etc.


----------



## FinnTastic

:headbang2


tippykayak said:


> For the record, when you say "I'm sorry, but" and then go on to be insulting, it's not an apology in anything but name. That's like when people say "I'm not a bigot, but" and then go on to say something horribly racist.
> 
> And I notice you didn't apologize when you called me paranoid, disgusting, a liar, or an idiot (though you carefully worded each insult for plausible deniability).
> 
> I said I'm not going to engage you any further on training because I don't believe you're here to discuss and learn, so what would be the point in going back and forth with you? I believe you are here to publicize your business and to feel that you've won an argument because you honestly believe you know more than anybody else on GRF about training. So giving you honest discussion just gives you a long post to multi-quote and twist around in order to promote your methods. It's abundantly clear that you're not here for an exchange of ideas.
> 
> So feel free to multi-quote this post and insult me, take pot shots, change the definitions of words, etc.


::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl::appl:


----------



## Lou Castle

Sally's Mom said:


> I'm not stretching anything. You just do not want to be called out on your words. Showing concern over something is a conscious, thinking thought process.


 
I'm sorry that you're so literal, it's lead you down a road of misunderstanding. A said NOTHING about _"showing concern."_ I talked about BEING concerned. That's NOT a _"conscious thinking thought process."_ There's a stimulus and a response that's based on the dog's needs. There's no thought involved. Hence you're claim that I was being anthropomorphic is wrong. 




Sally's Mom said:


> So please do not twist things around as you do with just about every post that you do not agree with.


 
I've twisted nothing. You simply don't understand. I explained it as clearly as I can in my last post, and now again. 




Sally's Mom said:


> And it is not dog's, it's dogs'... I actually train my dogs, show them in obedience and conformation. I train my dogs to back up when my hand goes on the door knob. I take them to work with me, and the seven listen to me as I tell them who is coming to work, as I call then one by one.


 

Not sure what this has to do with this topic or even with this side discussion. Can you tell us? 




Sally's Mom said:


> Seriously, you can't have it both ways. You write something, then tell the rest of us how we should've interpreted it. I think that you are misguided.


 
Yeah, if you misinterpret something I've written, I'll clarify for you.


----------



## Lou Castle

Sally's Mom said:


> And thanks for the definition of anthropomorphic.


 
Do you think that everyone who reads this knows the definition? I figured that since you brought it up that you knew what the word meant. But I'm sure that there were some who didn't know and so for them, I gave the definition. Are you ever going to answer the questions I've asked of you? Or are you like some of the others who think it's OK to ask me question after question but don't return the favor?


----------



## Lou Castle

DNL2448 said:


> This thread is really not going anywhere, just a p***ing contest between two members.


It's between more than two members. 




DNL2448 said:


> Long (22 page thread) story short. Are e-collars inhumane, yes, they can be if used improperly seen it.


Any tool can be misused. Any tool can be abused. No tool is idiotproof to the right idiot. That applies to ANY tool and ANY method. 




DNL2448 said:


> Svan, you will not "win" this. Lou, you will not "win" this either. You've both made your point let's move on.


I'd love to but as long as Svan keep telling people that the Ecollar is _" cruel and unreasonable and abusive."_ and spouting other myths and misconceptions, I'll be correcting her.


----------



## Lou Castle

FinnTastic said:


> Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





FinnTastic said:


> Im tired of seeing this thread as it has run its course.




I have never understood why people say things like this. If you think "this thread has run its course" why do you keep reading it? If there are some people who want to keep the discussion going, whether you agree with their reasons or not, why should they have to abide by your standard? If the moderators don't want it to go on, they can lock it. I have no doubt that there are thousands of books published every year that you don't have the slightest interest in. Do you tell the publishers to stop printing them?


----------



## FinnTastic

Lou Castle said:


> Do you tell the publishers to stop printing them?


I would if they kept popping up in my top 10 stats on GRF.


----------



## DNL2448

Lou Castle said:


> I'd love to but as long as Svan keep telling people that the Ecollar is _" cruel and unreasonable and abusive."_ and spouting other myths and misconceptions, I'll be correcting her.


But that is her truth and I am okay with that even though I don't share her views. *De gustibus non est disputandum. *


----------



## Sally's Mom

To everyone else on this forum, i think we should ignore future posts from this person.
What does it take to be banned?? I am not going to side by side explain what I wrote. I think that everyone else on this forum has enough intelligence to move on. Let's do it and not give this (jerk) the time of day.


----------



## Sally's Mom

What Tippykayak said...and for the record MrCastle "she" is "he."


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> When I said something to tippykayak that I could not soften, I apologized to her for the abrupt comment.


 




tippykayak said:


> For the record, when you say "I'm sorry, but" and then go on to be insulting


 
I apologized for the abrupt comment and I meant it. Later on you got rude again and so I was rude in return. Not the same thing at all. Now you're just grasping at straws. 





tippykayak said:


> And I notice you didn't apologize when you called me paranoid, disgusting, a liar, or an idiot (though you carefully worded each insult for plausible deniability).


 
Here's what it look like when I call you paranoid. "tippykayak, you're paranoid." Anything else is your interpretation which may or may not be accurate. Perhaps if you'd directed us to the comment you were referring to I could clarify. Show us the references, otherwise it's like many of your comments, baseless allegations. When you commit nasty personal attacks one after the other, rather than attack my ideas, you are indeed "disgusting" and I'll not apologize for saying it. When you refer people to a website set up by a psychotic as if it had some connection to this discussion and pretend that it says something about me, I'll make the comment that _"anyone who believes a word of [his] nonsense is an idiot;"_ here it's a matter of "if the shoe fits ..." I'll not apologize for that either. When I apologize I mean it. When I don't, I mean that too. 




tippykayak said:


> I said I'm not going to engage you any further on training


 
You really haven't _"engaged [me] on training"_ much at all. You made many general comments that I showed to be wrong, and you committed many personal attacks. The latter has been most of your contribution to this thread. 




tippykayak said:


> because *I don't believe you're here to discuss and learn *


 
And you're wrong AGAIN. lol



tippykayak said:


> I believe you are here to publicize your business




Again, you're wrong. Hmm. Would THAT be paranoia? 




tippykayak said:


> and to feel that you've won an argument


 
When my opponents turn to personal attacks, as you've done, I KNOW that I've won an argument. Clever debate technique, but it's a clear sign that you've lost. 




tippykayak said:


> because you honestly believe you know more than anybody else on GRF about training.


 
I have little doubt that MANY people here know a lot more about training than I do. 




tippykayak said:


> So giving you honest discussion just gives you a long post to multi-quote and twist around in order to promote your methods. It's abundantly clear that you're not here for an exchange of ideas.


 
AGAIN, you're wrong. 




tippykayak said:


> So feel free to multi-quote this post and insult me, take pot shots, change the definitions of words, etc.


 
Thanks so much for your permission. I feel so much better now.


----------



## Lou Castle

FinnTastic said:


> I would if they kept popping up in my top 10 stats on GRF.


 
Just can't control where you click?


----------



## Lou Castle

DNL2448 said:


> But that is her truth


 
If she kept "her truth" to herself rather than use it to try and influence others, it would be fine. 




DNL2448 said:


> and I am okay with that even though I don't share her views.


 
I'm not. 




DNL2448 said:


> De gustibus non est disputandum.


 
For those who don't know (I'm one of them) this means "There is no disputing about taste." It can also be "advice not to argue over differences in taste." 

If this was simply a matter of taste, I'd be with you. But it's far more. Dogs are being killed in shelters because owners can't get them trained in a timely manner. I've saved many such dogs myself and been a part of the savings of others. To those dogs this is a matter of life and death, not just a difference in "taste." 

Svan is certainly entitled to her own opinion, as is anyone. But she's NOT entitled to her own facts. Svan has said that using by using an Ecollar on my dogs I'm "injuring" them. Of course when I asked about this, the silence was deafening! Fact is no study has EVER shown any physical injury resulting from the current of an Ecollar. Perhaps she's referring to something else but since she refuses to answer simple questions, we have no idea. Again, not a matter of "taste," 

One of her statements is that using an Ecollar is _"cruel and unreasonable and abusive."_ Using an Ecollar certainly CAN be all of those things, but she is not allowing that it does not have to be. AGAIN, not merely a difference in "taste." 

I will not allow such absurd statements to stand without response.


----------



## Lou Castle

Sally's Mom said:


> To everyone else on this forum, i think we should ignore future posts from this person. What does it take to be banned??


 
Don't know. I certainly hope that it includes name calling. 




Sally's Mom said:


> I am not going to side by side explain what I wrote. I think that everyone else on this forum has enough intelligence to move on. Let's do it and not give this (jerk) the time of day.


 
MORE NAME CALLING AND RUDENESS. How disgusting! 

And here's a good chance to see how well one of the so called "positive methods" work. In this case extinction. Replying to you folks and showing how wrong some of you are is self−rewarding behavior for me. It will NEVER become extinct. LOL. 

I'll continue to show how wrong your folks are about Ecollars anytime you are, which given the history will be just about any time you discuss them. The fact that you don't respond just means I have more time on my hands.


----------



## Lou Castle

Sally's Mom said:


> and for the record MrCastle "she" is "he."




My apologies to Tippykayak. I saw no indication of gender in his posts or on his profile.


----------



## Lou Castle

Just thought I'd mix up the rudeness and name calling with a little actual footage. Here's a dog being unreasonably abused with one of those cruel Ecollars.


----------



## pwrstrk02

OH THE INHUMANITY!!! i think i saw smoke coming off of that dogs neck from the electrocution. 

i have all but got lost in what this thread is about. the indifferences back and forth (more back than forth). 

i use my e-collar every day, my dog does not go outside without it on. just because i train with the e-collar does not mean that everything that she knows is done by the e-collar, but a combination of many training methods. i use Caesars methods because i saw it on the television, i use e-collars because i have seen others use it effectively, i use positive training because i have read about it. all of these combined has helped my training capabilities. if not for letting others speak of their knowledge in something, how are we able to expand our own capabilities beyond trial and error? not everything that we do or own or think is our own invention or idea, we have learned from others. while some peoples minds may be closed to this method, others may still have open minds about it and are willing to learn more. even though the back and forth between those that are going back and forth is leading them nowhere, there are others that are reading this that will do further research on e-collars and come to their own conclusion on if they agree with them or not. 

so for those that can not stand this guy or the thread, why do you keep on reading, commenting, and arguing with him. this has been going on for well over a week and you are still arguing with him. stop reading this thread or block him. 

randy


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> My apologies to Tippykayak. I saw no indication of gender in his posts or on his profile.


There's no need to apologize for this. There's nothing wrong with being a woman.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> I apologized for the abrupt comment and I meant it.


An apology indicates regret for an action. If you make it before you do the action you apologize for, the apology is pretty hollow, since if it indicated any kind of regret whatsoever, you wouldn't have gone on to do the action.



Lou Castle said:


> Here's what it look like when I call you paranoid. "tippykayak, you're paranoid." Anything else is your interpretation which may or may not be accurate. Perhaps if you'd directed us to the comment you were referring to I could clarify. Show us the references, otherwise it's like many of your comments, baseless allegations.


Here's where you call me a liar:



Lou Castle said:


> Didn't you earlier write this? _"I'm going to bow out of this now."_ Do you often have trouble keeping your word or is it just today with me?


Here's where you call me paranoid:



Lou Castle said:


> I notice that you completely failed to answer my questions. Some reason that you're evading them? If you can't find them I'll be happy to post them again for you. Meanwhile, watch out for those black helicopters.


Disgusting you've done twice, so no need to re-quote that one.



Lou Castle said:


> When you commit nasty personal attacks one after the other, rather than attack my ideas, you are indeed "disgusting" and I'll not apologize for saying it.


Not what I did. Reread my post. I even tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and said "I don't know if this applies to Mr. Castle." 



Lou Castle said:


> When you refer people to a website set up by a psychotic as if it had some connection to this discussion and pretend that it says something about me, I'll make the comment that _"anyone who believes a word of [his] nonsense is an idiot;"_ here it's a matter of "if the shoe fits ..." I'll not apologize for that either. When I apologize I mean it. When I don't, I mean that too.


Here's "idiot" for the second time. And please reread my post. I don't see where I refer to this "psychotic" website. I encouraged people to Google you. First, they'll see your website, and the training articles you've written are very revealing. They'll also see the other forums you post on, and that's quite revealing too. If this "psychotic" is the guy who refers to you as Voodoo Lou, then yeah, that stuff was highly amusing, but I would never direct people towards it since it doesn't seem exactly fair and balanced. Your own writing is plenty illuminating.

And another insult:



Lou Castle said:


> Again, you're wrong. Hmm. Would THAT be paranoia?





Lou Castle said:


> When my opponents turn to personal attacks, as you've done, I KNOW that I've won an argument. Clever debate technique, but it's a clear sign that you've lost.


So what does it say about your name calling? You've got five or so different personal insults for me. The closest I came to name-calling was referring to an "unsavory" business practice that I wasn't sure applied to you.



Lou Castle said:


> I have little doubt that MANY people here know a lot more about training than I do.


Name one.


----------



## Rob's GRs

Do to numerous complaints about this thread, and some of the content in this entire thread, we have decided to close this thread. If further discussion on any training method mentioned in here is needed please start a new thread.


----------

