# Thoughts on Shock Collars?



## klynn5021

Bentley just turned 16 weeks two days ago. He has been doing great, but everytime we let him outside to potty, he will run off. Technically, hes only left the yard twice, but alot of times he runs off into the woods by the back of our house to dig in cat litter. Yuck! The two times that he has run off were 1) to chase our outdoor cat into the neighbors lawn and 2) Yesterday, my Dad was leaving in his truck. Our Cocker Spaniel, who is very attached to him, decided she wanted to follow dad! So she did. She followed him for almost two blocks. And of course Bentley decided he wanted to join in on the fun. I had to chase the both of them and it could have been a dangerous situation for all. And YES, i was outside watching both of them. We have tried taking him out to potty on a leash, but I want to be able to take Bentley outside and throw a ball for him, without having to worry about him taking off. We could tie a chain outside but we would still have to worry about when we let him off of it to play. So, we are turning to our last resort, for both our sanity and for Bentley's safety: The shock collar. We have an underground pet fence that spans pretty much the whole length of our yard (Thank gosh it cuts off before the woods. No more yucky kitty litter poop eating! Yay!) The pet fence comes with a shock collar, that will shock the dogs if they pass through it. Now, im really hesitant of using it with Bentley.. Hes a sensitive guy and I dont want to make him terrified of going outside. But I also now from experience (Having a Golden before that didnt stop running off until he was almost 2) that I want to stop this habit before it becomes too much of a problem. What are your opinions/experiences with using shock collars? Would you reccomend it? If not, what else could I try? Thanks so much!


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup

LEASH!! Of course your puppy runs off...it doesn't know any better. BUT, your first treatment for the problem is obedience classes, work, practice, time, patience and A LEASH. NOT A SHOCK COLLAR at 16 weeks!


----------



## klynn5021

But I cant throw a ball for Bentley if he is on a leash? Trust me, I am not wanting to put the collar on him- Its my dad & if my dad really wants to do it, he will. I think hes too young but I seem to be the only one in my family who thinks that. We are going to enroll him in obedience classes in a couple of weeks. But I had a Golden for 12 years.. We had him in obedience classes, he passed and everything and he still ran off all the time. If they want to run off, they will.


----------



## Mosby's Mom

What about a long line for playing fetch? You can buy some tie-out at Walmart for 30, 50, 100 feet even (probably longer)....


----------



## AmberSunrise

At 16 weeks old, I would hazard a guess that you have not yet reached the 1,000s of repetitions required for a reliable recall. 

Leash. Train. A 4 month old pup cannot and will not have the self control to stay in your yard off leash; there is just way too much he has never experienced before and he is heading towards the independent stage.

Leash your dog. Call your dog, reward your dog when he comes and release him back to play. Call him and reward him when he responds - reel him in with your leash if he does not - then reward and release back to play. Then change the scenery and repeat.


You mentioned a last resort, but I respectfully suggest Bentley does not know what a recall is - even very experienced trainers take months to teach the recall in 100s of places, again 1000s of repetitions. On leash - 6 feet, 12 feet, 50 feet etc. Or walk a dog down in an enclosed area.

If you do 'resort' to an eCollar, how will you teach what you do want with an underground fence? Train him, let him drag a long line that you can step on if he doesn't respond.


----------



## klynn5021

I have told my parents over and over again that I want to use a tie out.. But they think the collar is the better option.. Its an almost 17 year old versus her parents and im not winning.


----------



## smokingold

Rope! (long line) gives you an arm as long as the rope is. Tie a not in the end so that you can step on it and the dog can't pull it out from under your foot. Make sure you only let him drag the rope when you are supervising him so that he doesn't get hurt.
A puppy that age needs constant supervision anyway.
No Tie Out and NO e-collar.


----------



## GoldenCamper

I have always used a long line until my dogs understood recall. If they slip up its back to the long line.

You can buy them or use a 30' piece of good rope like 1/4" braided nylon.

This is for training while you are with the dog, not as a tie out.

My dogs are not left unsupervised in a yard, fenced or not. Too much can happen.


----------



## Vhuynh2

I kept Molly on a long line (15 ft) until I knew she wouldn't run off. I just let her drag it. She won't venture off too far away from me and if we're hiking and she's running ahead, she'll stop and wait for me if I tell her to "stay close"


Sent from my iPhone using PG Free


----------



## tippykayak

You need to teach your dog recall. A shock collar is sometimes used in advanced training applications for distance handling. It is no substitute for basic obedience training. You can't just buy one and shock the dog when he does something you don't like. That's a recipe for all kinds of behavioral problems.


----------



## MikaTallulah

I had to wait months til Buddy had a reliable recall to train him to the invisible fence. We spend countless hours outside working on recall with him dragging a 100 foot leash.

My previous golden had excellent recall but we waited til he was at least 1 year old before getting the invisible fence for him til then he would drag a long line to be on the safe side- Not that he ever ran off.


----------



## klynn5021

Maybe I am dumb.. or maybe I am missing something.. But could someone please explain to me what recall is?


----------



## LibertyME

the only dumb question is one not asked...

A recall is when the dog 'comes when called, whistled, or signaled to do so' - he recalls to you...



klynn5021 said:


> Maybe I am dumb.. or maybe I am missing something.. But could someone please explain to me what recall is?


----------



## Elisabeth Kazup

No, not dumb!!! Recall is when you can call your dog back to you. As in "Penny, Come" and she does.

If you have an invisible fence you can begin training at 4 months. Set the collar on vibrate. Walk you dog around the yard near the fence. You will be able to tell by your dog's reaction when it feels the vibration. At that time, call him to you. Give a reinforcing tug on the leash if necessary. Praise Praise Praise when he comes to you and give him a treat. Do this several times a day. The idea is that when he feels the vibration, he turns away from the fence back in to the yard.

If he feels the vibration and continues on you may have to switch to the beep (warning that he is near the 'hot' zone) and the mild shock (when he is IN the hot zone. It took Penny only 3 times getting zapped and she learned that the beep meant go back away from the 'fence'. You also have to put out the flags when you're training your pup. It gives a visual line for him to see. You can get the flags on line. I can give you a link if you want. Your pup should be trained in about 3 weeks or so.


----------



## klynn5021

Thank you!! I get it now. We have been working on getting Bentley to recall. I will throw the ball for him, and he will run to get it. Once he has it, I will shake a bag of treats and tell him "come". As hes running towards me I tell him "good come!!" and when he finally reaches me, I make him sit and give him a reward, a bone. I will continue taking him out on a leash and maybe reconsider using the collar in a couple of months, but in the way that you said to use it, Penny's Mom. Thank you for all the helpful advice everyone!


----------



## kwhit

klynn5021 said:


> I tell him "good come!!" and when he finally reaches me, I make him sit and give him a reward, a bone.


That's a great start to teaching him recall. The only thing I would do different is to make the treat _very, very small_. You don't want to treat him with something big enough that he has to sit and chew it for awhile. By the time he's done, at his age, he'll have forgotten why he got the treat in the first place. 

So small tiny treats, that take a second for him to eat, would be best. I also wouldn't make him sit before you treat him. You want the treat to be for the recall and not the sit. I might be wrong about the sit part, but that's how I would do it.


----------



## mylissyk

I agree with everyone about training him to come when called rather than using a shock collar. 

HE IS TOO YOUNG FOR THE UNDERGROUND FENCE COLLAR.

But also keep in mind, when he is old enough you still have to spend A LOT of time training him to the underground fence. You can not just put the collar on him and expect him to figure out why he's being shocked. You have to teach him, or have a professional underground fence person come teach him the boundaries.


----------



## Lou Castle

Your dog is too young for an Ecollar or the Invisible Fence. Every manufacturer and most trainers, recommend that dogs should be at least six months old before they are used. Keep your dog on a leash or a long line, or in a fenced area, until then. 

Then I suggest training the recall according to this protocol. http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94724-teaching-recall-ecollar.html


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> Your dog is too young for an Ecollar or the Invisible Fence. Every manufacturer and most trainers, recommend that dogs should be at least six months old before they are used. Keep your dog on a leash or a long line, or in a fenced area, until then.
> 
> Then I suggest training the recall according to this protocol. http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94724-teaching-recall-ecollar.html


Do you recommend that they simply not try to teach recall until the dog is six months old?


----------



## john martin

I invested in a shock collar recently. Bailey my, 1yr 5 mo golden ever since jump on people. I just used it to train her specifically not to jump on people. I tried the reward method ever since and even got a dog trainer but it didn't work. Inasmuch as I know she's just playful, I think I need to be punitive at this point. Tried every physical methods also.


----------



## tippykayak

john martin said:


> I invested in a shock collar recently. Bailey my, 1yr 5 mo golden ever since jump on people. I just used it to train her specifically not to jump on people. I tried the reward method ever since and even got a dog trainer but it didn't work. Inasmuch as I know she's just playful, I think I need to be punitive at this point. Tried every physical methods also.


My last clients went through a similar route. They tried a private trainer who said the dog was "dominating" them and gave them some physical methods to try. Didn't work for them. Then they got a shock collar. They found that it sort of worked, but they didn't like using it, and he immediately went back to jumping when the collar wasn't on.

It took about 48 hours to stop the jumping once we figured out what was continuously motivating him in the first place. Punishing an unwanted behavior doesn't work that well, especially if you don't remove whatever is rewarding the dog in the first place. A dog only continues doing something like jumping as long as he's being rewarded for it, particularly if you're punishing him for doing it.

Some clients of mine from a long time ago used a shock collar to stop their dog from jumping. They didn't do it with any professional guidance. They just put it on him and used a higher and higher setting until they found one that got him to stop jumping. He bit me, hard, when I was working with him and grabbed his collar. I was inexperienced then and wasn't good at recognizing the body language that said this dog was totally afraid of his neck area. I learned a lot from that dog about how to recognize reactivity and also about the consequences of using the collar as pure punishment without also providing clarity to the dog.


----------



## john martin

Thanks for your thoughts, I'll keep this mind. But I might need to continue with it for the meantime.


----------



## Bentleysmom

*Please * consider using a 30' lead instead of the shock collar. *Please*


----------



## Alaska7133

I'm with Penny's mom on this. I have had several goldens and all have been trained on the invisible fence. Just remember to check the collar to make sure the batteries are working, they will know they can wander when the collar doesn't beep. I usually wait until the pup is old enough to know basic commands. Every pup is a little different on when to start. You'll just have to work with him and see how he reacts to the beep/vibration. If he doesn't make the connection, then he's still too young.

The shock collar is another thing entirely. I think they are a terrible idea. I did use a bark collar, I didn't like it and the dog never made the connection. So I dropped it after a day.


----------



## tippykayak

If you just shock her when she jumps, you'll have the high potential of creative a nervous, reactive dog. She's probably jumping because she's social and wants to engage with people at their faces. Yelling, alpha-rolling, scruff-shaking, hitting, shocking or otherwise trying to outbid the excitement with something unpleasant can all backfire. Shock collars can be successful when they're used as part of a careful program that calibrates the amount of shock and makes it completely clear to the dog what the shock is coming in response to. And even then I think they're rarely necessary for household obedience, if ever.

Figure out what's rewarding her and take it away when she jumps. Give a reward when she behaves in a way you want, ideally whatever she wanted from the jump in the first place. A good trainer can help you figure it out if you get stumped.

For example, you can prevent the jump before it happens by keeping a lead on her and stepping on it before she starts to jump. That way, she's simply prevented from engaging in the undesired pattern. Once she gives up and tries something else (like a sit), give her attention and maybe a treat.

Or, you can master the art of turning to face the wall and folding your arms. This takes a bit better timing than the leash trick, but it has the advantage of using good dog body language to communicate. Looking away and keeping your head up says "I don't like what you're doing." Facing the wall prevents her from jumping effectively and keeps her from getting the attention, eye contact, and closeness to your face that she wanted. When she sits instead of jumping, come back to life and give her some calm attention. If she breaks and jumps, face back to the wall. It can honestly work within the first 1-48 hours if you're consistent and your timing is good.


----------



## Lou Castle

john martin said:


> I invested in a shock collar recently. Bailey my, 1yr 5 mo golden ever since jump on people. I just used it to train her specifically not to jump on people. I tried the reward method ever since and even got a dog trainer but it didn't work. Inasmuch as I know she's just playful, I think I need to be punitive at this point. Tried every physical methods also.


John if you just shock the dog when he jumps up, you stand a very good change of turning a nuisance behavior into a dangerous one. The dog won't know why he's being shocked and might think that the person he's jumping on is causing the pain. This can easily turn into aggression. 

I'd suggest that you train the recall and the sit with the Ecollar. Then, when the dog goes to jump up, you just give a sit command and reinforce it, if necessary, with the Ecollar. I've posted my method of teaching the recall in a shortened version on this forum. http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-training/94724-teaching-recall-ecollar.html

PM for details on this and/or for how to teach the sit with the Ecollar.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

Both my dogs have been e collared conditioned and 16 weeks old is way too young to be trained on a e collar IMHO . 16 week olds are just learning what the real world is all about.


----------



## Nairb

Start teaching recall in your house. Do a sit or down stay, walk a few paces, and turn around and call your dog. Reward with treats. After a few times, have your dog sit in front of you when he comes. Do this as many times a day as you can. We've done probably 10 recalls a day over the past two months. I do them in the park now. We live along an area of a park with all fenced yards. She would have to run 1/2 mile or more to get to a street. The past few days, I've stretched those recalls out to 40-50 yards. After she does one, I let her run around a bit, do a little off leash healing with lots of treats, and repeat. Two of these is about all she can focus on right now. For these longer recalls, I up the ante a little on the treats. Instead of one peanut butter Cheerio, she gets 4-5 of them. I show her the treats in my hand before I start walking away. 

The e-collar would be a last resort. I'm doing what I'm doing so I don't have to use one in the future. I never thought I'd be able to let her walk around in the park unleashed at this point. If there comes a time when she doesn't come to me, or just starts running, all I would need to do is say, "hungry?"


----------



## sdhgolden

It took about 48 hours to stop the jumping once we figured out what was continuously motivating him in the first place. 

What was it? I am having a hard time figuring this out with my puppy...


Sent from my iPhone using PG Free


----------



## sdhgolden

tippykayak said:


> It took about 48 hours to stop the jumping once we figured out what was continuously motivating him in the first place.


What was it? I am having a hard time figuring this out with my puppy...


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

Nairb said:


> The e-collar would be a last resort. I'm doing what I'm doing so I don't have to use one in the future. I never thought I'd be able to let her walk around in the park unleashed at this point. If there comes a time when she doesn't come to me, or just starts running, all I would need to do is say, "hungry?"


I would just like to point out that an e collar is an excellent tool and used in many types of training but not considered a last resort training tool. And only should be trained with a professional .


----------



## Nairb

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I would just like to point out that an e collar is an excellent tool and used in many types of training but not considered a last resort training tool. And only should be trained with a professional .


That's probably true. I'm not knocking it. I just don't think I'll need it. It's something I would consider if I had an adult dog that couldn't be trusted off leash. If I had a dog that barked all day long like the Cocker Spaniel next door, I'd be in the market for a bark collar too.


----------



## Nairb

Sunrise said:


> At 16 weeks old, I would hazard a guess that you have not yet reached the 1,000s of repetitions required for a reliable recall.
> 
> Leash. Train. A 4 month old pup cannot and will not have the self control to stay in your yard off leash; there is just way too much he has never experienced before and he is heading towards the independent stage.
> 
> Leash your dog. Call your dog, reward your dog when he comes and release him back to play. Call him and reward him when he responds - reel him in with your leash if he does not - then reward and release back to play. Then change the scenery and repeat.
> 
> 
> You mentioned a last resort, but I respectfully suggest Bentley does not know what a recall is - even very experienced trainers take months to teach the recall in 100s of places, again 1000s of repetitions. On leash - 6 feet, 12 feet, 50 feet etc. Or walk a dog down in an enclosed area.
> 
> If you do 'resort' to an eCollar, how will you teach what you do want with an underground fence? Train him, let him drag a long line that you can step on if he doesn't respond.


Good stuff. I'm going to get one of those really long leashes so I can practice recall in several different places.


----------



## Ljilly28

The OP has a 16 week old puppy. She is not a pro collar conditioning a working field dog or an experienced handler. Are you really advising her, yes, go buy a shock collar???

As to the invisible fence, there are so many dogs who get frustrated behind it, and spend bored time outside learning to bark and lunge at dogs who pass by, and are neurotic. Plus, anyone, any raccoon or skunk, or any dog can get in. If you must do the invisible fence, try to keep it bck from high stimulus areas that get the dog wound up with no where to release the high energy. 

As a dog trainer who works with 100s of dogs, I would rule out an e collar/ shock collar for basic training and work on handling skills. Especially for a 16 week old pup who needs to learn recall. Buy "Really Reliable Recall" aa decent little book, read the 100 threads on the forum, teach it. Training is a lifelong conversation between you and your dog, and your dog is no place to learn through trial and error how to use an e collar.

We see many dogs who are nervous wrecks after being "nicked", "burned" by inexperienced owners, and many who are reactive and aggressive. 

Even some very accomplished dogs who are performance dogs have temperments that have people in their training groups needing to be careful of the dog and who have fights in public venues. Is that a natural temperament fault or created by the e collar? Pian/fear generate side effects. I would not take a chance since there are many, many more humane ways to train a dog. 

When the vocabulary around a training device begins to acquire a list of euphemisms to hide how it really works( "stim" as opposed to "give an electric shock", well, due diligence and beware. Only you make choices for your dog. 

After thread 10, 000 on this topic on this forum, I finally went and tried the collar on myself. It hurt, and it was nervewracking trying to do a math problem and having a friend um "stimulate" me for being wrong. 

Your dog has a brief time on earth, and the relationship you form with the dog is up to you. If you want to punish the dog to train him, that is a different choice than if you want to teach him by letting him achieve rewards that he cares about with the skills, timing, and science to make it work. 

There are interesting trainers walking the line and trying to figure it out- like Denise Fenzi and Michael Ellis, who still are working out force v reward base: 



. There are 100s of books and DVDs. Do a lot of research and do not rely on the internet forums, but really delve in to see what you find and think for yourself. 

This is a hot button topic here, and the usual suspects will repeat the usual things- including the fanatics for and against. It's a big decision, so do a ton of research. Your ethics are involved, and your relationship to a living being who depends on your to make wise, thoughtful choices about best practice.


How the e collar works in theory, and what ends up playing out in real time with an inexperienced owner rather than skilled collar conditioning is the most common story for pet owners who go out and buy one to teach basics. Screwing up with an e collar by accident is not cool. 

: Sarah Kalnajs CPDT-KA / CDBC



WHY TAKE A CHANCE WITH A DOG IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?

There is a very large difference between an offered behavior and a FORCED behavior. One can not force an emotional state on another mammal by placing them in a physical position. Clients who come to my office having done this to their dog report the same things:

1. THEIR DOG BECAME MORE AROUSED AND MORE AGGRESSIVE in response
or
2. THEIR DOG BECAME VERY FRIGHTENED of them and shut down.

What didn't happen as a result? LEARNING! (At least not what the handler INTENDED the dog to learn.)

Is it possible that an experienced trainer using those methods might get different results than those clients arriving at my office in droves by nature of having better timing or knowing when to back off by having a good understanding of canine body language? Of course. But that's the point. If the tool you use to train has the capacity to do harm in the hands of the non-expert, then it should not ever be advocated for use by the non-expert!

People should NOT be able to walk into a pet store and walk out with a remote controlled shock collar to place on their dog's neck shocking the animal each time they "misbehave". Many times the damage of this type of, hmmm, I can't even call it training....so INTERACTION then, is so severe that the dog must be euthanized. Also, we need to call it what it is. It is a collar that uses an electric shock as an aversive to the dog. It bothers me greatly that some put "gentler" names on these devices calling them "e sitm" or even "training collars". I've never had to disguise the term "liver treat" after all!

A final comment on the shock collar, anticipating the typical response by it's advocates, is the following...

"Well the dog is only shocked once or twice and then it's ONLY a beep".

Remember Pavlov's dog everyone? The dog that began salivating at the sound of the bell since it came to predict food? That is an example of classical conditioning and it is exactly what happens with the shock and the beep.
To Pavlov's dog, the bell BECAME the food in the dog's mind. The bell produced the same physiological reaction in the dog as the food. In the use of shock collars and shock fences, the BEEP becomes the SHOCK. The dog experiences the same physiological reaction to the beep as they did to the shock. They become one and the same and THAT IS WHY IT WORKS! (That is, until the dog is sufficiently motivated to break through to follow a deer or rabbit and then too fearful to return as they'd have to endure the shock to enter back in to their own yard.)

For those that say the shock isn't painful? Look, if it wasn't painful, it wouldn't work. Is it the most painful thing ever experienced? No. But how many of you would be willing to put it on a three year old and try it out? Enough said.

I believe firmly that everyone who works with dogs, LOVES DOGS. I don't think any trainer of any method is clasping their hands thinking...."hmmm, how can I hurt a dog next". All I'm saying now, all I've ever said is this:

If there is a way to train your dog JUST AS WELL IF NOT BETTER and without the risk of any fear, without physical discomfort and without the potential of fallout (such as the development of behavior problems from training)...

WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO DO THAT?

It bears repeating... if you can get a wonderfully trained and well behaved dog using positive reinforcement and negative punishment methods, why on earth would you want to use a technique that at best the dog wouldn't exactly love and at worst could create more problems than you started with?

http://www.cabtsg.org/electronic.htm
http://www.rottilounge.de/downloads/E_collar_Article.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11763664
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8317456.stm
http://drsophiayin.com/blog/are-ele...ainful-or-just-annoying-to-dogs-a-new-study-r
http://www.dogsportmagazine.com/?p=43
http://www.goodnewsforpets.com/Articles.asp?ID=147
http://positivepolicedogs.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/electric-collars-no-thanks/
http://www.holisticforpets.com/pdf/ElectricCollarTraining_Borwick.pdf
http://www.examiner.com/small-dogs-in-new-york/victoria-stillwell-no-shocks-for-dogs


----------



## Claudia M

The e-collar is *only* used as a reinforcement of an already known command. It is not intended to be used to actually teach the command.


----------



## tippykayak

sdhgolden said:


> It took about 48 hours to stop the jumping once we figured out what was continuously motivating him in the first place.
> 
> What was it? I am having a hard time figuring this out with my puppy...


With the dog I'm talking about, the jumping was motivated by an excited desire to be social and interact with people's faces. So when he got yelled at, that just energized him more. When family members pushed him off, even fairly hard, he was rewarded by it because he wanted the physical contact so badly. Basically, a jump gave him a loud sound that he wanted, close contact with his family member's face, and then the physical touch to his face or chest that he wanted.

So we took that away from him when he jumped. I just folded my arms and looked up and away from him. He jumped a little, but since he didn't get his reward, he gave up and sat. Then I came back to life and gave him the attention he wanted. With the family, there was the pre-existing pattern, so he tried a lot harder with them for a couple of days, but it did work. I board and trained him for a week, and after the first day, he didn't even attempt to jump once on the 40-50 new people he met while he was with me.

With most (maybe all?) persistent problem behaviors like this, there's something reinforcing the bad behavior. The owners typically don't realize how they're accidentally reinforcing it with their reactions or the attempts to punish the dog.

When you use this kind of technique, you get what's called an extinction flare most of the time. Once the behavior (i.e., jumping) stops getting the old reaction from you, the dog will actually try a lot harder for a brief period. The behavior has worked in the past, so the dog's first reaction is that he's simply not doing it hard enough. That's a good sign that you've successfully removed the reward, but most people give up on a technique when the dog gets worse like that. However, if you consistently remove the reward for the bad behavior and consistently supply a reward for the behavior you want (a polite sit, for example), you're using one of the most powerful tools for shaping behavior.


----------



## toliva

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't there a difference between e-collar training and invisible fence training? The OP is asking about an invisible fence, not e-collar training of obedience commands. I think those are really two different things?

We didn't get our invisible fence until my pup was older, but I have heard a lot of people say that they trained their pups as young as 12-14 weeks on the invisible fence with success. Now personally I don't know - no experience there.

I would call the fence company and see if they have trainers experienced with young puppies, and also ask what age they recommend. Also ask your vet. When we got our fence, I took the collar to the vet and asked a lot of questions. The vet agreed with the fence training methods, but did think the collar was too tight. So it was helpful to talk to the vet.

Anyway, the fence company should have a trainer who can come out for regular sessions to ease the puppy into the understanding of the fence. There is a process you would need to go through... not just put the collar on and hope for the best.

I really do think this is completely different than ecollar obedience training.


----------



## tippykayak

People have asked a bunch of sub-questions on e-collar training, probably because the thread is so broadly titled, so there are a bunch of questions about basic recall and problem behavior training with an e-collar that followed the OP's question. It's sort of a mish-mash at this point.


----------



## OnGoldenPond

I have to say, I agree with the recall training and the use of a long leash first and formost BUT, I also have to say I have invisible fencing for my goldens (three I have trained on it) and LOVE it. We started training them at about 14 weeks and they are 100% reliable. Wont even run out to chase a cat or squirrel. On occasion they can get too excited when we are about to go somewhere and will run out to the van, but they quickly run right back into the fence. When we return home, all three go immediately to their collars and pretty much beg to have them put back on. Doesnt matter where I drop the collars, they remember where I left the collars and go right to them first thing. I think they like the security. My Riley is pretty mild tempered as well, and it only takes the beeping noise to keep her in. You dont have to use the actual shock on some dogs. And the new puppy devices have optional blockers to really tone down the shocks....pretty darn mild. But, that is my experience, you have to do what you feel is best for your pup. (of course, you already know this! All I did to train them was casually walk them around the yard at the fence line and if they wondered over and the collar started beeping (start out on lowest setting with beep/vibrate only) I just jerked them back to me as a correction and said, "no" or some similar correction. Two days tops to train them. Good luck!!!


----------



## Ohiomom9977

toliva said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but isn't there a difference between e-collar training and invisible fence training? The OP is asking about an invisible fence, not e-collar training of obedience commands. I think those are really two different things?
> 
> We didn't get our invisible fence until my pup was older, but I have heard a lot of people say that they trained their pups as young as 12-14 weeks on the invisible fence with success. Now personally I don't know - no experience there.
> 
> I would call the fence company and see if they have trainers experienced with young puppies, and also ask what age they recommend. Also ask your vet. When we got our fence, I took the collar to the vet and asked a lot of questions. The vet agreed with the fence training methods, but did think the collar was too tight. So it was helpful to talk to the vet.
> 
> Anyway, the fence company should have a trainer who can come out for regular sessions to ease the puppy into the understanding of the fence. There is a process you would need to go through... not just put the collar on and hope for the best.
> 
> I really do think this is completely different than ecollar obedience training.


I would tend to agree with you. I know invisible fence office in our area will train puppies as young as 8 weeks. The younger you start the more training sessions they require and they adjust the correction "zap" much lower for a puppy. It was also highly reccomended by our vet (invisible fence, not shock collars in general). We're familar with their training methods as our previous golden did wonderful on it for a majority of his life. However, I have no experience on it with a puppy as our last dog was 3 when we had it installed. We've not activated it yet with our puppy - but plan to this fall. His obeying is improving greatly and we've been careful to keep him in the borders of our invisible fence while on the leash. When playing off leash in the yard he'll go to the property line but hasn't left it and we've been consistent with those borders. I'll have to update as to how it goes with him on our invisible fence when we start.

Good luck to you!


----------



## Ohiomom9977

OnGoldenPond said:


> I have to say, I agree with the recall training and the use of a long leash first and formost BUT, I also have to say I have invisible fencing for my goldens (three I have trained on it) and LOVE it. We started training them at about 14 weeks and they are 100% reliable. Wont even run out to chase a cat or squirrel. On occasion they can get too excited when we are about to go somewhere and will run out to the van, but they quickly run right back into the fence. When we return home, all three go immediately to their collars and pretty much beg to have them put back on. Doesnt matter where I drop the collars, they remember where I left the collars and go right to them first thing. I think they like the security. My Riley is pretty mild tempered as well, and it only takes the beeping noise to keep her in. You dont have to use the actual shock on some dogs. And the new puppy devices have optional blockers to really tone down the shocks....pretty darn mild. But, that is my experience, you have to do what you feel is best for your pup. (of course, you already know this! All I did to train them was casually walk them around the yard at the fence line and if they wondered over and the collar started beeping (start out on lowest setting with beep/vibrate only) I just jerked them back to me as a correction and said, "no" or some similar correction. Two days tops to train them. Good luck!!!


Glad to hear of someone who's had a positive experience with a puppy on it. I've been hesitant and we're waiting until at least 16 weeks. Charlie is pretty mild tempered as well. My last dog was great with his and we never had problems with it.


----------



## OnGoldenPond

Oh, my goodness...I just saw Charlies pic...so adorable. Best of luck to you!!! Like I said, the fence has been a godsend to us. We are in the middle of Amish country, so lots of wildlife, lots of horses going up and down the road....lots of stray cats and dogs (sadly) and I really want the gang to enjoy the large yard. Best of luck to you!!!


----------



## kwhit

OnGoldenPond said:


> We started training them at about 14 weeks and they are 100% reliable.


IMO, no dog is 100% reliable. They're living creatures, not robots. So you actually never know if it's 99.9% or 100% until that one time comes along that they fail. So for this reason, I hope that everyone who uses an invisible fence is always out with their dogs and never leaves them alone outside. Again, just my opinion, but there have been many instances where owners had thought their dogs were completely trustworthy, (after years of not leaving their yard), and it ended badly.


----------



## Lou Castle

Ljilly28 said:


> The OP has a 16 week old puppy. She is not a pro collar conditioning a working field dog or an experienced handler. Are you really advising her, yes, go buy a shock collar???


I would. But I'd advise the OP to wait until the dog is six months old before using it. 



Ljilly28 said:


> As a dog trainer who works with 100s of dogs, I would rule out an e collar/ shock collar for basic training and work on handling skills.


As a dog trainer whose put Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs, I'd not rule out anything. In fact, I'd recommend the Ecollar for basic training, especially for those who have tried the so−called "kinder gentler methods" and gotten less than acceptable results. The Ecollar gives excellent results in a very short time. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Training is a lifelong conversation between you and your dog, and your dog is no place to learn through trial and error how to use an e collar.


Fact is, no matter what tool or method the OP chooses, his dog *is * going to trained by _"trial and error."_ He's not going to be an expert with any tool at first, and therefore mistakes WILL BE MADE with it. 



Ljilly28 said:


> We see many dogs who are nervous wrecks after being "nicked", "burned" by inexperienced owners, and many who are reactive and aggressive.


Similarly I see many dogs who are completely out of control after attempts have been made with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." Frequently those dogs wind up at the pound after the best efforts of their owners at using those methods. Even when they work, and they don't work on all dogs for all behaviors, it takes an inordinate amount of time. Anyone who tells you any different probably is someone who has been using them for years, starts training at the age of a few weeks and still has difficulty with the methods. MANY novices with the methods get very poor results. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Even some very accomplished dogs who are performance dogs have temperments that have people in their training groups needing to be careful of the dog and who have fights in public venues. Is that a natural temperament fault or created by the e collar? Pian/fear generate side effects. I would not take a chance since there are many, many more humane ways to train a dog.


The clear insinuation here is that the Ecollar is an inhumane way to train a dog. Since inhumane treatment of an animal is against the law, I wonder how many people who say this have actually taken the action of calling the police, and then followed through with an arrest and a court conviction. I'd bet that the number of people here can be counted on one hand, yet this statement is fairly common in these discussions. It’s a fact of life that inhumanity is not inherent in ANY tool. It's in the user of that tool. 



Ljilly28 said:


> When the vocabulary around a training device begins to acquire a list of euphemisms to hide how it really works( "stim" as opposed to "give an electric shock", well, due diligence and beware. Only you make choices for your dog.


"Stim" is four letters. "give an electric shock" is 19 letters and 3 spaces. No one goes a day, or more than a few hours, without using a euphemism. No one is hiding anything, it's a convenience. 



Ljilly28 said:


> After thread 10, 000 on this topic on this forum, I finally went and tried the collar on myself. It hurt, and it was nervewracking trying to do a math problem and having a friend um "stimulate" me for being wrong.


I'll say that you were well above the level at which you can first perceive the stim. I've put Ecollars on thousands of people. NEVER has anyone said that the level that they first feel the stim "hurts." Universally, they describe the sensation as a "a tingle, a tap," or "a buzz." I've put Ecollars on hundreds of children who want to feel what it's like. Almost universally, they giggle. 

Of course it was difficult for you to do a math problem, that's exactly what it's supposed to do, distract (the dog, in the case of training) from what he's doing. The sensation is uncomfortable and annoying so the dog wants to shut it off. Proper training methods show him how to do this. 



Ljilly28 said:


> Your dog has a brief time on earth, and the relationship you form with the dog is up to you. If you want to punish the dog to train him, that is a different choice than if you want to teach him by letting him achieve rewards that he cares about with the skills, timing, and science to make it work.


So much MISinformation in one very small paragraph! You're right that the dog _"has a brief time on earth."_ That's why methods that take months to give reliable results are best avoided. The Ecollar is an EXCELLENT tool for giving you a fantastic relationship with your dog. The dog learns very quickly that you are a safe spot. That when he's near you, your mere presence makes the discomfort go away. I worked a highly fearful, highly reactive dog, that tried to kill me. After about 25 minutes of training that dog climbed into my lap and was licking my face. 

Those people who say that they can train a dog without punishment are simply twisting the meaning of the word. It's IMPOSSIBLE to train a dog without it, but it has such a nice sound, dontcha think? Talk about euphemisms! Lol. Funny how it's bad when Ecollar folks do it, but it's perfectly OK when the other side does it. 



Ljilly28 said:


> There are 100s of books and DVDs. Do a lot of research and do not rely on the internet forums, but really delve in to see what you find and think for yourself.


Besides books and DVD's there are a couple of websites, that won't cost you a dime to explore, that give excellent instructions on how a complete beginner can learn to use the Ecollar to teach basic behaviors. 



Ljilly28 said:


> This is a hot button topic here, and the usual suspects will repeat the usual things- including the fanatics for and against.


As you have and as I've responded. 



Ljilly28 said:


> It's a big decision, so do a ton of research. Your ethics are involved, and your relationship to a living being who depends on your to make wise, thoughtful choices about best practice.


Again we have an insinuation against Ecollars. This time that it's _"unethical."_ While you have not said so, the implication is clear. Fact is, just as with "the inhumanity" statement, "ethics" are with the trainer, they're not inherent in any tool or method. 



Ljilly28 said:


> How the e collar works in theory, and what ends up playing out in real time with an inexperienced owner rather than skilled collar conditioning is the most common story for pet owners who go out and buy one to teach basics. Screwing up with an e collar by accident is not cool.


Neither is _"screwing up"_ with any tool. I have never understood why people make statements like this. You are not going to be able to just pick up any tool, and without applying yourself to the methods that are used with it, get good results. Not a clicker, not a leash or any kind of collar, not luring, shaping, NOT ANYTHING. That includes an Ecollar. Study on how to use the tool is necessary. So is practice before applying it to the dog. 

The poster now writes this, ": Sarah Kalnajs CPDT-KA / CDBC." I'm gonna guess that what follows is written by that author. It would be helpful if a link could be supplied, but some folks don't want the accuracy or completeness of their quotes to be checked up on. 

Someone wrote,


> There is a very large difference between an offered behavior and a FORCED behavior. One can not force an emotional state on another mammal by placing them in a physical position. Clients who come to my office having done this to their dog report the same things:
> 
> 1. THEIR DOG BECAME MORE AROUSED AND MORE AGGRESSIVE in response
> or
> 2. THEIR DOG BECAME VERY FRIGHTENED of them and shut down.


If you follow my methods (I've already supplied a link to how I teach the recall with an Ecollar) neither of these things happens. The big change in the dog is that he now comes on command. He's NOT _"MORE AROUSED."_ He's NOT _"MORE AGGRESSIVE."_ He's NOT _"FRIGHTENED"_ of anyone or anything. These are myths that anti Ecollar people perpetuate as if they were inherent in the tool. Bad results can come with bad training with ANY tool. 

Someone wrote,


> What didn't happen as a result? LEARNING! (At least not what the handler INTENDED the dog to learn.)


Oddly enough, I've never had anyone who used my methods say that _"learning didn't happen."_ Again, another myth. On forums devoted to the Ecollar we NEVER hear of failures of the tool. Rather the discussions are on such things a minor problems or topics such as "how to perfect the heeling." 

Someone wrote,


> Is it possible that an experienced trainer using those methods might get different results than those clients arriving at my office in droves by nature of having better timing or knowing when to back off by having a good understanding of canine body language? Of course. But that's the point. If the tool you use to train has the capacity to do harm in the hands of the non-expert, then it should not ever be advocated for use by the non-expert!


Another one of those facts that work both ways. But the antis won't admit it. ANY tool if used by a non-expert can _"do harm."_ 

Someone wrote,


> People should NOT be able to walk into a pet store and walk out with a remote controlled shock collar to place on their dog's neck shocking the animal each time they "misbehave".


I love how the antis make such statements as if it was the only way that an Ecollar can be used. It's not, of course it's not, but that doesn't slow them down in the slightest. Some people want to live in a nanny state where the government controls every facet of their life. I believe that freedom is a good thing, including the freedom to purchase an Ecollar. 

Someone wrote,


> Many times the damage of this type of, hmmm, I can't even call it training....so INTERACTION then, is so severe that the dog must be euthanized.


NONSENSE. Only someone who doesn't know how to use an Ecollar would suggest that a dog "damaged" by Ecollar training be euthanized. Of course, that's many of the antis. Many of them are so afraid of the tool that they can't even think about learning about it. The answer to just about every kind of issue that poor Ecollar use brings is the Ecollar. I've fixed many problems that idiots with Ecollars have cause, by using the Ecollar. It's actually very simple. 

Someone wrote,


> Also, we need to call it what it is. It is a collar that uses an electric shock as an aversive to the dog. It bothers me greatly that some put "gentler" names on these devices calling them "e sitm" or even "training collars". I've never had to disguise the term "liver treat" after all!


What this author has had to disguise is the fact that training methods that she favors, often don't work on some dogs for some behaviors. One only has to look at the first page of this (or any pet ) forum to see thread after thread that start with something like "Help, Fido runs out the front door and won't come back." Or, "Muffy chased a deer into the woods and wouldn't come to me when I called." Almost universally those dogs have had either no training or VERY OFTEN the owners have attempted to use the so−called "kinder gentler methods" to no avail. 

Someone wrote,


> A final comment on the shock collar, anticipating the typical response by it's advocates, is the following...
> 
> "Well the dog is only shocked once or twice and then it's ONLY a beep".
> 
> Remember Pavlov's dog everyone? The dog that began salivating at the sound of the bell since it came to predict food? That is an example of classical conditioning and it is exactly what happens with the shock and the beep.
> 
> To Pavlov's dog, the bell BECAME the food in the dog's mind. The bell produced the same physiological reaction in the dog as the food. In the use of shock collars and shock fences, the BEEP becomes the SHOCK. The dog experiences the same physiological reaction to the beep as they did to the shock. They become one and the same and THAT IS WHY IT WORKS! (That is, until the dog is sufficiently motivated to break through to follow a deer or rabbit and then too fearful to return as they'd have to endure the shock to enter back in to their own yard.)


This is the usual nonsense that these folks put out. They've not bothered to investigate how the tool can really be used. In their close little minds the only thing that can be done with an Ecollar is to shock the dog when he does something wrong. Too bad they're so closed minded that they can't investigate other ways of using the tool. But then they'd have to take all of this nonsense back and come up with a new argument. 

Notice also that the author bounces back and forth between talking about Ecollars for training and about Invisible Fences used for containment. They're very different tools, used for different purposes. 

Someone wrote,


> For those that say the shock isn't painful? Look, if it wasn't painful it wouldn't work.


This is quite simply a lie. The Ecollar DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PAINFUL to get results. All that's necessary is some minor discomfort that the dog wants to escape. 

Someone wrote,


> I believe firmly that everyone who works with dogs, LOVES DOGS. I don't think any trainer of any method is clasping their hands thinking...."hmmm, how can I hurt a dog next". All I'm saying now, all I've ever said is this:
> 
> If there is a way to train your dog JUST AS WELL IF NOT BETTER


Fact is, if the so−called "kinder gentler methods" gave results that were _"JUST AS"_ good, _"IF NOT BETTER"_ Ecollars would not even exist. But they've been around for over 40 years and they're gaining in use.


----------



## Lou Castle

Claudia M said:


> The e-collar is *only* used as a reinforcement of an already known command. It is not intended to be used to actually teach the command.


This is a common misconception. My methods use the Ecollar to teach basic OB if that is desired.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> With the dog I'm talking about, the jumping was motivated by an excited desire to be social and interact with people's faces. So when he got yelled at, that just energized him more. When family members pushed him off, even fairly hard, he was rewarded by it because he wanted the physical contact so badly. Basically, a jump gave him a loud sound that he wanted, close contact with his family member's face, and then the physical touch to his face or chest that he wanted.
> 
> So we took that away from him when he jumped. I just folded my arms and looked up and away from him. He jumped a little, but since he didn't get his reward, he gave up and sat.


This is an often used method favored by those who prefer the so−called "kinder gentler methods". It works *sometimes. * It's called "extinction." 

I once saw an entire family whose legs were scratched up from their upper legs down, because their trainer had told them to turn their backs on the dog when he jumped up. The dog just became more and more frantic. The youngest daughter had been hospitalized because her scratches became infected and she needed IV antibiotics. 

Try ignoring a dog that's getting into the garbage and see how quickly that behavior stops. 

For the record, I don't advocate using an Ecollar to stop a dog from jumping up and I've said so in this discussion. I've written an article on this. Write privately for details.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> This is an often used method favored by those who prefer the so−called "kinder gentler methods". It works *sometimes. * It's called "extinction."


The method isn't called "extinction." The goal is. And actually, extinction would still be the term whether you use the "kinder" method or your "meaner" one. Both methods attempt to extinguish the unwanted behavior. Honestly, it's embarrassing when you try to lecture us on behavioral language. 



Lou Castle said:


> I once saw an entire family whose legs were scratched up from their upper legs down, because their trainer had told them to turn their backs on the dog when he jumped up. The dog just became more and more frantic. The youngest daughter had been hospitalized because her scratches became infected and she needed IV antibiotics.


Then obviously it wasn't the technique for them, but good job coming up with an alarmist scenario to try to scare people into using your method instead of a safer, nicer method for the dog. The poster asked how I stopped a problem jumper in less than two days. I explained it. I also gave an alternate method (leash stepping) that one could use if ignoring wasn't working. I didn't and wouldn't say that either would work for every family or every dog, but they're a good starting point.



Lou Castle said:


> Try ignoring a dog that's getting into the garbage and see how quickly that behavior stops.


I said that you needed to remove the dog's reward in order to eliminate a behavior. I did not say to ignore every undesired behavior. The reward for getting in the garbage is getting to eat garbage. It's not plausible that you were confused by that, so mentioning ignoring in this context is a specious attempt on your part to belittle my suggestions in favor of your e-collar program. I hope it's as transparent to everybody else as it is to me.



Lou Castle said:


> For the record, I don't advocate using an Ecollar to stop a dog from jumping up and I've said so in this discussion. I've written an article on this. Write privately for details.


Yes, and you also said that it was the best way to train recall and then told us not to put one on a dog until it was older than 6 months. And then you ignored the question of how to train recall in younger dogs.

So now you've posted no suggestions on ending jumping and no suggestions on how to train recall in dogs under six months. So your response to my post was really to belittle my suggestion without offering a concrete one for the poster to try. What possible motivation would you have for that?


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> The method isn't called "extinction."


The effect of turning around makes use of extinction. Sorry if I wasn't precise enough for you. And people call ME "pedantic." ROFL. But I wonder, if _"extinction"_ isn't at work here, why did you write this in your description of how you stopped this behavior? _"When you use this kind of technique, you get what's called an *extinction flare * most of the time."_ [Emphasis Added] Hmmm. Kinda makes one wonder ...........



tippykayak said:


> The goal is. And actually, extinction would still be the term whether you use the "kinder" method or your "meaner" one. Both methods attempt to extinguish the unwanted behavior. Honestly, it's embarrassing when you try to lecture us on behavioral language.


I can see that ALREADY you've descended into "arguing about arguing" instead of staying on topic and giving help to those who have asked for it. 

But what's REALLY embarrassing is your use of Wikipedia as a reference to back up your statement! It's probably one of the worst sources of information available because it's completely based on user input. There is no verification of the reliability or quality of the source at all. Even you can add to the articles there! LOL. At times you'll find obscene references or personal websites posted for the purpose of advertising. 

There are dozens of much better references that are based in the science of Operant Conditioning. Here are a couple for your future reference. 

From this site: Operant Conditioning Basics 



> In Extinction a particular behavior is weakened by the consequence of not experiencing a positive condition or stopping a negative condition. For example:
> A rat presses a bar in its cage and nothing happens. Neither a positive or a negative condition exists for the rat. The rat presses the bar again and again nothing happens. The rat's behavior of pressing the bar is weakened by the consequence of not experiencing anything positive or stopping anything negative.


And this site: Extinction - Psychology - About.com



> In psychology, extinction refers to the gradual weakening of a conditioned response that results in the behavior decreasing or disappearing.


And this one: New Page 1



> Extinction - The elimination of the behavior by stopping reinforcement of the behavior. For example, a rat who received food when pressing a bar, receives food no longer, will gradually decrease the amount of lever presses until the rat eventually stops lever pressing.


Extinction is often relatively passive. The only action in your method is the _"fold[ing of your] arms and look[ing] up and away."_ It ignores the fact that while some dogs jump up for attention or physical contact, some jump up because it gets their face closer to the owner's face in a greeting behavior. Even if you turn around, the dog in the second situation, is still rewarded and so the behavior will not stop. It's often a poor choice of training methods. 



tippykayak said:


> Then obviously it wasn't the technique for them


You really have a flair for the obvious! That didn't stop their "kinder, gentler trainer" from suggesting it in the first place and then telling them to keep it up, when it was obvious that it wasn't working. His comment was, "just keep doing it. It will work." It never did. 



tippykayak said:


> but good job coming up with an alarmist scenario to try to scare people into using your method instead of a safer, nicer method for the dog.


Good job of coming up with a method that often has no effect on the problem! Jumping up is often a self rewarding behavior. Extinction doesn't work well on those. 



tippykayak said:


> The poster asked how I stopped a problem jumper in less than two days. I explained it. I also gave an alternate method (leash stepping) that one could use if ignoring wasn't working. I didn't and wouldn't say that either would work for every family or every dog, but they're a good starting point.


Both of them are behind the curve. They wait for the jumping up behavior to start before they do anything. My "meaner method" (although it's obvious that you haven't read it – or at least not recently enough to recall the details of it) has the owner simply putting his hand in front of the dog's face and blocking him as soon as he starts to gather himself for the jump. I LOVE that you think this is "meaner" than your method of _"fold[ing your] arms and look[ing] up and away, thereby isolating the dog from the pack, (my God, the horror) or stepping on his leash, jerking his neck with the collar. 



tippykayak said:



mentioning ignoring in this context is a specious attempt on your part to belittle my suggestions in favor of your e-collar program. I hope it's as transparent to everybody else as it is to me.

Click to expand...

Since I've said TWICE in just this thread that I don't use the Ecollar to stop jumping up, it's obvious that I'm NOT "belittle[ing your] suggestions in favor of [my] Ecollar program." Your advice was just weak. Mine is better. Yours works sometimes. Mine works all the time. 

Earlier I wrote,



For the record, I don't advocate using an Ecollar to stop a dog from jumping up and I've said so in this discussion. I've written an article on this. Write privately for details.

Click to expand...




tippykayak said:



Yes, and you also said that it was the best way to train recall

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. 



tippykayak said:



and then told us not to put one on a dog until it was older than 6 months.

Click to expand...

True again. 



tippykayak said:



And then you ignored the question of how to train recall in younger dogs.

Click to expand...

I purposefully didn't answer your question. I've decided not to bother to answer your foolish questions. I've asked you DOZENS of questions that you've not answered. You know that they show the absurdity of your positions and so you simply pretend that they were never asked. There are plenty of people around who can answer such a simple question as to how to train a puppy to recall. I'll save my energy for the difficult situations. You can handle the soft balls. 



tippykayak said:



So now you've posted no suggestions on ending jumping

Click to expand...

I've written an article on it that's on my website. If people want a link to the article they can contact me privately and I'll supply it. Several have, and they've gotten the information that they requested. I see no need to keep reposting something here I've already posted elsewhere. 



tippykayak said:



and no suggestions on how to train recall in dogs under six months.

Click to expand...

As I said, you can handle the softballs. 



tippykayak said:



So your response to my post was really to belittle my suggestion without offering a concrete one for the poster to try.

Click to expand...

I've offered anyone who asks, a link to my solution to this problem. I see no reason to rewrite the article here. I can't help it that your suggestion was so weak._


----------



## Sally's Mom

We're we talking about Invisible Fence E collars? If so, I have experience as I have trained 8 of my 9 Goldens to the fence and not all responded the same way..When we moved isn't this house in 1999, we had two,Goldens, Sally(10) and Laney(5). Both had CDX's and Laney was working on her eventual UD. Despite some of the opinions on here,Sally was positively barrier trained. She understood her boundaries and never breeched them. We are 1100 feet off the road and in the middle of my inlaw's sixty eight acres. We are separated from al neighbors by forests. Then I got third golden, Cookie at ten weeks. With two children 7 and 5, I decided that I needed piece of mind. When Cookie was close to one year we got Invisible Fence...Sally didn't need it and was never trained. Laney and Cooks were trained by having them go to the flags, get the beep and pull them back. Then the protectors were taken off the prongs and the dogs got a "correction". Then after a period of time, the tester came. He called the girls over the fence line. Laney, who at five, would come, period, went over the fence line. When she got the shock, she stood, paralyzed, rearing in pain. Finally she responded and came back to me. I was horrified and almost stopped the training then. The one thing Laney would never not do is come when called. Ultimately, she and Cookie stopped wearing their collars and never strayed. Georgie and Mantha were trained at about 6-8 months the same way... As was Tiki?..

Emmie and Mick were trained the kinder, gentler way, in the house with a collar with a low level shock, self correcting. Mick got itin a second. Emmie would stand in the field getting shocked. Clearly she ended up with a higher correction collar.m

Basil was trained like the first ones... No problem.

However, none of them wear collars as I live in a very secluded area...if I lived in a neighborhood, they would need collars. I would never train a dog as,young as four months...fears periods and all of that.... As usual, a lively discussion where no one will agree...


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> I can see that ALREADY you've descended into "arguing about arguing" instead of staying on topic and giving help to those who have asked for it.


I gave a technique, which is more than you did for the poster.



Lou Castle said:


> But what's REALLY embarrassing is your use of Wikipedia as a reference to back up your statement! It's probably one of the worst sources of information available because it's completely based on user input.


I gave it to you as a primer on the terminology because you used the term incorrectly and the Wikipedia article is very easy to understand. FYI, though, Wikipedia is generally quite reliable in its science articles, and I checked the article for accuracy before I linked it. 



Lou Castle said:


> Extinction is often relatively passive.


Extinction refers to the change in frequency of a behavior, not the method used to shape the behavior. That's the way I've been using it. I have no idea what you mean when you say it's "passive." It's a description of what's happening to the animal's behavior. It's neither active nor passive but rather the goal when you have a problem behavior. 



Lou Castle said:


> My "meaner method" (although it's obvious that you haven't read it – or at least not recently enough to recall the details of it) has the owner simply putting his hand in front of the dog's face and blocking him as soon as he starts to gather himself for the jump. I LOVE that you think this is "meaner" than your method of _"fold[ing your] arms and look[ing] up and away, thereby isolating the dog from the pack, (my God, the horror) or stepping on his leash, jerking his neck with the collar. _


_

You called my methods kinder, so I could only assume that meant yours were meaner. I actually looked briefly on your website and couldn't find it. We hadn't heard your method until now, so I had to go with what you yourself indicated. FYI - stepping on the leash doesn't jerk the neck of the dog. It prevents him from rearing in the first place. You don't jerk him down. He never gets momentum upwards in the first place. The goal is prevention, not punishment. And temporarily ignoring a dog isn't "isolating him from the pack." Are you deliberately overstating or are you serious? I can't tell. 

The method you're talking about is something we call "crossing guard" or "policeman's stop," and it's the first thing I tried when I went and evaluated the dog. Normally, I'd have added it to the client's toolbox, because it often works, and it's a nice transition to the hand signal for "wait." However, the dog loved it. He loved the contact so much that he happily jumped through the hand and body checked whoever was doing it. It was too much like being pushed off, which is what the family had been doing and was something he had learned to like. That's why we switched to ignoring, which is what worked. They used the leashing as backup when the dog was greeting people who weren't pre-trained to ignore while he was still in the learning phase.

The hand in the face works on lots and lots of dogs, but I'd say on maybe 1/4 of Golden Retrievers, it doesn't. They just jump right into the hand and count it as a pet on their way to licking their owners faces, especially if they already enjoy being pushed off their owners as part of the accidental reinforcement of the problem behavior.

Here's a direct excerpt from my e-mail on 5/28 to LJilly, with whom I discussed this dog extensively: "I think I cracked his code. He LOVES being pushed off of people. So when he rears, he's getting what he wants, even if the people are yelling and shoving...I tried the policeman's stop on him, but he just wanted to headbutt my hand. However, he hate hate hated when I turned into a statue, so it was really easy from there."



Lou Castle said:



Mine works all the time.

Click to expand...

Are you sure it works for every single dog? It certainly doesn't work well for some Goldens, and ignoring can work for those dogs. Generally on the forum, I suggest good ignoring skills first because they're useful in other situations and seem to work a little more often than the crossing guard thing. Still, there's nothing wrong with the technique you describe. It seems kind and gentle to me. I'm not sure why keep saying it's not a "kinder, gentler" method.



Lou Castle said:



I purposefully didn't answer your question. I've decided not to bother to answer your foolish questions.

Click to expand...

I thought it was a legitimate question because the poster had asked about how to train a younger dog for recall. But OK, you're obviously welcome to answer whatever you want and to ignore what you please. I'm not the boss of you.



Lou Castle said:



I've offered anyone who asks, a link to my solution to this problem. I see no reason to rewrite the article here. I can't help it that your suggestion was so weak.

Click to expand...

We'll see what the poster tries and what works for him. Like I said, what you describe will work for lots of dogs. Not all Goldens, mind you, but looking away and folding your arms wouldn't work on every single dog either. You have to have a lot in your toolbox and adapt to each dog you work with.

Withholding attention isn't a weak technique. It's actually incredibly powerful with an attention-driven dog. The hand in the face isn't a weak technique either. Both have the high potential to work, and neither will work for every dog. I'm not sure what your game is in putting down gentle, friendly techniques that work really well for lots of dogs._


----------



## lgnutah

Your puppy has gotten a reward for running out of the yard (exciting smells and fun!) so will continue to run there everytime you let him outside. So, you cannot ever let him off leash in your yard or anyplace that isn't fenced.
You said you are 17--that means you have lots of energy. So you and puppy should go on long long long walks (with pup on leash) and even run some (let puppy build up stamina). When he just needs to do his business, then just take him out on a leash.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I gave a technique, which is more than you did for the poster.


I gave a technique. I just didn't bother to write it out. It’s on my site. No need to rewrite it here. 



tippykayak said:


> Extinction refers to the change in frequency of a behavior, not the method used to shape the behavior.


It's both, but if you want to continue down "the pedant road" you can do so alone." 



tippykayak said:


> You called my methods kinder, so I could only assume that meant yours were meaner.


It's a common reference to the so−called "kinder gentler methods." Funny how you missed the "So−called" part of the reference. lol



tippykayak said:


> I actually looked briefly on your website and couldn't find it.


So much for your search skills. If the OP (or anyone else) does as I suggested, to write privately, I'll be happy to supply the link that takes them there directly. 



tippykayak said:


> We hadn't heard your method until now, so I had to go with what you yourself indicated.


I hadn't _"indicated"_ anything. 



tippykayak said:


> FYI - stepping on the leash doesn't jerk the neck of the dog. It prevents him from rearing in the first place. You don't jerk him down. He never gets momentum upwards in the first place.


Nonsense. Unless you are perfect, no one is going to step on the leash at the exact point that only allows the dog to rise up a very slight amount. Instead what is REALLY going to happen is that they'll step on the leash with several inches of slack so that the dog can jump up those several inches and when he hits the end of the leash it will give him a sharp jerk on the neck. Pretending that this doesn't happen ignores reality. 



tippykayak said:


> The goal is prevention, not punishment.


I know what the goal is, I used to use this method but discarded it in favor of more effective ones. The reality is that the dog receives a sharp jerk from the leash, is punished, and the behavior tends to lessen, as punishment does to a behavior. 



tippykayak said:


> And temporarily ignoring a dog isn't "isolating him from the pack."


Sure it is. It's just a matter of degree. At the extreme, we have idiots who get a dog, put him in the back yard, and the only attention they pay to him is to toss some food out there once-in-a-while. _"Fold[ing your] arms and look[ing] away,"_ is just a milder version of it. 



tippykayak said:


> Are you sure it works for every single dog?


Yep. 



tippykayak said:


> It certainly doesn't work well for some Goldens,


I said that my method works all the time. It's not limited to the hand in the face, that's just the first step of it. Those who have written and gotten the link, know this. You are free to keep searching. Or you can just keep jumping to conclusions. 



tippykayak said:


> Withholding attention isn't a weak technique. It's actually incredibly powerful with an attention-driven dog.


And with dogs who are not _"attention-driven"_ it's worse than a waste of time. 



tippykayak said:


> The hand in the face isn't a weak technique either. Both have the high potential to work, and neither will work for every dog. I'm not sure what your game is in putting down gentle, friendly techniques that work really well for lots of dogs.


I'll disagree that it _"works really well for lots of dogs."_ IMO it works well on very few dogs, and not-at-all on most dogs.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> Unless you are perfect, no one is going to step on the leash at the exact point that only allows the dog to rise up a very slight amount. Instead what is REALLY going to happen is that they'll step on the leash with several inches of slack so that the dog can jump up those several inches and when he hits the end of the leash it will give him a sharp jerk on the neck. Pretending that this doesn't happen ignores reality.


I've done it a lot. You step when the dog is sitting, and you automatically have exactly the length of leash you need because the dog has pre-measured it for you. It's pretty easy.



Lou Castle said:


> Sure it is. It's just a matter of degree. At the extreme, we have idiots who get a dog, put him in the back yard, and the only attention they pay to him is to toss some food out there once-in-a-while. _"Fold[ing your] arms and look[ing] away,"_ is just a milder version of it.


Why are you talking about extremely irresponsible behavior? Folding your arms and looking away from your dog doesn't even remove him from your presence, much less fall anywhere on the continuum of abusive neglect.



Lou Castle said:


> I said that my method works all the time. It's not limited to the hand in the face, that's just the first step of it. Those who have written and gotten the link, know this. You are free to keep searching. Or you can just keep jumping to conclusions.


When you don't explain your technique in any detail, your claim that it works is pretty empty. You're not really offering an alternative, just saying mine is bad and that yours is better without showing us how it works.

The hand out technique does not originate with you, and it's a good one, but it does not work sometimes. I'm sure you will contend that I'm doing it wrong, so can you explain why dogs so often jump into the hand that you've put out to block their line of sight? If the first step is to put your hand out, and the dog immediately jumps through it on the way to your face, what do you do?




Lou Castle said:


> And with dogs who are not _"attention-driven"_ it's worse than a waste of time.


If a dog isn't attention driven, he's probably not jumping to try to lick your face and interact with you. If the problem is that the dog is chasing squirrels, I wouldn't recommend withholding attention.



Lou Castle said:


> I'll disagree that it _"works really well for lots of dogs."_ IMO it works well on very few dogs, and not-at-all on most dogs.


You can disagree all you like. I've used it a lot with a lot of success. It works really well on most (not all) jumpers, because most jumpers are trying to get face time, and it removes the face time. Since you don't use it, you're hardly in a position to claim it's ineffective.


----------



## tippykayak

I found your article! I was able to find it under "general."

I didn't realize you encouraged letting the dog make unpleasant physical contact with the hand. That's definitely not the "policeman's stop" method I know. The one I know is about interrupting the dog's line of sight to try to interrupt the jump pattern long enough to give him an opportunity to be rewarded for a polite sit. I've never tried what you recommend, so perhaps it really does work every time. All my comments were about a non-contact method, so feel free to ignore them.


----------



## DNL2448

Dang it...I got drawn in.

My .02 is: I use e-collars, however ALL of my dogs have been properly collar conditioned prior to it's use. I prefer to use Tippy's methods for jumping up and young dogs. 

To quote Evan Graham (I think), "if you can't train a dog without an e-collar, you can't train a dog with one". 

Feel free to multi-quote me, Lou. This is my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> Unless you are perfect, no one is going to step on the leash at the exact point that only allows the dog to rise up a very slight amount.





tippykayak said:


> I've done it a lot. You step when the dog is sitting, and you automatically have exactly the length of leash you need because the dog has pre-measured it for you. It's pretty easy.


While you may find it _"easy,"_ I've never seen any pet owners who can do it accurately with any repeatability. And so the dog ends up getting jerked by the leash. I don't have a problem with this when it's appropriate, but pretending that it's "kinder and gentler," is a joke. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Sure it is. It's just a matter of degree. At the extreme, we have idiots who get a dog, put him in the back yard, and the only attention they pay to him is to toss some food out there once-in-a-while. _"Fold[ing your] arms and look[ing] away,"_ is just a milder version of it.





tippykayak said:


> Why are you talking about extremely irresponsible behavior?


As I clearly wrote, _"it's just a matter of degree."_ 



tippykayak said:


> Folding your arms and looking away from your dog doesn't even remove him from your presence, much less fall anywhere on the continuum of abusive neglect.


It removes the dog from your attention, a form of isolation. _"... just a matter of degree."_ Of course you don't want to really consider the effect of your isolation of the dog, you've already made up your mind about your method and decided that it's OK. Others may want to look at the details. 



tippykayak said:


> When you don't explain your technique in any detail


It's explained in detail on my website. No need to rewrite it here. Those who have requested the link, have gotten it. 



tippykayak said:


> your claim that it works is pretty empty.


Not really. The fact that you're unable to find my method and that you can't bring yourself to PM me to ask for the link, hardly means that my claim that it works is _"empty."_ I just means that you don't know what it is and think that bringing this up repeatedly shows something. It does, but it's probably not what you think it shows. 



tippykayak said:


> You're not really offering an alternative


Sure I am. I'm just not presenting it here. Just as you didn't rewrite the Wiki website for the link that you supplied, I see no need to rewrite my article here. 



tippykayak said:


> The hand out technique does not originate with you


Nice straw man. I never said that it did. 



tippykayak said:


> and it's a good one, but it does not work sometimes.


Yes, I know. Neither does your "removal of attention" method. That's why, in spite of your assumption, there's more to it. That's just the first step/ 



tippykayak said:


> I'm sure you will contend that I'm doing it wrong


Nope. No such claim has been made. It's just that it's not aversive enough for some dogs. 



tippykayak said:


> so can you explain why dogs so often jump into the hand that you've put out to block their line of sight?


Well, first of all you have misunderstood the reason that the hand is put in front of the dog's head. It's NOT _"to block their line of sight."_ It's to provide a barrier to their jumping up. One reason that it sometimes doesn't work, is that some dogs are looking for contact and the contact with the hand suffices. Some don't find the hand in the face aversive, at least not enough to stop the behavior. Some owners don't have hand, wrist and arm strength so that it provides a barrier to the jump. Some owners don't get the hand out in front of the dog quickly enough. 



tippykayak said:


> If the first step is to put your hand out, and the dog immediately jumps through it on the way to your face, what do you do?


Already written in the article that's on my site. 

Earlier I wrote,


> And with dogs who are not _"attention-driven"_ it's worse than a waste of time.





tippykayak said:


> If a dog isn't attention driven, he's probably not jumping to try to lick your face and interact with you.


Really not so. A dog doesn't have to be _"attention driven"_ to want to show some appeasement or greeting behavior. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I'll disagree that it _"works really well for lots of dogs."_ IMO it works well on very few dogs, and not-at-all on most dogs.





tippykayak said:


> You can disagree all you like. I've used it a lot with a lot of success.


I'm sure that you have. I'd bet that you work with dogs with very mild issues. If they're stopped by the withholding or withdrawal of attention you've made my point! I get much more difficult problems. I mentioned the family with the scratched up legs as one such example. 



tippykayak said:


> It works really well on most (not all) jumpers, because most jumpers are trying to get face time, and it removes the face time. *Since you don't use it, * you're hardly in a position to claim it's ineffective. [Emphasis Added]


Perhaps you should glance at my post #52 wherein I wrote, _"I used to use this method but discarded it in favor of more effective ones."_ 



tippykayak said:


> I didn't realize you encouraged letting the dog make unpleasant physical contact with the hand.


Those who asked for and got the link to the article, know this. As usual, you've made all sorts of assumptions about what I do and again, it's lead you down the wrong road. 

The contact with the hand, is as unpleasant as the dog makes it. He's the one propelling himself into it. If a dog runs into a wall and finds it "unpleasant" it's on him. 



tippykayak said:


> That's definitely not the "policeman's stop" method I know.


I guess you don't know all the methods that I do. 



tippykayak said:


> The one I know is about interrupting the dog's line of sight to try to interrupt the jump pattern long enough to give him an opportunity to be rewarded for a polite sit.


That's one version of it. One that is often not effective. One that I tried and discarded long ago for that reason. 



tippykayak said:


> I've never tried what you recommend, so perhaps it really does work every time. All my comments were about a non-contact method, so feel free to ignore them.


I'm not afraid of making contact with the dog if it helps him learn something. I see no advantage to a method that avoids contact.


----------



## Lou Castle

DNL2448 said:


> My .02 is: I use e-collars, however ALL of my dogs have been properly collar conditioned prior to it's use. I prefer to use Tippy's methods for jumping up and young dogs.


Since I doubt that you know what my method is for this, I doubt that you can intelligently make such a comparison. 



DNL2448 said:


> To quote Evan Graham (I think), "if you can't train a dog without an e-collar, you can't train a dog with one".


I agree with Evan. Notice that I've said TWICE that I don't use an Ecollar for this issue. 



DNL2448 said:


> Feel free to multi-quote me, Lou. This is my story and I'm sticking to it.


Just did. LOL.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> The contact with the hand, is as unpleasant as the dog makes it. He's the one propelling himself into it. If a dog runs into a wall and finds it "unpleasant" it's on him.





Lou Castle said:


> I'm not afraid of making contact with the dog if it helps him learn something. I see no advantage to a method that avoids contact.


I think these two statements tell us all we need to know about the difference between the methods I suggested and the method you endorse.


----------



## MikaTallulah

Get out the popcorn and get comfy. Let the debating begin. 


I know I would never use an e-collar without myself being properly trained in how to you it as well as basic training with my dog done.

I completely agree that you can't teach a dog without an e-collar you can't teach one with one 

I spent month working on recall with Buddy before I even thought of putting him onto the invisible fence. He appears to love his invisible fence collar. He runs to it every morning. This collar to him means he can run around outside which he loves without a leash.

I am still very selective about letting him off leash off my property- Dogs will be dogs.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I think these two statements tell us all we need to know about the difference between the methods I suggested and the method you endorse.


Methods really don't tell us very much. What speaks volumes is * results * achieved humanely. 

Some people use methods that make them feel good, even if they're not effective. Others want results from their training and as long as those methods are not abusive or harsh, the end product is more important than the feelings of the owner.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> Some people use methods that make them feel good, even if they're not effective.


If you see any of those people here on GRF, please let us know.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

LOL! Ok no offense to you Tippy but that made me laugh Because I have read several threads/posts on this board where they have used methods that they feel good about doing and are failing tremendously. 

Ok back to our regular scheduled program


----------



## tippykayak

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I have read several threads/posts on this board where they have used methods that they feel good about doing and are failing tremendously.


Please direct me to these threads. Maybe I can be of some assistance.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

tippykayak said:


> Please direct me to these threads. Maybe I can be of some assistance.


I am not going to get in a tit for tat with you. And I am not going to single anyone out and embarrass them or start world war 3. Anyone reading these boards can see who is having trouble and who isn't and what methods they have used. 

I am not in this argument of who is right or wrong. I don't need to be


----------



## tippykayak

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I am not going to get in a tit for tat with you. And I am not going to single anyone out and embarrass them or start world war 3. Anyone reading these boards can see who is having trouble and who isn't and what methods they have used.
> 
> I am not in this argument of who is right or wrong. I don't need to be


Perhaps the next time you see somebody who's using a method they feel good about but is failing miserably, you could send me a PM, and I'll check the thread out. No need to embarrass anybody. I just don't recall any threads that fit that description, and I would want to help if there were some.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

tippykayak said:


> Perhaps the next time you see somebody who's using a method they feel good about but is failing miserably, you could send me a PM, and I'll check the thread out. No need to embarrass anybody. I just don't recall any threads that fit that description, and I would want to help if there were some.


LOL! You have given advice to 2 that I can think of off the top of my head. I believe and always will believe that not _one_ method _always _works regardless of what side you are on. And I also believe that some owners are so afraid of hurting their dogs that they end up worse for the wear. It's great that there are so many options out there for owners.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> Some people use methods that make them feel good, even if they're not effective.





tippykayak said:


> If you see any of those people here on GRF, please let us know.


I don't think that we need a neon arrow pointing at them for the forum members to realize who they are. lol. Sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees. 

It's good that there are a range of methods available. 



tippykayak said:


> Perhaps the next time you see somebody who's using a method they feel good about but is failing miserably, you could send me a PM


Or......... you could just read the posts yourself. But perhaps you have, and just missed the ones that Wyatt's mommy is referring to. 

_"You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear."_ – Harry Nilsson.


----------



## tippykayak

Wyatt's mommy said:


> LOL! You have given advice to 2 that I can think of off the top of my head. I believe and always will believe that not _one_ method _always _works regardless of what side you are on. And I also believe that some owners are so afraid of hurting their dogs that they end up worse for the wear. It's great that there are so many options out there for owners.


I agree that it's best to have multiple methods in your repertoire so you can adapt to the dog in front of you.

I also think that some people are insufficiently careful not to hurt their dogs or, at the very least, unaware of how some methods can ruin a dog's trust in people.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> It's good that there are a range of methods available.


Which ones? For jumping you just gave us one and told us the rest were bad.




Lou Castle said:


> Or......... you could just read the posts yourself. But perhaps you have, and just missed the ones that Wyatt's mommy is referring to.
> 
> _"You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear."_ – Harry Nilsson.


I don't think any of us manage to read every post on the forum. If people are floundering by using "methods that they feel good about doing and are failing tremendously," I would want to help them out, so it would be nice if people could direct me to those threads when they see them.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

tippykayak said:


> I agree that it's best to have multiple methods in your repertoire so you can adapt to the dog in front of you.
> 
> I also think that some people are insufficiently careful not to hurt their dogs or, at the very least, unaware of how some methods can ruin a dog's trust in people.


Yeah well you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it. I don't sign on to the idea that a product/tool (that has been proven successful) should not be available for use because of peoples ignorance. Dare I give my demented 98 year old father in law my car keys I wouldn't give him Wyatt's remote either LOL! :note: not making fun of grandpa we love him dearly.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I also think that some people are insufficiently careful not to hurt their dogs or, at the very least, unaware of how some methods can ruin a dog's trust in people.


There is no such thing as a generally accepted dog training _"... method [that] can ruin a dog's trust in people."_ But virtually any method *if improperly applied * can have that effect. 

Earlier I wrote,


> It's good that there are a range of methods available.





tippykayak said:


> Which ones? For jumping you just gave us one


Please stop misleading people. I described part of one method and since it's a waste of time to rewrite my articles here, I invited people who were interested, to ask for the link since this forum won't permit me to post it. Several have and they've received the desired information. 



tippykayak said:


> and told us the rest were bad.


I've never said such a thing. Please stop trying to put words into my mouth. 



tippykayak said:


> I don't think any of us manage to read every post on the forum. If people are floundering by using "methods that they feel good about doing and are failing tremendously," I would want to help them out, so it would be nice if people could direct me to those threads when they see them.


There are many people on many forums who tell me when someone is asking about a problem that might be helped with an Ecollar, or when the "Ecollar debate" is raging. Perhaps if your methods and results were as good as you'd like to believe they are, you'd have such contacts too.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> There is no such thing as a generally accepted dog training _"... method [that] can ruin a dog's trust in people."_ But virtually any method *if improperly applied * can have that effect.


Do you really think that all dog training methods are equally risky in terms of misapplication and ruining a dog's trust? Or are some more prone to that than others? And, if some or more prone to ruining trust than others, what would you say characterizes those more risky techniques? I'm going to guess that this goes on the list of questions you'll ignore when you multi-quote me.



Lou Castle said:


> Please stop misleading people. I described part of one method and since it's a waste of time to rewrite my articles here, I invited people who were interested, to ask for the link since this forum won't permit me to post it. Several have and they've received the desired information.


You described less than one complete method in this thread, by your own admission. In fact, if you look at your own post, you quoted me saying "you gave us one" and then corrected me by saying that you gave us "part of one." So how was it misleading for me to suggest that you only thought one method was good? You gave us a partial method and then put down the other methods suggested. How is that a "range" of techniques?

You keep saying it's "a waste of time" for you to rewrite articles here, but copy-paste takes about 10 seconds. The only explanation for your unwillingness to describe a technique is that you want site traffic. And yes, you're not allowed to link to your site, but that hasn't stopped you from mentioning it constantly in a transparent attempt to get people to google it.



Lou Castle said:


> I've never said such a thing. Please stop trying to put words into my mouth.


In this thread, you put down multiple anti-jumping techniques and offered no complete method of your own. That's the truth, and you admitted it yourself _in this very post_. 



Lou Castle said:


> There are many people on many forums who tell me when someone is asking about a problem that might be helped with an Ecollar, or when the "Ecollar debate" is raging. Perhaps if your methods and results were as good as you'd like to believe they are, you'd have such contacts too.


I don't quite understand these two sentences, but I'll try to respond to what I think you meant. If you mean lots of e-mails and PMs asking me to help out in threads would be a measurement of my techniques' effectiveness, I disagree. I do get lots of PMs and e-mails asking for advice or asking me to contribute to threads, but internet popularity isn't a measurement of effective training.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> Do you really think that all dog training methods are equally risky in terms of ruining a dog's trust?


There's more to dog training than _ "trust."_ There's also results. If the training doesn't supply the desired results, trust means nothing. I don't think that any generally accepted method of training will ruin _"a dog's trust"_ 



tippykayak said:


> Or are some more prone to that than others?


Trust comes from being a fair and just leader, not the training methods that are used. Formal training isn't necessary for trust to exist. 



tippykayak said:


> I'm going to guess that this goes on the list of questions you'll ignore when you multi-quote me.


WRONG AGAIN! I LOVE your double standard. I've asked you *DOZENS * of questions (and that's not an exaggeration) that you've hidden from and not answered. 



tippykayak said:


> You described less than one complete method in this thread, by your own admission.


Yep. No need to cut and paste what's posted elsewhere. 



tippykayak said:


> You spent the bulk of your time pooh-poohing what I suggested


Yep. The advice was weak and works "sometimes." 



tippykayak said:


> and the rest trying to drive traffic to your website.


Nope. I offered information to people who want it. The only reason that it keeps coming up is that you keep bringing it up. For some reason you're fixated on this and think that you can "nag" me into spending hours rewriting my article so that it's suitable for this forum. I have no interest in _"driv[ing] traffic to [my] website."_ It brings me no advantage. If people want the information they can either ask for the link or get there via Google. 



tippykayak said:


> You keep saying it's "a waste of time" for you to rewrite articles here, but copy-paste takes about 10 seconds.


Nope, quite wrong, as usual. This forum is quite restrictive on what can be posted and what can't. The article I've posted here on teaching the recall was edited quite heavily to meet those requirements. It took me about as much time to edit it as it did to write it originally. I have no desire to spend my time in rewriting any more of my articles. Instead, as I've done and will continue to do, I'll invite people to ask privately for the links. If you don't like that, too bad. 



tippykayak said:


> The only reason you don't want to paste parts of your articles here is that you want site traffic and you don't want to reproduce your articles on a forum.


I don't give a hoot about _"site traffic."_ There's no need to reproduce here what is written elsewhere. There are advantages in keeping the articles on my site rather than scattered across forums around the Net. If I update an article, it won't get updated on the forums where it appears, and so people who read those forums will not be getting the "latest and greatest" information. 



tippykayak said:


> And yes, you're not allowed to link to your site because the mods have seen through you.


How rude, but nothing less than I'd expect from someone whose consistently gives the weakest information I've encountered on the Net. There are about 50,000 words about dog training on my site and a couple of hundred that mention that I sell Ecollars and do seminars. The Mods here have decided that it's a "commercial site." It's an illogical decision, there's no place to buy anything there as would be the case with a real "commercial site," and the ratio of training information to "sales" information is lower than 99:1. 



tippykayak said:


> You spent most of your time in this thread defending the e-collar and badmouthing techniques I suggested.


The only time that I've _"defended the e-collar"_ was when you, or someone else, posted misinformation or other nonsense about it. I've mentioned it only briefly otherwise. Weak information needs to be shown for what it really is. 



tippykayak said:


> So yes, in this thread, you offered no complete technique and spent your time putting down other people's suggestions.


You're wrong AGAIN! I offered a technique and a way to get more information for those who wanted it. I put down your advice because bad or weak advice is worse than no advice. 



tippykayak said:


> Not putting words in your mouth. Just the verifiable progress of this thread thus far.


Nope. You said that I'd said that other methods than mine, _"were bad."_ Some were acceptable, yours was very weak. I've never said that any technique was _"bad"_ as you stated. You DID try to put words into my mouth, now you try to deny it. Not gonna work. Since you've made this claim and now deny it, please show us the post where I said that any method was _"bad."_ Let's not call it a lie, let's just say that you're mistaken. 

Earlier I wrote,


> There are many people on many forums who tell me when someone is asking about a problem that might be helped with an Ecollar, or when the "Ecollar debate" is raging. Perhaps if your methods and results were as good as you'd like to believe they are, you'd have such contacts too.





tippykayak said:


> This pair of sentences doesn't even make sense.


Were my thoughts too complex for you? ROFL Taken in context, they make perfect sense. 



tippykayak said:


> The nice thing about GRF is that we don't have to make up claims about private messages we've gotten in order to win arguments about how valuable we are to a community.


I said nothing about _"private messages"_ as the mode of communication for this. ANOTHER one of your now−infamous assumptions that are wrong. 



tippykayak said:


> We have a "thanks" button. If somebody thinks your post is useful, they click it. So if your point is that you're popular, I invite you to compare your "thanks" count with the number of, well, pretty much any other forum member.


Anyone who thinks that these "votes" are anything but a popularity contest really needs to get a grip. I support what is numerically, an unpopular tool and so very few people are going to "thank" me with such votes. Often such voting is just a "thank you" for "thanking" someone else. This is the only forum that I frequent that supports such nonsense. I guess it's important for you to be one of "the cool kids." It's not, to me.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

Lou Castle said:


> Anyone who thinks that these "votes" are anything but a popularity contest really needs to get a grip. I support what is numerically, an unpopular tool and so very few people are going to "thank" me with such votes. Often such voting is just a "thank you" for "thanking" someone else. This is the only forum that I frequent that supports such nonsense. I guess it's important for you to be one of "the cool kids." It's not, to me.


Thanks for acknowleding this. I am on several forums also and none of them have this facebooky thanks/like button either. I believe it was intended to "thank" people for information ? But is easily abused as an "agree" button for the gang mentality. I have used it but more of an "acknowlegement " more than anything else. These types of buttons shouldn't be on forums, they just create animosity IMHO. And for someone to even bring that up in a debate? That is weak.

Oops I just realized I thanked you and didn't hit the thank button LOL!
Ok down off my soapbox:


----------



## tippykayak

I typed out a whole multi-quote response, but as this isn't even about training anymore, just a last word contest between me and Lou, I think I'll just leave it alone. If people are interested in a technique that involves kneeing a dog in the chest to stop his jumping, they can go to Lou and trainers like him. If there aren't, there are plenty of us offering alternatives to that mentality.

You can call it the weakest advice on the internet if you want, Lou, but I think coming from you, that's the biggest badge of honor I've gotten in any internet popularity contest.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

tippykayak said:


> I typed out a whole multi-quote response, but as this isn't even about training anymore, I think I'll just leave it alone. If people are interested in a technique that involves kneeing a dog in the chest to stop his jumping, they can go to Lou and trainers like him. If there aren't, there are plenty of us offering alternatives to that mentality.
> 
> You can call it the weakest advice on the internet if you want, Lou, but I think coming from you, that's the biggest badge of honor I've gotten in any internet popularity contest.


This is getting ridiculous. There are plenty of options. Thank freaking god.


----------



## Swampcollie

This thread has long since been anything usefull. It's probably a good time to pull the plug.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy

I think it is very usefull because there is great info . Different options are a great thing.


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I typed out a whole multi-quote response, but as this isn't even about training anymore, just a last word contest between me and Lou, I think I'll just leave it alone.


You turned it from a training discussion about different methods into a _"last word contest"_ quite some time ago. It's what you always do in discussions with me. You're simply unable to stay on topic. Instead you drift off into personal attacks and other rude comments, just about every time. 



tippykayak said:


> If people are interested in a technique that involves kneeing a dog in the chest to stop his jumping, they can go to Lou and trainers like him.


Quite the INACCURATE description of the rest of my method. Given your penchant for inaccurate quoting, this is just what I'd expect. This is more about you desperately trying to make yourself "right" than about training dogs, or you'd not go down this road repeatedly. 



tippykayak said:


> If there aren't, there are plenty of us offering alternatives to that mentality.


The mentality is quite simple. "Results achieved humanely." You can fool around with dogs if you like, but my clients want results, not touchy−feely nonsense that only works sometimes, such as you've supplied. 



tippykayak said:


> You can call it the weakest advice on the internet if you want,


I already did. How quickly they forget! 



tippykayak said:


> Lou, but I think coming from you, that's the biggest badge of honor I've gotten in any internet popularity contest.


If this is the _"biggest badge"_ you've ever gotten, you must collect REALLY small badges. Maybe I should "thank you?!" ROFLMAO.


----------



## tippykayak

Lou Castle said:


> Quite the INACCURATE description of the rest of my method. Given your penchant for inaccurate quoting, this is just what I'd expect.


I said, paraphrasing your method, that it involved "kneeing a dog in the chest to stop his jumping." Your article says, "Here you're going to bump the dog in the chest with your knee." Where's the inaccuracy?

And do you realize that every single section of your last response contains a personal insult?


----------



## Lou Castle

tippykayak said:


> I said, paraphrasing your method, that it involved "kneeing a dog in the chest to stop his jumping." Your article says, "Here you're going to bump the dog in the chest with your knee." Where's the inaccuracy?


Quoting ONLY the phrase _"kneeing a dog in the chest"_ implies that it's a hard knee, intended to cause pain. You want everyone to think that I'm hurting the dog. But here's what the article ACTUALLY says. 



> Here you're going to bump the dog in the chest with your knee. This must occur after he's up so he doesn't see it. * Don't bash him into the next county, a common error that people make, * especially if it doesn't work the first time. * All you're doing is tipping him away from you, * knocking him off balance. * It's a gentle shove, * but hard enough to bump him backwards, so he loses his balance. * It's done with slightly more force than will just move him away from you. * It needs to be hard enough to push him off-balance. How hard this will be depends on the size of the dog and how much he's leaning on you. It must be hard enough to tip him away from you but *not hard enough to cause undue discomfort. * [Emphasis Added]





tippykayak said:


> And do you realize that every single section of your last response contains a personal insult?


When you start this sort of behavior, as you did, you're liable to get it back in spades. I suppose now you're going to whine about it being returned?


----------



## Rob's GRs

This thread is being reviewed by the mod team . But for now it is time to put this to rest.


----------

