# AKC On Fox



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I was so happy to see an AKC Vice President recommending reward-based training and the CGC program for pet owners on national TV. 

:Humane to use shock collars for dog training? | On Air Videos | Fox News


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

There are thousands of demands that Ms. Dinardi be looking for a job soon because of her gross misrepresentation of AKC's position on e-collars. She promoted her own agenda, rudely speaking over the trainer who was chiming in from a remote location. She implied that the AKC is promoting a ban on e-collars categorically, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

Here is the AKC's response to the concerns the field community is expressing about that segment :

"On Saturday morning, AKC agreed to appear on Fox & Friends to discuss our thoughts on the use of e-collars for pet training, a buzzed about subject triggered from the release of a recent study.
The AKC has never called for a ban on e-collars. The AKC supports choice in training methods, as well as trusting the experts. Our thousands of field trial, performance and companion participants are the experts, those with the training experience and knowledge to obtain AKC titles on their dogs. It is our opinion that when placed in the informed hands of professionals, e-collars are an appropriate and effective tool for training dogs that are not only well behaved in the home but also competitive in the field. In fact, listed under the heading “Training Collars,” our position in support of e-collars as it pertains to AKC events, dog clubs and professional trainers has not wavered since it was adopted by the Board of Directors in 2001.
When we accept national media opportunities, we see them as a chance to talk to the nearly 57 million dog-owning households across the country who may not know about AKC’s resources and offerings. For better or worse, the vast majority of those owners will face struggles at the most basic level of training, not the complexities of handling performance-level dogs in the field or advanced companion work. When we appeared on Fox & Friends, it was our intention to speak to those novice owners who are seeking the best methods to create well-trained pets. Those methods do not include misuse or overuse of e-collars at the hands of amateur owners, an opinion with which I’m sure any dog expert can agree. AKC maintains its encouragement of positive reinforcement techniques for those beginner owners.

We continue to support the training techniques used by our experienced, responsible, and dedicated performance and companion competitors, and we apologize for not making that distinction clear during Saturday’s segment.

Sincerely,
James Crowley, Executive Secretary
American Kennel Club "


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I was proud of the AKC. I agree there are thousands of letters in favor and thousands against as it is a controversial topic.

The AKC is emphatic in support of reward-based training for pet dogs. 



> "Today the AKC participated in a very important segment to discuss the use of e-collars in training pet dog the basic commands. The AKC felt that is was critical that we recommend the use of positive reinforcement techniques and training programs such as CGC as the best method to train dogs these commands."
> 
> AKC believes that positive reinforcement techniques are the best method for the general public to create well trained pets that thrive in their homes and communities. AKC also recognizes that when used properly and under the guidance of experienced trainers, e-collars are an appropriate tool for training and working with dogs in certain performance sports. AKC is proud to support the dedicated members of our sport who put the well being and happiness of their dogs first.
> It is important that AKC continues to reach out to the owner of the pet dog and it is important that our constituents understand the difference between the training of our athlete dogs, who compete in high level competition and the everyday family dog. "


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Just in case anyone wants to read it, here's the AKC's official position on training collars, referenced in the above position statement. They group head collars, prong collars, and e-collars together:

"..Training Collars (July 2001 Board meeting) 
Special training devices that are used to control and train dogs, including but not limited to, collars with prongs, electronic collars used with transmitters, muzzles and head collars may not be used on dogs at AKC events, except as allowed in the AKC Rules, Regulations, and policies. 

The American Kennel Club recognizes that special training collars may be an effective and useful management device, when properly used, for controlling dogs that might be extremely active, difficult to control on a neck collar, or dog aggressive. These collars are also recognized as possibly useful for gaining control at the start of basic obedience training, essential education that dogs deserve and need. 

There is a point at which owners should have sufficient control of their dogs to manage them on regular neck collars, without the use of special training collars. This is the point at which dogs are acceptable on the grounds of AKC competitive events and will have the opportunity to participate in those events. .."
https://www.akc.org/rules/policymanual.cfm?page=5#TrainingCollars


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I have no intention of turning this into a debate of whether or not e-collars should be used, we all know those threads just degenerate and get shut down right away. This is about the Fox segment, not the use of collars. What has people who train their dogs to high levels using e-collars so upset is that Ms. Dinardi mis-represented the AKC's position. Here is part of the transcript:

"The American Kennel Club wants what’s best for dogs, and what’s best for dogs is happy, healthy well trained dogs responsible owners and there are better training methods than using shock collars. Shock collars can cause stress, distress, sometimes pain. Used inappropriately they can prevent dogs from even being receptive to other training methods in the future. And in worse case scenario the dog might even become aggressive...."

And a well worded response from among the field community: " At no point did she say anything consistent with AKC's position. No one can dispute that e-collars are not appropriate for use by the inexperienced (or the inresponsible), but Ms. DiNardo didn't say that and, in fact, didn't say anything even remotely close to AKC's "opinion that when placed in the informed hands of professionals, e-collars are an appropriate and effective tool for training dogs that are not only well behaved in the home but also competitive in the field." Instead, the impression left with the uninformed public by Ms. DiNardo is that AKC is totally opposed to the use of e-collars, that they are cruel and that, by extension, anyone who uses one is being inhumane. In my opinion, AKC should PUBLICLY correct the damage to the reputations of thousands of highly competent and experience dog trainers..."


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

AKC came off looking like goobers on TV yet again.


----------



## Leslie B (Mar 17, 2011)

hotel4dogs said:


> I have no intention of turning this into a debate of whether or not e-collars should be used, we all know those threads just degenerate and get shut down right away. This is about the Fox segment, not the use of collars. What has people who train their dogs to high levels using e-collars so upset is that Ms. Dinardi mis-represented the AKC's position. Here is part of the transcript:
> 
> "The American Kennel Club wants what’s best for dogs, and what’s best for dogs is happy, healthy well trained dogs responsible owners and there are better training methods than using shock collars. Shock collars can cause stress, distress, sometimes pain. Used inappropriately they can prevent dogs from even being receptive to other training methods in the future. And in worse case scenario the dog might even become aggressive...."
> 
> And a well worded response from among the field community: " At no point did she say anything consistent with AKC's position. No one can dispute that e-collars are not appropriate for use by the inexperienced (or the inresponsible), but Ms. DiNardo didn't say that and, in fact, didn't say anything even remotely close to AKC's "opinion that when placed in the informed hands of professionals, e-collars are an appropriate and effective tool for training dogs that are not only well behaved in the home but also competitive in the field." Instead, the impression left with the uninformed public by Ms. DiNardo is that AKC is totally opposed to the use of e-collars, that they are cruel and that, by extension, anyone who uses one is being inhumane. In my opinion, AKC should PUBLICLY correct the damage to the reputations of thousands of highly competent and experience dog trainers..."


 
Well said Barb! I agree that the letter to AKC participants is not enough and there should be a PUBLIC correction of Ms DiNardo's misrepresentation on the position of AKC on these collars. In addition, I believe she personally owes the trainer an appology for interupting and talking over him during the interview. She was serving her own agenda and I hope that she is removed from ever having a speaking role for AKC in the future.

I know that there has been a big backlash in the field community for her bashing of a training tool that is used by the majority of trainers.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

The woman was rude, self serving, and failed to list her training credentials. The AKC needs to step up and do some public damage control as they have insulted a lot of performance people across all breeds. And performance events are a big part of their revenue. 
More importantly, they have provided fodder for the animal rights activists which is detrimental to all of us whether you agree with the use of e-collar's or not. Keep in mind when you applaud this woman's actions you are opening the door just a little bit further for the extremists who want to see an end to all pure bred dogs.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Fox is a pretty mainstream audience, so the takeaway for the general public was that the AKC supports the use of reward based training. I think that is progressive, in support of the best professional practice, and appropriate, so my letter to Ms. Dinardo was a thank you note.

It is gratifying to hear an AKC Vice President get behind positive training methods as their preference for training pet puppies and dogs. Yes, for sure she was hard on e collar use for pet dogs, and appropriately so.

It has been interesting to read the colliding passions of the various forums and lists, as well as to attend run throughs at my local club and hear people on both sides. There is ferocious passion on both sides. Various training lists and forums wrote many letters in support and denouncement, and I saw how livid some other lists and forums were on the other side. 

To me, the Fox debate is a tiny sign of progress.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Here is part of the transcript:
> 
> "The American Kennel Club wants what’s best for dogs, and what’s best for dogs is happy, healthy well trained dogs responsible owners and there are better training methods than using shock collars. Shock collars can cause stress, distress, sometimes pain. Used inappropriately they can prevent dogs from even being receptive to other training methods in the future. And in worse case scenario the dog might even become aggressive...."


This quotation, especially with the qualifier words, like "can" and "inappropriately" may be unpopular among _some_ of "our thousands of field trial, performance and companion participants," but also has the distinction of being essentially true and reflecting the views of the vast majority of the people who study canine behavior in a controlled setting.

Some people may not like it because they may read it as "even when used appropriately, shock collars carry serious risks of stress, distress, pain, and aggression," (which may also be true), but that's not what she said.

The fact of the matter is that e-collars do carry those risks, and they carry those risks at a higher rate than many other tools. There's no plausible debate that they _can_ cause those side effects. The argument is really about the _rate_ of side effects, especially in the hands of inexperienced trainers. And it's also completely fair to argue that zero pet dog owners should be using e-collars even if the risks are low enough among pros that the tool is acceptable. Heck, even most of the e-collar users on this forum will point out that they think it's a crucial tool that they can't live without when it comes to competition but they think it should not generally be used in pet dog training.

And while it's a popular argument to point to titles as proof that e-collars are safe, it's an illogical one. Titles just do not prove that. A trainer that takes 1, 2, or even 10 dogs to a high level of performance does not constitute proof that these risks don't exist or that they occur at an acceptably low rate. They've only proven that it works on that small number of dogs. And beyond that, titles tell us nothing about dogs who didn't make it, about dogs who can title but are untrusting of people or aggressive to other dogs. I'm sure we've all seen or heard of a dog aggressing inappropriately at a conformation event, for example, in the hands of a trainer who has titled that dog to high levels in performance events. Or seen a dog slink back to an owner at an obed event, obeying, but miserable.

Research can give us a much clearer picture of risks than titles can, by studying larger numbers of dogs and using controls to isolate what's really happening. And the more research gets done, the clearer the issue becomes.

I honestly could not care less about this person's job, either protecting it or demanding her head for having the audacity to agree with 90% of canine behaviorists. But I am very happy to see the AKC potentially entering the 21st century when it comes to pet dog training.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

TrailDogs said:


> Keep in mind when you applaud this woman's actions you are opening the door just a little bit further for the extremists who want to see an end to all pure bred dogs.


Sorry, what? Could you connect the dots for me between endorsing a pet dog training method and the end of purebreds?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Let's not degenerate this into yet another thread on the evils / goods of e-collars.



tippykayak said:


> This quotation, especially with the qualifier words, like "can" and "inappropriately" may be unpopular among _some_ of "our thousands of field trial, performance and companion participants," but also has the distinction of being essentially true and reflecting the views of the vast majority of the people who study canine behavior in a controlled setting.
> 
> Some people may not like it because they may read it as "even when used appropriately, shock collars carry serious risks of stress, distress, pain, and aggression," (which may also be true), but that's not what she said.
> 
> ...


----------



## goldlover68 (Jun 17, 2013)

Ljilly28 said:


> Fox is a pretty mainstream audience, so the takeaway for the general public was that the AKC supports the use of reward based training. I think that is progressive, in support of the best professional practice, and appropriate, so my letter to Ms. Dinardo was a thank you note.
> 
> It is gratifying to hear an AKC Vice President get behind positive training methods as their preference for training pet puppies and dogs. Yes, for sure she was hard on e collar use for pet dogs, and appropriately so.
> 
> ...


You completely lost me when you used the work PROGRESSIVE! This connotation is political and should not be used on this site. 

Anyone who has attended training sessions with trainer who use the so called 'positive' methods, knows that not all dogs/owners do well with those methods. What bothers me is when this happens, the trainers tell them to just keep trying instead of referring them to other trainers who use other methods. 

Nothing Progressive about dogs who run away and/or get ran over, pick up meds and get sick/die, all because their owners were mislead on the limitations of such PROGRESSIVE, training methods....!

I know that many or even most pets can be trained using these positive methods, even if it takes a very long time. But the common PROGRESSIVE (your word) trainers, will never consider or recommend different training methods....I call that hypocritical...! One size does not fit all...


----------



## goldlover68 (Jun 17, 2013)

tippykayak said:


> This quotation, especially with the qualifier words, like "can" and "inappropriately" may be unpopular among _some_ of "our thousands of field trial, performance and companion participants," but also has the distinction of being essentially true and reflecting the views of the vast majority of the people who study canine behavior in a controlled setting.
> For every stack of facts you can find, I can find a stack of facts contradicting what you said....also I noted you did not provide in references...
> 
> Some people may not like it because they may read it as "even when used appropriately, shock collars carry serious risks of stress, distress, pain, and aggression," (which may also be true), but that's not what she said.
> ...


 *When someone at AKC misrepresents the written policy that they have on the subject, I believe they need to pay the price. Is that hard for you to understand? Fox should be required to amend what was said by reading the actual formal policy from AKC....perhaps you should read it also!
*


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Fox doesn't need to do anything. They are in the business of reporting and making news. It is the AKC's job to represent the facts correctly. This was a case of somebody from the AKC going off on her own WHILE representing the AKC. 

When you have that level of disorganization and tendency - from what I can tell - to listen to pet trainers over the competitors who are paying $$$$$$$ for various field tests - it is suicidal for the AKC. 

And it's downright stupid because majority of pet owners out there are putting ecollars on their dogs. It's called invisible fencing. 

Ecollars - if you have listened at all to old-timers and watched old videos or read old training books.... it is the 21st century when it comes to competition training. There's stronger demands on these dogs than most pet trainer trained dogs would ever encounter. 

You could wait until these dogs are older and more mature before taking them out into field training and assuming they will be more inclined to listen and obey off leash, but the younger dogs out there have the energy and strength to do all that repetition and work without risk of injury. And you consider a lot of these dogs are a lot more geared up than say my conformation and pet bred boys.... you need to maintain control on them without taking years to get them ready. 

I kinda think that everyone who gets too crazy about the ecollar argument when it comes to actual competition level training (again, not really about training the dog to walk on a loose lead around the block or other purposes that people use these for on a pet training basis) - they need to actually give field training a try to understand what all is involved and why you have even the nicest and softest handed trainers using ecollars for field. <- At the very least, it would simply lend a little understanding and respect for that decision. 

The lady I'm taking field classes from is somebody who primarily shapes the retrieve and behavior - all the more tough if the dog doesn't have much drive. She does not get into the arguments for or against ecollars, but has told me a few times that even with my low drive show golden - the ecollar would speed things up substantially for him. Whereas shaping will take a long time. I'm fine with taking the long route, but most people aren't.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

goldlover68 said:


> For every stack of facts you can find, I can find a stack of facts contradicting what you said....also I noted you did not provide in references...


I'm really not spoiling for a fight here. I just stated a couple of verifiable _facts_. First, that the vast majority (90% was an estimate, not a precise figure) of professional researchers and behaviorists agree with the quoted statements ("Shock collars can cause stress, distress, sometimes pain. Used inappropriately they can prevent dogs from even being receptive to other training methods in the future."). Whether that quote is a "fact" is certainly up for debate. But the fact that it's consistent with most research and that most behaviorists would endorse a roughly similar point of view is pretty verifiable (see below).

It is a false dichotomy to suggest that because some people fail with what you called "positive methods" (I don't really like that term because it's not really precise and actually a bit misleading) that therefore e-collars or other punishment-based tools are the solution. Whether _some_ dogs _sometimes_ need aversives for _some_ problem behaviors is a conversation totally worth having. But the existence of a dog trained without an e-collar being poisoned because of a failed "leave it" does not prove that e-collars are a good idea, that they're safe, that they would have saved the dog, etc.

As far as the risks of aggression, aversion, anxiety, etc. from aversives, including electrical stimulation, those are real and easily verified in behavioral research.

I also stated a couple of opinions, which I prefaced with things like "it's fair to argue that..." to show that I wasn't even really throwing my weight behind that argument with any confidence. Just acknowledging that it's a reasonable opinion that a reasonable person could hold.

I'm not sure why I made you so angry that your text turned bold and red, but I was really trying to enter politely into the conversation. I would ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt that I am not attacking you or claiming you're a bad person or whatever it was that you assumed I was doing that made you so angry.

Just to be clear, I am not a hard-liner "positive only" purist or anything. I'll tell a dog "no," etc. I think sometimes the second you suggest that the e-collar might have downsides, even for pet training, you get lumped into a category of ideological purists. I'm just not in that category, and neither was the original statement. So if you want to argue against a "positive only" position, you'll need somebody else to pick up that particular mantle.

Here are some sources, as you requested:

Human directed aggression in domestic dogs _(Canis familiars)_: Occurrence in different contexts and risk factors. This is an interesting study on the way that dogs who are punished with aversives show a higher rate of aggressive behaviors. The study itself is behind a paywall, but the abstract gives a pretty good overview, and there is an article that summarizes some of the findings here.

Here is the The AVSAB position statement on punishment in dog training. This source alone proves the simple fact that the vast majority of professional vet behaviorists (i.e, a significant majority of the members of the AVSAB) do not think punishment (and e-collars specifically) are an appropriate basic training tool. The discussion of the potential uses of punishment for particular situations is interesting because it is not a pure anti-punishment stance, much like mine isn't.

Here is the APDT position statement on "dog-friendly training." I find it interesting because it once again makes a more nuanced distinction that punishment may have a role, just not as a basic training solution. My personal position is pretty close to what they say: "Dog-friendly training is training that utilizes primarily positive reinforcement; secondarily negative punishment, and only occasionally, rarely, and/or as a last resort includes positive punishment and/or negative reinforcement." So it's not that an e-collar has no place but rather than it's not a good tool for training basic behavior.

I feel like you are reacting very strongly to a position I haven't actually taken in what I wrote (or ever). The state of canine behavioral science isn't up for much debate: you can just read the papers and the positions statements by the professionals. Whether one agrees is sort of a different issue.

Of course anybody can find research for whatever position they support, but that's intellectually dishonest. Real science and understanding is about following the evidence where it leads, not winning an argument by citing whatever seems to support it.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Let's not degenerate this into yet another thread on the evils / goods of e-collars.


If people could keep their emotions in check and have a friendly conversation, it could actually be interesting, but that never seems to really pan out in these threads.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Let's not degenerate this into yet another thread on the evils / goods of e-collars.


Yes, agreed bc this is a thread about how nice it is for the AKC to recognize reward-based, science -based training as the gold standard of professional practice for pet dogs.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

You and I both know by now that's not going to happen.



tippykayak said:


> If people could keep their emotions in check and have a friendly conversation, it could actually be interesting, but that never seems to really pan out in these threads.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

And as I said before, I dispute that. What happened was a woman spouted off her own itinerary, and that of the show's host, while ignoring the WRITTEN position of AKC, as quoted previously in this thread. 
Here's her *stunning* bio. Note the lack of training experience in anything other than the conformation ring. One would think that someone who is talking about the best method for training dogs might just possibly have some experience having done that:
https://images.akc.org/pdf/press_center/Gina_Dinardo.pdf

This very well worded post on another forum is from someone who has been actively involved in Goldens for decades, and done more for the breed (and GRCA) than most people alive.

"...I asked the AKC to make a public statement telling us exactly where it stands with regard to the statements made on this t.v. program. In addition, I suggested possibly Ms. diNardo should return to Fox News and point out that those were her own views based on her own substantial research into various training methods, her vast experience in training dogs successfully to major titles in all AKC venues (conformation and Junior Showmanship don't count), and indicate the sources and back up data for the statements she made. Even if this piece was aimed at pets and pet owners, no one should give advice on training without having the resume to support the statements made. Being a VP for the AKC does not necessarily give you the credentials to give advice on a subject without your having worked in the trenches yourself at one time...."



Ljilly28 said:


> Yes, agreed bc this is a thread about how nice it is for the AKC to recognize reward-based, science -based training as the gold standard of professional practice for pet dogs.


----------



## ArchersMom (May 22, 2013)

Regardless of the whole e-collar vs. reward based training, it seems incredibly rude to invite that trainer onto to the show and then hardly allow him to speak or defend his opinion. They didn't have to let him give a long speech but they should have allotted him more than 10 seconds when the other contributor went on forever. It just seemed rushed and unprofessional.


----------



## goldlover68 (Jun 17, 2013)

tippykayak said:


> I'm really not spoiling for a fight here. I just stated a couple of verifiable _facts_. First, that the vast majority (90% was an estimate, not a precise figure) of professional researchers and behaviorists agree with the quoted statements ("Shock collars can cause stress, distress, sometimes pain. Used inappropriately they can prevent dogs from even being receptive to other training methods in the future."). Whether that quote is a "fact" is certainly up for debate. But the fact that it's consistent with most research and that most behaviorists would endorse a roughly similar point of view is pretty verifiable (see below).
> 
> *Now you slightly change your comment to focus solely on the fact that the use of an e-collar 'can cause harm'. That is in fact a verifiable fact. You are in this case, stating the obvious,,, in fact I find it hard to believe that any scientific study would be done to verify this obvious fact! That is not what you implied in your original post....*
> 
> ...


*So check out the AKC actual policy,*


----------



## shepherdpal (Oct 8, 2013)

I don't see e-collar and positive training to be a contradiction if used properly.

I use both an e collar and positive methods for my 5 year old GSD . I was trained by a trainer to use the e- collar when he was a year old because I like to take him on off leash hikes and beaches and want as bomb proof recall as possible. I began by using it at the lowest level he felt it by giving a little eye blink. Now 4 years later I put it on him when we go off leash but rarely have to push the bottom, although occasionally use vibrate. Throughout this process I always also used praise and treats. I only weigh 5 pounds more than my GSD so if he should take off toward the street after a cat or squirrel I would not be able to stop him with just a leather collar. He has never bolted like that but I don't want to take a chance and feel safer with the training the e-collar has given us. He is a very happy healthy dog!

I think e -collars or any tools in the wrong hands can be very harmful but used properly can be a real good tool in dog training, 

I have not used the e-collar on Pippin as he is only 7 months, but probably will in the future.

My husband also has used an e-collar on his 5 year old Borzoi since we adopted him at 11 months. He had been told by the prior owner he would never get a good recall on a Borzoi, but Jake also happily partakes in our off leash adventures


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> This quotation, especially with the qualifier words, like "can" and "inappropriately" may be unpopular among _some_ of "our thousands of field trial, performance and companion participants," but also has the distinction of being essentially true and reflecting the views of the vast *majority of the people who study canine behavior in a controlled setting*.
> 
> .......


Sorry, I stopped reading this comment exactly after the bolded statement. 
No one in the right mind would use an e-collar in a controlled setting. Yeah as conditioning to the collar for commands already known and complied with but not as a punishment. It is one thing to train a dog in a little barn or room as opposed to training a dog at 100 to 200 yards away. 

Ms DiNardo was unprofessional and she needs to be fired for what she has done. But this also has to be a warning for the ones who are all too eager to use pressure, force in an inappropriate way. I have seen dogs destroyed because of it, but it is not the tool it is the person behind the tool. One can destroy a dog just as well with the leash, with the heeling stick or with just the voice. As a matter of fact the voice is even more damaging than the tool. I have seen that too. 

I have used them and will use them. I have even gotten to the point of using it with a dog who was terrorized by the bark collar. That could not have been done in a hurtful way, it would have been counterproductive and damaging. 
I am reluctant is using them except in a direct disobedience or in extreme cases such as chasing a squirrel or deer in the woods. Any good trainer would tell you that you do not use it if the dog does not understand what you want. If the dog is confused it is the handler's fault and not the dog. Just like you never punish your child for your mis-communication or lack of attention, education. You do not expect a child to achieve something if he was not taught to. 
When you get a dog with high prey drive to sit by you in a heel as you hold a cookie at his nose while watching another dog chasing a duck I will start listening to what Ms DiNardo has to say. To my knowledge she has never done that nor is she able to since her answer to everything was the leash. I would bet that dog would have rather had the e-collar than the leash around his neck at that particular time.


----------



## goldlover68 (Jun 17, 2013)

Well said Claudia...sometimes saying it 'simple' is the best way!


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

There are plenty of pro e collar threads in Hunt & Field. This one is about how great it is the AKC came out in favor of reward-based training- (though they did also come out strongly against e collars at the same time for pet dogs, and I am so glad about that.) 

We had great fun today as our crew went to our local obedience trial, and we had reward-based trained pet dogs at every level from an aussie in Utility to a Novice A Rally lab. We get a huge crew of people out participating, who ordinarily would have quit at CGC. So while people complain about dwindling numbers and the greying of obedience, we are having a grand time there .There is no chance this brand of dog owner is going to use an e collar on a pet dog of theirs, and that was the nice slice of demographic the AKC was trying to support, the "entry level" and she was trying to say no to Bark Busters and Caesar Milan. These are not people who will ever try for OTCH, but these are people who will enter Rally, Novice, and Open, and have fun while also doing UKC, CPE agility Therapy dog or whatever, have fun, and contribute entry fees. It is simply a far different mentality from the field competitor.

Most of the audience who saw Fox & Friends are _general public pet owners_, and their take- away was train your dogs with rewards and not punishment, most especially e collars. Cheers to that!


----------



## goldlover68 (Jun 17, 2013)

Ljilly28....So can you tell me exactly what your point is? Seems like a lot of spin and self justification to me.....

To each his own....


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> Most of the audience who saw Fox & Friends are _general public pet owners_, and their take- away was train your dogs with rewards and not punishment, most especially e collars. Cheers to that!


And you know, this could have been a very nice promotion for their pet dog programs if they had left the e-collar out of the conversation. It was inappropriate & unnecessary. When you are a spokesperson for a large organization you need to make sure your publicly aired views reflect the values of said organization.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Sorry, what? Could you connect the dots for me between endorsing a pet dog training method and the end of purebreds?


'First they came' ....I am sure you know that poem. 

Animal Rights Uncompromised: There's No Such Thing as a 'Responsible Breeder' | Uncompromising Stands on Animal Rights | About PETA | PETA
PETA Protests Westminster Dog Show With 'Master Race' Posters | PETA's Blog | PETA

I am not interested in giving these groups ammunition. Maybe you think they will stop with their agenda after e-collars are banned.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

goldlover68 said:


> Ljilly28....So can you tell me exactly what your point is?
> 
> My point is how excellent it is that the AKC took a public stand that there IS a best way to train pet and community dogs on Fox and Friends, and that it is best to used reward-based training methods and to avoid e collars. Proud of AKC.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

TrailDogs said:


> 'First they came' ....I am sure you know that poem.


Is that poem about the Holocaust death camps during WWII?


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Ljilly28 said:


> Is that poem about the Holocaust death camps during WWII?


Originally yes, but it has become applicable to many situations since then. Having rights taken away because it doesn't apply to you may not be the best approach to things. I think everyone in the dog community needs to be more accepting of others breeding, training, dog raising methods and stand up against any public message that undermines what we do.

Just my opinion. If you are comfortable with the way things are moving with breed specific bans, mandatory spay-neuter laws, and possibly e-collar bans then you need not worry about the now public perception that the AKC sides with groups like PETA on e-collars.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

Tolerance for differing methods of training goes both ways. 

Please do not liken those of us who choose not to use an e-Collar with PETA, mandatory spay/neuter or breed specific legislation -- that is extremely insulting and uncalled for.

ETA: Added quotes referenced

_Is that poem about the Holocaust death camps during WWII?_


TrailDogs said:


> Originally yes, but it has become applicable to many situations since then. Having rights taken away because it doesn't apply to you may not be the best approach to things. I think everyone in the dog community needs to be more accepting of others breeding, training, dog raising methods and stand up against any public message that undermines what we do.
> 
> Just my opinion. If you are comfortable with the way things are moving with breed specific bans, mandatory spay-neuter laws, and possibly e-collar bans then you need not worry about the now public perception that the AKC sides with groups like PETA on e-collars.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Ljilly28 said:


> There are plenty of pro e collar threads in Hunt & Field. This one is about how great it is the AKC came out in favor of reward-based training- (though they did also come out strongly against e collars at the same time for pet dogs, and I am so glad about that.)
> 
> ........


I am sorry but I was unaware that people from hunt and field are not "allowed" to post here and dissipate the misinformation.

AKC is back-paddling quite a bit after this incident. Amazing how "positive only" people are please with the negative and bullying behavior from this woman! Quite ironic isn't it? 

Also, there are other ways to compete in the field than AKC events. I am sure the positive only people will positively open their pockets and cover everything the hunt and field people stop paying them.

I am at odds with how some of the field people use the e-collars to quickly achieve titles on their dogs. And I am completely against it. 
In my view: Moderation and consideration is good, abuse and ignorance is bad.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> You and I both know by now that's not going to happen.


Then perhaps you should direct your attention toward the people who can't keep their cool rather than trying to determine which topics are appropriate to talk about and which aren't.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

ArchersMom said:


> Regardless of the whole e-collar vs. reward based training, it seems incredibly rude to invite that trainer onto to the show and then hardly allow him to speak or defend his opinion. They didn't have to let him give a long speech but they should have allotted him more than 10 seconds when the other contributor went on forever. It just seemed rushed and unprofessional.


I think one thing we can all agree on is that cable news has sunk to the absolute depth of partisanship and shock journalism. They want you to watch, and many want to push the political views of their owners. They don't care about truth, courtesy, manners, or anything else ordinary people care about in a conversation.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

goldlover68 said:


> Now you slightly change your comment to focus solely on the fact that the use of an e-collar 'can cause harm'. That is in fact a verifiable fact. You are in this case, stating the obvious,,, in fact I find it hard to believe that any scientific study would be done to verify this obvious fact! That is not what you implied in your original post....


I didn't change my comment. I was quoting the same thing the whole time. My position is that the situation isn't black and white. I'm not saying "OMG e-collars hurt dogs and should be banned and everybody who uses them is an inhuman alien monster beast who kicks puppies." I'm saying that for the pet training that 95+% of dogs go through in order to be livable companions, they're a tool that carries too much risk compared to the benefit it provides.

Please don't argue against what you think I'm implying, because I think that leads you to assume I'm aligned with all kinds of people and positions that I'm not. I'm saying what I think and hoping for a productive conversation where I understand both sides' positions really clearly.

My position (that they aren't a good tool to recommend to novice pet owners) isn't particularly shocking or extreme, I don't think, and I brought it up because that seemed pretty close to me to be what was suggested by the AKC rep.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> When you get a dog with high prey drive to sit by you in a heel as you hold a cookie at his nose while watching another dog chasing a duck I will start listening to what Ms DiNardo has to say.


Well, this is not how you'd use food to reward a dog for honoring. Food is a mediocre motivator of attention at best. If you want to have a dog stay while another dog chases a duck or ball or deer or squirrel or whatever, you need a habit. 

Anybody who's holding a cookie in front of their dog's nose as a way of getting him to hold a stay in a high-distraction situation isn't really demonstrating a strong command of reward-based training.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> I didn't change my comment. I was quoting the same thing the whole time. My position is that the situation isn't black and white. I'm not saying "OMG e-collars hurt dogs and should be banned and everybody who uses them is an inhuman alien monster beast who kicks puppies." I'm saying that for the pet training that 95+% of dogs go through in order to be livable companions, they're a tool that carries too much risk compared to the benefit it provides.
> 
> Please don't argue against what you think I'm implying, because I think that leads you to assume I'm aligned with all kinds of people and positions that I'm not. I'm saying what I think and hoping for a productive conversation where I understand both sides' positions really clearly.
> 
> *My position (that they aren't a good tool to recommend to novice pet owners) isn't particularly shocking or extreme, I don't think, and I brought it up because that seemed pretty close to me to be what was suggested by the AKC rep.*


There are many novice pet owner who already use a form of e-collar - it is called invisible fence. Some use the citronella collar bark collar.....


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Sunrise said:


> Tolerance for differing methods of training goes both ways.
> 
> Please do not liken those of us who choose not to use an e-Collar with PETA, mandatory spay/neuter or breed specific legislation -- that is extremely insulting and uncalled for.


Ummm, if you read my posts I am not saying that at all. I stated earlier that the AKC's representative on Fox news is giving these groups more clout by appearing to align with their agendas. It benefits all of us to look at the big picture as to how dog owners rights are changing and to have a little more solidarity.
I am sorry you feel that is insulting.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

tippykayak said:


> Well, this is not how you'd use food to reward a dog for honoring. Food is a mediocre motivator of attention at best. If you want to have a dog stay while another dog chases a duck or ball or deer or squirrel or whatever, *you need a habit*.
> 
> Anybody who's holding a cookie in front of their dog's nose as a way of getting him to hold a stay in a high-distraction situation isn't really demonstrating a strong command of reward-based training.


I am in no way sarcastic but would love to know how you do that. 

Before I conditioned Darcy to the e-collar I was literately bruising my wrist trying to hold onto her in the holding blind, not even honoring. It was not good for her and it was not good for me. Rose not as bad but close enough. he moment they heard the duck call and the gun firing they wanted to go. With the collar, honestly I barely use it. Well I thought I used it today when I had Rose off leash and honoring, the other dog kept on messing up and birds had to be re-thrown and she got tired of waiting and I think just wanted to show the lab how it is done. I forgot that her collar was not even on. She came back but it was enough to disrupt an already confused dog.


----------



## goldlover68 (Jun 17, 2013)

Ljilly28 said:


> goldlover68 said:
> 
> 
> > Ljilly28....So can you tell me exactly what your point is?


----------



## goldlover68 (Jun 17, 2013)

tippykayak said:


> I didn't change my comment. I was quoting the same thing the whole time. My position is that the situation isn't black and white. I'm not saying "OMG e-collars hurt dogs and should be banned and everybody who uses them is an inhuman alien monster beast who kicks puppies." I'm saying that for the pet training that 95+% of dogs go through in order to be livable companions, they're a tool that carries too much risk compared to the benefit it provides. *Again, I am not sure your 95%+ is accurate, I would guess that you are including the use of invisible fences in this statement? You do 'throw out' a lot of numbers to try and substantiate your position!
> *
> Please don't argue against what you think I'm implying, because I think that leads you to assume I'm aligned with all kinds of people and positions that I'm not. I'm saying what I think and hoping for a productive conversation where I understand both sides' positions really clearly.
> 
> My position (that they aren't a good tool to recommend to novice pet owners) isn't particularly shocking or extreme, I don't think, and I brought it up because that seemed pretty close to me to be what was suggested by the AKC rep.


 *Following this comment, your third attempt to clarify what you really are saying, I understand. Although I would take exception to this comment in that many professional trainers include the pinch collar with initial obedience with a transition to an e-collar as part of their advancement to field training. In these cases, I believe it is a 'best practice'! I do not expect you to agree, but as you say, we all have our own options, and I can say that 95%+ of all field trained retrievers undergo this progression!

*


----------



## goldlover68 (Jun 17, 2013)

Ljilly28 said:


> There are plenty of pro e collar threads in Hunt & Field. This one is about how great it is the AKC came out in favor of reward-based training- (though they did also come out strongly against e collars at the same time for pet dogs, and I am so glad about that.)
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, if you read the letter sent out following that show, they as an organization do not support one method over the other....they are staying neutral.
> ...


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> I am in no way sarcastic but would love to know how you do that.
> 
> Before I conditioned Darcy to the e-collar I was literately bruising my wrist trying to hold onto her in the holding blind, not even honoring. It was not good for her and it was not good for me.


The premise of reward-based training is that dogs do what is practiced and rewarded. So if you have a dog who is flipping out (over threshold) while being asked to do something like honor, or watch other dogs work, or whatever, then you can't really train in that situation. I think that holds true when it comes to treats as well as aversives. If a dog isn't collar conditioned, I shudder to think of how high you'd have to turn the dial to break through to a high drive dog. Same thing goes with reward-based training.

You would teach the dog to stay in less distracting contexts and then build the habit up through increasing distractions, setting the dog up to succeed, rewarding him for success, and preventing him from rewarding himself for failure (i.e., not giving him the opportunity to break a stay and be rewarded by getting to play, to chase, etc.). Just as you wouldn't slap an e-collar on an untrained dog and blast him for not honoring, you wouldn't hold liverwurst in front of an untrained dog's nose and expect it to hold his attention.

I think it sort of comes down to whether you believe a dog needs to know there will an unpleasant consequence for disobedience. I used to think you needed that in order to have rock-solid behavior in the face of high-level distractions, but I no longer think that's the case. Again, I don't have the expertise to make any claims about the details of field training, but I certainly do have the expertise to say that you can get a driven working dog to hold a stay in the face of extreme distractions without ever making it unpleasant when he breaks. And it doesn't take particularly long either. It's more about consistency and effective rewarding than it is about time.

And one thing I like about rewards is that you work to a level where you don't need food on you at all. I think that's the goal for e-collar programs too, but I read a lot of comments on GRF about e-collars in the pet threads that make it clear that the dog is still wearing one after he's trained and the handler still needs to use it, however occasionally, to get the dog back. You can't do that with food because it's meaningless to a dog who's a hundred feet away anyway. One of my ultimate goals for training a behavior is that the finished product is just me and the dog (and maybe a whistle if we're doing really long distance work). I'll still bring treats on hikes occasionally just to keep refreshing their reward history for recall and other behaviors, but I don't ever _need_ them to get the dog back to me.


----------



## Loisiana (Jul 29, 2009)

In reality, I don't think AKC really has a position on training, they just want to look good to as many people as they can. Which is why they're basically talking out of both sides of their mouths.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

DING DING DING we have a winner....



Loisiana said:


> In reality, I don't think AKC really has a position on training, they just want to look good to as many people as they can. Which is why they're basically talking out of both sides of their mouths.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Do you think it was a deliberate and carefully planned point of view shared by that lady on fox? As in AKC sending her and hoping to get some of the positive only crowd all excited and on their side - with the idea that they could do damage control after if anyone from the actual performance side of things "noticed"? 

My thought still is the last few interviews + other stuff coming from the AKC... it's showing disorganization and probably the effect of scrambling? Sending people out to do interviews without really making sure they don't say anything stupid, stuff like that.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Thank you Tippy, I appreciate your response and that is what I have done with Rose since she was young. I was so proud that I could put her in a down stay and walk two hundred yards away and walk back with her not moving her end off the ground. With no e-collar training, just increasing distance and stimulus. When she broke the other day I was dumbfounded. Yeah she came back when called after an explicit and a NO and a COME. Her collar was on but I forgot to actually turn it on. 

I have done a lot of down stays with them since then on the training grounds. Yesterday we went to the field and put her in a Sit stay and was able to walk al the way to the pond, throw the bumper and walk back to send her. Purchased a holding blind and work with it in the back yard as well as in the field. 

The collar stays on mostly because they get collar smart. Just like when you wean off treats. You still have them with you but that does not necessarily means that they will get a treat.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

goldlover68 said:


> Ljilly28 said:
> 
> 
> > goldlover68 said:
> ...


----------



## goldlover68 (Jun 17, 2013)

Ljilly28 said:


> goldlover68 said:
> 
> 
> > Ljilly28 said:
> ...


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Claudia M said:


> Thank you Tippy, I appreciate your response and that is what I have done with Rose since she was young.


You're welcome. 



Claudia M said:


> The collar stays on mostly because they get collar smart. Just like when you wean off treats. You still have them with you but that does not necessarily means that they will get a treat.


Just FYI, I really do think the goal of training is to get as close to just you and just the dog as possible. That's the real hallmark of success. I 100% agree with you that sporadic reinforcement is the best when it comes to proofing and maintaining a behavior, so the occasional treat, even for the most well-trained of dogs, is a good thing.

However, full training means you can forget the treat bag and still expect your dog to execute what he's trained for.


----------



## shepherdpal (Oct 8, 2013)

tippykayak said:


> I
> 
> My position (that they aren't a good tool to recommend to novice pet owners) isn't particularly shocking or extreme, I don't think, and I brought it up because that seemed pretty close to me to be what was suggested by the AKC rep.


I agree and even though I con side myself a very active pet owner and use the e-collar I have been trained on how to use it properly and it has given me and my GSD, Benny many off leash adventures we would not have other wise had. Before finding the trainer who watched me with my dog, worked with us and showed s how to use the e-collar. I had been told by a behaviorist that he was reactive, aggressive, had extreme prey drive and would always have to be always have to be carefully managed.This behaviorist wouldn't even let me use a prong correction and wanted me to just ignore bad behavior and reward good and made me leave class when this did not work!. 

I may not need to use an e-collar with Pippin because he has a very different, much softer temperament than Benny and seems to focus solely on me and his ball, but I know so many people who when trained to use an e-collar properly are enjoying life with their dogs. 

I think an e-collar in the wrong hands is very bad and the inferior ones at Pet Smart which go from a level the dog does't feel to a one that is painful should be banned. 

The training and tools used depends on the dog and the humane use of aversives can be a positive aspect of dog training.


----------

