# electric collar



## john2323 (Feb 25, 2012)

hi all,

i use an electric collar with my dog in the last month and i can say it really helps. 

the problem is:

my dog is now "smart collar"... it means that it behaves good when the collar on it and when i take it off, it understands it and behaves the way it wants...

what's the way to teach the dog to quit the collar and to stay with the good results?

thanks.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Remove the batteries


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

That's the problem with aversives like shock collars- the dog only obeys out of fear of the shock. Once you remove the fear, the dog doesn't obey, because he hasn't learned anything other than how to avoid shocks.

Throw away the shock collar and give clicker training a try. Dogs don't get clicker smart. Look up kikopup on YouTube.


----------



## JohnTruthman (Jan 10, 2012)

The collar is a inefficient way to train and you've found out the major reason why. They'll work well enough on a dog who is so slow as to not catch the connection between the collar and the jolt - which many people consider inhumaine by the way. Your dog is intelligent enough to make that connection and also intelligent enough to respond to normal training methods.

Intelligent dogs are anxious to understand their masters and want to please - they find pleasure in doing so and look forward to training sessions so they can receive the praise you bestow on them when they do something right. Food is a excellent motivater also - what I do is get a box of small kibbles instead of special training treats. Just regular dog food but a different taste than his daily stuff - salmon or deer flavor for instance.

Using both a lot of praise and some food I then spend the time the dog craves spending with me on improving and adding to his bag of tricks so to speak. You'll become a better team when your dog no longer fears you.


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

I would have the dog wear the collar 24/7. I am not sure how you went about collar conditioning him, but if done properly a dog should not become 'collar smart'.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well did you let dog wear collar for a month or two before it's used for any actual work with your dog, it sounds like you gave the quick version of training your dog electrically. Put collar on then zap dog and then take collar off all in a month or maybe not even a month. 

Above info given just in case you want to train another dog.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

john2323 said:


> what's the way to teach the dog to quit the collar and to stay with the good results?
> 
> thanks.


Try Communicating with your dog using your voice..
They seem to be able to understand multiple languages...
I use The English Language...
Example: 
"No biting" and "PP outside"
I have been able to train my dog successfully using these words instead of clickers and electronic devices.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

john2323 said:


> hi all,
> 
> i use an electric collar with my dog in the last month and i can say it really helps.
> 
> ...


Train the dog. That's the problem with positive punishment/negative reinforcement. Dog learns how to avoid it


----------



## StacyW (Feb 26, 2012)

I would disagree with you on the fact that they don't get 'clicker smart'. They totally do. The e-collar will eventually be phased out and the dog will still behave. I say find a good trainer in your area well versed in e-collar training and give them a call. It's totally worth the money.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

You phase out the clicker, too. Only once you do that, the dog has already learned to, well, learn. Without constant aversives.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

That's the problem with aversives like shock collars- the dog only obeys out of fear of the shock. Once you remove the fear, the dog doesn't obey, because he hasn't learned anything other than how to avoid shocks.>>>


learning does take place w aversive training. not saying one should not use food or clickers but lets not reshape reality. there are dogs that only work for food also. does that mean clicker training doesnt work? I dont think so.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

john2323 said:


> what's the way to teach the dog to quit the collar and to stay with the good results?


You can't, it's a done deal now. Collar was your primary enforcer, if the dog knows in advance that you won't have this enforcer then it is what it is. Dog learns how to avoid collar stimulation - it simply learned how to avoid it *really* effectively. You can just have him wear it all the time on walks... Or buy one of those fake ones.




+two said:


> I would have the dog wear the collar 24/7.


Don't do this, dog would get all sorts of skin problems - dog should never wear it for more than 3 to 5 hours a day. Metal pins are pretty uncomfortable long-term. 


The collar-wise problem is only present when owners don't follow detailed training plans and instructions that come with the package. This often happens of course, but there's really nothing wrong with having the collar on when needed and off when not. Don't bother trying to get the dog collar "unwise", it won't work, just simply keep it on.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

StacyW said:


> I would disagree with you on the fact that they don't get 'clicker smart'. They totally do. The e-collar will eventually be phased out and the dog will still behave. I say find a good trainer in your area well versed in e-collar training and give them a call. It's totally worth the money.


Guess what? A clicker is much faster and easier to phase out than an ecollar (a lot cheaper too!) I agree that if you are going to zap your dog, at least find someone who knows the theory and method, so you do as little damage to your dog's psyche as possible. Ecollar trained dogs get ecollar smart. Clicker dogs just get smart.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

StacyW said:


> I would disagree with you on the fact that they don't get 'clicker smart'. They totally do.


Are you saying that a clicker wise dog is a BAD thing ?

I've spent a good portion of the morning searching for evidence of that, and instructions on how to "fix" a clicker wise dog. Can't seem to find ANY.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

If your dog only performs with a clicker or food present, you're doing it wrong plain and simple. The clicker is simply a communication tool to help your pet learn. I brought home a foster kitten last week. I used the clicker to teach him to go to his carrier, to come when called, and to tolerate grooming and nail trims so far. Guess what.. he will already respond to these cues without food or the clicker present. That's how fast and effective clicker training can be even to a cat.. an animal most people don't bother to train because they're so difficult. I would love to see an e-collar trainer get those kind of results so quickly using a collar on a 7 month old kitten. The clicker was instrumental in introducing the kitten to my dogs. He was accepted and is loved by pups faster than anything else I ever brought home. Do that with an e-collar.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Lindbert said:


> If your dog only performs with a clicker or food present, you're doing it wrong plain and simple. The clicker is simply a communication tool to help your pet learn. I brought home a foster kitten last week. I used the clicker to teach him to go to his carrier, to come when called, and to tolerate grooming and nail trims so far. Guess what.. he will already respond to these cues without food or the clicker present. That's how fast and effective clicker training can be even to a cat.. an animal most people don't bother to train because they're so difficult. I would love to see an e-collar trainer get those kind of results so quickly using a collar on a 7 month old kitten. The clicker was instrumental in introducing the kitten to my dogs. He was accepted and is loved by pups faster than anything else I ever brought home. Do that with an e-collar.


Proper use of e collar requires motivational foundation which is basically clicker trained behaviour. Any method that doesn't involve positive reinforcement is decades old with or without an e collar. Besides, how could clicker training a cat be an argument against an e collar? People clicker train lions too... it doesn't mean e collars are somehow invalid tools.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

I'm not saying e-collars don't work because they absolutely do work. I am saying I think they are unnecessary and there are ways to teach an animal that don't involve causing the animal discomfort. Some of the biggest myths are that clicker training is inferior to other methods because it doesn't work with every dog (I think if you can clicker train a cat, you can clicker train any dog because dogs are generally much more trainable than cats), you ALWAYS have to have treats or the clicker on you for the animal to perform, and that it takes longer than other methods that enforce compliance using an aversive.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

.


john2323 said:


> hi all,
> 
> i use an electric collar with my dog in the last month and i can say it really helps.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you trained backwards. You teach the dog the commands FIRST, use the e collar as long distance reenforcement (if needed). E collars aren't designed to be the primary training tool.

Take the collar off and get your dog into a good operant conditioning based training class (aka positive reenforcement although that's a misnomer) to teach him/her what you want. Build a relationship of TRUST with your dog and become a LEADER instead of a dictator.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

StacyW said:


> I would disagree with you on the fact that they don't get 'clicker smart'. They totally do. The e-collar will eventually be phased out and the dog will still behave. I say find a good trainer in your area well versed in e-collar training and give them a call. It's totally worth the money.


 



petpeeve said:


> Are you saying that a clicker wise dog is a BAD thing ?
> 
> I've spent a good portion of the morning searching for evidence of that, and instructions on how to "fix" a clicker wise dog. Can't seem to find ANY.


It's called "Fading the Lure"


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Sounds like you trained backwards. You teach the dog the commands FIRST, use the e collar as long distance reenforcement (if needed). E collars aren't designed to be the primary training tool.>>>

I agree. really to properly use the ecollar (imo) you basically re-train the dog basic commands at very low levels that are already known using pos methods. This is so the dog understands the meaning of the stim and your not just blasting for bad behavior


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Proper use of e collar requires motivational foundation which is basically clicker trained behaviour. Any method that doesn't involve positive reinforcement is decades old with or without an e collar. Besides, how could clicker training a cat be an argument against an e collar? People clicker train lions too... it doesn't mean e collars are somehow invalid tools.


Why yes, I've seen the Fred Hassen video of supposedly teaching a PUPPY that the ecollar means cookie coming. They cranked the collar up til the pup's neck muscles were spasming. I'm not sure he got the collar thing, but he was still interested in food. I think he would have gotten targeting much quicker without the interferance of the ecollar. Most of the dogs in my class get it very quickly, and that's without benefit of being worked by a so-called experienced dog trainer. That seems really stupid to me, to try to present the same tool as both aversive and reward marker. Why would you want to condition an aversive to mean something else? Too much work for me. I'd rather condition a neutral stimulus to mean "cookie coming" than fight through a negative stimulus that causes pain. And, I have no doubt at the level he was using the collar, the pup was uncomfortable. That said, I understand that is not how ecollars are generally used (just a stupid example given by an ecollar trainer). I have seen many ecollar videos where the working dogs were shut down and robotic - not exactly what I am looking for from a dog. What I don't understand is if you do the motivational foundation work, why do you really need to spend hundreds of dollars on a clumsey tool that can cause pain (or at least discomfort, if used conservatively)? I just don't see the sense in it for most purposes. At all. It seems that Hassen never fades the collar, either.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> Sounds like you trained backwards. You teach the dog the commands FIRST, use the e collar as long distance reenforcement (if needed). E collars aren't designed to be the primary training tool.>>>
> 
> I agree. really to properly use the ecollar (imo) you basically re-train the dog basic commands at very low levels that are already known using pos methods. This is so the dog understands the meaning of the stim and your not just blasting for bad behavior


So, your dog understands the cues (I don't do commands) from positive methods. Why bother with the ecollar?


----------



## Elliebell (Mar 13, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> It's called "Fading the Lure"


But a lure is not a clicker. Maybe this is a stupid question (and it's definitely off topic) but why would being 'clicker smart' ever be a problem? Isn't that just knowing what a click means? I've never needed to fade a clicker because it's just a marker. When the dog already knows what they're doing is right you don't need it anymore anyways because you can give a reward without using a clicker. That's different than an ecollar, because you can't give a shock without a collar but you can give a treat without a click.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

My dogs don't see any sort of reward until they do the behavior correctly so I have no need to fade a lure. I am never without reward because my dogs have been conditioned for praise and petting to be reinforcing enough for the vast majority of behaviors they know on cue. If I happen to have food or toys on me, that's great! If I don't, petting and "good dog" do suffice for something the dogs know well enough for me to expect them to do that behavior in the situation I placed them in.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Why yes, I've seen the Fred Hassen >>>>

Look up fred hassen on pro-ecollar or hunting forums. Lets just say he is a legend in his own mind but nowhere else.


So, your dog understands the cues (I don't do commands) >>>>

part of the diff in our training philosophy.


Why bother with the ecollar?>>>> I may or may not use the e-collar. depends on the dog and level of ob im striving for.


I think this is a good look at what it should look like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9a1j39ZxAM


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

I don't see anything in that video that couldn't be accomplished without an e-collar. In addition, the dog freaks out when asked to try something opposite of what it's been conditioned to do (side vs. heel), something that could be entirely avoided by leaving punishment, especially -R out of the equation. Jumping up at the handler's heels like that is a very very extreme stress signal, usually the last thing a dog does before completely shutting down. 

The dog was most likely punished for heeling on the right side before, so why in it's right mind should it willingly and happily go to that side? Just one of the fall-outs from using pain to train.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> Why yes, I've seen the Fred Hassen >>>>
> 
> Look up fred hassen on pro-ecollar or hunting forums. Lets just say he is a legend in his own mind but nowhere else.
> 
> ...



What level of obedience are you striving for? Higher than OTCH? Higher than a UD? Higher than a CDX? Higher than Rally EX? I've accomplished all of the above, without having to resort to an ecollar. We also have done/do sports which require a high degree of obedience/precision like herding and Musical Freestyle. A humane society pimping ecollars? How speshul. I see a stressed dog doing nothing that could not be just as well, or better trained, without the electricity. If the dog didn't have pretty good prey/play motivation, I'm sure he'd look much worse.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I'm not as accomplished as many, but I compete in several venues and do well. 

For me, 9/10ths of the fun is in being a partner to my dog. My dog is thrilled to train and works happily with me.

If I thought I had leveraged that feeling by scaring him, I would feel sick. It would take all of the joy out of it.

E-collars may have a place for some life-or-death behaviours, but I think that the collars should enter the equation as a very last resort.

There are people who feel differently, but very few of them are on this forum. Every forum has a culture. There are some that may be more helpful with e collar questions.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> What level of obedience are you striving for? Higher than OTCH? Higher than a UD? Higher than a CDX? Higher than Rally EX? I've accomplished all of the above, without having to resort to an ecollar. We also have done/do sports which require a high degree of obedience/precision like herding and Musical Freestyle. A humane society pimping ecollars? How speshul. I see a stressed dog doing nothing that could not be just as well, or better trained, without the electricity. If the dog didn't have pretty good prey/play motivation, I'm sure he'd look much worse.


This channel shows the level of obedience that can be obtained without using an e-collar, prong, choke, etc. All of these dogs have been trained using clickers, food, toys, play, etc. No aversives at all.

http://www.youtube.com/user/dfenzi?feature=watch


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Elliebell said:


> But a lure is not a clicker. Maybe this is a stupid question (and it's definitely off topic) but why would being 'clicker smart' ever be a problem? Isn't that just knowing what a click means? I've never needed to fade a clicker because it's just a marker. When the dog already knows what they're doing is right you don't need it anymore anyways because you can give a reward without using a clicker. That's different than an ecollar, because you can't give a shock without a collar but you can give a treat without a click.


Done correctly you'd fade and randomize both the clicker and the treat, it makes the reward that much better when it becomes random.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> What level of obedience are you striving for? Higher than OTCH? Higher than a UD? Higher than a CDX? Higher than Rally EX? I've accomplished all of the above, without having to resort to an ecollar. We also have done/do sports which require a high degree of obedience/precision like herding and Musical Freestyle. A humane society pimping ecollars? How speshul. I see a stressed dog doing nothing that could not be just as well, or better trained, without the electricity. If the dog didn't have pretty good prey/play motivation, I'm sure he'd look much worse.


You can train a dog to do tricks when fully engaged with you in a controlled environment? That's nice... I guess. I would certainly not use an e collar to train a dog to walk with me or sit in front of me (some do though, fine with me). When I need a recall or stay under highly tempting conditions over a long distance I'll use an e collar, long lines and food just don't cut it - dogs are intelligent opportunists, they quickly learn when they can (not) do things and get away with it. I need an enforcer stronger than a chicken, deer, squirrel, another person, another dog, etc. it's simple as that. I need some way to get their attention when they're heavily into something completely else. Now if some dog is really really food motivated then that's nice, no need for aversives, or if owner just doesn't care about dog chasing things or going off, that's also nice. I tell people that often it's much easier to just control the environment as much as possible, keep the dog leashed when there's trouble ahead. Also, e collar fluent dog is not super reliable either, at any given time he may blow you off so it's not something one can rely on - nothing is ever 100%.

People tell me there's no need for e collar, that's fine. I have a neighbour who tells me I'm a chimp for using these tools and "bribing" my dog with food, he barks at his dogs and they all listen - I say fine and just move on. I don't agree with Fred Hassen's SMS training, I think there's no need for such amount of pressure... I watched Ed Frawley's e collar DVD and I think he was really far too hard on dogs and rushed training but he trained hundreds of dogs and they walk out perfectly fine so who am I to say anything. I have my way of working with dogs and it works great. As for competition sports, I guess only mondio ring would actually require an e collar, ones like IPO and agility are very straightforward with precisely planned and controlled events. I don't see an e collar as a convenience but rather as a irreplaceable tool in some scenarios - I still use long lines and don't switch to e collar for stuff like remote sit, I don't find it needed. Some people want a reliable stay, I don't, but I often get people asking if their dog can down & stay in some unusual circumstances...

Edit: I do sometimes watch Fred's videos with intentionally misleading titles... it's often too hard not to click, I didn't see the one where his puppy is twitching (knowing his videos I'd think he'd edit out the ugly bits). I also follow Ed and his nice Leerburg site but mostly because of Michael Ellis, although I do like reading Ed's books and his ever growing opinions on things. I often don't agree with them but I pick up some good stuff there. They all sometimes or always use e collars in there training.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

There are people who feel differently, but very few of them are on this forum. Every forum has a culture. There are some that may be more helpful with e collar questions.>>>>

actually I have found this forum fairly balanced. I believe there was a poll that showed as much.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

What level of obedience are you striving for? Higher than OTCH? Higher than a UD? Higher than a CDX? Higher than Rally EX? I've accomplished all of the above,>>>

congratulations. every trainer is not you and every dog is not yours. I only argue that tools should be on the table even if rarely used. they all work, and sometimes one may be nec w some dogs in some situations. 

Of the aversives E-collars get the worst rap but the reality is that a good collar/trainer the dog is being worked at very low levels. 

I can get this same arguments from both sides such as "I have to fix the fallout from (insert philosophy here) constantly".

I often hear from the the "aversive" trainers that the pos movement has decreased the reliability seen in OB and is almost non existent in the highest levels of OB and fieldwork. (not saying its true, but it is said and said often)

Ex from a couple posts on another forum:" I compete and train agility at my own facility, You have no idea how many students I get that have dog reactive dogs. They turn to me because the pervasiveness of ONLY PP training that is used in most agility training centers is appalling. They have no idea how to deal with this issue except to stuff cookies in the dog's mouth,and like you have pointed out, it gets the owner no where, and frustrated."

"Had I listened
to 99.9% of the obedience people when they saw me in the ring with a beagle, I
would not have a UD let alone multiple UDX's and an OTCH. EVERYONE told me it
was not possible to train ANY beagle to a high level."

I personally believe that all training should start w marker training. aversives may or may not be layered on later. And lets not forget that aversives are sometimes used for management and may or may not be usefull for an individual dog. Ex I do believe that if a prong is used on a dog that pulls and it stops the pulling it is a good management tool. same can be said for a head halter.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> You can train a dog to do tricks when fully engaged with you in a controlled environment? That's nice... I guess. I would certainly not use an e collar to train a dog to walk with me or sit in front of me (some do though, fine with me). When I need a recall or stay under highly tempting conditions over a long distance I'll use an e collar, long lines and food just don't cut it - dogs are intelligent opportunists, they quickly learn when they can (not) do things and get away with it. I need an enforcer stronger than a chicken, deer, squirrel, another person, another dog, etc. it's simple as that. I need some way to get their attention when they're heavily into something completely else. Now if some dog is really really food motivated then that's nice, no need for aversives, or if owner just doesn't care about dog chasing things or going off, that's also nice. I tell people that often it's much easier to just control the environment as much as possible, keep the dog leashed when there's trouble ahead. Also, e collar fluent dog is not super reliable either, at any given time he may blow you off so it's not something one can rely on - nothing is ever 100%.
> .


LOL. That is the lovely thing about the dog you don't train to avoid aversives - they don't weigh it as an option. I can call my dogs off stock (very interesting) and running bunnies or cats (even more interesting). I can "down" a dog on the way to stock. I've had numerous dogs who could hold 8 minutes + of long stays (3 min. sit, 5 minute down, plus time to walk back and forth to the hiding place twice) in a ring with several other dogs in a busy show with me completely out of sight. Didn't need a long line, didn't need an ecollar. This is not unusual. It's just about training the dog. And I'll agree that ecollar trained dogs are not more reliable. I'd suggest that they are less reliable because they've been given the concept of avoidance. I do like your idea that what I train is all just "cute tricks". That's a funny one.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> LOL. That is the lovely thing about the dog you don't train to avoid aversives - they don't weigh it as an option. I can call my dogs off stock (very interesting) and running bunnies or cats (even more interesting). I can "down" a dog on the way to stock. I've had numerous dogs who could hold 8 minutes + of long stays (3 min. sit, 5 minute down, plus time to walk back and forth to the hiding place twice) in a ring with several other dogs in a busy show with me completely out of sight. Didn't need a long line, didn't need an ecollar. This is not unusual. It's just about training the dog.


That's fine with me. I pretty much expected this kind of reply - ie. "MY dogs speak 10 languages and calculate Pi in free time - problem? lol". You even go on to say that corrections make a less reliable dog. Avoidance is natural and integral part of life whether you like it or not, it doesn't *all* come from me - it happens all the time. 

But, do you have some videos showing nice recalls and some training done? I would definitely watch these. I'd really love to see a dog engage a pheasant and come mid chase with no e collar used in training. Chase a bunny and come... deer... or another dog. So far, all I've ever seen from no-aversive people is an epic achievement of a dog coming after being distracted by a patch of grass. I used an e collar to train a hunting lab to stop pheasant chase immediately, I'd love to do this with just food (no even long line??). I don't think it's impossible, just that I never managed to do it properly.

You know, by tricks I referred to obedience trials, most of them require dogs to perform tricks I don't feel are needed in real life. I didn't imply that you train circus dogs .


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

A humane society pimping ecollars? How speshul.>>>

someone rides big horses. and needs to come down. http://lessonsfromlayla.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/tribalism-in-dog-training-one-trainers-perspective/


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

This channel shows the level of obedience that can be obtained without using an e-collar, prong, choke, etc. All of these dogs have been trained using clickers, food, toys, play, etc. No aversives at all.

http://www.youtube.com/user/dfenzi?feature=watch>>>>>


cert I have no criticism of the training here. but the level dosent have me go WOW. Looks like me training my dog actually.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> A humane society pimping ecollars? How speshul.>>>
> 
> someone rides big horses. and needs to come down. http://lessonsfromlayla.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/tribalism-in-dog-training-one-trainers-perspective/


It's a discussion group. Learn to deal with it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> That's fine with me. I pretty much expected this kind of reply - ie. "MY dogs speak 10 languages and calculate Pi in free time - problem? lol". You even go on to say that corrections make a less reliable dog. Avoidance is natural and integral part of life whether you like it or not, it doesn't *all* come from me - it happens all the time.
> 
> But, do you have some videos showing nice recalls and some training done? I would definitely watch these. I'd really love to see a dog engage a pheasant and come mid chase with no e collar used in training. Chase a bunny and come... deer... or another dog. So far, all I've ever seen from no-aversive people is an epic achievement of a dog coming after being distracted by a patch of grass. I used an e collar to train a hunting lab to stop pheasant chase immediately, I'd love to do this with just food (no even long line??). I don't think it's impossible, just that I never managed to do it properly.
> 
> You know, by tricks I referred to obedience trials, most of them require dogs to perform tricks I don't feel are needed in real life. I didn't imply that you train circus dogs .


 
Well, in order to teach my dogs how to calculate Pi, I would have to understand the concept, Honestly, it's not rocket science to teach a dog circus tricks or real life skills without resorting to electricity. Somehow, when the bunnies are out, I just haven't had time to go get the video camera. The big secret of teaching a solid recall is you make it such a well rewarded habit that the dog doesn't take time to weigh options.
My personal experience is that "corrections" of an aversive nature (what is a correction anyway?) shoot you in the foot if you've worked to build a positive foundation. (which most "balanced" trainers seem to claim to have done) The dog has been working for reward, and suddenly you are giving cues and he's getting zapped, or gigged or whatever for a response that isn't quite as good as you would like. GREAT way to poison a cue. Great way to confuse the dog. He no longer can be sure if he's going to be reinforced or punished. Certainly all of us will at some time encounter something worth avoiding. I'd just prefer that in my dog training, that isn't me or my training method.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> This channel shows the level of obedience that can be obtained without using an e-collar, prong, choke, etc. All of these dogs have been trained using clickers, food, toys, play, etc. No aversives at all.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/dfenzi?feature=watch>>>>>
> 
> cert I have no criticism of the training here. but the level dosent have me go WOW. Looks like me training my dog actually.


Well, they are mostly training sessions. And how many OTCHs and UDs (or SchH titles) do your dogs have? When you've proven your dogs like she has, THEN I'll take your word that it isn't impressive.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

SassyCat said:


> I used an e collar to train a hunting lab to stop pheasant chase immediately, I'd love to do this with just food (no even long line??). I don't think it's impossible, just that I never managed to do it properly.
> .


not many people doing this at a high level w/o aversives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVB3...xt=C3c09dc3UDOEgsToPDskIt73U-bcE1FoIdKcOqbnVS


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> What level of obedience are you striving for? Higher than OTCH? Higher than a UD? Higher than a CDX? Higher than Rally EX? I've accomplished all of the above,>>>
> 
> congratulations. every trainer is not you and every dog is not yours. I only argue that tools should be on the table even if rarely used. they all work, and sometimes one may be nec w some dogs in some situations.
> 
> ...


Actually, most obedience competitiors (you know, the ones whose dogs are inconsistent and undependable) are trained with traditional or "balanced" methods. Most of the folks who use clicker (and don't add in the aversive stuff) get a little depressed, watching dogs trained and worked, their demeanor, their relationship with the handler. And most go on to more interesting pursuits where dog and handler can have a better time with each other, after a few titles. I know I can no longer bear to watch and train in obedience, to perfection. The attitudes of some people and what they are willing to do to get sport behaviors sometimes turns my stomach and leaves me in a funk for days. My days of OTCHs and National Rankings are probably past. I don't need to prove I can do it (Have already done so) and while, if I get another dog (the girls are old and Ray is lame) I'll probably get a CDX (maybe) and then hit the fun stuff. Odd that my methods work for my student dogs as well, (who frequently have owners who are new to any type of dog training (or have only used the old traditional methods.) So, no. It's not that I am a brilliant trainer with genius dogs. I just found the method which - used correctly - is more effective than the things I used to do. It's funny, but my experience (personal- not just quoting someone from another forum) is that aversives when the dog reacts just make dogs more reactive. However, in the past two weeks, I have a little dog who would scream non-stop if Alice was at the other end of the building, in a down, with her back turned. By pushing cookies, she is now able to glance at a dog (in much closer quarters - like 10 feet) and then back to her owner. Last week we had a new dog (big choc. lab) and a slight mishap where the owner accidently dropped the leash. Dog made a beeline for the little dog, who let out one sort of disinterested woof, and then turned back to her owner. Little dog handled it brilliantly. Aversives can certainly happen in real life. I'd just as soon they not intentionally come from me. Oh - and what kind of training is "PP"?


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Well, they are mostly training sessions. And how many OTCHs and UDs (or SchH titles) do your dogs have? When you've proven your dogs like she has, THEN I'll take your word that it isn't impressive.


Also.. the great majority of the first videos on her page are of her PUPPY (less than a year old). The older videos show dogs that are a few legs away from an OTCH. How many people can claim to have a dog with an OTCH or even close to an OTCH?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Edit: I do sometimes watch Fred's videos with intentionally misleading titles... it's often too hard not to click, I didn't see the one where his puppy is twitching (knowing his videos I'd think he'd edit out the ugly bits). I also follow Ed and his nice Leerburg site but mostly because of Michael Ellis, although I do like reading Ed's books and his ever growing opinions on things. I often don't agree with them but I pick up some good stuff there. They all sometimes or always use e collars in there training.


http://www.dogtrainingcollarsreview...electronic-dog-collar-be-used-like-a-clicker/


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> http://www.dogtrainingcollarsreview...electronic-dog-collar-be-used-like-a-clicker/


Okay Pawz-- I'll risk seeming stupid! What on earth was the point of that video? I can't understand why anyone would set up training that way. I don't get it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

trainingjunkie said:


> Okay Pawz-- I'll risk seeming stupid! What on earth was the point of that video? I can't understand why anyone would set up training that way. I don't get it.


Join the club. I also don't get the point. Sassy Cat said she hadn't been able to find it. I simply provided it. Perhaps she can explain how this is intelligent training. Or not.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> My personal experience is that "corrections" of an aversive nature (what is a correction anyway?) shoot you in the foot if you've worked to build a positive foundation. (which most "balanced" trainers seem to claim to have done) The dog has been working for reward, and suddenly you are giving cues and he's getting zapped, or gigged or whatever for a response that isn't quite as good as you would like. GREAT way to poison a cue. Great way to confuse the dog. He no longer can be sure if he's going to be reinforced or punished. Certainly all of us will at some time encounter something worth avoiding. I'd just prefer that in my dog training, that isn't me or my training method.


I get you - that's only fair to a dog, to follow simple concepts and routines he's already familiar with. It is absolutely unfair to whack dog with a hammer in mid training for not doing a (what is to him) a mundane exercise. You have had your dog do everything in a playful and fun manner and suddenly it stops being all fun - this is a shock indeed and confusing.

But, in my opinion: teaching concept of aversives to a dog is not easy, it is done gradually. As soon as you put a leash on a dog you are teaching it a completely new, *aversive* concept and he HAS to learn it or you can't walk him in the park. If you put a flat collar on your neck and have someone leash walk you in the park you'd of course realize how annoying it is - this is IMO a first aversive concept dog is put through. This is why in early stage of "positive" training I put a leash on a dog and get him used to pressure - I teach him what pulling back means, pulling down, up and on the side means. With completely "intact" dogs I break opposition reflex first thing by rewarding the dog for "giving" to pressure instead of opposing. So far dogs learned this very very fast and with no fuss whatsoever, dog's drive also remains intact. I just found this method to be very fast and effective. I train "loose walk" by using simple concepts I learned from Turid but I found that "pressure conditioning" work makes it even faster. Dog that's already well familiar with leash pressure easily learns e collar pressure.

On a side note, I forgot to mention one more common application of e collars: outing. In protection sports dog must out immediately, many times and with no enforcer. This is a major hassle without aversives. What usually happens is that dog bites, handler says "out" and dog chews some more because it knows nothing will happen, handler says "no" or "ah ah" and dog outs. What this dog learns that it can chew some more before it gets negative punishment cue ("no"). Depending on the mood, this dog will often give a few more bites before it outs. At some point aversive is added and dog will out immediately - of course, this dog would already be familiar with aversives from its handler. I have never done this myself but I love watching Schutzhund and dog that had no aversive has a lot of these deviations and it is often too late to introduce aversives since the dog has no concept of it. Also, behaviour enforced by an aversive is there to stay for a long time, after one stem you can get 50 clean reps which (I noticed) isn't the case when you use solely food or toys.

This is one of the reasons I could not harass my dogs only to get IPO points which means nothing to them. When doing tricks stops being all fun and becomes a must. If I would train any protection behaviour I'd prepare the dog for pressure - when I look at people's dogs disobeying over and over again I see miscommunication instead of a positive relationship, dog obviously doesn't put much importance into handler's commands simply because it was trained in a solely playful manner. If I never need pressure that's super awesome but I'd introduce it to the dog early on just in case. Oh and when I say aversive, this could also be just a mild flat collar jerk, not all dogs need prongs and e collars to get the point across at least as far as outing goes.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> http://www.dogtrainingcollarsreview...electronic-dog-collar-be-used-like-a-clicker/


Ok, I saw that long ago when it came out...It looks like a high drive Mal and an actual laboratory experiment has shown that they get less cortisol levels from an e collar than negative punishment. In short, they seem to tolerate electricity *a lot*. He didn't teach a dog anything there, but wanted to show how e collar is so awesome that this dog doesn't mind it at all, how he's perfectly fine with it. When applying common sense this defeats the purpose of an e collar so I'm not perfectly sure what he attempted there. I'm definitely not one of those to say how dogs actually love getting zapped and just can't wait for me to push those buttons. Levels used in 95% of the time are as annoying as flipping dog's ear but I don't feel the need to show people how I'm so awesome that my dog doesn't freak out even when I step on his paw.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

SassyCat said:


> Ok, I saw that long ago when it came out...It looks like a high drive Mal and an actual laboratory experiment has shown that they get less cortisol levels from an e collar than negative punishment. In short, they seem to tolerate electricity *a lot*. He didn't teach a dog anything there, but wanted to show how e collar is so awesome that this dog doesn't mind it at all, how he's perfectly fine with it. When applying common sense this defeats the purpose of an e collar so I'm not perfectly sure what he attempted there. I'm definitely not one of those to say how dogs actually love getting zapped and just can't wait for me to push those buttons. Levels used in 95% of the time are as annoying as flipping dog's ear but I don't feel the need to show people how I'm so awesome that my dog doesn't freak out even when I step on his paw.


I suppose all you say is what you've seen and heard and your reading of what's happening with e-collar work. I've had different experiences having been bit by a dog on an e-collar and seeing another dog actually attack the ground and a 3rd leap 5 or 6 ft up screaming. Yes these were dogs that I was working, I was the button pusher. Not dogs that I was just watching from a distance. 

This was with a Tri-Tronics collar late 60s that had only one setting (Fry-em) and once you pushed it the dogs got zapped. There was no adjustment on collar zapping back in the day. I'm betting the highest setting now is the same as the fry-em setting back in the day.

The good news is the dogs did get trained and actually finished their FCs *but this was last resort e-collar work only,* Other dogs I finished were done without e-collar work, but online people must understand (or not) that it's not just a walk in the park when used by people with no experience. Dogs can get damaged, I have seen dogs steadied to wing, shot, and kill not only blink birds but blink the whole bird field area.The fun is in the picking of the dogs. Most e-collar work back in the day was done by what we called "the week-end warriors" (shortcut trainers)

I pretty much stay out of the e-collar stuff because my replies are pretty much repetitive. Use it if you must but prepare for the consequences 

The OP now has a problem because once you use a heavy aversive what do you use next.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

This was with a Tri-Tronics collar late 60s that had only one setting (Fry-em) and once you pushed it the dogs got zapped.>>>

I remember these even in the late 80s. Prob a cheaper model - brutal.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I'm definitely not one of those to say how dogs actually love getting zapped >>>>

I guess anything can be classically conditioned. The only reason I can see anyone using a collar as a "clicker" would be maybe a def dog on very low levels or vibe.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

jiml said:


> This was with a Tri-Tronics collar late 60s that had only one setting (Fry-em) and once you pushed it the dogs got zapped.>>>
> 
> I remember these even in the late 80s. Prob a cheaper model - brutal.


No in the 60s Tri-Tronics was pretty much top of the line but I vaguely remember a 2 dog model they offered but I always thought one dog on a collar was sufficient and yes it was brutal. 

Those were the days that they advised be careful as an airplane's electronics overhead could cause collar to fry-em instead of the trainer. it was indeed a different world.

I don't advise not to use an e collar collar, (actually don't advise use of either) especially the collars nowadays as it's a much kinder electric world if the right settings are used and the dog fits the punishment. I just like to jump in once in a while to make sure the newbies fully understand the electric program. Some dogs have no problem with electric, it's the other dogs that pay the price.

Oh I do have a Tri-Tronics Model 70 with 5 settings about 10 yrs old, Been used on 1 dog.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Yes, e collar training and the device itself is radically different now than it was before. And you can condition the collar as a bridge or reward marker, which is IMO completely pointless as then you can't use it as an aversive any more. Some old school trainers tried to make some dogs appear less depressed by feeding them every time a prong was jerked, the prong became completely useless at the end no matter how hard they would jerk it - they effectively counter conditioned its intended effect.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> I get you - that's only fair to a dog, to follow simple concepts and routines he's already familiar with. It is absolutely unfair to whack dog with a hammer in mid training for not doing a (what is to him) a mundane exercise. You have had your dog do everything in a playful and fun manner and suddenly it stops being all fun - this is a shock indeed and confusing.
> 
> But, in my opinion: teaching concept of aversives to a dog is not easy, it is done gradually. As soon as you put a leash on a dog you are teaching it a completely new, *aversive* concept and he HAS to learn it or you can't walk him in the park. If you put a flat collar on your neck and have someone leash walk you in the park you'd of course realize how annoying it is - this is IMO a first aversive concept dog is put through. This is why in early stage of "positive" training I put a leash on a dog and get him used to pressure - I teach him what pulling back means, pulling down, up and on the side means. With completely "intact" dogs I break opposition reflex first thing by rewarding the dog for "giving" to pressure instead of opposing. So far dogs learned this very very fast and with no fuss whatsoever, dog's drive also remains intact. I just found this method to be very fast and effective. I train "loose walk" by using simple concepts I learned from Turid but I found that "pressure conditioning" work makes it even faster. Dog that's already well familiar with leash pressure easily learns e collar pressure.
> .


I do very similar Grisha Steward calls it "silky leash and it teaches the dog how to give to pressure instead of resist it. Question is, if you've done this foundation work, what do you need an ecollar for in ths situation? Or a prong, even? I don't recall Turid Rugaas at any time during the seminar I attended (or in any of her writings) suggesting that you need to escalate to a special training collar. Quite the opposite, actually.
.


SassyCat said:


> On a side note, I forgot to mention one more common application of e collars: outing. In protection sports dog must out immediately, many times and with no enforcer. This is a major hassle without aversives. What usually happens is that dog bites, handler says "out" and dog chews some more because it knows nothing will happen, handler says "no" or "ah ah" and dog outs. What this dog learns that it can chew some more before it gets negative punishment cue ("no"). Depending on the mood, this dog will often give a few more bites before it outs. At some point aversive is added and dog will out immediately - of course, this dog would already be familiar with aversives from its handler. I have never done this myself but I love watching Schutzhund and dog that had no aversive has a lot of these deviations and it is often too late to introduce aversives since the dog has no concept of it. Also, behaviour enforced by an aversive is there to stay for a long time, after one stem you can get 50 clean reps which (I noticed) isn't the case when you use solely food or toys.
> This is one of the reasons I could not harass my dogs only to get IPO points which means nothing to them. When doing tricks stops being all fun and becomes a must. If I would train any protection behaviour I'd prepare the dog for pressure - when I look at people's dogs disobeying over and over again I see miscommunication instead of a positive relationship, dog obviously doesn't put much importance into handler's commands simply because it was trained in a solely playful manner. If I never need pressure that's super awesome but I'd introduce it to the dog early on just in case. Oh and when I say aversive, this could also be just a mild flat collar jerk, not all dogs need prongs and e collars to get the point across at least as far as outing goes .



How is "no" a negative punishment cue? Honestly, when I was doing SchH (back in the late 80s-early 90s, so before I was introduced to clicker training and more modern techniques) even then we understood that we have the most powerful reenforcer - the dog's desire to bite - and we used that. When you want the dog to out, the helper freezes (no longer fun to fight with, and the dog lets go. When the dog lets go, you reward him with movement from the helper and the chance to rebite. The dog gets the idea and you start asking him to out sooner and wait for the rebite. In most SchH protection applications, the dog WILL get a chance to rebite, so your reinforcer is even present in trials. As to using soley food or toys - yup, that would be weaker. Because at that point in time, it's not what is reinforcing to the dog. If I asked Alice to come in for a cookie while she is moving cattle, even though she's VERY food and toy motivated in other situations. She would think me insane. The cattle are the motivation. If she does what I ask, she gets to work. If I paired working with a shock collar, I'm sure she'd still do what I ask, but without as much joy and confidence. I like joy and confidence.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I do very similar Grisha Steward calls it "silky leash and it teaches the dog how to give to pressure instead of resist it. Question is, if you've done this foundation work, what do you need an ecollar for in ths situation? Or a prong, even? I don't recall Turid Rugaas at any time during the seminar I attended (or in any of her writings) suggesting that you need to escalate to a special training collar. Quite the opposite, actually.


I never use prongs and don't use e collar for this (no need), I use flat collar. Turid strongly highlights an important bit which is to never jerk, pop or pull the leash while doing training - point of the training is lose leash and adding pressure only adds more tension. She didn't suggest the "leash conditioning" component probably to make it simpler. Having the dog properly leash conditioned beforehand makes it a lot faster. I googled for silky leash now and yeah that's exactly a proper leash conditioning. I do this before I go out and before I let the dog lunge/pull or something. With properly trained "silky leash" I can gently communicate through the leash without the opposition fuss, freaking out, tension etc. Leash is an aversive by definition (IMO) and does nothing good, but when dog is "leash fluent" it becomes a useful tool. E collar is essentially the same and conditioning is very similar.



Pawzk9 said:


> How is "no" a negative punishment cue? Honestly, when I was doing SchH (back in the late 80s-early 90s, so before I was introduced to clicker training and more modern techniques) even then we understood that we have the most powerful reenforcer - the dog's desire to bite - and we used that. When you want the dog to out, the helper freezes (no longer fun to fight with, and the dog lets go. When the dog lets go, you reward him with movement from the helper and the chance to rebite. The dog gets the idea and you start asking him to out sooner and wait for the rebite. In most SchH protection applications, the dog WILL get a chance to rebite, so your reinforcer is even present in trials. As to using soley food or toys - yup, that would be weaker. Because at that point in time, it's not what is reinforcing to the dog. If I asked Alice to come in for a cookie while she is moving cattle, even though she's VERY food and toy motivated in other situations. She would think me insane. The cattle are the motivation. If she does what I ask, she gets to work. If I paired working with a shock collar, I'm sure she'd still do what I ask, but without as much joy and confidence. I like joy and confidence.


Some people use "no", it could be "foo"... just a no-reward cue so the dog knows it screw up. Not sure how it was back then but today the best dogs are trained with food/clickers and very little pressure, they get so jacked up so what you get is a ultra motivated dog that bites like crazy but may end up with chewing/outing problems. When people don't condition an e collar early on they can't just throw it in, it's too late and problems that just a simple nick would solve become an obstacle. I can't find a video that specifically shows an outing problem but it happens, dog holds too long after the command... or it's far too jumpy, bitey and hectic. Some people further enforce this problem by pulling the dog away. Now to clarify, I never had this problem as I never trained any protection behaviour, it's just what I got from observation and seminars.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Leash is an aversive by definition (IMO) and does nothing good, but when dog is "leash fluent" it becomes a useful tool. E collar is essentially the same and conditioning is very similar..


I try to teach that the leash is a non issue. In general, a management tool. If your dog encounters something beyond his skills, you don't have a dog bolting across a busy street. I don't use the leash for training much (a few exceptions) but I recognize that even with a skilled trainer/skilled dog, the leash CAN get tight. In which case, I don't want the dog to see the leash as an aversive, but a cue to move into the leash. 



SassyCat said:


> Some people use "no", it could be "foo"... just a no-reward cue so the dog knows it screw up. Not sure how it was back then but today the best dogs are trained with food/clickers and very little pressure, they get so jacked up so what you get is a ultra motivated dog that bites like crazy but may end up with chewing/outing problems. When people don't condition an e collar early on they can't just throw it in, it's too late and problems that just a simple nick would solve become an obstacle. I can't find a video that specifically shows an outing problem but it happens, dog holds too long after the command... or it's far too jumpy, bitey and hectic. Some people further enforce this problem by pulling the dog away. Now to clarify, I never had this problem as I never trained any protection behaviour, it's just what I got from observation and seminars.


But even an ultra-motivated dog learns that when he's told to "out" the fun ends. And is rewarded by the fun starting again after he has complied. Granted it may take a bit longer to wait the dog out than to pop it or stim it.


----------



## james0225 (Apr 2, 2012)

Hi,

As a dog trainer with a pretty successful dog training school, I could attribute most of our success to not limiting ourselves to a few training methods; we are always searching and trying new methods to better serve our members and their canines. Having said that, we employ the use of remote training collars as well as clicker, food, praise, neg and positive reinforcements, in addition to others.

As far as remote training (e collar) goes, if employed correctly, for many it is far better than a dog or puppy pulling you down the block on a leash. Not all dogs res[pond to clicker training in the face of distraction ( however, I am sure many know this). We almost start all of our puppies off by means of clicker training. So, we believe it most certainly has its use.

I just wanted to touch base on your statement regarding the dog knowing when the collar is on and performing out of fear, this may be true, however, more often anti-remote collar trainers confuse fear with supervision. For example, many dogs, almost all....behavior far much better when a leash is attached, also, many children behave far much better when their parents are present, are they scared of their parents? In the private and public sector most workers work better when their bosses or supervisors are present, are they all scared of them? 

Performing or behaving better with a leash, remote training collar, a specific person, etc.... is not always fear based, but then again, we do not take red lights for the fear of bing issued a summonse (lol)

Wasn't trying to dispute your view, just attempting to sway it a little.

Thanks


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> As far as remote training (e collar) goes, if employed correctly,


I believe the above is what most people argue/debate about. (The employing correctly program)


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> How is "no" a negative punishment cue?


If "no" is marker tell the dog "you don't get it this time", then that is negative punishment. (Removing the reward in an effort to diminish the behavior)

If "no" means "give me something else" - then it might be debatable - is it denying the reward or simply "generic redirection"? Like during shaping, I'll look away from him - same thing, except a body cue. Is that negative punishment or "give me something else" (and I don't want to tell him what - I want him to figure it out) - and is there, behaviorally speaking, a difference?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> If "no" is marker tell the dog "you don't get it this time", then that is negative punishment. (Removing the reward in an effort to diminish the behavior)
> 
> If "no" means "give me something else" - then it might be debatable - is it denying the reward or simply "generic redirection"? Like during shaping, I'll look away from him - same thing, except a body cue. Is that negative punishment or "give me something else" (and I don't want to tell him what - I want him to figure it out) - and is there, behaviorally speaking, a difference?


yes, you are correct in this.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> yes, you are correct in this.


Nice to know I'm keeping it all straight in my head 

That's good since I love marker training and shaping LOL. Would be kinda bad if I get it mixed up


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

james0225 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Performing or behaving better with a leash, remote training collar, a specific person, etc.... is not always fear based, but then again, we do not take red lights for the fear of bing issued a summonse (lol)
> 
> ...


And many people still run red lights if they don't see a police car. You're not likley to sway my opinion much. E-collars are expensive and clumsy, and hard to fade. And I've never found the problem with my student dogs yet that can't be fixed by proper, positive reinforcement based training. Using the tools right is always the key. And I do believe that using tools which only are within one's training philosophy is important. My philosophy does not include the use of shock, discomfort or pain of any sort. Yours obviously does.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

wvasko said:


> I believe the above is what most people argue/debate about. (The employing correctly program)


 I wish I could agree with you on that, I've read a lot about them, and seen several threads on them in this forum....the debate seems to be about cruelty and aversive use. It seems that when e collars are mentioned the most common words I see associated are "cruel", "lazy", "pain" and in some cases "torture". I do think those words apply if used correctly, but it seems that the knee jerk response is that the can't be used correctly, or shouldn't be.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Greater Swiss said:


> I wish I could agree with you on that, I've read a lot about them, and seen several threads on them in this forum....the debate seems to be about cruelty and aversive use. It seems that when e collars are mentioned the most common words I see associated are "cruel", "lazy", "pain" and in some cases "torture". I do think those words apply if used correctly, but it seems that the knee jerk response is that the can't be used correctly, or shouldn't be.


Well I have stated at least 5 to 7 times that it can be a viscous program. Only problem is then the e-collar users will jump in and say if used properly there is no problem. Having used it and not ruined any dogs I have no argument with the correct dog read, that it can be used safely. 

But when you have people that are illiterate dog readers making the decision on dogs that can be damaged because of improper reading, strange not so good things can happen.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

I know I get considered a "cookie pusher" by some. But I do believe dogs are sentient beings to some point. I think they deserve respect and some level of self-direction, even though there are rules that need to be followed. I would much rather my dogs learn to control themselves than that I have to be controlling them constantly. I know dogs aren't children, but it is odd that things which would be considered child abuse are perfectly okay to do routinely to the family dog. I only know of one place that uses electric shock as discipline for children (adolescents) and that was so controversial I don't know if they still practice it. Personally, I don't want (or need) to train dogs with pain or even an annoyace thats worth avoiding. And too many people who are going to read about it here and think it's a good idea are going to go to their neighborhood pet boxstore and buy a cheap Petsafe collar and use it without instruction


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawz and wvasko I agree with you both. 
illiterate dog readers can cause a huge problem, and like you mention pawz, lots of people will read about them on a forum, or wherever and just strap on a cheapie and zap their dog into submission. Dogs are sentient, and have feelings, and can feel pain, they do deserve respect, but do need to learn rules. Treats can be the best way to go, though lots of people come on this forum and others asking about e collars and it always turns into a debate, mostly against, and understandably so. 

I made a point of reading tons on it, because I like learning about stuff, and I'm very interested in dog training methods, (at least intellectually for some, in practice for others), plus such a "hot topic" is something I like to get lots of information on so I can form an opinion on my own rather than just take the more common line that might be out there. I found it frustrating how much of the information on them was either "ban them they are evil" or "yeah, they're great I zapped my dog on 10 (on a 10 level collar) and he stopped jumping on me". 

Fact is that e collars exist, its unfortunate that there is very little information (on the net in general) on learning to use it aside from those two opinions. I did find a couple of sites that were on the "please don't use this to ruin your dog" side of things, and from what I learned there, its NOT an easy thing to do it "right", it is just as time consuming as clicker training, and has the added drawback of potentially ruining (and hurting!) a dog if the owner isn't good at reading him. The lack of information is almost as potentially damaging as the collars themselves, leaving lots of desperate people (who don't want to bother paying for a trainer) to just strap one on and zap away. If it were presented a little differently, as a long and difficult training program perhaps more people would say "wow, its WAY cheaper to just buy some treats and a clicker!". 

My general opinion is that it can be a decent tool, but treats will do most of the same thing with most dogs. The only use I could see myself having for one is being extra safety backup for that nightmare unforeseen that could break what seems to be perfect self control (I so hope for the day that Caeda gets that self control lol). Well, that's my rant, I've got to go bake more dog treats.....


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I know I get considered a "cookie pusher" by some.


It's a badge I happen to wear with confidence, and pride.

People can hurl all the epithets they want in my direction. Don't care. 

At the end of each day when I put my head on my pillow, I rest peacefully knowing that *MY DOG respects the choices I have made*. ... And *that's* all that matters to me.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I know I get considered a "cookie pusher" by some.


You know what I find interesting, yesterday on a different thread I mentioned use of aversives and through the years many times I then get the question what aversives and how to info. 

Some dogs could be smacked with a 2 by 4 vigorously on the head and the tails would be wagging during the beating of their heads, other dogs could be destroyed with a tad louder than normal talking word/command. Those are the variable extremes that aversive type trainers work with, this training advice/info is not stuff to spread online.

Now I personally have met/seen dogs ruined/hurt by incompetent aversive work, I've never run into a dog ruined/hurt by a cookie pusher.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I know I get considered a "cookie pusher" by some. But I do believe dogs are sentient beings to some point. I think they deserve respect and some level of self-direction, even though there are rules that need to be followed. I would much rather my dogs learn to control themselves than that I have to be controlling them constantly.


Completely agree.

I not only want Wally to learn to control himself, I expected it after a while, especially in mundane "see it every day" situations. He can be eager, excited, and wound up, just maintain composure enough to do what needs doing. Whether it's opening the door if I tell him to go to the basement and the door isn't wide open to sitting and waiting on the porch because "that's just what I do", or I say "arriba" in the middle of the hall and he knows which stairs he actually can go up - he does all these better if excited, but composure and initiative to "figure it out" and "get it done" as well.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Wvasko, why can't more people be as reasonable as you? Nothing but respect for you, even if I personally don't choose to employ the same methods as you do.


----------



## dustinshaw98 (Feb 22, 2012)

I agree! Good thinking. The effect of putting it on, even without using it, will train the dog.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Lindbert said:


> Wvasko, why can't more people be as reasonable as you? Nothing but respect for you, even if I personally don't choose to employ the same methods as you do.


Thank you, I don't think being reasonable has as much to do with it, as just stating what I've seen. While I am an aversive user I also add some cookie pushing to the mix.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Trust me, many of the "balanced" trainers I know IRL are quick to throw the hatchet down on me and say how damaging cookie pushing can be to dogs and how positive trainers are responsible for countless dogs being killed. It's refreshing for someone to think we're not all stupid hacks.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I know you realize you can meet fools anywhere, if you're not sure of their fool status just wait till they open their mouths. The good news is then you can walk away or shut your PC off etc. Bad news for them is they will still be fools and what's even worse is when they don't have a clue.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Lindbert said:


> Trust me, many of the "balanced" trainers I know IRL are quick to throw the hatchet down on me and say how damaging cookie pushing can be to dogs and how positive trainers are responsible for countless dogs being killed. It's refreshing for someone to think we're not all stupid hacks.



This brings up a question in my mind:

Why is it that so many can't just say that any method used wrong will create bad results more often than not? What is with "one side" only bringing up "worst case scenarios" (dog's getting killed with +R, people torturing dogs because they use -R or +P, etc) of the "other side", or if someone does something they don't personally agree with, it must be bad or flawed?

It doesn't make sense - but then again, "training method wars" never have to me. Just read the dog and act with fairness and humaneness. It's really not that hard, imo.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Cookie pusher :boink:ound:



pawzk9 said:


> i know i get considered a "cookie pusher" by some. But i do believe dogs are sentient beings to some point. I think they deserve respect and some level of self-direction, even though there are rules that need to be followed. I would much rather my dogs learn to control themselves than that i have to be controlling them constantly. I know dogs aren't children, but it is odd that things which would be considered child abuse are perfectly okay to do routinely to the family dog. I only know of one place that uses electric shock as discipline for children (adolescents) and that was so controversial i don't know if they still practice it. Personally, i don't want (or need) to train dogs with pain or even an annoyace thats worth avoiding. And too many people who are going to read about it here and think it's a good idea are going to go to their neighborhood pet boxstore and buy a cheap petsafe collar and use it without instruction


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

STUPID HACK. lol



Lindbert said:


> stupid hacks.



seriously, most "balanced trainers" I know that can get pissed at "cookie pushers" becauseof the resistance of some to move on if its not working (for whatever reason). Most will agree its the place to start and many times end.

although i dont always agree w all of you all the time (that would get boring) your time and knowledge is cert appreciated.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

jiml said:


> seriously, most "balanced trainers" I know that can get pissed at "cookie pushers" becauseof the resistance of some to move on if its not working (for whatever reason). Most will agree its the place to start and many times end.


If it doesn't work, is it the method, or perhaps a new way to explain it is in order?

Like if I'm shaping Wally, and he's confused - should I go to a training collar or come up with another way to "present" the situation to him so he can discover the answer/make progress quicker? I find that "tweaking the scenario" often leads to eventual success - but a "balanced trainer" might think I "need to move on".


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> Completely agree.
> 
> he does all these better if excited, but composure and initiative to "figure it out" and "get it done" as well.


If this was Goldilocks, I'd call this "just right" behavior. The dog is excited to do the cue but enough self control to still be paying attention. Well done!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dustinshaw98 said:


> I agree! Good thinking. The effect of putting it on, even without using it, will train the dog.


Eh? Without a quote, one can't be sure what "it" is, or what you agree with?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> You can train a dog to do tricks when fully engaged with you in a controlled environment? That's nice... I guess. I would certainly not use an e collar to train a dog to walk with me or sit in front of me (some do though, fine with me). When I need a recall or stay under highly tempting conditions over a long distance I'll use an e collar, long lines and food just don't cut it - dogs are intelligent opportunists, they quickly learn when they can (not) do things and get away with it. I need an enforcer stronger than a chicken, deer, squirrel, another person, another dog, etc. it's simple as that. I need some way to get their attention when they're heavily into something completely else. Now if some dog is really really food motivated then that's nice, no need for aversives, or if owner just doesn't care about dog chasing things or going off, that's also nice. I tell people that often it's much easier to just control the environment as much as possible, keep the dog leashed when there's trouble ahead. Also, e collar fluent dog is not super reliable either, at any given time he may blow you off so it's not something one can rely on - nothing is ever 100%.
> 
> People tell me there's no need for e collar, that's fine. I have a neighbour who tells me I'm a chimp for using these tools and "bribing" my dog with food, he barks at his dogs and they all listen - I say fine and just move on. I don't agree with Fred Hassen's SMS training, I think there's no need for such amount of pressure... I watched Ed Frawley's e collar DVD and I think he was really far too hard on dogs and rushed training but he trained hundreds of dogs and they walk out perfectly fine so who am I to say anything. I have my way of working with dogs and it works great. As for competition sports, I guess only mondio ring would actually require an e collar, ones like IPO and agility are very straightforward with precisely planned and controlled events. I don't see an e collar as a convenience but rather as a irreplaceable tool in some scenarios - I still use long lines and don't switch to e collar for stuff like remote sit, I don't find it needed. Some people want a reliable stay, I don't, but I often get people asking if their dog can down & stay in some unusual circumstances...
> 
> Edit: I do sometimes watch Fred's videos with intentionally misleading titles... it's often too hard not to click, I didn't see the one where his puppy is twitching (knowing his videos I'd think he'd edit out the ugly bits). I also follow Ed and his nice Leerburg site but mostly because of Michael Ellis, although I do like reading Ed's books and his ever growing opinions on things. I often don't agree with them but I pick up some good stuff there. They all sometimes or always use e collars in there training.


Well, I can do some nice things in environments that are somewhat controlled like obedience, rally and freestyle. I can also work livestock (and if you think sheep/cattle or ducks in an new environment being worked by dogs they don't know, are a controlled environment Well, good luck to you! I can also call my dogs off running rabbits or cats.(which is not a sport, unless I'm not there, and then my dogs think they are sighthounds and it's bye bye Thumper, and I don't mind it all that much) My dogs can do a go-out and remote sit without long lines OR Ecollars. My dog can stay in a line up of other dogs (some that break and go visiting) for 3 minutes on a sit, and 5 minutes on a down. What can you do with an ecollar that I can't do without one?


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> What can you do with an ecollar that I can't do without one


Far greater level of control. E collar offers an illusion of a invisible leash. I know lots of people who tell me their dogs are 100% obedient and under control off leash but they all fail a lot more often than they care to admit. Dogs aren't robots, we can't program them to respond 100%. You said that your dogs don't weight options... I doubt that. Dogs think and sooner or later they'll make a decision or few that we don't like which could be a fatal decision. I rarely go out in the woods without an e collar on, I may not use it for months but it's there. Dogs *die* all the time in woods and e collar could prevent that. Fact is, sooner or later you'll have a scenario you didn't predict, a stressor that will override the value of most expensive cookie you can have in your pocket. Not only that but eventually dog may at any given time decide to blow you off simply because it *can*. You can't train a human to respond 100% let alone a dog but at least you can catch up to a human and stop him, not something you can do with a dog that runs 30 mph. A dog will eventually challenge our false belief that we have things under control and he'll win that challenge for sure - some dogs less some more. Another fact of the matter is that not all dogs are super motivated with food, maybe if I devote years of training in a controlled environment I could create somewhat of a reflex - but only to teach something that he'll learn with an e collar within a month with no fuss about it whatsoever.

By the way I train remote sit without an e collar as I already said, I never needed it for that. I first do it by just increasing my distance but I also use a long line to train a long distance sit and dog figures it out very quickly. Long line prevents failure and speeds up training (for me). I don't think long line is abusive to the dog or an e collar for that matter. I do use both long line and e collar in recall training because I prevent failure which speeds up things and makes the dog e collar fluent. Only a small degree of physical control is enough, I don't need to fry the dog or put him on a prong.

But this doesn't even matter - I'm not an advocate of e collars or promoter of any sort, I'm not getting paid to do this. I'm sure there are experts out there who would give much better arguments than what I've put down in this thread. I don't have a vision of better future where all dogs have e collars on them and wouldn't want to leave such impression but when bunk arguments are used against them I'll step in where I can. In fact, to people who are about to get a dog I recommend books from Ian Dunbar, I don't ever tell them to go buy e collars. I've read one of his books (after puppy) and think it was very good. I listen to his seminars online and still I'm sticking to my electric collars. And he's certainly not the only cookie pusher I follow. But when people do ask me about e collars I won't tell them that only incompetent and stupid people use them (obviously, since I use them). I will instead provide some constructive pros and cons so they can think if they really need that for them and their dog. Most people decide they don't need them and that's not because they would have to "electrocute" the dog.

But to think that only incompetent trainers would use e collars is close minded inside-the-box way of thinking. Just because *I personally* never used something it doesn't mean that its existence is pointless or evil. This is unfortunately how some established behaviourists, veterinarians and trainers think and they are very vocal about it. They believe that we, the public are not capable to decide how we're to train our dogs and that their methods should be only acceptable methods. These aren't cookie pushers, these are cookie Nazis. Some very successful and well know trainers that do use e collars are not so vocal because they stick to what they do best - train dogs.

And so far no one has said anything negative about cookie pushers.... at least from what I remember. Here's a smiley so I don't look so serious :flypig: !


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Some very successful and well know trainers that do use e collars are not so vocal because they stick to what they do best - train dogs.


Those that can, train. Those that can't, talk. Whatever methods used.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

SassyCat said:


> Dogs aren't robots, we can't program them to respond 100%.


Applies to every training method ever.



SassyCat said:


> You said that your dogs don't weight options... I doubt that.


Of course they weigh options. The whole point of operant conditioning is to use reinforcement and punishment to increase the chances of the dog choosing a desired option instead of an undesired one. Wally sees a squirrel. He can break and give chase or stay and heel and look at me for "permission". Based on how we've worked in the past, looking at me is more likely to get him what he wants than just breaking position. So he weighs the options and looks at me. Sometimes I'll let him chase if it's safe, otherwise, he gets praised for looking at me and we keep moving. 



SassyCat said:


> Fact is, sooner or later you'll have a scenario you didn't predict, a stressor that will override the value of most expensive cookie you can have in your pocket.


If the success of a command is based on how stinky/attractive my pocket is, then that's a command that's not learned. That's not a fault of using +R techniques, that's a fault on me.



SassyCat said:


> Not only that but eventually dog may at any given time decide to blow you off simply because it *can*.


Yet, he doesn't. I walk Wally off-leash 85% of the time, he "can" always blow me off. But he doesn't. He follows my instructions, is focused on me, never knows what I'm going to do next - maybe spontaneous start a game, let him chase something, maybe shaping, etc. All those fun things happen with him staying by my side. 

Even if something goes down, just like the other day another dog got away from his owner. I stopped moving - which puts him in a sit. He didn't move away from me, even with the other dog trying to entice him to play. He could have blown me off, and that was a heck of a distraction. Yet he just stayed there, looking up at me an waiting for what we're going to do next. 



SassyCat said:


> Another fact of the matter is that not all dogs are super motivated with food, maybe if I devote years of training in a controlled environment I could create somewhat of a reflex - but only to teach something that he'll learn with an e collar within a month with no fuss about it whatsoever.


Well, then use something he is motivated by. Find a/the motivator and use it. All positive reinforcement does not have to be by food. Wally is a HIGHLY food motivated dog and I don't always use food because he's motivated by other things (play, praise, interaction, etc). When he was very fearful, he wouldn't be motivated by food either (no appetite when scared) so the motivator? Getting away from scary stuff. I used it. You want to get away, sit and look at me. Good. Let's go this way. So now when scared, he developed communications instead of just trying to bolt.

I've used Dora on TV as a motivator. I don't care what it is, if I can mark the behavior and deliver the reward quickly, I'll use it. People talk about tools in toolboxes - I think this applies to motivators as well.

Speed really doesn't draw me. After spending 2 1/2 years working on his fear issues day after day seeing him try his best each time, patience is not something I'm short on with him. Training via shaping, patience is a high requirement, but it also means he can start picking things up quicker and quicker as he gets more experience and now that he trusts the process and loves going through it - he picks things up quickly. Wally can learn something in a month. Heck, in a month, in some cases there's been, literally, hundreds of repetitions and sessions, done in fast pace to keep him engaged and excited and made into games, etc. Heck, some things he had learned already - it was the cue that was confusing him. It's why I have Spanish words as cues, he immediately made connections and I just ran with it.



SassyCat said:


> I don't think long line is abusive to the dog or an e collar for that matter. I do use both long line and e collar in recall training because I prevent failure which speeds up things and makes the dog e collar fluent. Only a small degree of physical control is enough, I don't need to fry the dog or put him on a prong.


No training method, performed humanely and with clear, concise consequences of behavior, is abusive.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

KBLover said:


> If the success of a command is based on how stinky/attractive my pocket is, then that's a command that's not learned. That's not a fault of using +R techniques, that's a fault on me.


I agree, it's not the fault of +R techniques.


KBLover said:


> I walk Wally off-leash 85% of the time, he "can" always blow me off. *But he doesn't.*


Some dogs won't, some I guarantee it will. It depends on prey drive and his character overall.


KBLover said:


> He follows my instructions, *is focused on me*, never knows what I'm going to do next - maybe spontaneous start a game, let him chase something, maybe shaping, etc. All those fun things happen with him staying by my side.


I'll quote myself from another thread (also an e collar one):


SassyCat said:


> One of the important steps is teaching your dog the actual idea of coming while he's *focused at something else*


There are times where I don't want my dog to be velcroed to me (stick close by). It's easy to have a dog perform a task while he's engaged with me.

Now don't take me wrong, I understand your arguments. In my daily walks I've got two labs (black and yellow), one badger dog mix, one collie mix and one cute but unholy mix of god knows what. My black lab is a high drive, highly motivated dog. Unless I'm actively engaged with him he'll wander off and find other ways to vent his endless energy. No matter how much I work with him he'll have extra energy. I like this because if he needs to find a bird, a shroom or a toy he'll find it no matter how long it takes. An extremely fun dog. He doesn't have bad days, he's in drive whenever you need him to be. Other dogs are never more than 20 meters away from me, they don't dig don't fight and rarely chase anything, pretty much just stick around and walk with the pack. And I don't need an e collar on the yellow mellow lab because he just follows me and is not interested in chasing a deer for 45 minutes - he's like "this looks tiring, I'll pass". When I'm done working with my black lab (I am only human after all) I let him run about and on occasion throw him the ball just to keep him within 300 meters - he *never* stops running. You see I don't want him glued to me because I know he doesn't want it either and no cookie in the world can provide the freedom that he needs. I hope this puts things in some better perspective. I wrote this rather quickly but hope it makes sense.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Far greater level of control. :flypig: !


Somehow I doubt that. Ecollar trained dogs are controlled by a collar. My dogs have self control and very good response to cues. I would never expect my dogs to be 100% (Shoot, I'm far from 100% myself. I'd give them about a 95% which is probably better than an ecollar trained dog who doesn't happen to be wearing that collar. Nobody said that only stupid and incompetent people use them. I just don't see any reason why I would want to use them - especially for obedience or sport training, and generally not for real life skills that are easy to get with other methods.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> I doubt that. Dogs think and sooner or later they'll make a decision or few that we don't like which could be a fatal decision.<snip> Fact is, sooner or later you'll have a scenario you didn't predict, a stressor that will override the value of most expensive cookie you can have in your pocket. Not only that but eventually dog may at any given time decide to blow you off simply because it *can*. You can't train a human to respond 100% let alone a dog but at least you can catch up to a human and stop him, not something you can do with a dog that runs 30 mph. A dog will eventually challenge our false belief that we have things under control and he'll win that challenge for sure - some dogs less some more. Another fact of the matter is that not all dogs are super motivated with food, maybe if I devote years of training in a controlled environment I could create somewhat of a reflex - but only to teach something that he'll learn with an e collar within a month with no fuss about it whatsoever.
> !


Perhaps I shouldn't have said that my dogs don't weigh options. But my options seem to usually be better. When I ask for a recall, though, I don't want my dog to stop and weigh options. I want that response to be a well built habit that the dog no longer has to think about doing - even with mighty distractions. I don't for instance, walk my dogs along highways without a leash. However a good recall did stop one young dog from going into a busy street when I didn't get the leash attached correctly and she was free to approach traffic. I can also call my dogs off a fleeing bunny - no cookie or clicker needed. It's called training.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

SassyCat said:


> I'll quote myself from another thread (also an e collar one):


Yeah, and he can recall while focused on something else. We've also worked on him using the distraction as an environmental cue to see what we're going to do about it (he looks at something then looks to me for what he/we are to do about it). He can also maintain position while looking at another distraction (say a dog is playing on the field while we're walking on the sidewalk past it - he can look at the dog playing and keep walking with me). I don't care about him looking at stuff, and if he wants to stop and sniff - he has his communication - he looks up at me - his signal that he wants to stop and sniff, and usually I let him, reinforcing the signal. He can come from long distance (like you, I don't keep him constantly velcroed to me and work on things that carry him out away from me. If he's exploring around, he's "checking in" (glancing around to find me once in a while). If he's out on a task, he's doing it - like when I have him find his ball in the grass. I'll say "donde esta pelota?" and he'll go trying to find it, involved in the task.

Or when I'm feeling really evil - I'll just stick something out there in a pouch that has some food he loves and he doesn't know it's out there. I'll just up and say "find it!" and he doesn't know what "it" is. But he has to go out and find "it". The object is familiar to him (so he knows it when he sees it), he just doesn't know what object he's trying to find and why (in this case, he has to then figure out how to get the food out, and then bring me the object). I can't imagine trying to teach this with -R techniques. 

Part of that was showing him that I LIKE when he goes out to solve a problem or even just to explore. I've marked him just walking 5 feet from me and sniffing. Then 5 became 10, 20, 50, etc. We also work from distance, also helping him feel confident in that situation (and I'll walk the whole field to give him a "cookie" if that's what it takes - and have done that when working on long distance cues).

I've also done "long distance shaping" where what he needs to do is about 30 feet from me. It's not that he can perform only near me. He just likes being around me, but I can send him out to go around a light pole and he'll happily dart around it, and he loves to do it.

As far as cookies and freedom - the "cookies" aren't doing anything except being the reward. What he grasps and understand is what I mark. (Either reward marker or no-reward marker). The treat/cookie, or lack of, is just the payoff, what's learned is what was marked. As he developed more skills, he was able to have more freedom because his self-control and mastery of the needed commands for direction, etc. 

Being a fearful dog, he didn't want to venture far from me, but I wanted him to go out and explore and sniff and all of that and then eventually do stuff out there. No, cookies themselves didn't "give him freedom' but the constant rewarding continued to show that not only do I "approve" of it, it also built his confidence. I also want him looking, interpreting the environment, taking cues from it to tell him the needed behavior. "The environment is information" - that kind of mindset. We're working on it in the house first, of course, but that's the ultimate goal I want from him.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> E collar trained dogs are controlled by a collar.


While _being_ trained, yes.


Pawzk9 said:


> I can also call my dogs off a fleeing bunny - no cookie or clicker needed. It's called training.


You imply that a e collar fluent dog is untrained. I can recall my dogs without e collars on, clicker or cookies as well. We can debate on whether or not one needs an e collar but it is a indisputable fact that you can successfully train a dog with an e collar. Most people take off their e collars after few months of not using it, I plan on doing this after I don't need to use it even once for 6 months in a row - if it takes years for this then so be it.

I also disagree that not using an e collar in training gives better training results - it's the opposite from what I observed. Basically from what I understand it is your opinion that a good trainer should not need an e collar to train good. I have to politely disagree. Not because I consider myself a good trainer (in fact I think you're a lot better trainer with your exp) but due to the fact that many good trainers do use e collars. This is why I see _control_ as something that I have and you don't even after I take off the e collar.

When a dog is stemmed with an e collar it's not true that he doesn't learn anything or that he only learns what to avoid. Or that he is punished for something that he doesn't understand yet. If that would be true training a dog with an e collar would be impossible. Yes one can get unwanted avoidance but only if one didn't even bother to read the basic instruction manual, such people shouldn't even have a dog to begin with.

@KBLover 
That was a very constructive post, I'm very familiar with those techniques... except the pole thing , that's very creative. I've also dealt with few fearful dogs and learned a lot from them.
When I compared cookies vs. freedom I meant that we may not have a high enough motivator to deserve dog's attention. Sometimes even a ball won't work with the most jacked up hunting dogs. A mere level 1 nick in a timely manner makes whatever competes with us less desirable. We do compete against external stressors so value of the food we use does matter, ie. just like regular kibble just won't cut it for many dogs liver won't work with some other. But I agree with everything you said.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> You imply that a e collar fluent dog is untrained. I can recall my dogs without e collars on, clicker or cookies as well. We can debate on whether or not one needs an e collar but it is a indisputable fact that you can successfully train a dog with an e collar. Most people take off their e collars after few months of not using it, I plan on doing this after I don't need to use it even once for 6 months in a row - if it takes years for this then so be it.


I have said before in 50 yrs I probably have only used an e-collar on 10 dogs at the most (memory fails me) each dog for only one problem. Assorted problems but only one problem for each dog. After the initial dummy collar break-in and at most another 2 months of e-collar frying the collar did not have to be used again.

Admittedly most work done by the older one power collar which was much harder on the dog.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Dogs *die* all the time in woods and e collar could prevent that. Fact is, sooner or later you'll have a scenario you didn't predict, a stressor that will override the value of most expensive cookie you can have in your pocket. Not only that but eventually dog may at any given time decide to blow you off simply because it *can*. You can't train a human to respond 100% let alone a dog but at least you can catch up to a human and stop him, not something you can do with a dog that runs 30 mph. A dog will eventually challenge our false belief that we have things under control and he'll win that challenge for sure - some dogs less some more.


This is why I do think e collars can be an incredibly useful tool (if the dog is trained properly to it), and a really good final safety. Caeda has (though very rarely now) bolted very hard, and has pulled me off my feet and almost got the leash out of my hand. I won't let her off leash near the highway, but there is the possibility that she could get off leash against my wishes! I'm not the only dog owner with a drivey strong dog like that. 


SassyCat said:


> Yes one can get unwanted avoidance but only if one didn't even bother to read the basic instruction manual, such people shouldn't even have a dog to begin with.


 Unfortunately lots of people who shouldn't have dogs do.... and more unfortunately its those people that tend to max an e collar and fry their dogs. No matter how you look at it, an e collar can be a far more damaging training tool than a flat collar and a leash (and of course treats!), but it doesn't have to be. 
Let me just clarify, that doesn't mean I don't think that treats and toys are the best way to go, or to at very least teach most things. 

So, here's a question for everybody who is reading this thread.....How many of you have strapped an e collar on yourself? 
I mean the newer ones with over 100 levels. I have done it, I wanted to know what it was about. I didn't feel it until it was about level 14, and it felt like a tens machine....at level 20 it felt like a tens machine with none of that goop (hurt a tiny bit). I admit I chickened out at 30 after a solid 20 mins of zapping myself at increasing levels. Yeah, it can hurt, but it has to be turned up a bit. I also tried one with 10 or 16 levels.... level one hurt, level two made ME squeal. It was a collar an acquaintance had, I begged her to get rid of it....if I had touched that collar first I would have been convinced that e collars were 100% evil torture devices. As it is the first one keeps it in my mind that its not out of the question. When it comes down to it, I've got to say, it hurts a heck of a lot less, and for a shorter time than getting beat up a speeding truck does (yes, I know this from experience, and still hurt years later).


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> My dogs can do a go-out and remote sit without long lines OR Ecollars. My dog can stay in a line up of other dogs (some that break and go visiting) for 3 minutes on a sit, and 5 minutes on a down. What can you do with an ecollar that I can't do without one?


guess everyone is not you

how about this?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> While _being_ trained, yes.
> 
> You imply that a e collar fluent dog is untrained. .


There are a number of people who never wean a dog off the ecollar. 



SassyCat said:


> This is why I see _control_ as something that I have and you don't even after I take off the e collar.


My goal is not to have to "control" my dogs with tools (even a clicker and treat) but to have my dogs understand and enjoy responding to my cues. I want my dogs able to control themselves. That said, having never seen my dogs, I wonder how you think you're control is better than mine? I can, after all take a dog into a fun place to explore and have that adventurous and active dog check in regularly and respond to a recall without an ecollar. Apparently you aren't to that point yet. But as long as you have an ecollar, you are in control.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

jiml said:


> guess everyone is not you
> 
> how about this?


Did I miss something ?
I didn't see any behaviour there, that couldn't be accomplished with a simple flat collar.
Maybe if the trainer showed the progressive steps he took to get to that point, but as it stands I'm not convinced that an e collar is absolutely mandatory in order to achieve that.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I can, after all take a dog into a fun place to explore and have that adventurous and active dog check in regularly and respond to a recall without an ecollar. Apparently you aren't to that point yet. But as long as you have an ecollar, you are in control.>>>>

I do the same. And THIS DOG always wears her e collar on off leash hikes. she also regularly checks back recalls very well ect. I rarly if ever use the collar at this point but is more for piece of mind. I am not saying every dog or owner needs one. But they are a useful tool and can be used as humanly as any other aversive. now if you can meet all your goals w/o one (or any other aversive for that matter) and dont need that "piece of mind" thats certainly fine by me.


by the way their is virtually no retrievers at the highest levels working w no e collar training.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Greater Swiss said:


> So, here's a question for everybody who is reading this thread.....How many of you have strapped an e collar on yourself?
> I mean the newer ones with over 100 levels. I have done it, I wanted to know what it was about. I didn't feel it until it was about level 14, and it felt like a tens machine....at level 20 it felt like a tens machine with none of that goop (hurt a tiny bit). I admit I chickened out at 30 after a solid 20 mins of zapping myself at increasing levels. Yeah, it can hurt, but it has to be turned up a bit. .


I have strapped one on myself and tried it - but never done that to a dog (I volunteered) If you can't feel it, why would you respond to it? It has to be unpleasant to the dog to some degree to get a response. As to a TENS unit - I know people who find it pleasant and people who find even low levels uncomfortable and even painful. My dog can't tell me how it feels to him. Especially if he is standing barefoot on wet grass and is a fine conductor. That's not to say you can't train with them. You just can't train the kind of willing, thinking dog that I want with them.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> I do the same. And THIS DOG always wears her e collar on off leash hikes. she also regularly checks back recalls very well ect. I rarly if ever use the collar at this point but is more for piece of mind. I am not saying every dog or owner needs one. But they are a useful tool and can be used as humanly as any other aversive. now if you can meet all your goals w/o one (or any other aversive for that matte) rand dont need that "piece of mind" thats certainly fine by me..


I guess this is one example of not weaning the dog off the e-collar




jiml said:


> By the way their is virtually no retrievers at the highest levels working w no e collar training.


All that means is that they don't have the imagination or training skills (or impetus) to do so. When something works for people, it's the rare visionary who even thinks about change.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I guess this is one example of not weaning the dog off the e-collar>>

no she behaves exactly the same w/o one. - such a nice respectful one you are LOL


We get it if anyone uses aversives then they cant train, dont have the imagination, lack vision, have non thinking robots and just dont measure up to your standards.:der:


my training philosophy is similar to this which makes me all of the above im sure


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> My goal is not to have to "control" my dogs with tools (even a clicker and treat) but to have my dogs understand and enjoy responding to my cues. I want my dogs able to control themselves. That said, having never seen my dogs, I wonder how you think you're control is better than mine? I can, after all take a dog into a fun place to explore and have that adventurous and active dog check in regularly and respond to a recall without an ecollar. Apparently you aren't to that point yet. But as long as you have an ecollar, you are in control.


Fair enough. My goal is to have control of my dogs without tools. Now, you think my dogs don't enjoy responding to my cues? Not true; I don't have to compromise dog's emotional state in order to use an e collar. There's no emotional fallout with modern tools and modern techniques.

You're right, I haven't seen your dogs but you already said that you have a 95% level of response, probably just a honest random guestimate but still... An e collar _trained_ dog should have a fail few times a year at worst which is better than 95%. This is granted with proper use of the tool even after it's off. This is because you can always create a consequence within 2 seconds, you can be *extremely* consistent thanks to the tool. But, let's say you do have that "level of obedience" - that's awesome but it doesn't make e collars evil, abusive, invalid, painful, unprofessional or less effective.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

jiml said:


> by the way their is virtually no retrievers at the highest levels working w no e collar training.


Which means there is at least one. Which, in turn, proves it can be done. So, is an e collar truly a matter of neccessity ? or ... strictly a matter of convenience ?

Methinks the latter.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> My dog can't tell me how it feels to him. Especially if he is standing barefoot on wet grass and is a fine conductor.


Floor isn't involved with the e collar in any way, skin on the dog's neck between the pins is the only conductor. There are many body language cues we use to tell how it feels to the dog (itchy ear, an eye flick, look on the ground etc). Some dogs don't give any cue on lower levels so you can do some leash conditioning, drop the leash and start lowering the stim until the dog stops responding (because at that point it can't feel the stim).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Fair enough. My goal is to have control of my dogs without tools. Now, you think my dogs don't enjoy responding to my cues? Not true; I don't have to compromise dog's emotional state in order to use an e collar. There's no emotional fallout with modern tools and modern techniques.
> 
> You're right, I haven't seen your dogs but you already said that you have a 95% level of response, probably just a honest random guestimate but still... An e collar _trained_ dog should have a fail few times a year at worst which is better than 95%. This is granted with proper use of the tool even after it's off. This is because you can always create a consequence within 2 seconds, you can be *extremely* consistent thanks to the tool. But, let's say you do have that "level of obedience" - that's awesome but it doesn't make e collars evil, abusive, invalid, painful, unprofessional or less effective.


A 95% level of response is a guesstimate. I don't assume any dog is 100%. I know I am not. So I never assume my dogs will never make a mistake. But I do what I can to make my dogs understand what is being asked and to be joyfully successful in complying. I never said e collars are "evil". I just don't see the situation in which I'd need one on any of my dogs or my students' dogs. There are so many other options that don't require avoidance.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> Floor isn't involved with the e collar in any way, skin on the dog's neck between the pins is the only conductor. There are many body language cues we use to tell how it feels to the dog (itchy ear, an eye flick, look on the ground etc). Some dogs don't give any cue on lower levels so you can do some leash conditioning, drop the leash and start lowering the stim until the dog stops responding (because at that point it can't feel the stim).


Conductivity can always be an issue with electricity, and some dogs can be very stoic.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> While _being_ trained, yes.
> 
> This is why I see _control_ as something that I have and you don't even after I take off the e collar..




Well, apparently you haven't gotten to that point yet in some situations. I don't really WANT to have to control my dogs all the time. SELF-control is what I am aiming for. (and sometimes deeply ingrained, frequently rewarded habit) I want a working (and sometimes equal) partner, not a slave or a robot or a tool. 



SassyCat said:


> When a dog is stemmed with an e collar it's not true that he doesn't learn anything or that he only learns what to avoid. Or that he is punished for something that he doesn't understand yet. If that would be true training a dog with an e collar would be impossible. Yes one can get unwanted avoidance but only if one didn't even bother to read the basic instruction manual, such people shouldn't even have a dog to begin with...


Negative Reinforcement and Positive Punishment (the only things an ecollar can give) are based on learning avoidance. Dogs can certainly learn with those quadrants. It's just something I choose not to rely on. It's also something I can respect a person more for if they can admit the foundation of their method. I prefer someone who can admit that their chosen method may be painful and has to be at least annoying to the dog in order to change behavior.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Negative Reinforcement and Positive Punishment (the only things an ecollar can give) are based on learning avoidance. Dogs can certainly learn with those quadrants. It's just something I choose not to rely on. It's also something I can respect a person more for if they can admit the foundation of their method. I prefer someone who can admit that their chosen method may be painful and has to be at least annoying to the dog in order to change behavior.


Welcome to my world.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

petpeeve said:


> Which means there is at least one. Which, in turn, proves it can be done. So, is an e collar truly a matter of neccessity ? or ... strictly a matter of convenience ?
> 
> Methinks the latter.


I don't think anybody ever said an e collar is a matter of necessity, just another method/tool, and not just one used for convenience (which I read to mean out of laziness). Though yes, I'm sure its far more convenient/faster in some cases. If you want to argue the convenience of it as the final tool to try to help train a dog to recall and stay safe in some situations that could become dangerous. If someone needs/wants to use an e collar, so be it, far more convenient than having that one time your dog doesn't listen end in a horrid trip to the vet with a dog that has been hit by a car because it was off leash (either intentionally or not). Awfully convenient. 



jiml said:


> my training philosophy is similar to this which makes me all of the above im sure


For those of you who haven't watched this video, perhaps thinking its e collar propaganda/advertising, seriously give it a chance, he doesn't even mention corrections until 20 minutes in, and when he does he first talks about how it can screw things up, and suggests "non reinforcement" (no pressure or correction) instead. Very educational for reinforcement marker training. I'm sure he gets into corrections, but at the moment I'm 30 mins in with slow internet buffering and he hasn't mentioned aversives or e collar use in any detail.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

petpeeve said:


> Which means there is at least one. Which, in turn, proves it can be done. So, is an e collar truly a matter of neccessity ? or ... strictly a matter of convenience ?
> 
> Methinks the latter.


actually I was told there are none but I wont go that far as Im unsure if thats truelly the case. I guess all retriever trainers are lazy. check Ill add that one to the list


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

jiml said:


> actually I was told there are none but I wont go that far as Im unsure if thats truelly the case. I guess all retriever trainers are lazy. check Ill add that one to the list


 I don't if lazy is the word for it. .. but I think it's become part of the culture. Any retriever trainer who doesn't use an e-collar (or at least pretends to) is ridiculed and bullied. I know I've heard of competition-level retrievers who were trained without an e-collar or any heavy aversives, so it can be done. If someone wants to and is tough enough to resist the peer pressure.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I prefer someone who can admit that their chosen method may be painful and has to be at least annoying to the dog in order to change behavior.>>>

I agree here. you wont hear me saying prongs or ecollars or even gentle leaders are force free. I take exception when all is viewed as torture.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Negative Reinforcement and Positive Punishment (the only things an ecollar can give) are based on learning avoidance. Dogs can certainly learn with those quadrants. It's just something I choose not to rely on. It's also something I can respect a person more for if they can admit the foundation of their method. I prefer someone who can admit that their chosen method may be painful and has to be at least annoying to the dog in order to change behavior.


I used the word "aversive" in this and other threads about 300 times to describe common use of the tool. I thought this was obvious.

Aversive:


> Unconditioned aversive stimuli naturally result in pain or discomfort and are often associated with biologically harmful or damaging substances or events.


You tend to use the word pain. E collars on their own are *not* painful. People have used them on fearful golden retrievers that defecate when you shout at them. Therefore I can't say that e collars are painful. If you max it out and stem the dog, yes, it would be very painful (I did it on myself and yes it hurted).

Discomforting or annoying? Yes, when you nick the dog with an e collar, startle him with vibrator or jerk him with a leash pop he's not enjoying it. All methods of e collar training involve discomfort on the dog's part. Dog will naturally want to avoid or escape it.

I never denied that e collar training methods are aversive.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Actually, most obedience competitiors (you know, the ones whose dogs are inconsistent and undependable) are trained with traditional or "balanced" methods. Most of the folks who use clicker (and don't add in the aversive stuff) get a little depressed, watching dogs trained and worked, their demeanor, their relationship with the handler. And most go on to more interesting pursuits where dog and handler can have a better time with each other, after a few titles. I know I can no longer bear to watch and train in obedience, to perfection. The attitudes of some people and what they are willing to do to get sport behaviors sometimes turns my stomach and leaves me in a funk for days. My days of OTCHs and National Rankings are probably past. I don't need to prove I can do it (Have already done so) and while, if I get another dog (the girls are old and Ray is lame) I'll probably get a CDX (maybe) and then hit the fun stuff. Odd that my methods work for my student dogs as well, (who frequently have owners who are new to any type of dog training (or have only used the old traditional methods.) So, no. It's not that I am a brilliant trainer with genius dogs. I just found the method which - used correctly - is more effective than the things I used to do. It's funny, but my experience (personal- not just quoting someone from another forum) is that aversives when the dog reacts just make dogs more reactive. However, in the past two weeks, I have a little dog who would scream non-stop if Alice was at the other end of the building, in a down, with her back turned. By pushing cookies, she is now able to glance at a dog (in much closer quarters - like 10 feet) and then back to her owner. Last week we had a new dog (big choc. lab) and a slight mishap where the owner accidently dropped the leash. Dog made a beeline for the little dog, who let out one sort of disinterested woof, and then turned back to her owner. Little dog handled it brilliantly. Aversives can certainly happen in real life. I'd just as soon they not intentionally come from me. Oh - and what kind of training is "PP"?


I had just read this as was counting my use of word "aversive". PP I think is "pure positive" (well not really since it involves negative punishment) - training that doesn't involve aversives. I'm not sure if you did but if you did use a prong collar long ago, well e collar is not like it at all. A prong can't be used on any dog while electric one can due to its precise sensitivity and consistency.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> I had just read this as was counting my use of word "aversive". PP I think is "pure positive" (well not really since it involves negative punishment) - training that doesn't involve aversives. I'm not sure if you did but if you did use a prong collar long ago, well e collar is not like it at all. A prong can't be used on any dog while electric one can due to its precise sensitivity and consistency.


I did, back in the 80s use a prong. I frequently mentally apologize to my dogs who are gone now who were willing to work with me, whatever method I used and deserved better.


----------

