# Controversial subject: Use of Electronic Collars



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

I am hoping this thread will be an open discussion of a topic that can be heated with some people (both pro and con!). The topic can be emotional and I hope we can discuss as knowledge seeking and sharing as opposed to emotion based responses.

I do use an electronic training collar on my dog(s). I usually introduce the collar when the dog is over a year old. That introduction is usually for either barking (in the truck at training) or for that adolescent dog that that has suddenly "forgotten" all they have learned and blows off a recall. 

After they have been introduced to the collar, they where one whenever we train or do anything. The collar may not even be turned on and the remote may not be with me. It is just part of their "outfit" like a fursaver or flat leather collar. 

My collars have different stimulus levels (most do these days). For correction IN training the level is only as high as needed and that is dependent on the dog's drive. Usually the drive is different and lower in Obedience routine training so the level of stim is lower. In protection (in my chosen sport) the collar is again used for obedience but at a higher level as the dog is in higher drive (usually) and less likely to even hear the command cue. 

ALWAYS the dog is given the option of obedience for a reward without correction as the first rule of training.

A good many trainers also use the e collar stim at a very low level to increase the dog's drive and desire to work (I know.. seems counter-intuitive). They will "tap tap tap" and then reward hugely so that eventually the collar actually increases the dog's intensity and focus because the tap tap means "An absolutely AWESOME reward coming." 

Some people also do this with a pinch collar.. tug tug tug and then reward so the "correction" doesn't really correct but brings the dog up HIGHER. I am not very good at this aspect of training but will give it a brief go on my young dog. Very quickly I will see if it works or not and abandon it if it doesn't work. 

VERY IMPORTANT is to NEVER "fry the dog" or use the collar out of anger or frustration or on a dog that does not know what is being asked. E collar fails are usually the result of using them on a dog that does NOT really know what is being asked and how to correctly respond OR being improperly introduced to a dog for the first time. 

LAST: * Electronic collars are NOT for every dog or every handler.* I know of a very high drive dog that does not need an electronic collar because the dog is so high in pack drive (but still powerful on the training and trial field). I know of another dog that doesn't even blink at the highest level of stim (this dog should be a Police Dog and is not really a good sport dog and the dog is a female.. very good dog and unusual). 

That is my take.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

I'm curious what sort of response you expect here that is different from what has already been said in your punishment thread (http://www.dogforums.com/dog-training-forum/493858-little-discussion-about-positive.html) and the lengthy discussion in the off-lead / on-lead dog discussion (http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/495002-off-leash-dog-vs.html)? Or do you just want an audience for your opinions?


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

No. Not at all. 
Electronic collars and their use is (perhaps) interesting as its own topic. 

IOW's when to use/not use. How to use appropriately and so forth. This is a specific tool about which there are many thoughts and ideas. I am not trying to (nor do I want to) sell the use of e collars to anyone at all. In fact, a lot of people get them and use them quite wrong to the disadvantage of the dog. Saying just "Don't use" conveys no knowledge. Saying "use them" also conveys no knowledge. Certainly if you were discussing clicker techniques you would go more in depth than just saying "use treats." 

I use an electronic collar but that does not mean you should. Perhaps there are ways I could be more effective in its use and perhaps there are ways I could use something different to get a better or more reliable result. 

In some countries E Collars are illegal and in some both E Collars AND pinches are illegal. How do people in those places train without these tools when they have a very high drive dog? What are they doing that does not turn into an obvious crutch (like a long line on a super driven dog in the back transport). 

I am always willing to learn a new way to do something. I already have and use a lot of those things. I want to train the dog to a high level of competition in a high drive sport and have the dog work out to roughly "4 years to train, 4 years to trial and 4 years retired." 

I am open to new ideas. 

Also, E Collars are NOT just training collars in the traditional sense. They are also used to quiet barking and to contain dogs in "invisible fences." I have opinions on those things but more thoughts and discussion besides my own should give greater knowledge and insight through open discussion. Might change my mind. Might not. 

There are some really good trainers on this forum (whether I always agree or not). I like to intellectualize. 

That is it. What more can we all learn.


----------



## backedbarley (Jul 25, 2017)

3GSD4IPO said:


> No. Not at all.
> Electronic collars and their use is (perhaps) interesting as its own topic.
> 
> IOW's when to use/not use. How to use appropriately and so forth. This is a specific tool about which there are many thoughts and ideas. I am not trying to (nor do I want to) sell the use of e collars to anyone at all. In fact, a lot of people get them and use them quite wrong to the disadvantage of the dog. Saying just "Don't use" conveys no knowledge. Saying "use them" also conveys no knowledge. Certainly if you were discussing clicker techniques you would go more in depth than just saying "use treats."
> ...


I use on one on my dogs all the time when I have them off leash. Vary rarely have to actually shock them with it on and if I do it's on the lowest setting it can be on to where they still feel the shock as a just in case they don't listen and try to take off after a animal. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

I do likewise for hiking alone in the woods.

Here is something sort of "creepy." At the bottom of the thread there is advertising.. and it is for electronic collars. NOT THE MESSAGE I INTENDED! :nono:


----------



## backedbarley (Jul 25, 2017)

3GSD4IPO said:


> I do likewise for hiking alone in the woods.
> 
> Here is something sort of "creepy." At the bottom of the thread there is advertising.. and it is for electronic collars. NOT THE MESSAGE I INTENDED! :nono:


Haha. And that's the only way I will have my dogs off leash I with a shock collar cause I have had one of my dogs take off after a rabbit before luckily it was super early in the morning and the dog came back. But I don't trust that during the day she would come back so I keep one on them when off leash. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bentwings (Mar 30, 2015)

I have to tell how I was introduced to collars many years ago. Back then they were not as adjustable as they are now. 

There were two or three fixed adjustments, Low med and high. These were adjustable in about three levels each too. But they were fixed or mechanically adjusted. Three button controls.

The trainer set it up like a school class...except the rule was he would explain only once, you were expected to understand on a one time lesson. Then we each assembled the e collar system for use on our dogs as we felt they might need. The trainer already had his.....only one power level...max. It was almost like today’s stun gun.

Then rule two, the trainer has us put his collar on our leg! Oh oh! He said if we used the collar incorrectly or used as a weapon for misbehavior on our dogs, he would “ correct” us. Some people got really upset and stomped off the field after getting “ juiced”. Those of us that survived got a pretty good understanding of how these work and how to use them very quickly. My comment was, after getting up off the ground, if my calculus instructor had had the transmitter in school I would have learned the subject in weeks that took 4+ years. LOL 

I know this is a touchy subject but I’m glad the OP posted this. He has posted some good thoughts on training and espically on the very high drive dogs. I’ll follow along and only comment sparingly. 

I currently don’t use one as I’m not competing anymore. I think properly used they are better than prongs or chains. Use it guide the dog to correct action not punish the dog.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Ok I'll bite. I do appreciate a more intellectual discussion and am not here for the echo chamber effect where naysayers say NAY. I do flat out disagree with the uses mentioned here, but that's just my training methodology and ethics.

Here are a few odds and ends that stick out for me. 

-This was not addressed directly enough. E-collars have the potential to increase anxiety, reactivity, and aggression. They can flat out ruin a dog. "Can" doesn't mean "will." But paired with the below point, it truly makes for a discouraging picture...

-MOST people are using it wrong. It's all fine and dandy if the tool is used to redirect a dog, acts as a secondary reinforcer, or a harmless prompt for attention. I do agree that it isn't a bad sensation on certain dogs, on the right dog and used in a positive way. However, all the so-called "good" e-collar trainers have this huge list of very particular things you need to do or not do to use the tool "correctly". Yet they sell these devices right off the shelves to consumers who don't even understand basic learning theory. If I teach a person reinforcement-based training and their knowledge is a little lacking, or their timing is a bit off, they usually still get some good results and there really is no harm from the methods. So my first complaint is this is a tool that is widely marketed, commonly used, and hard to "correctly" use. I think dog training should be fun and easy for all parties involved. I invite children to participate in my classes. A tool that has a running list of potential red flags does not make it accessible for the common pet owning population.

-Not only are the unintended consequences of improper use negative, but they can be downright dangerous. People have inadvertently used e-collars to erase bite inhibition. In fact, a few weeks ago when I was involved in the discussion on the other thread about training techniques, I closed DF and went onto Facebook... And right in front was a post from a woman who needed stitches at the hospital because a dog owner INVITED the woman to pet their dog who was sitting. The woman did not know that the owner was stimming the dog the entire time. So the dog went from sitting to delivering a level 4 bite (my opinion based on the photos) out of the blue. (My FB is not inundated with dog-things, btw. And in fact it is rare for me to see any dog posts on my page). This is one out of many examples. 

-I find it redundant. For a dog that is amped up by, or responds to, touch (like my Dutch, who loves it when I slap him around quite hard), I would rather teach a dog to respond to MY touch. For a dog that would blow off verbal but respond to the stim as a prompt, I would teach a dog to respond to an audial cue before it would be at that distance. For a dog that knows the stim as a marker or secondary reinforcer, I would use my voice or other audial signal instead. I've heard "but what about dogs with super high prey drive who 'don't hear you' when you call them?" and I find that by going back to square one and, without using aversive tools, teaching impulse control games... and especially impulse control games centered around prey drive (tug, fetch, flirt pole)... you can teach a dog to "hear" you. It's called the process of learning. Most people go through Acquisition and Fluency and use aversive tools so they don't REALLY need to work on Generalization. Then, the e-collar stays on for Maintenance. With dogs who are harder to motivate, I think owners should control more motivators and the dog should get very few things for free. And let's say, you have a dog who doesn't respond to verbal cues when on a chase so you 'correctly' used an e-collar. The stim is low, the dog has learned to like the collar, and the stim prompts the dog out of chasing and has it come back to you.Happy dog.... Okay, so in theory you could pair a verbal cue with the stim and teach a dog to respond to verbal, then fade the stim. But somehow e-collar users don't do it that way and the dog is always on the collar. All of this suggests to me, that the e-collar is used IN LIEU of going through a well though out training plan to build impulse control. 
So for the examples listed, barking in the truck... Not-reacting has not been generalized in the truck. For blowing off cues during adolescence... Dogs' brains are changing during this time. Things in the environment become more motivating and they no longer feel the need to cling to their person for safety. When the environment becomes more motivating, I become more motivating, I use stricter management, or I lower my expectations and restructure my training plan. Using an aversive tool during this time is indicative of the owner unwilling to work through it using positive means, not that positive means are ineffective. 

Here's how I trained my Dutch to be VERY calm in vehicles. He is very quick to react, and I could see him being the kind of dog that paces in the back seat, snapping at wind, whining and barking at stimuli. When he was a puppy he rode in a draped crate. Then, an undraped crate. I would NEVER let him out unless he offered a down. If he was standing I would stand outside the car and wait for him to lie down, only then would I open the car door. If he got up, I would shut the car door again. No cues given. He only got out of the car if he chose to maintain in a down until I said otherwise. So, his default behavior for vehicles is to lie down and be calm. When I removed the crate, the behavior was still there. When I put him into a different vehicle, the behavior was still there. He chooses to stand sometimes when I leave him in the vehicle. I don't care if he ends up barking at passerbyers, but at 1 year old he has not. I also did (and still do, as I am aware he has not reached his adult mentality yet) plenty of CC/DS games with people and all sorts of stimuli as we go many places. I know that dogs don't generalize well, but I think the consistency and intensity that I applied to this training is helping him generalize quicker. But.... Who wants to do all these things, right? 

I know my Dutch is a Dutch and I am aware that he innately has a high desire to please and work with me. However, I have seen positive techniques and very reasonable amounts of management used to successfully train many different kinds of dogs. There was a very textbook Husky in my shelter who then took a class when she was adopted. In the shelter, she refused all but raw chicken. Not even hotdogs were appealing to her. And even raw chicken was just 'okay' to her. She was an escape artist and could clear 6' fences with ease. She was a chicken killer. She acted like she'd never been on a leash before. In class... Here was this husky doing amazing recalls (on a long line), outside, surrounded by dogs, for treats and a chance to play tug. Sure, she didn't appreciate the repetition that the shepherd/X enjoyed. My rottie/retriever is very environmentally motivated and when I used to use aversive tools (prong collar. But I would have used an e-collar if someone had put it in my hands instead) I struggled with recall. His recall is amazing and has been for many years now. I have many other stories. For better or for worse, I have a large and diverse population to work with. But point being, I have never met a dog who I thought was untrainable, unmanageable, or unsafe enough that an e-collar (or other aversive tool) would be needed.

So at the end of the day, I think Ian Dunbar said it best: "To use shock as an effective dog training method you will need: A thorough understanding of canine behaviour. A thorough understanding of learning theory. Impeccable timing. And if you have those three things, you don't need a shock collar."

ETA. My last reason for not liking them and this is personal... I am lazy. I like simple. I don't want to carry around something with batteries. My equation for training is to quickly get to needing as few things as possible when I take my dogs out. My dogs can hike naked, no leash, no harness or line, and I am not worried at all (roads, deer, other dogs, people, traps on public land, blind turns, etc.), even without treats in my pocket. Honestly, I am more worried about a hunter accidentally shooting my dogs than I am of my dogs doing something bad. If I want to train, it's so much easier to carry some snacks in my pocket. I don't need to fumble for it because by the time I reach for them my dogs have ALREADY performed the desired behavior.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I agree with everything you said but also:

Lazy. I am LAZY. I find it a much more efficient use of my time to train what I want and give the dog a treat than to play 'whack a mole' trying to get rid of undesirable behaviors. Maybe my dogs are exceptionally intelligent (or exceptionally stupid) but if I try to teach my dogs NOT to do something... well, they'll stop doing that, but they'll run through 9 billion other related behaviors that I also don't want. 

So 'don't jump on people' becomes 'what if I stand up and hover in front of them but don't touch them?' 'what if I jump UP at their faces but also don't touch them?' 'what if I spin in circles in front of them?' 'what if I sit up and beg' 'what if I demand bark at them?' 'what if I lick them?' 'what if I climb convenient things so I can get in their face?'

WHY WOULD I GO THROUGH THAT WHEN I CAN HAVE THE DOG SIT ITS BUTT DOWN TO SAY HI? 

They're problem solvers. I don't want to give them a problem around lack of clarity about what I want and, yeah, I'm dealing with herders (and a boston) but I really *don't* find that once they know what I want and that what I want gets them what they want that they keep doing this nonsense. When don't do 'a' leaves the rest of the alphabet open? We're going to go through it and I don't generally have the energy for that. Not when I want a particular finished behavior and am not actively choosing to shape something.

Also yes: I regularly hike and walk my dogs off leash and live in the woods. Being called off deer and rabbits is a regular occurrence. That said, recall on dogs inclined to hunt is one of the only uses for an e-collar I don't find objectionable. 3 of 5 of mine all but came hardwired with recalls. One took more time and work. The other one is deaf so falls into a weird place where yeah she recalls at any indication you want her but in her youth used that e-collar so she could feel I wanted her and t that took training - these days is old so just sticks close. 

But I think recall has more genetic/drive components than most dog training. Ie: what you've got as far as biddability and handler focus versus environment focus and which is stronger can be played with by the trainer - and influenced by quite a bit. But it can't be entirely flipped and if you have a dog where environmental focus or prey drive RADICALLY outweigh handler focus and biddability getting into a position where you can let the dog off leash safely outside a fence without using a remote collar is... questionable, at best.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Canyx, thank you for your lengthy and clear response. 

I am in total agreement with the average dog owner not understanding this device and using it wrong. Average dog owner with a low drive pet dog probably is better off just using a leash, crate and treats. 

Recently I read about a toddler being bitten in the face because the dog was stim'd next to the toddler. Neither dog nor owner understood the collar. dogs with no understanding who get stim'd at the wrong time typically associate the stim with something in the environment they are next to and NOT with their behavior. That is HUGE HUGE HUGE. 

A case in point. I knew someone who had a dog that did not have the highest regard for being part of a pack or team with a human. This person wanted the dog to be reliable off leash so slapped an (older style) e collar on the dog. Walking down a back road the person called the dog and stim'd the dog for not responding. At that moment the dog happened to be walking past a road kill squirrel (not sniffing or engaging with said dead squirrel). The owner told me that this dog (who did not immediately come after the stim) had a REAL aversion to any dead squirrels in the road giving the WIDE berth that lasted forever. While that is fairly harmless and sort of funny, what is NOT funny is the results from amateur use. 

I am re-reading your response Canyx. Some of what you are saying is VERY true (lack of generalization for one) in my sport (IPO). Part of that has to do with lack of available fields and trainers to better generalize behavior in the dogs. I think your response is spot on for most pet dog owners and most pet dogs. 

Where I think it may come apart is in a sport where there is large intensity and greater drive such as bite work in the protection sports (Ring, Mondio and IPO as well as police work). There was a site hosted by Donn Yarnall (deceased) that discussed drives in detail. It is no longer up since the owner passed away. That site gave a true three dimensional picture of dogs that is rare to find today. So much to be learned there but it is gone.  I thought I knew something about dogs and training them and then I got into these sports and learned how little I know and that is ongoing. 

I thought I was near the top of the mountain. Nope.. I was on a low ledge and I have a view of dogs and the mountain is still there and I am still climbing it. 

A dog with real drive intensity that is IN DRIVE may need to learn to listen. Remember, when a dog is engaged in Ring, Mondio OR IPO that dog thinks the fight with the decoy is for real while everyone else knows it is not. So, a dog in a real fight is not much on listening and the e collar can help. I would say that most pet owners are not in these sports and so, as you note, e collar is not truly appropriate. On the flip side (and this is where it can get dicey) is that almost everyone that does get into these sports comes from a pet dog owning background or training in other dog sports (such as AKC obedience) and they think they know. 

Another frustrating aside is the number of people in these sports and training in these sports who "think they know" and they do not. They cannot tell defense drive from prey drive and stim dogs wrongly (as a small example) and they can end up using a LOT of force. I thank my stars for the first (weak) dog and the first world class training helper (truly) who simply loves dogs and will train anything from my dog to the best police K9's out there. 

Last, dogs are very different. Malinois and Dutchies have quite a lot of nerve mixed in with their drives. They tend to be a good bit handler sensitive so often one correction (if even needed) is not needed again. Malinois like to bite more than other breeds and that desire and drive carries them through and the good ones are less nervy. German Shepherds work a little differently and are perhaps a bit more hard headed.. with most that are truly handler sensitive not being up for these sports because they do not have enough power in the protection phase. 

I like Bentwings story of using the e collar on the handler. Yes to that!!!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I... 

think I need to point out to you that dogs in sports that don't involve bite sports work in drive all the time - so do dogs who actually work. 

I don't know IPO. I do recognize that the drives are involved are different.

But listening in drive is not unique to IPO or mondo. 

You ever been to a flyball tournament? Or agility trial? Because those dogs are hair trigger sensitive to handler instruction (usually) and input, and working in EXTREMELY high drive. 

That said, theoretically possible does not mean practical - you're not going to have human or animal injury if the dog *doesn't* listen (well, much, I've been hurt by dogs in agility but it's a very different thing). You absolutely can get serious injury to others in bitework and herding. E-collar to insure safety and because one failure can be catastrophic does make sense to me.

But let's not put too big an umbrella there: Dogs CAN and DO listen in drive all the time. HIGH, high, extremely high drive and without any background history of punishment at all. If the dogs 'ears are turning off' because they're in drive, then you've failed at teaching the dog to think in drive and if that's the case you've had a training failure - regardless of method.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

CptJack said:


> I...
> 
> think I need to point out to you that dogs in sports that don't involve bite sports work in drive all the time - so do dogs who actually work.
> 
> ...


Yes they do. I was actually thinking about this in agility. I have a dog that is fast and agile but has insufficient pack drive for agility. Totally insufficient. I could show her but _might_ need electronics to get her to pay me any mind when in drive and this would reduce her drive and her speed as a result. 

I read of one very successful agility trainer forcing pack drive on a dog by simply tying her to themselves. Dog could do nothing without the handler and handler could do nothing without the dog OR the dog was crated. It sounded miserable for everyone (I guess it works?). I also understood that it had to be repeated to keep it. Seems a lot of unhappy to force pack drive. 

Of course, the issue with this same dog is she is very clever and would very quickly realize that the collar was off in a trial and then directions would be blown off. She is pretty insensitive to the other member on the team unless there is something in it for her. And the culture of agility would never tolerate a dog with an e collar so it is off the table. 

I think that successful agility dogs DO listen but I think they also WANT to listen because they are biddable (pack drive) and sensitive enough to not want to make a mistake. They are also in a _different_ drive from fight drive or defense drive (would you say agility dogs are working in high prey drive? But they are chasing nothing... What would you call the drive they are working in?). 

Just from the type of dog I see in agility doing well I would say an e collar would be a bad fit for most of the dogs in that sport. I suspect the same in Fly Ball but I am guessing as I know nothing about fly ball. 

Working Police Patrol dogs are usually trained with an e collar on. Working dogs who do not engage with suspects (bite work) I am not sure. I see Labrador Retrievers doing scent detection and I expect no e collar is used. SAR dogs also not so much. Herding? It depends on the dog and the shepherd. I have never seen an e collar used on a Border Collie (too nervy and soft to the handler) or a tending breed for tending. Of course in herding genetics do most of the work. 

Hounds hunting is another story.. and trash breaking etc. I have never seen e collars used on fox Hounds but I have not watched this recently or ridden to hounds in years. Maybe now they do?


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

CptJack said:


> That said, recall on dogs inclined to hunt is one of the only uses for an e-collar I don't find objectionable.


Whereas I still find the use objectionable (or at least questionable), personally speaking, I would say that this particular scenario is one in which chances of fallout are low. MUCH less room for unintended associations compared to using it to stop dogs from running up to other dogs or people.

I am going to shrug my shoulders at the whole bite sports thing. Fact is, there ARE people (very few, to my limited understanding) who are successfully competing in the sport who are not using aversive tools. I have no reason to believe their dogs are softer or lesser in any way. I think the potential for training differently is there, but not yet widely accepted. And in fact, your statement says it all: 



3GSD4IPO said:


> Some of what you are saying is VERY true (lack of generalization for one) in my sport (IPO). Part of that has to do with lack of available fields and trainers to better generalize behavior in the dogs. I think your response is spot on for most pet dog owners and most pet dogs.


I do appreciate the honest evaluation of your sport, by the way. But what this says to me, is the sport is designed to set dogs up for punishment. I totally understand what "lack of" means in the dog world, and it is the reason why people look for shortcuts, and why ringsports are virtually exclusively dominated by people of a particular socioeconomic status (ie, those who have the time, money, and means to participate). What I am trying to say is, I strongly believe the reason why corrections and aversive tools are widely used in certain realms of dog training/sports and not others, has nothing to do with the dogs themselves but the CULTURE that surrounds those activities. 

Bentwing's story was very interesting. And who wouldn't call that "abuse" today? It is the reason why even e-collars and e-collar training have evolved. And in fact, if the way things have been, and the way things are, were the only successful ways to do things, there wouldn't be people (successfully!) trying alternatives today. I'm not questioning the fact that the way things are (and all types of positive punishment to some degree) DOES work (in some ways). But there are trainers and owners who accept ideas that might work 'because they have worked', and those that look for a BETTER way to make things work. 

Somewhat off topic and more general training related...

I don't like jumping on bandwagons just for the heck of it. But I believe so strongly that this trend towards reinforcement based training is "right", "better", and that we are tapping into the one thing that works. The 'one thing' because it works on everything from people to crabs. I think it's elegant that we as a species have the might to intimidate and physically control some animals (most domesticated animals), yet not others (polar bears, whales, fish, tigers...), but with reinforcement based training we not only control, but the entire scope of training shifts to the concept of communication. Through motivation based training, the great trainers out there are bored with simply clicking and treating good behaviors... Today's conversations are about the level and depth of canine cognition, how dogs can freakin _infer_ and learn sets of rules (mimicking human behavior, big versus small, etc.) rather than simple behaviors. So in the realm of JUST positive reinforcement, trainers are exploring and opening the canine mind in ways that have never been explored before.

I digress. But point being, I really, really think people are thinking in a very shallow way when they see the e-collar (or really, any tool. From a harness to a prong collar.) as a crux, as necessity, as something that must significantly steer a dog's training. Tools might make people's lives easier, and are necessary in some lifestyles. But really, the more interesting question is "how can I use reinforcement in a way that opens more pathways for my dog?" Pathways as in gaining access with a well behaved dog in public areas, and also pathways as in... creating more neurological pathways in their brain.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

3GSD4IPO said:


> I read of one very successful agility trainer forcing pack drive on a dog by simply tying her to themselves. Dog could do nothing without the handler and handler could do nothing without the dog OR the dog was crated. It sounded miserable for everyone (I guess it works?). I also understood that it had to be repeated to keep it. Seems a lot of unhappy to force pack drive.


I see no reason why this would be miserable for the dog unless the dog somehow hated its handler? I don't see this as "force" at all, technically speaking. I see this as incredibly restrictive, and a means to prevent the dog from being reinforced by things in the environment. I would imagine that something else was done here, not just confining the dog to the trainer, and then letting it go and having a wonderfully engaged dog.

In fact, I would definitely do this if I ever took on an adult dog who I needed to train from scratch. I would also be rewarding for eye contact and other good behaviors, of course. I would certainly do this rather than put an aversive tool on the dog.

Fenzi's engagement training is the key to getting dogs, who are not as innately motivated to please, focused on their owners. With just that exercise alone, I was able to develop a new relationship with the dog I've had for over a decade. This is the environmentally motivated one. If we are in a large field, I used to struggle to get him to listen. I could tell him to do things and 'make him' do a few tricks before I released him to sniff. But his performance was extremely dull, he sometimes avoided my gaze, and I think he could sense my frustration. But after engagement training, now he is THRILLED and fast to perform the moment we enter a field. Eyes locked on me, no intermittent sniffing or displacement behaviors. When I finally give him the release cue he is also thrilled to be 'free' and go sniff. But I totally understand the application of this training and how you can build pack drive in a dog that doesn't naturally have it. I should get a video... When I demoed for some students of mine, who have seen Soro in various classes, they said to me afterwards that it was really cool to see the results because they thought he was a "naturally focused" dog. When they see him go off and not even look up at me once (after I released him), even after LEAVING HIM in the field for a few minutes and coming back, they could see that it actually took a lot of work to get him to focus on me at all. 

I will also say (and long time users like CptJack and elrowhen (who hasn't been here in a while) will remember this), that when I first heard about engagement training I really did not understand what it was about (despite knowing a fair bit about training in general) and said users actually helped me see that. It took taking the class to really understand it.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm pretty sure he's talking about Susan Garrett, actually and frankly speaking I hate the heck out of her methods and can't imagine ever using a lot of them. For one, they would only work at all with 2/3 of my dogs. For another, they are, at this point, pretty... behind the positive training curve. Not punishment based but pretty stressful comparatively, not a great fit for a lot of dogs and in ways that are just frankly unnecessary

But anyway her thing with crate, leashed to you, or working all the time:

It's not about 'real' engagement, it's about dependence. It also really does the dog a disservice because it's almost the opposite of Fenzi methodology in many things. One of the things Denise regrets about her last/now senior competition dog is that she taught the dog to use her as a crutch rather than choosing her over the environment. Ie: Her dog was often not even aware of things IN the environment because she had prompted/encouraged/almost forced the dog to be so highly focused on her. 

Which is. What a lot of Susan's stuff comes down to - creating that. 

Bad plan.

You want the dog to be aware of the environment and secure in it - then CHOOSE the handler as the most rewarding and awesome thing out there.

But that's neither here nor there, just a bit of an aside into what I think he's discussing/referencing versus what he actually is. or rather who - and I could still be very wrong, but mostly Denise isn't really an agility person. She's a comp. obedience and (former) IPO person.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

3GSD4IPO said:


> Remember, when a dog is engaged in Ring, Mondio OR IPO that dog thinks the fight with the decoy is for real while everyone else knows it is not. So, a dog in a real fight is not much on listening and the e collar can help.


In regards to whether it's a "real" fight, Denise Fenzi has a different approach. Perhaps a simple shift in how things are viewed is all that's needed.


" _I believe that IPO is a SPORT – I have absolutely no interest in creating a personal protection dog. I do not want my dogs to feel angry or defensive when working in the sport of protection – I want them to percieve the helper (person doing the rag or sleeve work) as a friend – a worthy foe who takes all of their attention for a difficult but rewarding game. I want my dogs to believe that if they fight their hardest – giving everything they have, then they will win the fight. I want them to believe that any pressure moves shown to them (yelling, hard frontal pressure, waving stick, etc.) are all threat but no substance – nothing they cannot overcome with the correct countering moves. Trained this way, IPO is no more than a very hard game of tug of war – between friends._ "

https://denisefenzi.com/2012/04/05/protection-training-ipo/


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

petpeeve said:


> In regards to whether it's a "real" fight, Denise Fenzi has a different approach. Perhaps a simple shift in how things are viewed is all that's needed.
> 
> 
> " _I believe that IPO is a SPORT – I have absolutely no interest in creating a personal protection dog. I do not want my dogs to feel angry or defensive when working in the sport of protection – I want them to percieve the helper (person doing the rag or sleeve work) as a friend – a worthy foe who takes all of their attention for a difficult but rewarding game. I want my dogs to believe that if they fight their hardest – giving everything they have, then they will win the fight. I want them to believe that any pressure moves shown to them (yelling, hard frontal pressure, waving stick, etc.) are all threat but no substance – nothing they cannot overcome with the correct countering moves. Trained this way, IPO is no more than a very hard game of tug of war – between friends._ "
> ...


Yeah, this is pretty on par with what I actually have heard from some pretty danged good IPO people. The dog is happy, playing, and working. That doesn't mean there aren't still powerful dogs and teeth and drive in play but. 

This is the first time I have _ever_ heard anyone saying they think the dog believes they're in a real fight. Have heard a lot of warnings against believing for one INSTANT that you're going to get a personal protection dog out of it, though, because the dog knows they're playing a game and because the skills just don't really directly translate to the real world.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

The last time I heard someone talk about the dog thinking they were in a real fight, it was elrohwen mentioning a catahoula in one of her classes that was in some bitework. The dog didn't treat it like a game. And I believe consequently, the owner stopped doing that sport. I wouldn't imagine it feels good for a dog to truly believe there is a threat upon itself or its owner. And I would not want the liability of having a dog who perceived people in that way. I'll have to hunt that thread down one day... I think I was the one asking about houlas at the time.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

E-collar is a great tool, when used properly. I used it to proof my Malinois' recall before giving her full off-leash privilege. Not that she didn't have a good recall, but I just felt better when she realized that she could be corrected even if I were far away from her. 

Besides that, I used the vibrate setting a few times to tell her not to play with her retrieve item. The vibrate to her is more of just social pressure. She is not afraid of it. 

For pretty much everything else, food refusal, down stay, hurdle/jumps, change of positions, heeling, send out, scent discrimination, I don't use corrections. If she does it wrong, it is because she doesn't understand or I am going too fast. 

We train in Mondioring, also a protection sport, but I don't use e-collar in bite-work (her prey drive didn't turn on until she was almost 17 months old, by the time I started recalling her off bites, she was around 2 years old. Her recall was already solid). Her "out" was taught via motivation only. All the other behaviors during bitework, I just wait her out. The faster she complies, she faster I send her for a bite. 

The bite-work part of it, having a decoy who is on the same page as you are is very important. In a club setting, if a decoy wants things done quickly, a handler prefers a slower method, compounded with time constraint, things can be very difficult. We left a ring club several months ago because of differences in training methods. Fortunately hubby has been a club decoy for several years so we could train a lot of the stuff ourselves. Not everyone has that luxury though. For some people, sometimes it means giving in to the training methods of a club/decoys vs. leaving the sport.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

GSD_and_Mal said:


> The vibrate to her is more of just social pressure.


I've never heard any technical or jargon term called "social pressure", so I hope you can explain what that is.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

Canyx said:


> I've never heard any technical or jargon term called "social pressure", so I hope you can explain what that is.


I understood it to be a dog's innate desire to please his/her handler. A handler showing disapproval = social pressure. 

If I recall correctly, I first of heard this term in Michael Ellis school, when I took his OB course in 2010. He mentioned social pressure and spatial pressure. I remember him saying something to the extent of .....it is every trainer's goal to have a dog that is totally reliable off-leash, without any corrective collars. If you build a good foundation with your dog, and your dog enjoys working with you, once a dog is off-leash, all it takes is a little bit of social or spatial pressure to correct a dog's behavior ( in his case, he meant showing sign of disapproval such as saying "no" or moving towards a dog/stepping into his space). 

I've heard of other trainers around me use it as well, but not often.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 15, 2017)

I've never heard the term " spatial pressure " . Stepping into a dogs personal space to stop them doing something is something I've done as long as I can remember. Have also had this create conflict with a couple of dogs, but nothing that was a big deal. 
I dont want to hijack this thread but I was wondering......I'm always hearing people bemoan the use of prongs and ecollars and such, and it seems like anything at all that stresses out a dog in general. I sometimes wonder if we actually do our dogs a disservice by constantly denying them situations where they get the opportunity to learn how to deal with stress properly. I come from a martial arts background. Alot of what we do is constantly pressure ourselves and purposely subject ourselves to differing forms of stress, mentally and physically. Through this, we learn valuable lessons about how to deal with what we encounter in everyday life. Does anyone else ever think that maybe we hold our dogs mental development back, by purposely trying to give them easy, stress free lives?
Again not trying to hijack the thread, but it seemed like an ok place to ask this.......


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Thank you all for intellectualizing this subject. I want to talk about some of these answers but I cannot at the moment. I will get back to this as soon as I can. 

As with any dog training, some of this I see holes in and other things not so much and I have learned a few things too. That part is great! Thank you again. 

[email protected] brought up a VERY interesting point and I want to talk about that a little bit which may take us away from E Collars. 

Briefly.. another thing I like here is that someone might trip on this thread and learn something too. There is a LOT here. L8ter. Thx again and I sincerely mean it!


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Does anyone else ever think that maybe we hold our dogs mental development back, by purposely trying to give them easy, stress free lives?


Well, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest that ecollars can enrich a dog's life through the promotion of mental development. 

I can't say what others think, but personally I'm giving that one a big fat NO.


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

[email protected] said:


> I've never heard the term " spatial pressure " . Stepping into a dogs personal space to stop them doing something is something I've done as long as I can remember. Have also had this create conflict with a couple of dogs, but nothing that was a big deal.
> I dont want to hijack this thread but I was wondering......I'm always hearing people bemoan the use of prongs and ecollars and such, and it seems like anything at all that stresses out a dog in general. I sometimes wonder if we actually do our dogs a disservice by constantly denying them situations where they get the opportunity to learn how to deal with stress properly. I come from a martial arts background. Alot of what we do is constantly pressure ourselves and purposely subject ourselves to differing forms of stress, mentally and physically. Through this, we learn valuable lessons about how to deal with what we encounter in everyday life. Does anyone else ever think that maybe we hold our dogs mental development back, by purposely trying to give them easy, stress free lives?
> Again not trying to hijack the thread, but it seemed like an ok place to ask this.......


Interesting thought. I've thought about it myself as well. I don't know. There is an active FB thread right now where FF trainers are arguing with balanced trainers over the use of corrective collars. I just wish people wouldn't be so extreme. Dog training should not be "one size fits all." FF doesn't necessarily produce happy upbeat dogs and balanced training doesn't necessarily mean a dog is unhappy. I am at a point in training where I don't care about what method a handler uses, I look at how a handler/dog team works, and I can tell if the method is good for this particular dog or not. 

Fear to me is not necessarily a bad thing. I am fearful of getting into a car accident, so I refuse to use my cell phone when I am driving. That does not mean I am afraid of getting behind the wheel. It just means I do not pick up my cell phone when I drive. So yes, I do want a little fear in my dog for blowing off a recall. That does not mean that my dog is fearful when she is off-leash. It just means she knows a recall command is always to be dealt with immediately. Obviously, if a handler doesn't have the confidence to convey this concept to a dog correctly and effectively via an e-collar, he/she shouldn't use it. But it certainly doesn't mean that no one else can do it correctly.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

GSD_and_Mal said:


> Interesting thought. I've thought about it myself as well. I don't know. There is an active FB thread right now where FF trainers are arguing with balanced trainers over the use of corrective collars. I just wish people wouldn't be so extreme. Dog training should not be "one size fits all." FF doesn't necessarily produce happy upbeat dogs and balanced training doesn't necessarily mean a dog is unhappy. I am at a point in training where I don't care about what method a handler uses, I look at how a handler/dog team works, and I can tell if the method is good for this particular dog or not.
> 
> Fear to me is not necessarily a bad thing. I am fearful of getting into a car accident, so I refuse to use my cell phone when I am driving. That does not mean I am afraid of getting behind the wheel. It just means I do not pick up my cell phone when I drive. So yes, I do want a little fear in my dog for blowing off a recall. That does not mean that my dog is fearful when she is off-leash. It just means she knows a recall command is always to be dealt with immediately. Obviously, if a handler doesn't have the confidence to convey this concept to a dog correctly and effectively via an e-collar, he/she shouldn't use it. But it certainly doesn't mean that no one else can do it correctly.


I am actually with you on the extremity to which people take it and sometimes that includes me. Interestingly enough, the more exposure I have to Fenzi Academy the more I realize that the pendulum for me is always going to swing back toward middle. Not to using physical punishment or corrections in training - for me, don't need em and am not comfortable with them -but...sometimes it goes so far I just boggle. 

This isn't because of Denise - Denise is someone who is a wonderful positive trainer but she also draws some pretty clear lines between 'life with dogs' and 'training dogs to do things' and that 'life with dogs' isn't always stress free and pleasant, but that *teaching dogs to do stuff* can and should be. Also a big proponent of reading the dog and adjusting to the animal you actually have. Many of the students are so evangelical about it that it drives me up the wall - someone once tried to give me crap for calling my teenage puppy a jackass. People got worked up/upset about reverse luring because 'It's a no reward marker'. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? And this is me - who doesn't even use "No or nope" in training new behavior.

I just... I can't. 

As for fear: Some fear and caution about some things are good. I intentionally instilled a fear of snakes in every last one of my dogs. Some fear of reasonable things rather than being a happy go lucky oblivious idiot is a good thing. Fear of the HANDLER, I don't consider useful or good. 

And. I don't have dogs who need to 'fear' doing something like blowing off a recall. It doesn't make me feel better about the likelyhood of it happening (ie: I don't feel it makes it less likely), the idea stresses me out, and frankly it'd collapse my dogs. A stern look is all the correction my dogs need, or a slightly more stern tone in my voice. I suppose in the sense that that is the level of correction to which they respond probably means there's some fear there, anyway, but it doesn't make them more OBEDIENT, it makes them more timid. Which is not useful.

(And they handle stress and pressure just fine. They're just the dogs and breeds they are.)


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

CptJack said:


> I am actually with you on the extremity to which people take it and sometimes that includes me. Interestingly enough, the more exposure I have to Fenzi Academy the more I realize that the pendulum for me is always going to swing back toward middle. Not to using physical punishment or corrections in training - for me, don't need em and am not comfortable with them -but...sometimes it goes so far I just boggle.
> 
> This isn't because of Denise - Denise is someone who is a wonderful positive trainer but she also draws some pretty clear lines between 'life with dogs' and 'training dogs to do things' and that 'life with dogs' isn't always stress free and pleasant, but that *teaching dogs to do stuff* can and should be. Also a big proponent of reading the dog and adjusting to the animal you actually have. Many of the students are so evangelical about it that it drives me up the wall - someone once tried to give me crap for calling my teenage puppy a jackass. People got worked up/upset about reverse luring because 'It's a no reward marker'. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? And this is me - who doesn't even use "No or nope" in training new behavior.
> 
> ...


I totally understand what you mean. As much as I talk about e-collars, I rarely use them. Other than proofing her recall, teaching her not to chew her retrieve object, and proofing her emergency down-in-motion, everything else I like to do motivationally. And even when I did use an e-collar, most of the time it was on the vibrate setting. My Mal and I have a very good working relationship and she is eager to please. I like upright ears and wagging tails when training. The fear part, it just depends on the dog. My dog had a good recall to begin with, but I still wanted to use an e-collar to proof it, maybe it was more of a security blanket for me, LOL. 

We've fostered for different rescues over the last 7 years, GSDs, Labs, mixed breeds. We had a few that were very timid and fearful, and I used clicker/marker only. We also had a few who were bossy, confident, and large in size. We used prong collars to walk them, and they were fine. It really just depends on the dog. I like motivational methods, I like FF, but I don't want to limit myself on what tools I can use, at the same time though, I also don't want to become dependent on tools.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 15, 2017)

@petpeeve, you took that the wrong way. I didnt mean ecollars enrich a dogs anything. Its just a tool like any other imo. 
With this thread following on the heels of the punishment thread, I just thought it may be a good time to bring up the whole point that being too easy on our dogs can affect them negatively too. Like spoiled wrotten human children whose parents and life in general never challenged them enough to develope certain traits of character. The old saying " do not wish for a life of ease, wish instead for a life of hardship, for this is what builds character and makes great men"


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Re: pressure...

Of course there needs to be pressure, and stress, in training. It's how dogs AND people learn and grow! But there is good stress (eustress) and bad stress (distress). Corrective tools are more likely to cause distress.

But there is a difference between pressure/stress that comes from correcting a dog, and the kind that comes from letting a dog discover the correct answer. I just posted a video yesterday where my dog is on a walk and I stop because he became a little too interested in a dog crossing our path. I stop, he goes forward another foot or so, stops (leash still loose), then engages back with me for a treat. I could have corrected him with a light leash pop to 'remind' him that being focused on a distraction is a no-no, but why would I do that when I could turn it into a moment in which he teaches himself?

Ways I do add pressure or stress out a dog:
-using a crate and expen, teaching a dog that he can't be with me all the time (but the dog does initially experience distress from the separation)
-closing the door if the dog tries to bolt through (P-)
-holding the leash or collar and preventing the dog from approaching other dogs before the correct behavior is performed (think about how much pressure and frustration there is for a dog that really wants to see other dogs)
-ignoring a dog that is lunging and barking out of excitement
-taking away something a dog shouldn't have
-body blocking and stepping into a dog's space (really careful with this one, depending on the dog)
-stepping on the dog's leash to prevent jumping
-pulling a dog away from a person or other dog if it's being too inappropriate
-SHAPING. Shaping pushes a dog to figure out complex behaviors 'on his own'. You bet there is a ton of stress and brain power at work here.


I could go on and on. Point being, not using aversive tools does not mean permissive, and it's not like I am tiptoeing around my dog, baby voicing him, treating him like a fragile bird... And hey, I fully admit to having moments of frustration and even using a collar grab, a leash pop, or a stern tone at times. I am not perfect. But those are once-in-a-blue-moon, not really training related but temper related. Those are failures in my character. Honestly, I despise that when I was a teenager a trainer handed me a prong collar instead of the clicker. I had to undo a lot of muscle memory that involves popping and pinning. In EVERY moment I've ever used a harsh correction, I could see so many ways I could have EASILY resolved the situation with zero corrections at all. Point being, there is no point, ever, in my training, that I decide "my dog should know this now and I need this tool or this correction to teach him when he's wrong."

ETA: No one ever would say I am "easy on" my dogs. Out of about two dozen dog-people I work with, I am BY FAR the strictest. I am less permissive than some folks who do use corrective tools in terms of what I allow and don't allow my dogs to do. But *having rules and being consistent in keeping them* which is all it takes to 'not go too easy' and have an unruly dog, is not a good excuse for justifying corrective tools. I've heard that one more times than you would believe.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

GSD_and_Mal said:


> I totally understand what you mean. As much as I talk about e-collars, I rarely use them. Other than proofing her recall, teaching her not to chew her retrieve object, and proofing her emergency down-in-motion, everything else I like to do motivationally. And even when I did use an e-collar, most of the time it was on the vibrate setting. My Mal and I have a very good working relationship and she is eager to please. I like upright ears and wagging tails when training. The fear part, it just depends on the dog. My dog had a good recall to begin with, but I still wanted to use an e-collar to proof it, maybe it was more of a security blanket for me, LOL.
> 
> We've fostered for different rescues over the last 7 years, GSDs, Labs, mixed breeds. We had a few that were very timid and fearful, and I used clicker/marker only. We also had a few who were bossy, confident, and large in size. We used prong collars to walk them, and they were fine. It really just depends on the dog.  I like motivational methods, I like FF, but I don't want to limit myself on what tools I can use, at the same time though, I also don't want to become dependent on tools.



Yep. I've got dogs with a whole heck of a lot of sensitivity to what you were calling 'social pressure' - even the young 'un/teenager. It's not the result of my training being awesome or of never having experienced rougher corrections and being unable to 'take them' (therefore of my training being terrible). The last two I even special selected because that kind of thing meshes well with my training style and personality. 

Well, most of my dogs. My GSD/Pyr mix is large, oblivious, and frankly doesn't give a crap. I also used a prong on him for an entire winter and I have no guilt or regret about that. It was the right tool for that dog under those specific circumstances. He didn't suffer fallout and more importantly I didn't break my neck.

I still very rarely to never use punishment or physical corrections - pretty much only 'life threatening to dog, other dogs, or people' things that require a behavior stop NOW not after many training sessions'. I think most people who advocate that punishment is necessary for training are wrong as heck. I think it is most often the sign of a pretty lazy or limited trainer who doesn't know how to use anything else - like the ONLY tool they have is that. 

But at the same time I also have to admit, though this sounds like I'm arguing against myself, I see a lot of issues in the FF community. A lot of inexperienced people who paralyze themselves by taking a good concept too far and being afraid of upsetting the dog at ALL, or getting so wrapped up in theory or science they overwhelm themselves and stop actually trying to apply any of it.

And regardless of method/on both sides of the debate people who get lucky with a limited number of dogs, never realizing the dogs are compensating for them and think their training or methods are much, much, better than they are. 

At this point, more and more, I don't care how the heck people train as long as it's not damaging the dog, the person, or the relationship and fun between the two. I mean I'll sit around and debate - in strong general terms - aversive tools and general circumstances (and more so in specific circumstances that I deem dumb; this is the internet) until I'm blue in the face - but at the end of the day : JUST GO DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR DOG.

(And, yes, this drifted off topic. Don't mind me.)


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

3GSD4IPO said:


> [edit] perhaps there are ways I could use something different to get a better or more reliable result.
> 
> In some countries E Collars are illegal and in some both E Collars AND pinches are illegal. How do people in those places train without these tools when they have a very high drive dog? What are they doing that does not turn into an obvious crutch (like a long line on a super driven dog in the back transport).
> 
> ...


 This is a direction I would love to see this conversation go. Rather than just rehashing all of the negative aspects of ecollars on one side, and defending their use on the other side, it would be marvelous to see some discussion that has the power, impact and ability to bring about CHANGE in a positive way.

What advice, means, resources etc can be offered to the OP and others to effect a much stronger, and viable movement AWAY from ecollars ? That, in my opinion, would be both productive and quite gratifying.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> @petpeeve, you took that the wrong way. I didnt mean ecollars enrich a dogs anything. Its just a tool like any other imo.
> With this thread following on the heels of the punishment thread, I just thought it may be a good time to bring up the whole point that being too easy on our dogs can affect them negatively too. Like spoiled wrotten human children whose parents and life in general never challenged them enough to develope certain traits of character. The old saying " do not wish for a life of ease, wish instead for a life of hardship, for this is what builds character and makes great men"


This is exactly spot on. I can tell you of three situations where really top drawer but strong dogs were ruined to the point of being made dangerous by a lack of structure, rules, consistency and (in two cases) a serious need for a CTJ moment that CAN happen with a truly strong and confident male German Shepherd. 

In all three cases the dogs were PTS because they were made dangerous by letting them (truly) rule the roost. In all three cases the dogs were a bit too old to be retrained as police patrol dogs and they would have been good at this. 



petpeeve said:


> This is a direction I would love to see this conversation go. Rather than just rehashing all of the negative aspects of ecollars on one side, and defending their use on the other side, it would be marvelous to see some discussion that has the power, impact and ability to bring about CHANGE in a positive way.
> 
> What advice, means, resources etc can be offered to the OP and others to effect a much stronger, and viable movement AWAY from ecollars ? That, in my opinion, would be both productive and quite gratifying.


Thank you. Exactly what I would love to see. We don't need to be all black and white (that is what our dogs want us to be when we train.. CLEAR). There are grey areas on how to teach. 

Earlier in the thread there was mention of dogs that were strong and not appropriate for dog Sport (IPO). TRUE statement but we still do not want the dog to be in the Protection phase and not think the fight is real. The dogs that are taught it is play.. a game.. are (usually) dogs with less drive and weaker nerve. A LOT of Show Line dog trainers take this route. When you watch the dogs against other dogs that are from working lines you see the difference in everything from the tone of the barking to the position the dog takes in the blind to the courage test. This is why you don't often see Show Line dogs training and trialing in the same venue as working line dogs (in the German Shepherd breed). The decoy work is very different as is the pressure on the dog. 

Dogs in sport are taught to target the sleeve. That is what they bite. They should never be more attracted to the equipment than the decoy. The equipment is the target for the bite but the fight is with the person. 

Here is the interesting thing. MOST dogs are not that eager for live bites (like Police dogs take). OTOH SOME dogs WANT the live bite. The latter are less appropriate for the sport but those dogs are what the breed truly used to be. The latter do not score as well in the sport because they will learn to target the sleeve but they will bite even if the sleeve is not present. They DO run down and subdue criminals and if they have a high pain tolerance when in the fight, they are truly an asset to law enforcement. 

I have seen a dog with high pain tolerance and desire to take live bites totally blow off an e collar (Tri-Tronics) with an ear twitch and keep right on. These same dogs, while they have been taught to target a sleeve will not hesitate to think outside the box and grab other body parts. I know of one such dog who also babysits preschoolers in her own yard along with sleeping with them at night. She (yes, SHE) is a great dog.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 15, 2017)

My bottom line for all the training tools is this. I believe there is a place for nearly every tool. It may be a tiny place in the scheme of things, but theres a place for whatever is out there. Ecollars are bad you say? Not nearly as bad as how I watched dogs being trained using the old yank and crank methods back when I was a kid. That is my baseline. Proper use of an ecollar is a step up from that. 
What I saw before anyone but hunters where using ecollars? The old way to correct a dog from a distance was to pop em with a BB to the flank from an air rifle that was only pumped a couple times. So yeah, for me an ecollar is a step up from that too. 
I do intend to get an ecollar in the future, but I want one as sort of a remote leash for hiking and such. My plan is to use the vibrate function for communication mainly. I intend to experiment with teaching my dog certain commands via vibration instead of always using voice commands. I see a use for this in my life. The shock function would only be an emergency function for me. I personally see nothing wrong with this.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> My bottom line for all the training tools is this.  I believe there is a place for nearly every tool. It may be a tiny place in the scheme of things, but theres a place for whatever is out there. Ecollars are bad you say? Not nearly as bad as how I watched dogs being trained using the old yank and crank methods back when I was a kid. That is my baseline. Proper use of an ecollar is a step up from that.
> What I saw before anyone but hunters where using ecollars? The old way to correct a dog from a distance was to pop em with a BB to the flank from an air rifle that was only pumped a couple times. So yeah, for me an ecollar is a step up from that too.
> I do intend to get an ecollar in the future, but I want one as sort of a remote leash for hiking and such. My plan is to use the vibrate function for communication mainly. I intend to experiment with teaching my dog certain commands via vibration instead of always using voice commands. I see a use for this in my life. The shock function would only be an emergency function for me. I personally see nothing wrong with this.


Word to the Wise:
Do NOT use the shock function only in an emergency without first creating an understanding in the dog. This needs to be done in a safely enclosed area that the dog cannot escape from. Have on you great food. Something your dog would walk on fire for. Let the dog loose. When he is far away from you, call him ONCE. If he does not IMMEDIATELY respond, hit him with a shock. Medium level. When he turns to you have a freaking PARTY like no party you have ever had for him. Make it worth his while to come to you, and let him know that is the best and safest place to be. We always sympathize a little with something like, "Oh poor puppy, did the Bees get you?" and when he is to you, feed feed feed. 

Without an introduction I can tell you that the shock out on the trail that he does not understand may well end up with the dog on the dark side of the moon and you might never find him. 

Maybe you know this, but someone reading this may not. 
I do NOT like introducing an e collar like this but, ironically, this is how most dogs are introduced to the collar.. as punishment "out there" for not recalling. Usually on an adolescent dog that has decided he is a teenager and your commands are to be blown off. The issue with using it as punishment is that it is unlikely it can ever be used to bring a dog UP in drive. 

I do agree that the e collar is way better than the old Yank and Crank methods. I will also add that under the rules today in IPO that such methods of high force create a pressured dog that will show it on the field. That dog does not score well and the judge will comment about the dog showing pressure and deduct heavily for it. 

This is why we use a LOT of motivation, a LOT of R+ and a LOT of play in obedience. 

If there was ever a sport training that was premacked to the hilt it is IPO. Dog must give me what I want to get what he wants. Over and over. Impulse control.. is huge and the best way to get that is not through punishment.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

3GSD4IPO said:


> Word to the Wise:
> Do NOT use the shock function only in an emergency without first creating an understanding in the dog. This needs to be done in a safely enclosed area that the dog cannot escape from. Have on you great food. Something your dog would walk on fire for. Let the dog loose. When he is far away from you, call him ONCE. If he does not IMMEDIATELY respond, hit him with a shock. Medium level. When he turns to you have a freaking PARTY like no party you have ever had for him. Make it worth his while to come to you, and let him know that is the best and safest place to be. We always sympathize a little with something like, "Oh poor puppy, did the Bees get you?" and when he is to you, feed feed feed.


More like "word to the lazy." If stim/tactile is SO powerful, and can be used as a secondary reinforcer, it makes so much more sense to train a dog to recall to stim NOT as punishment. 

You do not cover, some dogs are so sensitive to stim that even a low stim or vibration (let alone medium!) will totally shut a dog down, ending up with a dog frozen in the fields. 

You do not cover, what the dog is blowing off a recall cue for is important. I would not stim a dog in the vicinity of another dog, child, person, biker, etc. The risk of negative associations are not worth it. I would not stim a dog blowing off the cue for a deer, but like I said earlier the risk of fallout is lower, because no one really cares if their dogs feel negative/fearful towards deer in the long run.

"First creating an understanding" is too vague. You know that a lot of average owners adopt a dog from a shelter and think, when a dog randomly responds to "come'ere!" said 10 times, that the dog "has an understanding", right? Also, a dog that is fluent in the behavior at home does not mean the dog understands the cue in the fields. Your misguiding advice makes it sound like you can teach a recall in the kitchen and slap an e-collar on, on the trail.

It's 'that easy' to you, huh? Advice like this is how people ruin dogs by following incomplete and frankly, BAD, information on the internet. This is a crystal clear example of how many red flags there are to using the e-collar in training. This simple paragraph of advice by 'someone who sounds like they know what they're doing' can be followed to a T and produce disastrous results in the wrong dog. 
*
All this, and I wouldn't even use an e-collar or recommend one to begin with.*

Notice, I did not respond or care one bit that Dexter wants to use an e-collar for his dog. Whatever; his dog. But when bad advice that is EASILY misinterpreted and EASILY executed wrongly is given, I'm not going to stay silent.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Its just a tool like any other imo.


No, it's not. An ecollar is a device that has TREMENDOUS potential for damaging a dog, head and shoulders above the potential of other so called "tools".

This is a large part of the problem. Statements / opinions such as yours will likely lead some people to falsely believe it's something that only requires minimal know-how. Even the most fervent supporters will tell you straight up that they require GREAT skill, GREAT timing, a keen sense of observation, and will also recommend professional direction in learning how to properly apply it especially for those who have little training experience. The same cannot be said for chokes, prongs, head halters, flat buckle collars, martingales, clickers, nor the remainder of commonly used tools. 

Simply put, ecollars are in a league of their own.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I wholeheartedly agree with petpeeve!


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Ecollars are bad you say? Not nearly as bad as how I watched dogs being trained using the old yank and crank methods back when I was a kid. That is my baseline. Proper use of an ecollar is a step up from that.
> What I saw before anyone but hunters where using ecollars? The old way to correct a dog from a distance was to pop em with a BB to the flank from an air rifle that was only pumped a couple times. So yeah, for me an ecollar is a step up from that too.


Assaulting a woman with an open-hand slap is a STEP UP today, because back in caveman times they were dragged around very roughly by their hair. 

Progress ??? to the point where it's "problem, solved", things are much better nowadays, and we can all put the issue to rest ???


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

I never intended for this thread to go here. As intended originally this was (I hoped) an open discussion. 

Of course an aversive can be damaging to a dog. I have seen a dog yanked repeatedly so hard with a FLAT collar that the dog's training and the relationship with the handler was set back to the dark ages. ANY AVERSIVE, IMPROPERLY AND INAPPROPRIATELY APPLIED can cause certain dogs to shut down. Here is the thing. Nothing I say or you say will prevent it. It will still happen. It will still be wrong. 

Often, people adopt dogs that should never have dogs because many (not all!!) people in rescue think that all dogs should be saved. As frequently, dogs that should never be adopted out are adopted out because many (not all!!) people in rescue think that all dogs should be saved. Nothing I can do about it. I see it a LOT and I just walk away. 

Inexperienced people buy collars and leashes and e collars without leashes and prong collars who should never have these tools. They still buy them and still get them. Nothing you or I can do about it. 

As I said, I do NOT like using an e collar as a recall fix but that is most often how it is introduced. 

As to using a prong or e collar to increase drive in a very drivey dog, that is pretty common but it may not work at all if the collar has been introduced first as an aversive for something like the great recalling adolescent dog that decided recall is no longer imperative. 

I prefer other methods for recall such as using the relationship to build a solid recall (classical conditioning is pretty common here if we must call it a name). Then using the recall to build the relationship. Oppositional reflex can work well too in this recall business. Both those things work less well in a dog that has low pack drive with humans. 

I know that Petpeeve will NEVER use an e collar and NEVER recommend one. That is OK.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Here is a story about a recall going bad. I have a dog with a GREAT recall. It is one of her favorite things. She flies to me so fast that she skids into me at the end. Hitting me actually deducts points, but is a crowd pleaser and it is flashy and it is reliable. 

Dog is at a trial. The previous day we had practice. We did a send away for the practice. THEN we set up the send away again and took her off the field letting her SEE the send away set up with the ball but did not send her for it. This is a common practice.. and the next time you do obedience on that field in the trial you HOPE the dog remembers the send away set up was left out there so (the idea is) that the dog will send away fast and straight in the trial and down on command fast because the dog thinks the set up and ball are still there. 

BEFORE you do a send away, you do a recall in that direction from the moving down (before doing the retrieves). 

Remember that reliable recall? You know.. the one where she comes so fast she slams into me in the sit in front? She ALWAYS does the greatest recall? 

Yeah.. NOT. I recalled her and she came fast as lightning.. and side stepped around me and went to look for the send away that she KNEW was still out there because she saw it the day before. Had to call her a second time.. and she came.. to a crooked front.. still looking past me for that stupid send away ball. 

Now.. this was a trial. No e collar on her and this was original behavior. No one can call my dogs robotic... :eyesroll:

I can tell you right now, that if this were training and she had an e collar on I would NOT have hit her for blowing by me. It could damage her send away to have that happen. 

I would have (in training) called her to me, taken her back to the sit position and repeated the exercise of the running down and THIS time in the recall I would have thrown the ball between my legs to cement in her little doggy brain that the recall is still the recall.. (and I would be SURE that send away was out there maybe 15 feet behind me). 

It also told me that the recall (which I do not practice all that often so she holds the down better) needs to be done a bit more often than I have been doing it. 

All this is subtle. 
That person that gets that adopted dog in the shelter.. the person who has no idea what that being is at the end of the leash.. but who can still buy any equipment in the world and "train" that dog would probably have fried the dog for blowing past. Here is the part of this I hate to say: _So would a lot of experienced trainers._ 

Nothing I do or say here will stop either one.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

3GSD4IPO said:


> Nothing I do or say here will stop either one.


You do not stop them, but you enable them? I mean, really. Read that super-general-advice paragraph you wrote in response to Dexter and tell me some random lurker (or even that poster), couldn't interpret the advice in a way that would harm a dog.

So as you put it, even "experienced trainers" use the tool in an 'incorrect' (they would beg to differ) and arguably 'abusive' way. 

"Blame the trainer, not the tool" is something that is said a LOT for e-collars. For one, it seems not even e-collar users can agree on the 'right' way to use it. R+ trainers certainly disagree about just about everything, but HOW positive reinforcement is used, on a fundamental level (ie, use something the dog likes, reward behaviors you like), is UNIVERSALLY agreed upon. I will say again, there are too many ifs ands or buts for this tool. It is not an approachable tool for most people. I won't shed a tear if it is banned one day. And (as people get up in arms about that statement), it's not like training as we know it will fall apart. It's not like suddenly dogs will be running amok in the streets and no one can call their dogs and aggressive dogs will start eating babies... There was good training before e-collars. There will be good training after e-collars. There IS good training in places without e-collars.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 15, 2017)

Ok in all seriousness, arguing and the silly stuff aside, I have a question. What is a better option than an ecollar for emergency recall in the case of a dog blatantly blowing off the voice command at long distance? Specifically if I'm out in the woods, which I frequently am. I know a very very good recall is the ultimate solution, and my dog currently has a very good recall. What are my other options? People run deer with packs of dogs in my area, and a pack of dogs raising cain running by you with deer in the lead in the woods is a heck of a distraction. This is one of the main reasons I've been considering an ecollar. I know people who hunt and use them to teach their dogs not to go after the wrong thing, this is very common in my area. I have a method for dealing with it now of coarse, but I was considering switching to training my current dog on an ecollar, seemed reasonable to me. I know this is alittle off track, but if anyone can suggest a better method than I can research on my own?


----------



## GSD_and_Mal (Jan 19, 2017)

I personally think e-collar is a great tool for proofing recalls. I’ve never used it to teach recalls (or any obedience behavior). My Malinois was on a 20-30 ft longline up until she was 1.5 years or so, I used an e-collar to proof her recalls before I let her completely off-leash in unfenced areas. I only used it a handful of times (I think a total of 2 low nicks and 2 vibrates over the course of a year or so). That worked great for us. 

This thread is just like any other thread in any other forum, people who support e-collar feel benefits outweigh risk of fallout IF it were used correctly. People who don’t like e-collar still feel risk of fallout outweighs benefits. 

For lurkers who are reading this thread, no, e-collar shouldn’t be the foundation of any obedience training. Foundation training should always be done motivationally. Build a good working relationship with a dog first, give a dog time to mature, then determine if e-collar work is the right way to go. 

If you are thinking about using an e-collar, find someone who is experienced with e-collar work to guide you. When I say someone who is experienced with e-collar work, by that I mean a person with dogs that look happy when working/training. E-collar work shouldn’t make a dog look sad, fearful, or depressed. Any training that produces a sad/fearful/depressed dog is bad training, regardless of method.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Ok in all seriousness, arguing and the silly stuff aside, I have a question. What is a better option than an ecollar for emergency recall in the case of a dog blatantly blowing off the voice command at long distance? Specifically if I'm out in the woods, which I frequently am. I know a very very good recall is the ultimate solution, and my dog currently has a very good recall. What are my other options? People run deer with packs of dogs in my area, and a pack of dogs raising cain running by you with deer in the lead in the woods is a heck of a distraction. This is one of the main reasons I've been considering an ecollar. I know people who hunt and use them to teach their dogs not to go after the wrong thing, this is very common in my area. I have a method for dealing with it now of coarse, but I was considering switching to training my current dog on an ecollar, seemed reasonable to me. I know this is alittle off track, but if anyone can suggest a better method than I can research on my own?


CLASSICAL. CONDITIONING. 

Basically, whatever your dog loves, save it for recall. I whistle because I use the word "come" more often and casually in every day life. So whistle = I empty the crock pot remains for my dog. Whistle = 30 seconds of eating tiny pieces of cheese. Whistle = I release you to play with a dog you didn't know was there. Whistle = awesome tug game. Whistle = you get the whole rotisserie chicken carcass.

Novelty is your friend (which is why I switch up the jackpots). Also, why I don't practice emergency recall often at all. I did one or two every other day when I was first teaching it. These days, I did like one in the last month?

Spontaneity is your friend. Which means my dogs never know when it's coming but it's such an astronomical thing when it happens.

Recall for my dogs is more of a reflexive response. They don't 'think' about doing it. They react to the recall cue, much like how a dog instantaneously reacts to a doorbell, or leaps up when the leash is picked up. I actually would love to somehow scan their brains to see the activity when I say "come" (which is not the emergency recall, and I trained it more generically), versus when I use the emergency recall whistle. I would bet money that it's different.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

FWIW hounds and pack dogs where they are tracked using GPS often have to wear "trashbreaker" collars to train them to run only the game they are to run and not the other game that crosses their path. I know hog runners and con hound runners that use the collars for this. These dogs are working very remotely and you are not in the picture at all. It is legal to hunt like this in many places. Some run coyote and in some states they run Mountain Lions. This is not something Random Joe is going to read about training on THIS forum but the information is out there. So is any of the paragraph I posted. I am not responsible for Random Joe and I find guilt is a useless game to be involved in. Random Joe is responsible for his own behavior and the consequences it brings to his door. 

I stated elsewhere in this thread where there were three dogs that would have been SUPER nice dogs but were given no structure. These dogs ended up ruling the roost (literally) and ended up being very dangerous when structure and rules were introduced (and NOT with an E Collar which would have been totally inappropriate). Simple rules like allowing a leash to be put on in a crate. Walking on a leash in a small yard. Going into a crate or a kennel. Allowing a leash to be put on in an outdoor kennel and so forth. All three dogs went to R+ school but the people did not get the parts about consistency and structure and the rest of all that goes into training a dog. They thought they could fix it with a cookie and a click. 

They fixed it alright. What they did was end up with was a euthanized dog that, if he had been trained with clarity and structure, would have been one of the best dogs they could ever have owned... like the 5-6 littermates in each of those litters that turned out to be excellent dogs in Agility, Obedience and (yes) active pet homes (well bred and consistent litters). 

Trust me on this. ANYONE can ruin a dog with any method. I used to believe no one could ruin a dog with R+ until I saw it happen.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Your story would have more weight if you could tell me exactly what the training plan was using 'just R+' was for these three dogs who were euthanized.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

3GSD4IPO said:


> Trust me on this. ANYONE can ruin a dog with any method. I used to believe no one could ruin a dog with R+ until I saw it happen.


I have asked many times over the years for a real story about how R+ training kills dogs. I can't believe I am lucky enough to hear three from someone who "saw it happen." 

I never could quite grasp how *the positive training itself* could lead dogs to death row. I will assume the story will take into account improper socialization, lack of management, failure to follow directions, or genetics of course. I can, however, see how P+ training DIRECTLY leads to dangerous dogs or kills dogs. Punishment causing fear and aggression, punishment erasing warning signs, punishment creating unintended negative associations, punishment lowering bite inhibition, harsh punishment _literally killing a dog in training_...


----------



## Shadowmom (Feb 4, 2018)

When I adopted my problem dog from the local SPCA, I was told he was a confirmed escape artist and runaway and never to turn him loose with leaving a leash dragging on him, even in a fenced in area. He chewed through eight leashes and jumped out of my car and ran into a busy city street right into front of a car when I first got him. To meet a dog he saw walking on a leash across the street a block or two away. He didn't get hit but kept running and I finally caught him sniffing butts with said dog three blocks away.
I finally had to run a chain in my car and chain him in the backseat and let him suffer the natural consequence of hitting the end of the chain at full gallop each time he ignored my telling him down and stay and leaped out of the car. He also quickly learned how to roll the back windows all the way down by standing on the button, locking it so I couldn't roll them back up, could keep it open til he jumped through. All the treats in the world were meaningless against seeing other dogs or a rabbit or animal to meet or chase.
He hit the end of the chain two or three times tops and never tried it again. Millions of repetitions of sit and stay or back he goes in the car and we leave his favorite places like the dog park or never go in til he walks in quietly on a loose leash and sits and waits for his harness to come off.
He has permanent windpipe damage from pulling on a flat collar before I owned him. And keeping a leash dragging got caught on a tree and hurt my dog so he had to go to the ER have his ribs x rayed. So I can see how even positive training methods like drag lines and long lines for recall can hurt or even kill dogs. Using a long line with my pup wasn't good because he just took off as fast as he could and literally almost yanked holes in my hands. He's very smart and can take off a harness, jump six feet fences, jump baby gates, open gates, dig out, basically be Houdini.

I've never used a e collar, but I've definitely thought about it for safety to keep him from dashing out into traffic. I'm his third home, got him at sixteen months and he never had any training or socialization before I got him. I've had other dogs before with issues but never so much difficulty with recall. Luckily he's gotten much better just still not good enough.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Shadowmom said:


> So I can see how even positive training methods like drag lines and long lines for recall can hurt or even kill dogs.


"let him suffer the natural consequence of hitting the end of the chain at full gallop each time he ignored my telling him down and stay and leaped out of the car." That is positive punishment. 

Sounds like you actually did no positive reinforcement training at all in your post, actually. I would have used positive reinforcement (open door a little if dog is calm) and negative reinforcement (gently close it if dog tried to get out). Rinse and repeat. All your poor dog has done is been set up to fail so much that he quit trying.

I hope 3GSD's stories are more convincing than yours. What you are describing is not at all positive reinforcement training. This is just all... Bad training, bad management. Nothing at all any positive trainer would have recommended. (PS. Just so no other hogwash ideas are put out there... A good trainer would not have said 'well just throw cookies at the dog' either). Telling a newly adopted dog down/stay, when that dog clearly has no understanding of down/stay, is not useful either so that doesn't even qualify as training.

I think someone needs to actually have a basic understanding of training theory and operant conditioning (which, admittedly, 3GSD does), before commenting on how "positive training methods can hurt or kill dogs." Shadowmom, way to spread misinformation and propaganda when you can't even determine the factors at play in your own story.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Okay, I'm one of those people who lives in a country where e-collars (and I _think_ prongs) are 99.9% banned. The ONE legal use for them is aversion training for livestock, usually done on hunting dogs. Yep, that encompasses electronic fences, bark collars, AND our police force, which does indeed employ dogs for tracking and engaging with criminals. I've held off on commenting because I have had very little personal contact with people who either train police dogs or compete in bite sports, but I assure you that they exist here, and are successful in their training. There's even a TV show here (Hundepatruljen-Oslo) that follows the K9 units in Norway's capital, and while I know better than to believe everything I see on TV, I've seen minimal corrections when they show training or dogs on duty. There's definitely rewarding going on on-camera. And, to reiterate, the dogs do not wear ecollars or prongs. I would not be surprised if there was some corrections included in their training, but they absolutely don't use tools that are illegal here.

I've talked to one man who did bite sports with his mal, briefly. The dog itself was beautifully trained, responsive, and attentive. We did get on the subject of ecollars, actually, and their theoretical potential to be used as a secondary reinforcer or in bridging, but he agreed that it was preferable that the general public doesn't have access to them in this country, due to the damage they can cause in inexperienced hands. He used a lot of play/toy rewards and engagement exercises, similar to what I've seen from competitive agility folks. Of course, one man and one dog isn't going to be representative of the whole sport culture over here, but it's the only thing I can speak to at this time. Again, there may be some _illegal_ use of ecollars going on, but I bet it's not looked kindly upon at the official clubs and high level competitions. 

On a personal level... just because I live here doesn't mean I agree with a blanket ban of these devices in all cases. I do honestly hate that they're so available to people in the US. Something that will stick with me forever happened during the brief time I worked at a big box pet store over there, a woman talking about using an ecollar on her dog: "We know it's working because she pees herself!" Said in this most upbeat, self-satisfied tone that turned my stomach. Obviously she was using it horribly wrong, but when anyone can buy a shock collar off the shelf, what can we really expect? So what is the solution? Damned if I know. But I do wish the US culture saw ecollars more as a "for professionals only/with professional guidance only" rather than a quick fix to any and all behavior problems. I kind of like Australia's system, where you need clearance from a vet/veterinary behaviorist before you're cleared to use one, but I can see problems there, too. 

Currently, I'm with CptJack on the "only if there's danger to my dog, other animals, or people" for the use of painful corrections in training. I can't justify it for anything less based on my current, personal experience. But I want to emphasize that this doesn't mean I find people who do choose to use physical corrections appropriately evil or abusive, but I do think we have different priorities and ethics in our training. That's okay, so long as it doesn't cross the line into. Y'know. The lady who delighted in shocking the pee out of her dog. I also do think we have a duty on a public forum like this to be extremely clear whenever a certain training method has a higher risk of dangerous fallout when used incorrectly, as this one does.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Shadowmom said:


> I finally had to run a chain in my car and chain him in the backseat and let him suffer the natural consequence of hitting the end of the chain at full gallop each time he ignored my telling him down and stay and leaped out of the car.
> He hit the end of the chain two or three times tops and never tried it again.





> He has permanent windpipe damage from pulling on a flat collar before I owned him.


I am totally perplexed. Either perplexed, or horrified.

So ... you purposely chained your dog in the backseat, and "let him suffer the natural consequence of hitting the end of the chain", while knowing full well that your dog has permanent windpipe damage from a previous owner ??? 

Sorry, but I'm just absolutely dumbfounded by that. Unless I've missed something here? Even if your dog is wearing a harness as opposed to a flat collar, there is still great potential for injury to his shoulders, sternum, ribs etc. And I would think, or at least hope, that a person who's already experienced the detrimental effects of equipment misuse would have the foresight to realize it could easily happen again.


----------



## islanddog (Dec 29, 2015)

I'll try to stay on the original topic.
I use one for off lead exercise, without it, I would not allow my dog to run in the bush.
Here's how I use it.
Training using positive reinforcement, shaping & luring, mostly treats as my dog came to me with zero interest in toys. Because of his high prey drive (for the real thing), I do a lot to work on his toy drive, involves a tug & treat toy (pouch for food) and I also use 'food chase games' as a reward for times when he is not interested in the toy, and, when I have the energy, running away from him (he LOVES that). 
Add in the ecollar as negative reinforcement at very low levels (the lowest the dog will notice) and pair it with a long line so the dog learns how to 'turn it off' and then pair that with the recall. A good source is Larry Krohn, who stresses teaching all things with food & toys, and continued engagement throughout (I've actually learned a few, how to play tug with my dog, tricks from watching his videos). 
I really don't want to argue (I've seen it all), and I'm not here to write a 'how to', 
There is a 'flavour' of ecollar training that is very harsh compared to anything I'd do), and gets top billing in search. If people don't find the info here, they will find it there. 

People mentioned that this thread will be read and they don't want to encourage people to use ecollars by discussing them in any favourable light. I'm more worried that without a discussion, that google will send those people to harsh or simplistic instructions and they will proceed in complete ignorance. I'd rather they be educated.

For the lurkers. Online sources I like passing along:
kikopup, donna hill, kristen crejesto (training a dog to do things with positive reinforcement, and even 'not do things').
The Collared Scholar, Michael Ellis, leerburg for teaching good tug play, and engagement
Larry Krohn (ecollar), Lou Castle (to understand how ecollars work),
google the Four Quadrants of Operant Conditioning (to understand how dog training works).
Observe your dog & other dogs, join a dog observation group on Facebook, take loads of classes if you can. Keep it fun. Training should always be fun for your dog regardless of tools or method. If it's not, back up, back off, take a breather, ask yourself (or instructor if you've got a good one) what went wrong. Get back to the fun. 

Please keep in mind, my basic goals are a happy healthy athletic dog, maybe the same as yours? Isn't this what we all want?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 15, 2017)

I just want to say that I totally agree that ecollars can be abused ( like anything else ) and that Nobody should just go get one and slap it on. Like any other training tool people need to be educated on proper usage. Which should include open dialogue. However, as a general principle, I am totally against just doing away with something because " stupid people " will abuse whatever. I dont agree with the notion that some people should be able to ruin it for everyone. For me, this doesnt just apply to the subject at hand. I would not be opposed to educational requirements for certain things however. That being said, I have very very little faith that any regulations would be for the good. If I could believe that the people making the regulations, enforcing them, and creating the educational programs could be trusted to be doing it for the right reasons and NOT getting their own personal views and agendas involved I would be much more amenable to these things. But fat chance that would ever happen. In addition, ok so the people that want such things banned scream loud enough and get their way. Oh, well, banning ecollars worked great. Lets ban prongs next. Awesome, now lets ban crates, since so many dogs stay cooped up for too long. Fantastic. We screamed loud enough and got our way so far, so lets push to make it illegal to give a collar pop. Sweeeet, now we should make it illegal to leave your dog home alone for more than X number of hours. And on and on and on and on it will go. Because making things illegal is our solution to everything. Instead of freaking educating people. 
My line of work takes me into multiple homes daily. I see ALOT of dogs in their home environment every day. And I see where this train of thought takes us. 
People are so paranoid of hurting their dogs, or making their dogs feel bad. Or traumatizing their dogs, etc etc. And this ends up with ill behaved dogs, dogs that destroy their homes. Dogs that eat the furniture. Dogs that walk all over their owners. People say that force free and positive only is the way to go, for the safety of the dog, since dogs cant speak for themselves. And the majority of these people I see on a daily basis have dogs that rule the house. Or get yelled at constantly and have no friggin clue how to behave, and the dog is stressed and doesnt know up from down because the owner hasnt got a clue......because the owners are scared of mentally damaging their dog.
Most people dont want to put in the time and effort to teach their dogs properly. I see it every...single....day. On occasion I try to give people advice. But the second you start talking about things that take some effort, they get that starry look in their eyes, and its in one ear and out the other. 
So they yell, and scream, and basically traumatize their dogs in this way....but they say they love them too much to ever use a prong collar on them. Or an ecollar. Or give a stern correction. I mention all of these, because to me there is no essential difference. They can all serve the same functions in the right hands. ( or the wrong, but so can thinking treats and clicks will solve everything )
Garbage. Its on both ends of the spectrum. None of this will ever stop until there is a balance. Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. 
On one side youve got people shocking their dogs until they pee themselves. On the other side youve got people who equate positive force free with permissive. 
They both have it wrong. 
I personally dont see much difference between the two sides. They both create major problems, which by the way, arent that dissimilar. 
People can say that ecollars should be illegal. So then we swing to the other end of the spectrum. And we create other problems. 
Personally, in my personal experience seeing how people live with their dogs, I see more problems created by people being too permissive. Which they equate with " positive force free " 
Lack of education on both sides. Not just one. Both. 
And lots of people say that force free creates less problems than the misuse of corrections. Really? Because thats not what I see. What I see in my experience is far fewer people willing to put their foot down and make their dogs behave. Because god forbid they might damage the dog. 
Someone with alot of experience said that force free definately works. But they also said that that the nuances of it are such that most people arent willing to put in the time and effort it takes to get good enough with it that they can can achieve all their goals with force free only. 
From what I've seen with my eyes, I have to believe it. 
So we will just do away with all the tools that *may* damage a dog. And we will be left with a bunch of unruly dogs because people wont take the time and effort to learn how to use the force free methods properly. I see it everyday. All day. And it drives me nuts just much as seeing someone cranking away with a prong collar improperly.
Good Lord, I'm on my 8th german shepherd, 2 bullmastiffs, a lab and a jack russell. I'm not new to dogs, I put a ton of effort into my dogs, and I still cant get by without the occasional hard correction and use of force. But my dogs have all been well behaved, dont destroy my home, enjoy training, and actually listen to me. 
Its the same dang thing on either end.
People need more education. People should have choices. Perhaps instead of being lazy about it and just saying dont use such and such, we can be honest and tell people that all these tools can work, but they can backfire very easily, so dont use them unless youre to take the time to learn how to use them properly....cause what I mostly see out there is people who have dont have any tools to use. Because theyre scared of everything. Because of people constantly telling them that everything except a gentle harness or some such is going to create a disaster of a dog. So they dont use certain tools available, but they dont know how to do it the other way either. So all they do is manage the dog. Thats what I see the most of. People managing instead of solving. 
Take away the tools and thats what they're left with. Because they wont take the time and effort to do it another way. ( if you cant tell, I'm of the opinion that most people shouldnt own a dog period, but its not my place to take that right away from them )
Just my 2 cents
And we are all basically arguing the same thing here. It all comes down to people not knowing how to utilize their chosen methods properly, whatever those may be.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> I just want to say that I totally agree that ecollars can be abused ( like anything else ) and that Nobody should just go get one and slap it on. Like any other training tool people need to be educated on proper usage. Which should include open dialogue. However, as a general principle, I am totally against just doing away with something because " stupid people " will abuse whatever. I dont agree with the notion that some people should be able to ruin it for everyone. For me, this doesnt just apply to the subject at hand. I would not be opposed to educational requirements for certain things however. That being said, I have very very little faith that any regulations would be for the good. If I could believe that the people making the regulations, enforcing them, and creating the educational programs could be trusted to be doing it for the right reasons and NOT getting their own personal views and agendas involved I would be much more amenable to these things. But fat chance that would ever happen. In addition, ok so the people that want such things banned scream loud enough and get their way. Oh, well, banning ecollars worked great. Lets ban prongs next. Awesome, now lets ban crates, since so many dogs stay cooped up for too long. Fantastic. We screamed loud enough and got our way so far, so lets push to make it illegal to give a collar pop. Sweeeet, now we should make it illegal to leave your dog home alone for more than X number of hours. And on and on and on and on it will go. Because making things illegal is our solution to everything. Instead of freaking educating people.
> My line of work takes me into multiple homes daily. I see ALOT of dogs in their home environment every day. And I see where this train of thought takes us.
> People are so paranoid of hurting their dogs, or making their dogs feel bad. Or traumatizing their dogs, etc etc. And this ends up with ill behaved dogs, dogs that destroy their homes. Dogs that eat the furniture. Dogs that walk all over their owners. People say that force free and positive only is the way to go, for the safety of the dog, since dogs cant speak for themselves. And the majority of these people I see on a daily basis have dogs that rule the house. Or get yelled at constantly and have no friggin clue how to behave, and the dog is stressed and doesnt know up from down because the owner hasnt got a clue......because the owners are scared of mentally damaging their dog.
> Most people dont want to put in the time and effort to teach their dogs properly. I see it every...single....day. On occasion I try to give people advice. But the second you start talking about things that take some effort, they get that starry look in their eyes, and its in one ear and out the other.
> ...


DEAD ON! 
The three dogs I spoke of were super good dogs (or would have been) if the people who owned them had simply learned how to use the tools they were using to train them. Of the three, one likely would have needed a CTJ moment regardless of who owned him. He was simply that strong and the owners were incompetent. 

Incompetency kills more dogs than anything else. 

I have to quote this again.. it is so good:



> On one side youve got people shocking their dogs until they pee themselves. On the other side youve got people who equate positive force free with permissive.
> They both have it wrong.
> I personally dont see much difference between the two sides. They both create major problems, which by the way, arent that dissimilar.


Perfectly said.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 15, 2017)

I owe the OP an apology also....was alittle heated when I made my post aways back about the BB gun and all that. I shouldnt have thrown that silliness into the conversation. I grew up in a rough rural area so my perspective on things may be alittle different than most. 
So I apologize for that one.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Oh, well, banning ecollars worked great. Lets ban prongs next. Awesome, now lets ban crates, since so many dogs stay cooped up for too long. Fantastic. We screamed loud enough and got our way so far, so lets push to make it illegal to give a collar pop. Sweeeet, now we should make it illegal to leave your dog home alone for more than X number of hours. And on and on and on and on it will go.


This is one of my least favorite arguments, and very weak. This mentality is the reason why no change is ever made.
Have you ever seen how hard it is for legislation to be passed? A local group has been working for YEARS to get 'common sense abusive' things like puppy mills and using elephants in circuses banned. 

"BUT THEY'LL COME AFTER THE RODEO NEXT."

Um, no. One, it is a grueling journey of lobbying, rewriting, repeat ad nauseum to get ANY change made. There is no hidden clause. But because people are so terrified that there will be a quick and lethal domino effect of everything they ever love being taken away from them... We can't even get laws to ban people from having dogs live in cages stacked on top of cages as breeding machines. 

So focus on the actual point here.


*3GSD, I am still eager to hear your three stories that you have witnessed, of dogs being destroyed due to R+ training. You claimed that it was R+ training that led to the destruction of these dogs. Your most recent sentence or two does not speak to this and is still very vague.*


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

3GSD4IPO said:


> I used to believe no one could ruin a dog with R+ until I saw it happen.





3GSD4IPO said:


> The three dogs I spoke of were super good dogs (or would have been) if the people who owned them had simply learned how to use the tools they were using to train them. Of the three, one likely would have needed a CTJ moment regardless of who owned him. He was simply that strong and the owners were incompetent.
> 
> Incompetency kills more dogs than anything else.




So, was it the R+ training that ruined the dogs? Or incompetency? There is some inconsistency here...

Again, I will say that I have stories of P+ tools and methods DIRECTLY leading to damage to dogs or people. I have stories of people *following advice from 5 star rated trainers* to kick their dogs when they are misbehaving, another highly rated trainer being bitten because she was using an e-collar to attempt to train a poorly bred/undersocialized GSD to recall (this story is from the owner himself who witnessed this), and on and on (really, I could provide a few more examples if anyone wishes).... Sure, telling someone to kick their dog suggests the trainer is not competent. I agree completely that there are bad trainers, regardless of methods.

But the claim was, R+ can ruin dogs. I'm still waiting to see a good case for this.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 15, 2017)

@canyx, if you wanted to get back to the actual topic you shouldnt have responded to that part of the post....... Works both ways.....


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I'm not going to ignore ignorant and harmful statements.

I agree that bad training is bad training. Notice, I am not here to call a ban on tools or anything. But when you make extrapolated statements, or when 3GSD claims "R+ can kill dogs." I am going to speak up.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Just want to clarify that I don't think the forum shouldn't discuss ecollars, prongs, corrections, etc. EVER. I'm all for any techniques and theories to be on the table to discuss here, whether or not I agree with them personally. I just think that discussion of these techniques should always include the fact that they are easy to do wrong and that they do have a high risk of fallout if implemented poorly. Just like I think any advice about using, say, a long line should include advice to use it with a harness, and an explanation of the risks of injury if a dog hits the end of a long line at top speed on a collar. Even if we regulars have heard it a million times, it'll probably be new info for somebody lurking. 

Like working with a dangerous dog, I do believe ecollar use is best done under the guidance of an experienced professional and that it's really, really hard to instruct someone on the details of proper ecollar use through the internet without ever having seen the dog (or handler) in question. This is probably why most _advice_ this forum gives out is heavily positive-reinforcement based - less chance of fallout with those techniques mean they're safer to dispense to a stranger online (though probably not especially effective if they're implemented poorly). But at least for me, just because I'm not comfortable actively advising strangers to use certain techniques sight unseen doesn't mean I'm unwilling to talk about them and their uses in training in general.

And my point about Norway wasn't so much "banning tools is good and everyone should do it" but more "due to the existing ban, people in this country have found ways to train high-drive dogs in working and sport scenarios without ecollars, so it's possible". I wish I had more information on their actual techniques, but I'm sadly pretty removed from those circles. Maybe some day.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I agree with what you are saying DaySleepers. And I also want to make clear that I was happy to have a discussion, and I was happy to leave the discussion. But letting misinformation get by is harmful for pet owners who are looking for advice on forums.

Shadowmom's post was a perfect example. Here is someone who is also off topic (not a big deal), provided an example of how she trained her dog (which I don't agree with, but would not have cared to respond based just on this), *implied this is positive reinforcement training* (misinformation), then used a false notion of R+ training to agree with the so-far-baseless claim that R+ training could kill dogs. 

Islanddog comes in and talks about how they use the e-collar for R-. I understand how that works and I don't agree at all with that method. But I really don't care; that user is not spreading misinformation or advising people on how to do that to their own dogs.

Same thing with 3GSD's post in response to Dexter, which went beyond just opinion and intellectual discussion, but was in fact "a word to the wise" and giving *potentially harmful* advice to a stranger (I presume y'all don't know each other in real life) whose training routine you don't know. Whose dog you don't know. Whose timing and experience you don't know. And I am not saying this to imply Dexter is a bad owner or trainer. Not in the slightest! But point is... We don't know each other. We don't know how information will be applied. Which, isn't any one person's responsibility on a public forum. But advising something that is potentially harmful (and it seems everyone here can agree that e-collars can potentially be harmful) without more information is just... Irresponsible. Sure, I give advice to random strangers here all the time. I am still waiting to hear how R+ training can hurt dogs. But meanwhile, if I tell someone "reward your dog for being calm" or "give your dog a 10 minute time out when he gets too rowdy" and they lack the timing, skill, etc. to do it correctly, I seriously doubt the dog is going to come to any harm.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

One more thing @Dexter... Are you a professional trainer? Rereading your longer post, it sounds like you work with dogs and people for a living, or something. I just find your take on it interesting and I am curious to know.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

Canyx said:


> So, was it the R+ training that ruined the dogs? Or incompetency? There is some inconsistency here...
> 
> Again, I will say that I have stories of P+ tools and methods DIRECTLY leading to damage to dogs or people. I have stories of people *following advice from 5 star rated trainers* to kick their dogs when they are misbehaving, another highly rated trainer being bitten because she was using an e-collar to attempt to train a poorly bred/undersocialized GSD to recall (this story is from the owner himself who witnessed this), and on and on (really, I could provide a few more examples if anyone wishes).... Sure, telling someone to kick their dog suggests the trainer is not competent. I agree completely that there are bad trainers, regardless of methods.
> 
> But the claim was, R+ can ruin dogs. I'm still waiting to see a good case for this.


'

I will answer a question with a question. 

So, with R+ on those dogs I mention, was it the inexpert/inexperienced handling and use of R+ or the R+ by itself? 

Was it the E Collar tool that ruined a dog (any dog) or its inexpert application that ruined the dog (any dog)? 

The argument here about e collars use advice given and someone will take it and ruin a dog.... because they inexpertly apply it. 

It is the same thing!!! 

Dexter 01 nailed it. Bad training is bad training. The extremes described ruin dogs. You will probably say you have seen dogs ruined by misuse of e collars. I am telling you that I have seen dogs ruined by misues of R+.. advice that is rampant on the internet (actually so is e collar training if you look). How that advice is applied is the issue and that is the responsibility of the person applying it.

And yes, "They will come for the Rodeo and IPO sport and eventually your pet dog" because they came for the circus and sea world and gullible people believed them.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

There is a difference. 

There is bad R+ training, bad management, bad training plan... But the delivery of reinforcement on its own does not ruin a dog.
There is bad P+ training, bad management, bad training plan... But the delivery of punishment on its own can cause damage to dogs and to people.

I don't know how that distinction isn't clear.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last sentence, but things that deserve to fall, should fall. I'm not here to talk about treatment of marine animals or elephants but I do absolutely believe they should not be kept in captivity for entertainment purposes. Methods, tools, events, things that cause damage, will cause damage. Their sales and use should be regulated. Or at least, some things need to change. That does NOT mean 'stop everyone from having them' persay. Notice I am speaking very generally here. But no matter how poorly you train with R+, the reinforcement itself is not damaging (okay sometimes there are issues with food allergies, or a dog tore an ACL going after a ball... But I hope you know what I mean). 

We were not talking bad trainers (on all sides of the spectrum), we were talking about a specific tool. When correction tools are used improperly you say "blame the owner, not the tool." When R+ is used improperly you say post threads like these: http://www.dogforums.com/dog-training-forum/488034-aversive-free-only-training.html . Doesn't sound like you blame the owner, you blame the method.

Kills dogs. "You have seen it" you keep on saying. And again I ask, what was the training plan? I hope you see the hypocrisy here.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 15, 2017)

@canyx no I'm not a trainer by any stretch.....just a guy that loves dogs. I grew up with german shepherds, and have had that breed and bullmastiffs my whole live. I've always been in contracting and maintenance fields, so I literally spend every day in other peoples homes. Since I'm a dog person of coarse I take special notice of what I see. Every now and then I'll help somebody out with their dogs. 
Its almost like people have lost touch with how to connect with their dogs. My basic advice to most is to work on the bond, and usually the other stuff falls in line....if they put in the time to build communication with their dogs. Look, I'm actually all for force free, prong free, etc etc. I look at it as a sort of ideal to shoot for in training. 
But I also see that the majority of people say that they love their dogs so much, but they dont see that love is action.....not just saying it. Many that do see it dont want the effort that comes with it. 
From what I've seen an awful lot of dogs make slower progress without the occasional use of aversives/force. Most owners I see give up before realizing that progress. Yeah its lazy. I guess in my mind, its worth the occasional pain compliance to get the job done vs the owner giving up and the dog suffering a life of mental issues or worse due to the owner constantly being frustrated with the poor dog. We all know the kinds of things that happen when someone is always frustrated with an ill behaved dog. 
Someone implied that using certain aversives stems from laziness. While I dont agree thats true for everyone, I do agree that its true for many. But.....yall are saying that people are too lazy to learn to properly use aversives, but what I see is that theyre also too lazy to learn to do without them....and the way without them takes most people longer to learn it seems. I dont know, I just wish everyone would learn to bond and communicate with their animals.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Thanks for your post Dexter, I appreciate your perspective and it's one that I've turned in my head for a long time.

I do agree, that I sometimes encounter a young, tough (physically, mentally), rowdy dog with an owner who can't keep up, and I have thought in my mind "the right punishment applied at the right force and at the right time could make this problem go away pretty fast." However, every time I think that, I can think of a way that works using very reasonable amounts of reinforcement and management. And on top of that, if the owner doesn't have the skill and timing to make it work with reinforcement, there is no way I'm going to recommend punishment because it will be a slippery slope from there, and how they might extrapolate that advice. I want to emphasize, I virtually never recommend P+ as it is (I can remember once in the last two years I recommended a deterring spray for a leash chewer). 

I am not at all trying to invalidate your perspective and in many ways I have had the same thoughts myself. I want to offer my own take on it, and my own experience. Even as you write, "I guess in my mind, its worth the occasional pain compliance to get the job done vs the owner giving up and the dog suffering a life of mental issues or worse due to the owner constantly being frustrated with the poor dog." I understand that thought. I have thought that many times before. I still think about that sometimes. But the more I learn and the more I work with owners and their dogs, the less trapped I feel by those two choices. Because there are options beyond 'occasional pain/one quick correction' or 'the dog takes over/the dog is rehomed/the dog is euthanized.' Really, I have never encountered a situation where those are the only two options. 

Getting the owner to see beyond the two options, and to commit to a plan where they don't need either of those two options, is where the real magic of dog training is. This is why the profession is much, much more about the ability to communicate with people than it is about merit with dogs.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

In a sense I'm reluctant to generalize. But does anybody else see a disproportionate connection between GSD aficionados, and advocating the use of ecollars ??? 

Seriously, what's up with that? I just don't see many rottweiler, or lab, or mastiff, or pit, or dutchie, or mal, or dobe, or [fill in the blank / other than GSD] people so adamant about their stance, and so relentless in their own defense. 

Is it a breed 'culture' thing? it would certainly appear that way to me. Special snowflake I guess?


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

petpeeve said:


> In a sense I'm reluctant to generalize. But does anybody else see a disproportionate connection between GSD aficionados, and advocating the use of ecollars ???
> 
> Seriously, what's up with that? I just don't see many rottweiler, or lab, or mastiff, or pit, or dutchie, or mal, or dobe, or [fill in the blank / other than GSD] people so adamant about their stance, and so relentless in their own defense.
> 
> Is it a breed 'culture' thing? it would certainly appear that way to me. Special snowflake I guess?


Not special snowflakes at all. Very good dogs that have drive being honed to a fine edge. Not all dogs need an e collar. I have one that never wore one. She was nervy and weak but still worked her heart out for me and never would have worn this tool.

It depends on the dog. MANY GSD's should never see an e collar just like amny mixed breed dogs and so forth. Then there are those where the tool works very well without a lot of drama. 

One of the aficiandos (to use your words) (world level competitor BTW) said to me that the e collar is not personal. You should never make a correction personal because it can damage the relationship. We are talking working line dogs here that have strength and confidence and who want to control and (dare I say it.. eegads this word gets everyone in a knot) dominate the helper. To make this work at all (be it as patrol animals or as IPO sport dogs) they need a relationship with the handler. Three hard wanks on a prong is a very personal correction where as a meaningful nick on an e collar is instantaneous like (dare I say it?) a clicker. It is impersonal and a good handler will nick without changing stance or direction so the correction is impersonal and followed immediately by HUGE rewards. In fact, I never nick in "continuous"setting. I only correct in momentary setting which is instantaneous and off (somewhere I read we use these collars and shock until compliance is offered.. and while they CAN be used that way, not often are they by good handlers and trainers). 

Still you read the dog. Not every dog needs this tool. Mine all wear the tool when they work, but some never need it used and that is fine with me. 

Hounds used in hunting routinely wear e collars. More so than GSD's.


----------



## islanddog (Dec 29, 2015)

"Islanddog comes in and talks about how they use the e-collar for R-. I understand how that works and I don't agree at all with that method. But I really don't care; that user is not spreading misinformation or advising people on how to do that to their own dogs."

Reducing what I said to using negative reinforcement only (continuous stim until dog complies) is not accurate nor is it a method I would advocate it for others. Sorry about the word salad if that's what it sounded like. Larry Krohn explains things much better than I. I'll leave it at that. 

I will hope we agree on goals--healthy happy athletic dogs and the use of positive reinforcement and engagement as primary motivators in training.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I never said you used R- only. That part, of what you said, is a part I disagree with. But I'm not out to pick it apart. I'm sorry you felt that your comment was reduced. I was using it to make a larger point... IE, I don't think you're wrong and I know you're not here to tell everyone else to do what you do.

ETA: Don't think I didn't notice that you advocate for a good relationship and motivation based training. I saw it, and I appreciated it. You also listed some really great resources. I am not trying to imply at all that you train only with e-collars and R-


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

> Kills dogs. "You have seen it" you keep on saying. And again I ask, what was the training plan?


I sent you a PM. I did not own the details of the situations and so they are not mine to publish. 

Sometimes the quick answer (using an aversive) to correct a behavior is the best answer for a particular situation. A LOT of dog owners do not want to bother with a longer path and a quicker path taken is in the best interest of all (including the dog). 

I prefer to take a longer route if I can because I like training my dog and I like spending the time. Lots of dog owners just want a dog as a pet and just want the dog to behave. Training is not high on their list of stuff to do.


----------



## islanddog (Dec 29, 2015)

Thank you Canyx, yesterday I broke a personal rule about getting into controversial topics, already regretted, hopefully lesson learned, it's just not good for me, so your kind words are appreciated. 
Hopefully meet you elsewhere here to chitchat on engagement or other dog wonderful things. 
ps. I thought I already posted this, sorry if a similar missive shows up twice, not sure where the other thank you went.


----------

