# Shock collars on a dogs belly?



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

I NEVER thought people used shock collars like this
http://www.gundogsonline.com/Article/using-an-e-collar-for-whoa-training-Page1.htm


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

This is disgusting. 
Literally makes me physically sick.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I've heard of it. I think that if you have to torture your dog to get what you want from him, you maybe should rethink things.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

I see that as something very unpleasant for male dogs,even if put above it could slip. Using vibrate would seem more humane.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

And they think this is OKAY? What are they smoking?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Off topic, but WOW Gorden Setters look damn good shaved like that, or at least this one does.. Beautiful dog..


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Off topic, but WOW Gorden Setters look damn good shaved like that, or at least this one does.. Beautiful dog..


I'm not sure it's actually saved. I've seen field bred Gordons where the featherings really light and the body coat is short. They are GORGEOUS, built, muscular dogs.

And my dog that collar usage makes me want to scream.

*ETA* Actually, squinting at his tail he MAY be shaved, but that look isn't so hard to find without the shaving.










They don't all have a ton of coat.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

Yeah, I don't think it's shaved.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

CptJack said:


> I'm not sure it's actually saved. I've seen field bred Gordons where the featherings really light and the body coat is short. They are GORGEOUS, built, muscular dogs.
> 
> And my dog that collar usage makes me want to scream.


Yeah i just looked them up, and you're right, really like the look of the field bred ones, i only have ever seen the show bred and didn't look into them much, i've seen working bred english setters but that's it, and i just never put much effort into looking them up, but recently i've been liking more sporting breeds


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Yeah i just looked them up, and you're right, really like the look of the field bred ones, i only have ever seen the show bred and didn't look into them much, i've seen working bred english setters but that's it, and i just never put much effort into looking them up, but recently i've been liking more sporting breeds


I really, really, really like setters and spaniels. Gordons were WAY HIGH on my list at one point. I'm crazy about them because they're a lot more reserved than a lot of the other sporting breeds, and tend to be more, I don't know, not-soft temperamentally. They're all just stinking gorgeous.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

i REALLY want a field bred english setter. i don't usually like gundogs... but wow, setters. *swoon*


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Kayota said:


> i REALLY want a field bred english setter. i don't usually like gundogs... but wow, setters. *swoon*


Heh. I want field bred Gordon Setter, a field bred Springer Spaniel, a tri color pap, a tri-color bc, a tri-color corgi-

Mostly though, I want this:










Which has jack all to do with anything, but I wouldn't put a shock collar on any of their stomachs, and I don't want any of them in the next decade.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

those decker rats are AMAZING and i would totally get one if it crossed my path! so handsome.


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

I`m thinking shaved,being the mid drift has shorter fur then my Rottie does,and does look shorter then even field bred ones.

That's a nice rat terrier,much better looking to me then the chihuahua look alikes..


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Foresthund said:


> I`m thinking shaved,being the mid drift has shorter fur then my Rottie does,and does look shorter then even field bred ones.
> 
> That's a nice rat terrier,much better looking to me then the chihuahua look alikes..


 There is a reason my rt are 20 and 25 lbs - but I'd still kill for a proper decker. The lines in those dogs are out of this world.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

>


Sheesh, with ALL those straps and collars .. it's like .. mondo bondage gear for your dog. 

*Can I interest you in Tri Tronics new line of leather ass-chaps, goggles, and cat-o-ninetails clenched firmly in the jaws, to complete the ensemble?*

Ridiculous, that some people actually call this crap 'training'.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

I read somewhere a couple of years ago that stimming the dog on different parts of the body is a way to communicate different things, like move forward vs slow down. And they're usually not used to apply a harsh aversive when used by people who know what they're doing. E-collars usually have power settings of 1-100 or similar, and the usually only use around a 10, which feels like a slight tingle, not a shock.

Probably not necessary, and they could probably teach the same thing without e-collars if they really wanted to and sat down and put time and effort into coming up with different ways of teaching things, but seeing an e-collar on a dog doesn't really make me cringe or automatically think "cruelty" these days.

And that is a fabulous looking dog.


----------



## zack (May 27, 2013)

I think its disgraceful to put that horrible strap on any dog. What happened to good old fashioned training.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

Do I see right that there is ANOTHER shock collar between the blue collar and the thick... something. At what point do you say enough is enough?


----------



## Foresthund (Jul 17, 2013)

I would hope its very light. When I was a teen my parents used a anti-barking shock collar on my Newfie,but I tested it on myself,multiple times and was only a tingle and did not hurt at all. It didn't work very well because of that though. I don't like shock collars,but at that time it was that or getting him debarked.
What actually worked the best was socializing,and exercising him more and letting him be indoors and upstairs for longer. Although once he got old and couldn't climb stairs by himself the barking became a issue again.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

I would like for whoever puts that on on their dog like that, to strap it right above their groin, and if it's a male dog and a male "trainer", I want it right on their glory.
I would like to see how long they use it after that.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I was complaining not too long ago about a guy recommending I do this with Sham. I'm not even entirely sure how the topic came up, since I don't use e-collars and have never expressed interest in using them, but he has gun dogs and this is a practice some use. No thanks, guy.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> Do I see right that there is ANOTHER shock collar between the blue collar and the thick... something. At what point do you say enough is enough?


I see it too.

Completely unnecessary.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

HollowHeaven said:


> I would like for whoever puts that on on their dog like that, to strap it right above their groin, and if it's a male dog and a male "trainer", I want it right on their glory.


Sounds kinky.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

zhaor said:


> Sounds kinky.


Hey now, this is a kid friendly place, where do you think you are? Facebook? haha.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I was complaining not too long ago about a guy recommending I do this with Sham. I'm not even entirely sure how the topic came up, since I don't use e-collars and have never expressed interest in using them, but he has gun dogs and this is a practice some use. No thanks, guy.


People love to give me unsolicited advice. I was at the store getting a running harness for my aunt's lab and this lady came up behind me and was like, "Wow! Buy him a prong collar!!!!11!!!!1! Worked wonders on my dog!" Dog comes around the corner, pulling into it's prong. Cool. Granted, Wolf was yanking me all over but really... I just started working with him. Like that day. Gimme a break. Also, stop giving me bad advice stranger.

On another note, I'm confused why you would need 2 shock collars. One doesn't do it for you? And why one of the belly? Because its more sensitive, I'm guessing? Gun dog training is really foreign to me so I'm not really sure what they are even training for with the belly shocker.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

RabbleFox said:


> People love to give me unsolicited advice. I was at the store getting a running harness for my aunt's lab and this lady came up behind me and was like, "Wow! Buy him a prong collar!!!!11!!!!1! Worked wonders on my dog!" Dog comes around the corner, pulling into it's prong. Cool. Granted, Wolf was yanking me all over but really... I just started working with him. Like that day. Gimme a break. Also, stop giving me bad advice stranger.
> 
> On another note, I'm confused why you would need 2 shock collars. One doesn't do it for you? And why one of the belly? Because its more sensitive, I'm guessing? Gun dog training is really foreign to me so I'm not really sure what they are even training for with the belly shocker.


I know this guy fairly well and I'm pretty positive he knows I am not that kind of trainer, so I think he was trying to make a slight at me. I always joke about how awful Shambles is, and maybe I need to lay off it's going to have people suggest I shock his balls. 

As he put it, dogs that blow an e-collar on their necks will not blow an e-collar on their waist. Yeah I can see why.


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I read somewhere a couple of years ago that stimming the dog on different parts of the body is a way to communicate different things, like move forward vs slow down. And they're usually not used to apply a harsh aversive when used by people who know what they're doing. E-collars usually have power settings of 1-100 or similar, and the usually only use around a 10, which feels like a slight tingle, not a shock.
> 
> Probably not necessary, and they could probably teach the same thing without e-collars if they really wanted to and sat down and put time and effort into coming up with different ways of teaching things, but seeing an e-collar on a dog doesn't really make me cringe or automatically think "cruelty" these days.
> 
> And that is a fabulous looking dog.


Yes it is used on the lowest setting as just a tickle not a shock. This is one of the last stages where the dog is loose in a feild, and the dog has been training, and being taught what to do with the tickle. 

It's not like they are just shocking the dog.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I can't imagine what that poor dog could possibly have done wrong to warrant not one but 2 electric collars and a horse strap around his neck. Must be one tough dog. Sheesh. I think it is actually an idiot who doesn't have a clue about how to actually train a dog. That dog is lovely though. What a shame he is being so abused.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I've never even seen this in Schutzhund, where e-collars are actually pretty common on older dogs at the higher levels. I think even the owners of those dogs would probably raise an eyebrow at this.

I'm wondering what, exactly, the stimulus to the groin area is supposed to accomplish...or if I even want to know?!


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

zeronightfarm said:


> Yes it is used on the lowest setting as just a tickle not a shock. This is one of the last stages where the dog is loose in a feild, and the dog has been training, and being taught what to do with the tickle.
> 
> It's not like they are just shocking the dog.


Um...ok...is the "tickle" suppose to simulate some sort of distraction? What in the field routinely "tickles" the dog's groin? I guess I'm just confused over what exactly this is supposed to accomplish that a e-collar on the neck would not?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

It seems that people have confused dogs with remote control cars and think they need one zapper to make the dog go forward and one to make it go backward.


----------



## mrbilal87 (Aug 19, 2013)

I can totally understand using a shock collar where it is intended to be used: around the dog's neck. But around the dog's groin seems a little harsh to me.


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> Um...ok...is the "tickle" suppose to simulate some sort of distraction? What in the field routinely "tickles" the dog's groin? I guess I'm just confused over what exactly this is supposed to accomplish that a e-collar on the neck would not?


The video explains it all, It's also not used on the dogs groin, it's on the belly. The trainer even said that it is not on the groin, on males it is further up.

http://www.gundogsonline.com/Article/using-an-e-collar-for-whoa-training-Page1.htm


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Funny, I always thought that dogs could be taught to move forward, move backward, and stop without the use of a remote control.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

Laziness, Lol


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Dogs, how do they work?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Apparently they require batteries.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

zeronightfarm said:


> The video explains it all, It's also not used on the dogs groin, it's on the belly. The trainer even said that it is not on the groin, on males it is further up.
> 
> http://www.gundogsonline.com/Article/using-an-e-collar-for-whoa-training-Page1.htm


Schutzhund, agility, trick dogs...all kinds of dogs learn very precise movements, backwards forwards and sideways without e-collars on their bellies. I have to think gun dogs would be just as smart and more modern methods could be used to teach this kind of body awareness.


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> Schutzhund, agility, trick dogs...all kinds of dogs learn very precise movements, backwards forwards and sideways without e-collars on their bellies. I have to think gun dogs would be just as smart and more modern methods could be used to teach this kind of body awareness.


I didn't say it was the best way, I just don't think it is as horrid as people are making out to be.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

zeronightfarm said:


> I didn't say it was the best way, I just don't think it is as horrid as people are making out to be.


If it's on vibrate, it's probably just mildly annoying. If that's the case, you're right that this looks far worse than it is.

As an aside...e-collars are darned expensive...just seems like an unnecessary waste.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I didn't say it was horrid. I just think it's lazy and stupid-looking.


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

Crantastic said:


> I didn't say it was horrid. I just think it's lazy and stupid-looking.


Some people are saying that it is lol. I agree it is quite stupid looking, and to some one that doesn't know about this method or dogs for that matter, might think it's "a toy" if you catch my drift XD


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

> http://www.gundogsonline.com/Article/using-an-e-collar-for-whoa-training-Page1.htm


Compare the dog's body language between pre-stim 0:39 through 1:15, and post-stim 6:24 through 6:42. You can clearly see Freedom lose the bright and perky head up ears forward attitude she displays at the beginning of the clip. Her head gets progressively lower with each successive 'tickle'. After a mere four or five corrections, her head is virtually glued to the ground and her ears are frequently pinned. I shudder to think what would become of the dog's spirit after "hundreds of repetitions".

Following the vague speech about negative reactions, strangely enough, the dog reveals exactly what she thinks of the whole idea (@ 6:21), which imo IS a negative reaction. The speaker tries to downplay it by saying in a cutesy tone of voice "She's sniffing at it a little". Hmmm. I'm surprised that particular segment / comment didn't end up on the cutting room floor.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

It may not be cruel, but it sure doesn't seem very nice.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

It reminds me of when my brothers would mercilessly tickle me as I begged them not to. Did it permanently harm me? Probably not. But still...annoying the hell out of someone, even if they're a dog, isn't exactly nice or work towards creating a greater bond.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

If you say tickle when you push the button, it magically becomes just that!

Why not spend your e-collar money on a clicker and use your training time more wisely? Gun dog training baffles me. If you can train a dog to stop on a contact consistently without using more than a clicker and treats, you can teach "woah" to a dog in the field without a belly collar.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

RabbleFox said:


> If you say tickle when you push the button, it magically becomes just that!
> 
> Why not spend your e-collar money on a clicker and use your training time more wisely? Gun dog training baffles me. If you can train a dog to stop on a contact consistently without using more than a clicker and treats, you can teach "woah" to a dog in the field without a belly collar.


I. Don't think the stim itself is necessarily an issue. I mean, yeah, training, but I think most people agree that e-collars have uses that aren't punishment based. I use one as a CLICKER for Bug and she responds to it as such. The stimulation itself is not NECESSARILY harsh enough to be aversive to the dog and very well may be nothing more than a touch, because she's conditioned for it to be. Same as the fact that I have to poke her a lot more often than most people, including occasionally with my toe, but it doesn't make me Cesar. 

THAT said, this whole thing is confusing and weird for me, for similar reasons.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> If you say tickle when you push the button, it magically becomes just that!
> 
> Why not spend your e-collar money on a clicker and use your training time more wisely? Gun dog training baffles me. If you can train a dog to stop on a contact consistently without using more than a clicker and treats, you can teach "woah" to a dog in the field without a belly collar.


Clickers do become less useful if you are working at a distance from a dog, which you would frequently be doing with a gun dog. I don't really agree that a clicker is the solution to every problem. However, I also don't see the point of having e-collars all over a dog. If you need ONE and know how to use it properly, then I'm not going to give a side-eye, but this? This just looks like overkill and/or sloppy training.

But yeah, I think you'd have a tough time convincing most gun dog trainers that a clicker is going to work out in the field with the dog working at a distance. Another factor is that often the e-collars that these dogs have on also have GPS in case they get so involved chasing game that the handler is having trouble finding them or if they become hurt at a distance from the handler and need to be found.

That being said, I'd really hope there would not be a situation where they would need to locate the front and back halves of a dog separately!!! :fear:


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> Clickers do become less useful if you are working at a distance from a dog, which you would frequently be doing with a gun dog. I don't really agree that a clicker is the solution to every problem. However, I also don't see the point of having e-collars all over a dog. If you need ONE and know how to use it properly, then I'm not going to give a side-eye, but this? This just looks like overkill and/or sloppy training.
> 
> But yeah, I think you'd have a tough time convincing most gun dog trainers that a clicker is going to work out in the field with the dog working at a distance. Another factor is that often the e-collars that these dogs have on also have GPS in case they get so involved chasing game that the handler is having trouble finding them or if they become hurt at a distance from the handler and need to be found.
> 
> That being said, I'd really hope there would not be a situation where they would need to locate the front and back halves of a dog separately!!! :fear:



You can actually clicker train fairly well from a distance. The standard argument is that the click is the release for the dog, and while that's true as a standard you aren't... carrying the clicker around all the time to use IT as a remote control for the dog, either. You're using it to mark appropriate behavior. Building duration just means with-holding the click or marker word for longer periods of time. Distance isn't really an issue, either, once the dog knows what you want. 

I don't mind e-collars, but isn't really NOT hard to use positive methods for distance handling. You DO have some special considerations with gun-dogs that make it harder and an e-collar more useful that no one has brought up - like the fact that yelling commands and waving your arms around is not a great way to find something to SHOOT AT, and that makes an ecollar as a method to give those commands to the dog silently a good thing, but: it's not the distance that's the issue.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

The clicker is a pretty useful tool but I guess it can use its affective ness as the dog moves further from you. But... On the same note, you can teach a dog to go through hoops and weave around poles at a distance if you start pretty small. Not saying you have to use a clicker but positive reinforcement seems to work at most distances. More often than not, I use my voice as the clicker. "Yes!" Or "Good!" The tool (clicker) isn't as important as the actual training method. But it's a good place to start! Click for halts at short distances and reward, switch to voice and reward as the distance increases. 

I would think only one e collar was necessary in situations were you would want to use such a device properly. I agree that it's not the device that is bothering me so much as is the way it's being used. The trainer could use the vibrate setting on the belly instead of the tickle if she really wanted. Potentially with the same result?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

The distances I see hunting dogs working at, to me, seem too far for a clicker to be heard distinctly, particularly when the dog is focused on its task. If the dog can't clearly hear the click, then it's not going to work to mark a behavior. I hadn't even thought of the issue of needing to be quiet to avoid scaring off game, but that's useful, too.

I think what these collars are likely being used for, though, is not to mark a positive behavior, but as a negative marker. In that case, the trainer is likely looking for something that is going to break the dog's focus enough that they can then be redirected to the correct behavior. Given how reinforcing a lot of the behaviors a gun dog would be doing in the field are to the dog, it could be that they are looking for something that has enough "oomph" to break that focus long enough to get their attention back and redirect them. In that case, I think it comes down to just having a very different training method at play and one that most people here would prefer not to use or discuss.

I do agree, though, that the trainer should be able to use the e-collar at the lowest setting that works for the dog. There is never any need to "fry" a dog and it's really important, if you're going to use an e-collar as a negative marker, to be very careful about how and when you do it.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> The distances I see hunting dogs working at, to me, seem too far for a clicker to be heard distinctly, particularly when the dog is focused on its task. If the dog can't clearly hear the click, then it's not going to work to mark a behavior. I hadn't even thought of the issue of needing to be quiet to avoid scaring off game, but that's useful, too..


Well, the click doesn't need to be a click. "Yes" or whistles (commonly used for herding dogs) can also be used to mark behavior. So again, it's NOT the distance. It's that you can't really be making noise to communicate with the dog, and waving your arms around to give signals is a problem for the same reason. I hunt/grew up hunting more than I have any intention of doing now. I mean I can 'handle' Jack from a couple of hundred yards away with vocal commands, but I'm sure as heck scaring off anything in the area doing it 

And frankly, they ARE being used as a negative marker. 

But they don't have to be, either. Electric collar is exactly what I use as Bug's clicker. 

Breaking focus is such a cop-out to me, I can't even. Like I said, I've hunted and been around hunting dogs most of my life. If that's what people want to do, it's fine. It's just that having it used as justification drives me up a wall. Gun-dogs in general are not at all hard to motivate, control, train, or effectively use by anyone with a brain that chooses to use it . I mean, honestly. Do what you want, I don't think it's abusive and I use some corrections with my dogs, but claiming it's 'necessary' just reads like 'I don't know any other way and I refuse to learn' which just ticks me the heck off. No. It's the easier way, it works for you, and if that's the cast? Fiiiiine, no harm, no foul, I don't think you're awful.

Start claiming you HAVE To and I DON'T UNDERSTAND just makes me roll my eyes. Some things I may not/have little or no experience with, but having grown up with police dogs (one unstable one that scarred me for life, but not the only one), working (with a cop father) and seeing trained, AND Hunting dogs? Yeah, yeah I do. And if an e-collar, prong collar or compulsion based training (or 'balanced' training) is really what you want to do, that's not going to make me think you abuse the dog, or are bad. I even think sometimes they're useful tools. Just don't pretend it's the only way to accomplish the goal because your dog or what you want it to do is magically immune to being accomplished with positive methods. 

The ONLY thing you can't accomplish with positive methods is aversion of something.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Breaking focus is such a cop-out to me, I can't even. Like I said, I've hunted and been around hunting dogs most of my life. If that's what people want to do, it's fine. It's just that having it used as justification drives me up a wall. Gun-dogs in general are not at all hard to motivate, control, train, or effectively use by anyone with a brain that chooses to use it . I mean, honestly. Do what you want, I don't think it's abusive and I use some corrections with my dogs, but claiming it's 'necessary' just reads like 'I don't know any other way and I refuse to learn' which just ticks me the heck off. No. It's the easier way, it works for you, and if that's the cast? Fiiiiine, no harm, no foul, I don't think you're awful.
> 
> Start claiming you HAVE To and I DON'T UNDERSTAND just makes me roll my eyes.
> 
> Some things I may not/have little or no experience with, but having grown up with police dogs (one unstable one that scarred me for life, but not the only one), working (with a cop father) and seeing trained, AND Hunting dogs? Yeah, yeah I do.


Honestly, I don't understand and I'd like to. I'd rather not have to ever use an e-collar on a dog if I don't have to and I do put a lot of thought into what methods I use. My problem is that I still don't understand a positive method to break a dog's focus and redirect them...and I would like to.

And no, I haven't trained hunting dogs or police dogs and I wasn't claiming that no one had experience with it or that I did.

Honestly...why can't we discuss training methods as a whole here without it becoming so personal, particularly when I think most of us here are of the same mindset when it comes to preferring positive methods whenever possible?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

I've never used a clicker (I use "yes" as a marker and it works fine for my purposes), but I think there are a lot of misconceptions about them. Once the dog has a command down, the trainer's not carrying a clicker everywhere, right? You don't see people running agility, clicking every time the dog does an obstacle. Similarly, can't a dog be taught to obey voice commands/hand signals up close, then only allowed to run at a distance once they have those down?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> Honestly...why can't we discuss training methods as a whole here without it becoming so personal, particularly when I think most of us here are of the same mindset when it comes to preferring positive methods whenever possible?


Sorry, that rant was not directed primarily at you. It's something I see a lot of amongst people who are training gun/hunting dogs in particular and it drives me up a tree. I flailed all over, but you weren't the intended 'target' as it were.

I think when there's an element of safety involved, there's nothing wrong with aversives, in general. Regaining control of a dog doing bite work applies, for instance, and I don't think I'd think twice in that scenario. But as an emergency brake, not as a standard method of training, unless the dog's trained to it and the stimulus is a specific sort of a command - telling the dog what to do, not just "HOLY SHIT, BAD, I'd better stop!" 

A gun dog or dog out hunting? Not so much, even that. The training methods can be the same as any other dog, in any other situation, because your biggest risk is the dog haring off and spoiling your shot, or the dog not coming back and having to track its fuzzy behind down using the GPS (which, yes, are often in collars). They're also generally highly trainable, people oriented and biddable dogs. Using the ecollar as a distance command 'look at me, come back' whatever doesn't phase me for reasons I mentioned, but ... it's not really different than training a dog to obey an agility direction, or any other distance application, aside from the need to be quiet. People want their dogs out FAST and hunting FAST and short-cut through a lot of the actual foundation work. 

There's no REASON a dog should be losing focus that consistently in the field, if it's been built and taught. If they are, back it up and start building attention and the commands you need again, with more positive re-enforcement. A dog hunting has drive and instinct, and you're going to have to work more, and it's a powerful distraction in some dogs, but it's just another distraction. If you're doing this for a recreational hobby, and no one's going to be endangered (seriously endangered) by it, there's no reason not to just reenforce the crap out of the commands you need to work - and can't use the dog's drive as the high value reward.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> I've never used a clicker (I use "yes" as a marker and it works fine for my purposes), but I think there are a lot of misconceptions about them. Once the dog has a command down, the trainer's not carrying a clicker everywhere, right? You don't see people running agility, clicking every time the dog does an obstacle. Similarly, can't a dog be taught to obey voice commands/hand signals up close, then only allowed to run at a distance once they have those down?


Yep. I mean, again, I don't have an e-collar on a dog as a means of silent, distance communication, and use one as such with Little Miss Deaf. Even a 'look at me' is hugely useful for her, and that's its primary job at this point. Hunting, you don't want the noise associated with whistles or verbal commands. I get that.

But it doesn't mean the thing needs to be used as an aversive, much less a strong one.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I'm with CptJack in that I don't think e-collars are the devil, but to claim that it is the only way to train a gun dog is just ridiculous.

The majority of the time, the stim really is just set at the annoying level and the dogs aren't being zapped, so that's not what I have an issue with. My main issue with them is that they are predominantly used in a negative reinforcement training scenario. You get buzzed until you do what I want. There is a time and a place for negative reinforcement in training, but I don't like the idea of training every behavior with it. I haven't trained a gun dog myself, but I have read a fair amount about spaniel training (in which e-collar use seems to be on the decline anyway) and there is a prevailing notion of teaching the dog to "turn off the stim." You teach the dog to offer very specific behaviors (kennel up, sit, come) as a way to turn off the annoying collar stim. I think training a dog to do what you want by avoiding something annoying or painful is not the way to create a dog who loves to learn and offer behaviors. I'm sure it works great to train very specific things, and it's how horses are trained as well, but it's not the only way and it's not how I choose to train. I don't like the assumption by some bird dog people that it is the only way to do things. I don't think it's the best way, personally, but I don't think it's necessarily cruel either. Most people don't think training horses with negative reinforcement is cruel.

If someone was using the e-collar like a clicker, to mark a correct behavior at a distance, or as a silent cue (paired with positive rewards) rather than as negative reinforcement, I would be all for it. This could be a great way to mark a behavior at large distances, or give a recall cue silently. Overall I agree with Cran though that once the dog is working very far away, you're past the point of needing a clicker to mark the behavior every time because the dog knows the cues. And using it for a recall can easily cross over from just a cue, to holding the button down until the dog starts coming back, which is negative reinforcement again. 

In the majority of training I have read, it is never used as positive punishment to fry a dog, which is how I think most people assume they are used. Not saying people don't do this, I'm sure they do, but it's generally not how most gun dog people seem to use it.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Sorry, that rant was not directed primarily at you. It's something I see a lot of amongst people who are training gun/hunting dogs in particular and it drives me up a tree. I flailed all over, but you weren't the intended 'target' as it were.


No worries.  I can see how that would start to become a hot button over time.



CptJack said:


> I think when there's an element of safety involved, there's nothing wrong with aversives, in general. Regaining control of a dog doing bite work applies, for instance, and I don't think I'd think twice in that scenario. But as an emergency brake, not as a standard method of training, unless the dog's trained to it and the stimulus is a specific sort of a command - telling the dog what to do, not just "HOLY SHIT, BAD, I'd better stop!"
> 
> A gun dog or dog out hunting? Not so much, even that. The training methods can be the same as any other dog, in any other situation, because your biggest risk is the dog haring off and spoiling your shot, or the dog not coming back and having to track its fuzzy behind down using the GPS (which, yes, are often in collars). They're also generally highly trainable, people oriented and biddable dogs. Using the ecollar as a distance command 'look at me, come back' whatever doesn't phase me for reasons I mentioned, but ... it's not really different than training a dog to obey an agility direction, or any other distance application, aside from the need to be quiet. People want their dogs out FAST and hunting FAST and short-cut through a lot of the actual foundation work.
> 
> There's no REASON a dog should be losing focus that consistently in the field, if it's been built and taught. If they are, back it up and start building attention and the commands you need again, with more positive re-enforcement. A dog hunting has drive and instinct, and you're going to have to work more, and it's a powerful distraction in some dogs, but it's just another distraction. If you're doing this for a recreational hobby, and no one's going to be endangered (seriously endangered) by it, there's no reason not to just reenforce the crap out of the commands you need to work - and can't use the dog's drive as the high value reward.


I do see many people use aversives as a shortcut. Sometimes, it's for good reason. (A behavior that is dangerous for the dog to continue, for example, I think is a good reason to use an aversive to speed up the process if it is a sincere safety issue.) Other times, it is because the person has a timeline in their head for how quickly a dog should learn something. It is telling that I see more aversives being used right before a trial than in the months preceding. The handler is stressed, the dog feels the stress and they think they HAVE to have whatever title at the trial. I really respect the handlers in our group who have looked at their dogs and the trial date and simply said, "Nope...we won't be ready by then," despite others encouraging them to dig in and work their dogs to that level in the brief time before. I definitely think that rushing is an issue and not really the best reason to use an aversive.

I also wonder if part of the problem is that, for a lot if not MOST handlers, the dog's drive IS the high value reward. For an older, trained ScH dog, there feels like there really isn't much we can offer the dog that can compete with the thrill they get from the bitework itself. In tracking, there's the same issue, but it's a little easier to handle because it's very rare we need or want to hold them back from following a track and when we do, even at the highest levels, they're on a leash. We do use that drive to gain control in bitework to some extent, by NOT letting the dog get the bite if they aren't listening to commands, but it gets much trickier at the higher levels where the dog is doing all the work off leash and at a distance from the handler.

I've been thinking about this a lot because I see that as the point at which most handlers do start to use an e-collar as an aversive and I'd like to think of a different way to handle that situation before I ever get to it. I think I'd first try working with the helper/decoy to have them drop the sleeve and not give the dog a reward of a bite or tug if they have blown off a command, then restart the scenario. That does seem to work well with some dogs, but I've seen others who will simply then grab the sleeve, tug on it themselves, and triumphantly march off with it.

I guess the problem I keep noodling over in my head is what to do when you can't offer a reward that is greater than the self-reward of the distraction itself, which is a problem beyond any particular sport and even just with daily life with a dog. I'm guessing the answer is just reinforcing a conflicting behavior to the point where the dog doesn't even think before doing it, but when you want them to do that behavior *sometimes* and not others, that becomes trickier.

Just thinking out loud...


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I think it becomes key to never give the dog a chance to self-reward. A dog out hunting isn't really much different from a dog in Sch. That drive is there, and the dog wants nothing more than to find game, or catch game, or whatever, the same way that Sch dog wants to get the sleeve. The handler needs to gain control of the dog and not allow them to self-reward when they are working off leash. I think the key is just lots of foundations, and requiring a release to get that reward. If the handler starts by allowing the dog to self-reinforce all the time, then decides that they want to be in control, of course the dog is going to be confused and the handler might turn to something like an e-collar to up the ante. Or as CptJack mentioned, they might want to get their 8 month old puppy out hunting and winning field trials quickly, and using aversives can speed that up. I don't think that means you *need* something like an e-collar.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

packetsmom said:


> No worries.  I can see how that would start to become a hot button over time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I don't know. I lived with and watched actual police dogs trained, both positively and negatively, but have no experience with it as a sport. 

As ironic as it sounds, if I was going to get involved with it, I'd be looking to agility dog people to see how they handle high drive dogs and maintain control. The game itself is often the reward, and sometimes the solution seems to be shrugging their shoulders and saying 'no fun for you' and removing the dog. 

That becomes harder when the game is latching onto the sleeve so they're, you know, latched onto the sleeve and ignoring an out command, which is why I mentioned it specifically as something I could see the use for, but I'd certainly try having the sleeve drop and the game end. I'd also think about building a no-reward marker in daily life if you haven't, yet, because there are certainly behaviors dogs learn are only welcome on command or cue, but not all the time, via 'nope, not that'. Doesn't mean a dog in high drive will HEAR IT, but it's certainly a place to start so the e-collar doesn't have to become a default method of managing a dog who doesn't want to out. I have seen both used in actual training of the police dogs, but admittedly fairly early on. It just still seems like foundations to me. You control access to the game, and while I get that building drive is a BIG DEAL in Sch. that doesn't mean you can't also reenforce the heck out of your drop command, by allowing them to go back to it once you've given it. You just need the reward to be the game, again. 

I don't think an emergency brake is a bad thing- seriously. But obviously, the e-collar can't be the only out command the dog listens to, either.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> I think it becomes key to never give the dog a chance to self-reward. A dog out hunting isn't really much different from a dog in Sch. That drive is there, and the dog wants nothing more than to find game, or catch game, or whatever, the same way that Sch dog wants to get the sleeve. The handler needs to gain control of the dog and not allow them to self-reward when they are working off leash. I think the key is just lots of foundations, and requiring a release to get that reward. If the handler starts by allowing the dog to self-reinforce all the time, then decides that they want to be in control, of course the dog is going to be confused and the handler might turn to something like an e-collar to up the ante. Or as CptJack mentioned, they might want to get their 8 month old puppy out hunting and winning field trials quickly, and using aversives can speed that up. I don't think that means you *need* something like an e-collar.


This is my fundamental issue and I think a pretty basic problem in Sch, from what I've read. There is a ton of focus on drive building, and that's good, but by the time a lot of the people I've seen talk about it are ready and willing to teach the dog control or try to impliment it, the dog's had drive built by self-re-enforcement for an age and a half. There is a lot of focus on building the dog's desire for the sleeve and some of the methodolgy I've seen for that means that at earlier stages you don't give a drop it or out command, you 'choke the dog off'. That amounts to wrestling it away from the dog, to make it more tenacious and to want it more. To quote one famous trainer, make the dog think "OH BOY, I WON'T LET GO NEXT TIME." That tenacity is a good thing in the sport, it really is. Heck, I've used that sort of thing with Kylie quite a bit and now have a 12lb dog I can pick up by a tug.

But, um, I don't think you're going to kill it if you couple that with a command that does mean 'game's over, now' at some stage before the dog is completely out of control and incapable of listening to you, either.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Yes, I think gun dog training focuses much more on the obedience aspect upfront, rather than building drive by letting the dog hunt for itself for a long period of time. If you let a dog hunt for itself for a couple years, then tried to gain control, you would have a really hard time.


----------



## Emmett (Feb 9, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> If someone was using the e-collar like a clicker, to mark a correct behavior at a distance, or as a silent cue (paired with positive rewards) rather than as negative reinforcement, I would be all for it. This could be a great way to mark a behavior at large distances, or give a recall cue silently. Overall I agree with Cran though that once the dog is working very far away, you're past the point of needing a clicker to mark the behavior every time because the dog knows the cues. And using it for a recall can easily cross over from just a cue, to holding the button down until the dog starts coming back, which is negative reinforcement again.


When I first joined I started a thread for advice on using an e-collar for long distance recall. Otis understood "come" but at 100+ yards or where it he couldn't see me he blew it off probably 50% of the time. I got some flak and some encouragement and eventually did implement the e-collar just as you describe as a simple recall cue. We laid tons of ground work conditioning him to the collar and making sure it was a positive experience and that the concept was CLEAR to him. I dropped "come" in those scenarios all together and used the vibrate as his silent cue to return. Eventually, after months of groundwork and then further proofing, I added in a whistle. Now he recalls from a 100+ yards or out of visual range by whistle alone without even wearing the collar. 

As for using the collar because the dog's drive interferes with its ability to focus/listen. I would look at this scenario as the dog being over threshold and, just like CptJack says, needing more foundation work. When we talk about counter conditioning we say that if you are too close and over threshold the dog will be too intent to listen/respond. We don't generally suggest that you physically touch to break the dog's focus DURING training, instead we suggest you move farther away and work the dog where it is not over threshold. To me, this is analogous to working a dog who's drive has put them in a place where they cannot listen/respond to their handler. At this point you've taken your dog too far for their level of impulse control and you need to take a step back and proof at a lower threshold. 

You can have all the drive in the world, but it is entirely useless without building in control from the very beginning. To me building drive and neglecting control is like trying to teach someone how to drive a car by only using the gas pedal and then adding brakes at a later date. Juliemule posted an article about Malinois and one of the ideas was that ringsports "temper" these breeds into the dogs they should become. Part of the tempering process is alternated heating and cooling processes, I think that analogy fits very well with focusing on drive and control at the same time.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

packetsmom said:


> The distances I see hunting dogs working at, to me, seem too far for a clicker to be heard distinctly, particularly when the dog is focused on its task. If the dog can't clearly hear the click, then it's not going to work to mark a behavior. I hadn't even thought of the issue of needing to be quiet to avoid scaring off game, but that's useful, too.


I think you are slightly misunderstanding the clicker part of clicker training. The clicker isn't magical and really does not affect the training process all that much. It's just a sound people like to use because it is so distinct and clear and uniform. You could use any sound or signal to the dog to say 'hey this is right. here is your reward'

The problem is reliability takes time to perfect.... and lots of training. Most people skimp out. You want the skills but don't want the time. 

In agility there are very very high drive dogs competing and a lot of those dogs are wanting no more than to run and handler be damned. We generally will dive into negative reinforcement, but not positive punishment. You won't see e-collars or correction collars at all- it's a safety issue. 

I know several disabled agility handlers with various mobility problems. Some of them run extremely high drive and fast dogs. There was a lady with one leg at nationals that was running a pretty darn fast dog. She basically stood in the center of the ring and called out directions to the dog (dog is running at speed). Both runs I saw were clean as can be. One friend I know who has made world tryouts has mobility issues and her dogs are wicked, wicked fast. Another friend I know online is in a wheelchair but runs in agility. 

So I see these people and think golly there has to be a way they get those drivey dogs to turn on a dime, hit their contacts, and work at speed at a distance without them being able to really move much and without aversives. Aversives just aren't done in most agility training (I've never seen it in the 4 places I've trained. I'm SURE it exists somewhere) 

It's just a #%&$ ton of foundation work built up over time. My friend (with the mobility issues mentioned before) has a new pup and he's 11 weeks. Already learning to go through the poles (no bar) and tunnels at speed and rewarding for faster, faster, faster. Exercises are built up where the dog succeeds. You don't go to that kind of speed at a long distance right away. Her current nationals/world trials dog has been training for 5 years. AWESOME distance skills, speed and control. He is one of the coolest shelties I've ever seen. But that's 5 years of a lot of work to get there. There is no shortcut. You skimp and you have the crazy dog flying off and making their own course... and no Q. lol Control is way more difficult in a lot of these dogs than drive.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Emmett, I like your analogy of being over threshold in counter conditioning. If a dog is deaf to commands because he is so in drive, it's basically the same thing and requires the same training techniques. You have to move back a level to where the dog is succeeding, and build up foundations for a long time. If the dog is repeatedly ignoring you while in drive, you're probably moving too fast and giving him too many opportunities to self-reward. 

Agility people really do work with dogs who are as high drive as Sch or hunting dogs, and they do it aversive-free. There are also many opportunities to self-reward, as the dog could easily take off and run the course on its own if it desired and the owner lost control of the situation. I think the model used there can be applied to just about any training where the dog is moving fast and in drive.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Agility is far from perfect though. There are definitely dogs kept way over their thresholds and dogs that are not taught to stay in control. 

It is funny to me because most the time I see verrrrry similar problems among different dogs owned by the same handler- regardless of breed really. Some people seem to consistently have slow dogs or fast dogs. Some people always seem to have nutballs. My own dogs struggle with the same pieces of equipment. Even as pets they have similar issues- despite being very different personalities. Neither can crate worth a darn, both are loudmouths, and both excite too easily. 

And some other people seem to consistently have fast, super driven, and extremely accurate dogs. Makes me go Hmmm...


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Laurelin said:


> Agility is far from perfect though. There are definitely dogs kept way over their thresholds and dogs that are not taught to stay in control.
> 
> It is funny to me because most the time I see verrrrry similar problems among different dogs owned by the same handler- regardless of breed really. Some people seem to consistently have slow dogs or fast dogs. Some people always seem to have nutballs. My own dogs struggle with the same pieces of equipment. Even as pets they have similar issues- despite being very different personalities. Neither can crate worth a darn, both are loudmouths, and both excite too easily.
> 
> And some other people seem to consistently have fast, super driven, and extremely accurate dogs. Makes me go Hmmm...



Me too. I seem to raise a very specific sort of puppy. I mean personality differences, yes, but Thud and Kylie are crazy similar in a lot of ways that don't make a lot of sense, except that they were raised by the same person.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> Agility is far from perfect though. There are definitely dogs kept way over their thresholds and dogs that are not taught to stay in control.


Not saying it's perfect, since no handlers or dogs are perfect, but there are techniques and trainers out there who can solve those problems without introducing aversives, and I admire that.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Me too. I seem to raise a very specific sort of puppy. I mean personality differences, yes, but Thud and Kylie are crazy similar in a lot of ways that don't make a lot of sense, except that they were raised by the same person.


That is both exciting and terrifying for when I get a second dog. lol 

Though if I get a Watson son, I'm pretty much expecting him to have a lot of similarities anyway. I'd have to try a different breed to see how it holds up.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Oooo, this *just* showed up on my blog reader and talks about this exact issue (self-rewarding, not shock collars on bellies):
http://denisefenzi.com/2013/08/20/impulse-control/


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

I do think that agility and Schutzhund are a bit different, although there is a lot of overlap and a lot that can be learned across the sports. We have some members in our club who do both, which is sometimes helpful, although the members that do both are further on the aversives side of the spectrum when it comes to training methods than most of the other members. :/

I think a part of the problem is, as Cpt Jack pointed out, that in Schutzhund, there are tons of times you WANT the dog to self-reward. In tracking, it's all about the dog self-rewarding. Essentially, there is very little the handler does beyond setting the track and laying rewards in it, and then walking behind the dog and sometimes slowing them down if they start to get sloppy. The handler does not reward until the end and that's usually a brief ear scratch and chest rub. In protection, there are times the dog needs to go after the helper/decoy without a command. The dog is trained that if the helper/decoy moves during a bark and hold or begins to act threatening, they are to act.

I do think that there is some work done even in early stages to learn how to handle that drive. Even just playing tug. The puppy is supposed to always win, however, if they get too amped up and are getting out of control and losing the ability to target properly, the game stops. It usually stops on a positive note with treats, but it stops and for most puppies that is still a negative experience because they love the game more than the treats. I'd also say that, at least in our club, protection only takes up 1/3 of our training time, sometimes even less. Obedience often takes up more than 1/3 of the time, with tracking coming in second and protection a third. Mostly, this is because protection is highly motivating and, compared to obedience, requires less precision.

I think a lot of the same techniques are applicable across sports, but there is an element that is added when you are training a dog to bite that I think does change things somewhat. It's a balancing act between control and drive and riding a thin line between them. People who love the sport thrive on that kind of razor's edge, but I can see where, if you have a dog that is just that driven in protection, having some kind of backup plan to break that drive, even if you never used it, could help the handler have more confidence, which is a huge part of keeping control in the first place.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> Oooo, this *just* showed up on my blog reader and talks about this exact issue (self-rewarding, not shock collars on bellies):
> http://denisefenzi.com/2013/08/20/impulse-control/


That is a really good one.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Laurelin said:


> I think you are slightly misunderstanding the clicker part of clicker training. The clicker isn't magical and really does not affect the training process all that much. It's just a sound people like to use because it is so distinct and clear and uniform. You could use any sound or signal to the dog to say 'hey this is right. here is your reward'


Actually I've done clicker and training with a marker word. I do understand it, however, as we've pointed out, the example of a dog at a distance where it cannot hear the marker or a situation where you cannot use an audible marker mean that a clicker really isn't going to be useful as a marker. This is where an e-collar on vibrate was suggested. It's not really an aversive and can be used as a marker where the dog either can't hear you or you don't want a sound that would scare off the animals being hunted.

And, while I do think there's a lot that can be learned from agility, that the sports are rather different, with different types of drives involved on the part of the dogs as well as different risk factors on the part of the handlers. I don't think it's as cut and dried as, "well, if it can be done in agility, then it can be done in any other sport as well."


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Emmett said:


> When I first joined I started a thread for advice on using an e-collar for long distance recall. Otis understood "come" but at 100+ yards or where it he couldn't see me he blew it off probably 50% of the time. I got some flak and some encouragement and eventually did implement the e-collar just as you describe as a simple recall cue. We laid tons of ground work conditioning him to the collar and making sure it was a positive experience and that the concept was CLEAR to him. I dropped "come" in those scenarios all together and used the vibrate as his silent cue to return. Eventually, after months of groundwork and then further proofing, I added in a whistle. Now he recalls from a 100+ yards or out of visual range by whistle alone without even wearing the collar.
> 
> As for using the collar because the dog's drive interferes with its ability to focus/listen. I would look at this scenario as the dog being over threshold and, just like CptJack says, needing more foundation work. When we talk about counter conditioning we say that if you are too close and over threshold the dog will be too intent to listen/respond. We don't generally suggest that you physically touch to break the dog's focus DURING training, instead we suggest you move farther away and work the dog where it is not over threshold. To me, this is analogous to working a dog who's drive has put them in a place where they cannot listen/respond to their handler. At this point you've taken your dog too far for their level of impulse control and you need to take a step back and proof at a lower threshold.
> 
> You can have all the drive in the world, but it is entirely useless without building in control from the very beginning. To me building drive and neglecting control is like trying to teach someone how to drive a car by only using the gas pedal and then adding brakes at a later date. Juliemule posted an article about Malinois and one of the ideas was that ringsports "temper" these breeds into the dogs they should become. Part of the tempering process is alternated heating and cooling processes, I think that analogy fits very well with focusing on drive and control at the same time.


I think these are some very good points. The hard part is, in ringsports, it can be hard to know where that line is, where the dog is over threshold and beyond control because when you hit it, you can't just calmly move them back further from the helper/decoy...they're already there, off the leash, and ready to go. Plus, part of the training IS pushing them over threshold on purpose, to the point where they are lunging, barking, eager to go after that sleeve with everything they've got.

I do think that ringsports, for some dogs with a certain temperment, does help them learn control. I'm a geek by nature, so to me, it reminds me of the part in superhero movies where the hero discovers his superpowers and then inevitably goes off to some isolated place to practice with them. At first, he is all over the place, flinging webs in the wrong direction or burning through the wrong things with heat vision. The hero learns the consequences of using his powers as well as the thrill of using them. After a time, he starts to learn how to control them, but the process getting there is often dangerous and a bit chaotic. As handlers, we're just guides trying to help the dog discover their powers as well as how to use them in a way that is responsible and healthy. I see dogs in our club at every different level, from the new puppies, to the headstrong adolescents, to the capable and dependable adults, to even the retired seniors. I've even heard dogs that were thought to be out of control brought back from the brink by training in the sport and handlers who thought they could never control their dogs given the confidence to do so.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

elrohwen said:


> Oooo, this *just* showed up on my blog reader and talks about this exact issue (self-rewarding, not shock collars on bellies):
> http://denisefenzi.com/2013/08/20/impulse-control/


That is a good read although I do think agility can be self rewarding depending on the dog in question. There are a lot of dogs that are driven simply to 'do'. Something or anything so in my experience those are the ones struggling with impulse control more often because jumping and doing half a course on their own is rewarding. It's not always about the tug or the toy, the game itself is a reward. 

I've also seen issues in agility where due to the trial or class setup, the dog can get to a (non agility) reward- be that barking at other dogs, running and chasing cars across the fence, whatever that may be. It's certainly not the exact same thing but I see overlap.



> In protection, there are times the dog needs to go after the helper/decoy without a command. The dog is trained that if the helper/decoy moves during a bark and hold or begins to act threatening, they are to act.


Wouldn't the guy moving essentially BE the command? A lot of agility is trained to happen without a voice command or any direct input from the handler. Like... If I stop, you turn in and come to me. If I send you then turn back around, you wrap the pole and come in. Obviously you are still dictating the course but some of the cues for the dog to do what the dog is doing is not a real 'command', it's inferred based on foundation training teaching the dog to work both sides and switch sides, slow down and speed up, etc.

I'm really not trying to say the two sports are the same, obviously they're not. But I think there is more overlap than people assume. Agility is also a balancing act between control and drive. End result is obviously different, you're tapping into some different drives (sometimes, depends on why your dog goes for the sleeve, I imagine), and goals are different but there is still the element of trying to build up drive to the max while also maintaining control of the run. 

Agility is after all a game of speed.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

packetsmom said:


> Actually I've done clicker and training with a marker word. I do understand it, however, as we've pointed out, the example of a dog at a distance where it cannot hear the marker or a situation where you cannot use an audible marker mean that a clicker really isn't going to be useful as a marker. This is where an e-collar on vibrate was suggested. It's not really an aversive and can be used as a marker where the dog either can't hear you or you don't want a sound that would scare off the animals being hunted.
> 
> And, while I do think there's a lot that can be learned from agility, that the sports are rather different, with different types of drives involved on the part of the dogs as well as different risk factors on the part of the handlers. I don't think it's as cut and dried as, "well, if it can be done in agility, then it can be done in any other sport as well."


E-collar on vibrate doesn't bother me but I think you could do the same thing with a whistle. That is how things are done in sheepdog trials where the dogs are doing incredible long outruns- commands come in the form of a whistle. 

I am not saying everything can or should be done like they do in agility, but I am saying that I think it's possible to train a dog that is in full drive to stop and operate at a distance but that the training to do so takes a lot of time and patience.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I love this on by Denise Fenzi too: http://denisefenzi.com/2013/02/21/managing-a-motivational-training-class/
And this one: http://denisefenzi.com/2012/12/05/doing-our-best/

Gosh I could read her blog all day, LOL.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Working as a hunting spaniel is very self-rewarding. A pointer needs to control his impulse and point the bird, not attack it. Spaniels are expected to jump at that bird with everything they've got and if it runs off, they will hopefully catch it. In America at least, it's a fault for the dog to pause at the bird before flushing, because if that bird runs off it will likely get away. Do the dogs often catch the bird? Probably not, but they are given plenty of clip wing birds in training that they can get. Despite that, they are expected to stop and sit on cue, no matter what, while quite a distance off leash. From what I have read, many trainers aren't using e-collars for this anymore and are finding other ways to train it. It's really not that different. 

I also agree that there is more overlap in agility than you would think.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Laurelin said:


> E-collar on vibrate doesn't bother me but I think you could do the same thing with a whistle. That is how things are done in sheepdog trials where the dogs are doing incredible long outruns- commands come in the form of a whistle.
> 
> I am not saying everything can or should be done like they do in agility, but I am saying that I think it's possible to train a dog that is in full drive to stop and operate at a distance but that the training to do so takes a lot of time and patience.


But you can't whistle at a dog while you're trying to hunt.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Laurelin said:


> I love this on by Denise Fenzi too: http://denisefenzi.com/2013/02/21/managing-a-motivational-training-class/
> And this one: http://denisefenzi.com/2012/12/05/doing-our-best/
> 
> Gosh I could read her blog all day, LOL.


Interestingly enough, that first link pretty much outlines the rules at most Schutzhund clubs I know of...and corrections and aversives are definitely in use there. They seem to be general rules for managing any training environment with lots of dogs. The second link describes what is going on in Schutzhund right now very well, I think. A lot of people are using more motivational, positive training methods, particularly in the lower levels and with puppies. When it comes to the more complicated work at the higher levels, though, compulsion training is still pretty much the standard and if you're going to try to buck that...you won't have many people who can give you much guidance because it's relatively new at those levels for most people.

I think I described a great example here once and if I did, bear with me.

A younger dog (about 1 year or so) was learning to ouss (release an object in her mouth). One handler, working with the dog in front of the owner with their approval, used the traditional method of lifting the dog off it's front feet by the leash when she wouldn't release the tug. She released it because she needed to take a breath. It worked, you could say. The next handler the dog went to with the tug grabbed a piece of hot dog from his pocket and the dog calmly gave up the tug to take the treat. Both methods resulted in the dog releasing the tug. I watched this and wondered why in the world wouldn't someone just use the hotdog if that worked...or at least try it first to see if it would work. A week later, the owner was working with the dog and...low and behold...she used the first method rather than carry a treat. 

However, there are a lot more seminars in Schutzhund clubs now on marker training and other positive methods and there are some bigger name trainers putting out more positive materials, so I think the change is coming. However, I also think that there is probably going to be a place for corrections and aversives in the sport for the foreseeable future. I'm ok with that, but I'd rather they not be the first tool handlers reach for.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

packetsmom said:


> But you can't whistle at a dog while you're trying to hunt.


Sure you can. Hunters use whistles all the time. There are also silent "dog" whistles.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hunting (overland bird hunting anyway) isn't exactly silent, LOL. You've got several big guys wearing boots tromping around with shotguns, dogs running through the underbrush. . .it's noisy. You are not sneaking up on them. Prairie birds duck down and hide when they hear a predator coming, that's why dogs are used to flush them out of hiding. So I don't see why a whistle would change anything .


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

You can tell I've never been bird hunting. 

Dogs aren't much help hunting moose and, in fact, would be a liability.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

packetsmom said:


> But you can't whistle at a dog while you're trying to hunt.


But the distance is not the issue there, which was what it seemed to be made out to be to me. To me it sounded like distance + drive means you can't 'clicker train' a behavior. 



> The distances I see hunting dogs working at, to me, seem too far for a clicker to be heard distinctly, particularly when the dog is focused on its task.


At any rate I don't train hunting dogs. Never have. My dad has done quite a bit of that with his lab and pointers and I've seen some at the park. There is almost always a bird dog in training out there. All of them are usually using whistles. What for? Not sure...Not sure what exactly hunting dog training needs to be truthful. 

It's not that I think people are eviiile animal abusers using shock collars or collar correction or whatever. I think most dogs can handle it and recover but I do wonder how much of it is just tradition and not 'it won't work'. 

Dog training is changing and has changed- even agility in the short time it's been around is constantly getting changed. New ideas, how do we improve performance? Improve safety? Fix this problem? New way to train a dog to do this? How about adding in training a dog to do Y? Even in the 4 years since I first started Summer for fun it's been a lot of new exchange.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

packetsmom said:


> Dogs aren't much help hunting moose and, in fact, would be a liability.


I believe it's more a matter of legality, in North America.
Norwegian Elkhounds and Karelian Bear Dogs are frequently used to hunt moose in Northern Europe.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

E-collar on vibrate doesn't bother me but I think you could do the same thing with a whistle. That is how things are done in sheepdog trials[/QUOTE]

every dog is different. sheepdogs are often very biddable. A mild stim can be less intense than a viblation collar to some dogs.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

jiml said:


> sheepdogs are often very biddable.


...so are most gun dogs. Don't disagree with the rest, I use a freaking e-collar as a clicker for a deaf dog, but honestly? SO ARE GUN DOGS.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

When is a mid stim ("tickle"?) less intense than a vibration? I've shocked myself on the lowest setting of my dog's electric fence collar. I, personally, would prefer a vibration instead of the stim. I think softer dogs would also prefer the vibration. But maybe that's because I'm a human? Or maybe I read you wrong, Jiml. 

On another note... Do they make e-collars for a dog's belly? It seems like the trainer is jimmying it on and such. It kind of irks me that she is trying to make something that is specifically made to correct a dog via its neck is being used on its abdomen instead. Perhaps they should actually make a belly band that doesn't have the electrical prongs but instead a flat static correction surface.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

petpeeve said:


> I believe it's more a matter of legality, in North America.
> Norwegian Elkhounds and Karelian Bear Dogs are frequently used to hunt moose in Northern Europe.


Maybe, but when we hunt, we are trying to sneak up on the moose. When we hike, we take the dog with us so that wildlife can smell the dog and avoid us. I'm betting it's a completely different style of hunting as well.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

When is a mid stim ("tickle"?) less intense than a vibration? I've shocked myself on the lowest setting of my dog's electric fence collar. I, personally, would prefer a vibration instead of the stim. I think softer dogs would also prefer the vibration. But maybe that's because I'm a human? Or maybe I read you wrong, Jiml. >>>>>

dont compare a good e-collar with an e-fence. A good e-collar on a low setting (some have 127) you can turn up until its barely felt. Some dogs ignore vibe others jump when they feel it. An e-fence is designed to give a fairly harsh Jolt.

I use e-stim on people every day for pain it really feels no different. at low levels its foreign but not uncomfortable (most PEOPLE like it) but it can be made to hurt if thats someones intention.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

CptJack said:


> ...so are most gun dogs. Don't disagree with the rest, I use a freaking e-collar as a clicker for a deaf dog, but honestly? SO ARE GUN DOGS.


honestly I personally think all training should be started with marker(clicker) training. I dont think any aversive is nec for every dog. depends on dog, goals, talent, time etc.

I have never used a collar on a dogs stomach so other than the the reflexive recall most have I have no informed opinion.


----------



## Sena Hansler (Jun 26, 2012)

I've talked to two trainers who do use a particular e-collar (vibration mode). I will say, there are lots of brands that cause more issues than others. Always do research, no matter what you use! Another important thing is how you use it... Their work dogs, perk up and are ready to work when they see the collars. THAT is a cool reaction I have not seen in dogs, with the collars. Then again most people who use it do the whole "it doesn't work!" and want something stronger. Tools cannot replace proper training... Only aid, if aid is needed.

And plus, not every dog needs it or can use it. I wouldn't jump right into using it... I also personally dislike choke or prong collars. I don't really see them work when used as often as a conventional collar or other method to "stop pulling". Maybe it works, but I don't care to try  I found awesome things to use that keeps my mind (and my dog) at ease.

A shock collar on the belly though... Not sure how I would like it having something strapped to my tummy, whether it is vibrate or shock I don't care!  It would just... Bug me.


----------

