# Using electric shock collars



## hunter22375

When would you consider a suitable age to begin using any sort of "shock" correction collar on a dog. This includes manual correction, bark collars, wireless fences, ect. Is this in relation to age, size, or what? I have reached a point with my dog where he is getting more and more independant and the usual training methods are starting to not work. Any help concering this question would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Cheetah

I guess that depends. What are the usual training methods?

I know for me a shock collar would be a last resort, but some would consider it to be a useful tool for certain things such as hunting etc.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

What are "usual training methods". For your needs it would be prudent to have your "usual training methods" evaluated by a certified dog trainer. A shock collar, and how you intend to use it, would be considered a latter resort. With management and effective training methods you may not need to consider using this devise.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

I would consider 6 months to be the minimum age, but some dogs mature later and require more time. JMO. The point, however, is largely moot because the dog has to be well trained before the remote collar is introduced. 

If the "usual methods" are not working, you need better methods; not better tools.


----------



## FourIsCompany

If you tell us what your dog is doing then maybe we can make suggestions that you haven't tried.  

To answer your question, I can't think of a situation that I'd use a shock collar in. I don't have anything against them, I just haven't ever needed one. But I probably would use it on a dog younger than a year.


----------



## hunter22375

Lets just say for the wireless fence portion. My first dog was 5 years old before I used a wireless fence collar. He learned very quickly and easily. However, I have 2 new younger dogs and although I'm sure I can get them to recognize the boundaries of the yard through repetition....its the actual and inevitable shock that comes from the collar I'm worried about and how it will effect them.


----------



## FourIsCompany

If I was worried about a training method having a negative affect on my dog, I simply would NOT use it.


----------



## hunter22375

FourIsCompany said:


> If I was worried about a training method having a negative affect on my dog, I simply would NOT use it.


A wireless fence isn't a training "method" per say as it is a containment system for the safety of the dog, family, and legal purposes. So, lets please stay focused on the original question. It's obvious you do not approve of ANY shock based training so please allow others with experience in this area to comment on the appropriatness of the age of a dog to begin using the wireless fence, which includes the use of a collar that delivers a corrective shock. 

With that said, if you have personnaly used a wireles fence...what age was the dog when you first began to use it? I don't believe the collar will actually have a negative effect physically on him (as I know of smaller dogs that use them) however, I have read that using a collar that delivers an electric shock on too young of a dog can have a negative emotional effect. So, I'm trying to determine a rough estimate on what the average age that this threshhold is. Thank you.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

hunter22375 said:


> A wireless fence isn't a training "method" per say as it is a containment system for the safety of the dog, family, and legal purposes.


I hope you don't have a Husky.






He used an electric fence btw.


----------



## hunter22375

Curbside Prophet said:


> I hope you don't have a Husky.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiCXLXcSTd4
> 
> He used an electric fence btw.


LOL....no he's a lab. Very even tempered and willing to learn. That video is hillarious.


----------



## dakotajo

well I went out and bought the remote training collar with the warning beep and 10 level controls. I used it on myself first and at about 7 I could sure feel it! We have big issue with her jumping on people and digging. We tried everything with the jumping and it's getting worse and the digging is not out of boredom, she loves to dig! I put the collar on her for awhile first before I tried which level would work for her, she was oblivious to all until about level 6 which she just looked around in curiousity and that's as far as I've gotten. I was going to try the training today and would you believe the girl hardly jumped today! So I haven't really used it yet. We have been telling her "OFF" command instead of "DOWN" which was suggested to me so who knows, maybe the OFF is working better than down Anyways, my pup is going to be 11 months on the 12th of May, she's about 80lbs and is a Bernese


----------



## hunter22375

dakotajo said:


> well I went out and bought the remote training collar with the warning beep and 10 level controls. I used it on myself first and at about 7 I could sure feel it! We have big issue with her jumping on people and digging. We tried everything with the jumping and it's getting worse and the digging is not out of boredom, she loves to dig! I put the collar on her for awhile first before I tried which level would work for her, she was oblivious to all until about level 6 which she just looked around in curiousity and that's as far as I've gotten. I was going to try the training today and would you believe the girl hardly jumped today! So I haven't really used it yet. We have been telling her "OFF" command instead of "DOWN" which was suggested to me so who knows, maybe the OFF is working better than down Anyways, my pup is going to be 11 months on the 12th of May, she's about 80lbs and is a Bernese


Awesome....glad to hear it! Thanks so much for your input. I know this is kinda a touchy subject becasue nobody wants to hurt their dog on any level (at least most don't).


----------



## Westhighlander

They should be used when they get to be about 25.


----------



## rosemaryninja

Hunter, just as a precaution. Wireless fences may keep your dog in, but it doesn't keep other things out. There has already been a recent thread somewhere about nasty kids coming in to harass a dog outside, to say nothing of other aggressive dogs, cats that your dog may want to chase, dog stealers/poisoners and all kinds of other baddies. Putting aside the moral issues of using an electric collar, this is a huge compromise to its practicality. I would never leave my dog out unsupervised as a free-for-all to anyone who wants to come along and interact with her. It's far, far too dangerous.

I'm not sure I understand -- you say your dog is even-tempered and motivated, but none of your usual training methods will keep him from roaming. What exactly have you tried?


----------



## dakotajo

even with 6 foot fenced in yard school kids would still harass my old dog, a German Shepard climbed our fence with ease, and thank god no poisonous food was ever thrown over the fence, so with a fenced in yard or electric fence maybe still don't leave them outside while you are gone just to be safe 
Glad I could give you a little in put, I have nothing against any collar or electric fencing as long as all is used properly


----------



## cshellenberger

Method of last resort, used ONLY by a professional and ONLY on an adult dog. The truth is, shock collars can cause as many problems as they solve. 

*Shock Collars - the Shocking Truth*


*Articles: Why I REALLY Hate Electronic Shock (Invisible) Fences by ...*


*Victoria Stilwell - View topic - Prong collars and E-collars*


----------



## FourIsCompany

hunter22375 said:


> So, lets please stay focused on the original question.


I answered the original question. And I stated that I have nothing against shock-based training. I just don't have any reason to resort to it.


----------



## cshellenberger

hunter22375 said:


> A wireless fence isn't a training "method" per say as it is a containment system for the safety of the dog, family, and legal purposes. So, lets please stay focused on the original question. It's obvious you do not approve of ANY shock based training so please allow others with experience in this area to comment on the appropriatness of the age of a dog to begin using the wireless fence, which includes the use of a collar that delivers a corrective shock.
> 
> With that said, if you have personnaly used a wireles fence...what age was the dog when you first began to use it? I don't believe the collar will actually have a negative effect physically on him (as I know of smaller dogs that use them) however, I have read that using a collar that delivers an electric shock on too young of a dog can have a negative emotional effect. So, I'm trying to determine a rough estimate on what the average age that this threshhold is. Thank you.


They are based on the same principle, shocking the dog to correct an unwanted behavior. The shock can cause fear based behavior on a dog of ANY age. They certainly shouldn't be in the hands pf a person that is inexperienced with them and honestly, it wouldn't break my heart if a law were passed designating them to professional use ONLY. Timing is critical with shocks, due to the stress they can cause a dog. 

Honestly, there are better methods of training that are far more reliable and don't have the chance for a negative effect as shocks (of any form) they just take consistency and patience.


----------



## Elana55

rosemaryninja said:


> Hunter, just as a precaution. Wireless fences may keep your dog in, but it doesn't keep other things out. There has already been a recent thread somewhere about nasty kids coming in to harass a dog outside, to say nothing of other aggressive dogs, cats that your dog may want to chase, dog stealers/poisoners and all kinds of other baddies. Putting aside the moral issues of using an electric collar, this is a huge compromise to its practicality. I would never leave my dog out unsupervised as a free-for-all to anyone who wants to come along and interact with her. It's far, far too dangerous.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand -- you say your dog is even-tempered and motivated, but none of your usual training methods will keep him from roaming. What exactly have you tried?


This is why I did not use a wireless fence but a physical barrier. My fence is 2X4 welded box wire and steel posts. It is not the entire yard. It is a 50X50 area for Atka to go when I vacuum (she hates that machine). 

I thought about a wirelss fence, but in this rural area with non existant AC and dogs that do roam (leash laws are unenforced) I elected to not use the wireless fence. The wireless fence woud only keep her in, and not keep other dogs, people, etc. out.

A also know that some dogs do not obey it. Border Collies are notorious for running thru a wireless fence. 



cshellenberger said:


> Method of last resort, used ONLY by a professional and ONLY on an adult dog. The truth is, shock collars can cause as many problems as they solve.


I cannot agree with this more. A good trainer.. a really experienced trainer.. might have a shock collar in their tool box, but it is a tool of last resort. 

Fact is, the successful *negative* trainers I know, who WOULD use a shock collar, just don't. Shock Collars are like having a sledge hammer in your tool box when mostly you are a finish carpenter driving finishing nails. Sledge hammer may have its place, but not on finishing nails. 



cshellenberger said:


> They are based on the same principle, shocking the dog to correct an unwanted behavior. The shock can cause fear based behavior on a dog of ANY age. *They certainly shouldn't be in the hands pf a person that is inexperienced with them and honestly, it wouldn't break my heart if a law were passed designating them to professional use ONLY.* Timing is critical with shocks, due to the stress they can cause a dog.
> 
> Honestly, there are better methods of training that are far more reliable and don't have the chance for a negative effect as shocks (of any form) they just take consistency and patience.


I agree and the answer to the original question by the OP is similar to Westhihglander's answer. *Never on a dog less than 25 years old.* 

I will qualify this to say that there is a VERY narrow window in which a shock collar is the tool to use. It is typically for use in professional competition dogs for a very very specific reason and only after all else has failed. It is the tool of last resort. It is not a tool I would ever recommend for amateurs and that INCLUDES invisible fences. 

IMO anyone who uses a shock collar for general dog training on a pet dog is too lazy to do the real work of training. And yes, I know there are those who don't like me saying that.


----------



## Toby4Life

I'm curious as to the age of the OP's dog. If training is starting to get harder and age is a factor, I'm thinking you've got a teenager. The best tools to combat that IMO is consistency, patience, and time.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

I would like to see the "tool of last resort" meme die with dignity. If you are in the market for last resorts, you need more help than can be had out of a box. If you believe the e-collar is never the right tool, you should just say that. Perpetuating the "last resort" deal gives the impression that it necessarily more extreme than other commonly used training methods.

An e-collar is a tool. Like any tool, it is not the correct one for every application. Ideally, it will be part of a well defined program designed to achieve specific goals, and the user will have a solid understanding of its capabilities and limitations. An e-collar can't train your dog for you. If you've "tried everything" and not had success, an e-collar will likely make things worse. E-collars are for enforcing known commands. The only way to be sure a dog knows a command is if the dog obeys, ergo, the dog must already be trained before the collar is introduced. If you're thinking: "If my dog is already trained, then I don't need an e-collar...", you are probably correct.

Since Elana introduced the tool analogy, I'd liken the e-collar to a pneumatic paint sprayer. You can paint a whole house with a 2 inch paintbrush, but life is short. If you want to still have some summer left after you've finished, you'll use a sprayer. The sprayer adds an additional skill set to the job, and demands that you perform the necessary prep work before you open the paint can. Also, if you screw up with a high-volume sprayer, you tend to screw up big. The obvious difference being that your painting mishap means you may have the ugliest house on the block until you get a pro in to fix it. With a an e-collar, you can screw up your best pal, who's only trying to do what you want him to do, the best he knows how. And a pro might not be able to fix him when you're done screwing him up.

Bark collars and radio fences take the issue of timing out of human hands, but those tools still require respect. They also have their own sets of limitations.


----------



## dakotajo

I'm curious to know why there isn't any links on what good they can do and it's always the negative. If a person has a good happy dog and everything else fails in teaching them ( I know I've been trying to stop the jumping behaviour for almost 8 months ) to each their own. Some dogs are soo stubborn that nothing else will work.
I might be totally off topic here but what about about the people who are Bipolar and nothing else works but electric shock therapy and I'm sure there's alot more volts going into these people than a collar on a dog


----------



## Independent George

Electro-schock is making a bit of a revival, but it's wildly different from the old-school variety. Nowadays, it's targeted towards specific areas of the brain under very tightly controlled conditions; even so, it's just barely accepted by neuropsychologists as an experimental treatment of last resort because of the razor-thin margin of error involved. 

I don't know much about the schock collar, but it does strike me that an inexperienced person using it is more akin to old-school electro-shock than the modern variant.


----------



## Westhighlander

dakotajo said:


> I'm curious to know why there isn't any links on what good they can do and it's always the negative. If a person has a good happy dog and everything else fails in teaching them ( I know I've been trying to stop the jumping behaviour for almost 8 months ) to each their own. Some dogs are soo stubborn that nothing else will work.
> I might be totally off topic here but what about about the people who are Bipolar and nothing else works but electric shock therapy and I'm sure there's alot more volts going into these people than a collar on a dog


The problem is that an owner who could not train their dog using other methods may not use a shock collar correctly either. 

You have to first make the case that your has a mental disorder to warrant the bipolar comparison. Many ineffective trainers blame the dog when it really is their own inexperience.


----------



## jesirose

dakotajo said:


> I might be totally off topic here but what about about the people who are Bipolar and nothing else works but electric shock therapy and I'm sure there's alot more volts going into these people than a collar on a dog


I know this is off-topic, but since you asked "what about them".

My mother is a psych RN and has spent her life helping people in that situation, and with many other mental health illnesses. She has Bipolar Disorder. She had ECT as a last resort over the past few years. She was 2 credits away from completing her bachelors. After completing the ECT she now has no short term memory and will never be allowed to return to work.


----------



## dakotajo

I also have Bi Polar and my brother, he had shock therapy. Although he has some memory loss he still works and it also saved him from taking his own life. If I ever got that bad and no other forms of therapy worked I would do it, the positives outweigh the negatives. All I was saying is the amount of shock that these collars put out is way less than what people receive


----------



## Aussie_Lover

One of the posters referred to the collar as a tool -- and that is exactly what it is. I ride, and my spurs or my crop are also tools. They help to reinforce the command I am giving my horse. The same is true of the collar. It tells my dog "hello, mom is talking to you. " But he needs to know what I want first or it wouldn't work. So you don't use them in place of correct training -- you use them as a tool to help with your training.

My dog is obedient both on and off leash. He comes when called even if he is a half mile away. Without the collar, he wouldn't hear me. He will "stay in place" forever until released even when I go out in the field to bring in my horse and then walk past him coming in. He will not get up until told he can do so. He is a happy dog and he associates the collar with fun and happy places because when the collar goes on, he goes out--to the farm, to the park, in the car--wherever.

BUT, I did not try to train with it on my own. I found a very reputable trainer who uses the collar as one of her tools and she worked with us. That is the only way to do it properly in my opinion. I do agree that if you don't know how to use them you can screw your dog up mentally. Would I train with it again on another dog? Absolutely.

My two cents...


----------



## wvasko

I wonder what the percentages are of people that have strong pro or con opinions on e-collars have ever used one or seen one used. Just curious I guess.


----------



## Inga

wvasko said:


> I wonder what the percentages are of people that have strong pro or con opinions on e-collars have ever used one or seen one used. Just curious I guess.


LOL I am just curious too... Do you think it is an age thing? LOL


----------



## Xeph

I don't see "last resort" as a meme...it should be a last resort, when all other positive methods or less extreme negative methods have been used. Shocking your dog, no matter how "slight" is still shocking...mild electrocution.

I've used one on my GSD to stop serious crittering, but not for anything else.


----------



## winniec777

wvasko said:


> I wonder what the percentages are of people that have strong pro or con opinions on e-collars have ever used one or seen one used. Just curious I guess.


Interesting question. Although I don't need to see or use a nuclear bomb to know I'm generally not in favor of them.


----------



## pattymac

I wasn't sure whether to get into this discussion or not but hey here it goes. Our new trainer, suggested an e-collar for Bayley. We had a private lesson yesterday which went pretty well for the most part but she has a way of totally ignoring me. Now after Dave (trainer) watched her for a while and this is our 4th class this week. he's worked with her with me and it's obvious she understands perfectly what she's supposed to do. When she knows something she learns it well. Some of the new stuff is I'm not totally clear in my signals to her and he's quick to correct my methods. He said if she wasn't a 3 year old dog but a puppy who doesn't totally understand then he'd go with the totally positive lots of praise method. This is not something we'd use on new equipment that we're learning but mostly for her 'blowing me off' It's not stress, she can take new things quite in stride. I mentioned to him that another trainer called her a 'soft dog'..he said Her?? He's the first trainer in this area that I've really had a good vibe about. Needless to say I trust his recommendations. Now I've looked at ecollars before but would never just go buy one and try using it on my own. So I did order one today, none of the stores had anything worth spending money on.

Now on the other hand in places like the dog park, I call, let's go and she goes. I don't get a competition style sit front, which is what I really want, but she does come. Even if she's playing with another dog. Which is where you'd think I'd have more problems, ah well..I never thought she'd be an easy dog!!

I'm also taking more of a leadership role at home, which seems to be working even in 1 day. Today she did a great sit/stay in the car at the dog park with the car door wide open and no leash and an open field with other dogs running around.


----------



## pamperedpups

winniec777 said:


> Interesting question. Although I don't need to see or use a nuclear bomb to know I'm generally not in favor of them.


Exactly, though I will say that I actually have seen shock collars in action.


----------



## wvasko

I might have compared an e-collar to spanking a child with a wooden paddle but a nuclear bomb. I am very glad I did not jump in here with a opinion as I have in quite a few e-collar threads. I have always thought the "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" statement was correct. Now it should be amended to "absolutely no knowledge is more dangerous"



> LOL I am just curious too... Do you think it is an age thing? LOL


Inga
I would hope it would not be an age thing, surely curiousity might have killed the cat but must we include people.


----------



## Elana55

wvasko said:


> I wonder what the percentages are of people that have strong pro or con opinions on e-collars have ever used one or seen one used. Just curious I guess.


I have used one. 
In fact, that is why I hold the opinion I do and stand by it. 

Last resort. 

Leave this tool in the hands of professionals.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

This is the reason they are a last resort, besides being expensive and requiring "professional" training...






...people are stupid.


----------



## Corteo

CP, now you've got me watching all the morons on YouTube with shock collars...


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Curbside Prophet said:


> ...people are stupid.


You'll get no argument from me, but I worry more about idiots like those getting behind the wheel of a car. We live in a culture that rewards such stupidity by giving the dumberest [sic] among us their own TV shows.


----------



## Elana55

Curbside Prophet said:


> ...people are stupid.


Now there is an epiphany.


----------



## FourIsCompany

Don't they have different kinds of shock collars? Some that just vibrate? 

I'd be curious about the responses to the poll:
What is your opinion on shock collars? 
Have you ever used one? 
Would you use one again?
How old are you? 

Because I've never used one and I'm fairly neutral, but I do think they should be used only by professionals or someone who has been thoroughly trained by a professional and only if other training tools, methods or whatever have failed. I also think the person should use it on themselves before deciding on a setting. I know the dog has more hair, but I'd definitely want to use it just so I'd know what my dog is getting.


----------



## Jen D

I have used one, spent hundreds of dollars for training to use it right for a dogs last chance to live. They suck and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone!


----------



## Elana55

OK. I will "bite" but I added some... 

What is your opinion on shock collars? *Not for use on pet dogs by owner/trainers. There are better ways to train a dog. You just have to be willing to do the work and learn/figure out how, even if you are under a time constraint. * 

Have you ever used one? *Yes*

How old were/was the dog you used it on? (if more than one dog, age range) *over 2*

Would you use one again? *Not unless it was a choice between using it and the dog dying.*

How old are you? *Over 50*. 

How many dogs have you trained? *Over 20*

How many of those dogs were puppies (under 6 months old)? *5*


----------



## Curbside Prophet

FourIsCompany said:


> I also think the person should use it on themselves before deciding on a setting. I know the dog has more hair, but I'd definitely want to use it just so I'd know what my dog is getting.


Testing a shock collar on one's self would be akin to equating our emotional response to a van Gogh painting with that of our dog. I understand your point...doing so would lend us to being humane, however, the effective use of a shock collar has no bearing on our sense of the shock. Because at no point do we actually know the dog's sense from the collar (and I would argue that a dog's senses are far greater than ours) nor do we know the dog's adaptability to aversion (dogs are fit[survival skills] when they can tolerate aversion and hide its effect). The only way we can qualify its effect is to quantify behavior. This takes an expertise you won't gather at a pet store (where you bought the collar), or from youtube videos of crazy kids, and not even from the dvd that came with the collar.


----------



## FourIsCompany

Curbside Prophet said:


> Testing a shock collar on one's self would be akin to equating our emotional response to a van Gogh painting with that of our dog.


I'm not saying we'd feel the same sensation. I thought that was clear. I'm just saying I'd want to do it to before I made the decision. Basically, if I'm not willing to see what it's like for me, I'm not willing to do it to my dog. If I'm going to do something to my dog, I want to know what it is. That doesn't mean we'll feel it the same. It just means that if I'm not willing to try it, I'm not willing to do it to my dog, either.


----------



## cshellenberger

What is your opinion on shock collars? *Professional use ONLY, not for untrained individuals*


Have you ever used one? *No, but my mother did use a bark collar that resulted in the death of the dog due to an undiagnosed heart arrhythmia.
*
Would you use one again? *I've found better and safer ways to train a dog.*

How old are you? *42*


----------



## dakotajo

that's kids for you in the video. I thought with these collars it's not supposed hurt and cause any yelping, you find the level that they find is distracting?? I used it on myself and got to level 7 and that's with keeping it on my skin for more than a few seconds. My dog was merely distracted and looked around in curiousity at level 6, by NO WAY was there any pain, just enough to get her attention, is this not the level I should be using then?? Some dogs respond to treats, the latest fad like clickers etc..... and then you will get the dogs that do not respond, the stubborn ones.
A lady I know has a ACD and this dog is hell bent on chasing anything that moves, he got run over by a four wheeler and do you think this dog learned a lesson?? NO, he was determined later to really attack any tires. The collar was the only thing that saved him from greeting the semi on the highway.
Only we know and find out what works with our individual dog and that's the reality


----------



## Elana55

CP's post is very very good sense. 

A case in point. In a dairy barn you can have "stray Voltage" which effects production and behavior of the cattle (increased levels of mastitis, lower water intake, lower food intake, lower production and other indicators of stress). Stray Voltage of as little as a threshold sensitivity of 0.4 to 2.4 volts and a current of as little as 1.0 to 6.0 ma AC. 
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/dairy/facts/strayvol.htm

Meanwhile, this level of current and voltage is typically not even felt by humans. 

Dogs, in my experience, are HIGHLY sensitive to electric shock. The shock of an electric fence can cause a dog to bite anything within reach and scream. This same shock would make a person yelp and jump back but might make a horse only raise his head and step back. 

BTW.. with a shock collar.. some dogs will also bite anything they can reach and some will develop such a fear and aversion that you can never over come the damage. Had a standard Poodle accidentally walk into an electric fence once.. He NEVER went to the barn with me again, and if put on a lead and you tried to force him you would get bitten. 

This is one tool you don't want to "test" or use on an animal that is supposed to be your companion.


----------



## FourIsCompany

My neighbor used a buried fence for her little Chi cross. I was over there one day and we were walking around by the horse pasture and the dog was whining and yelping. I asked my neighbor about it and she said that the dog wanted to cross the fence to where we were and was getting too close to the fence. I don't think I could use this product. I'd be more likely to use a "shock collar" to train a dog off of something dangerous (like a fascination with large, moving tires) than to use a buried fence. I would just build a fence.


----------



## Toby4Life

What is your opinion on shock collars? *I would never use one*

Have you ever used one? *No*

Would you use one again? *NA*

How old are you? *27*

I don't like shock collars, bark collars, e-fences, etc. I've never used them or seen them used. If that makes me unqualified to make an informed decision - so be it. *I refuse to shock my dogs, period.* 

Different strokes for different folks. There are a lot of things people do with/to dogs that I don't agree with (over-feed, under-stimulate, under-socialize, etc.). In the end, if it's legal it's your business. If you want to talk about it online though, expect to get other people's opinions.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Toby4Life said:


> I don't like shock collars, bark collars, e-fences, etc. I've never used them or seen them used.


The symmetry is breathtaking.


----------



## wvasko

Elana55 said:


> OK. I will "bite" but I added some...
> 
> What is your opinion on shock collars? *Not for use on pet dogs by owner/trainers.  There are better ways to train a dog. You just have to be willing to do the work and learn/figure out how, even if you are under a time constraint. *
> 
> Have you ever used one? *Yes*
> 
> How old were/was the dog you used it on? (if more than one dog, age range) *over 2*
> 
> Would you use one again? *Not unless it was a choice between using it and the dog dying.*
> 
> How old are you? *Over 50*.
> 
> How many dogs have you trained? *Over 20*
> 
> How many of those dogs were puppies (under 6 months old)? *5*


What is your opinion on shock collars? *Professional or very knowledgeable Amateurs trainers use only* 

Have you ever used one? *Yes*

How old were/was the dog you used it on? (if more than one dog, age range) *Nothing under 2 years.*

Would you use one again? *Yes*

How old are you? *Over 70*

How many dogs have you trained? *Conservative estimate 2500 dogs probably a tad more.*

How many of those dogs were puppies (under 6 months old)?* Conservative estimate 500*


----------



## Maliraptor

FourIsCompany said:


> If I was worried about a training method having a negative affect on my dog, I simply would NOT use it.


I agree- there are other methods. 

To be honest, I use electric. But I use it for long distance and fine tuning work, where I don't want the dog clued in by my motion. And I used it on things the dogs already KNOW.


----------



## Toby4Life

Marsh Muppet said:


> The symmetry is breathtaking.


You conveniently left out my next sentence so let me help; "If that makes me unqualified to make an informed decision - so be it." 

I never claimed to be an expert, actually quite the opposite: I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.


----------



## jiml

Don't they have different kinds of shock collars? Some that just vibrate? >>>

I know this is an older thread but i felt compelled to answer. Yes some have a pager function. However in my opinion you are better off with the "shock" feature for most dogs. The reason why is that the amount of current on todays better collars can be fine tuned and used at a level in which the dog can barely feel the stim. This is the level that it should be used. The pager function can not be controled and often elicites an exagerated aversive response.

It does make people feel better that there not "shocking" there dogs though


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

What is your opinion on shock collars? ? i will not ever use one. 

Have you ever used one? when i work with the aggressive rescues i work in close partnership with a former shutzhund agitator who is very familiar with e-collars and has thoroughly instructed me in their use including demonstrations.

How old were/was the dog you used it on? his dogs are 3, 6, and 10

Would you use one again? NA.

How old are you? 25

How many dogs have you trained? over 100


----------



## jiml

IMO this is a good example of what e-collar training should look like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9a1j39ZxAM&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zgFTXmJKw4


----------



## Marsh Muppet

jiml said:


> Don't they have different kinds of shock collars? Some that just vibrate? >>>
> 
> I know this is an older thread but i felt compelled to answer. Yes some have a pager function. However in my opinion you are better off with the "shock" feature for most dogs. The reason why is that the amount of current on todays better collars can be fine tuned and used at a level in which the dog can barely feel the stim. This is the level that it should be used. The pager function can not be controled and often elicites an exagerated aversive response.
> 
> It does make people feel better that there not "shocking" there dogs though


This is an interesting point. Some dogs react quite negatively to vibration. There are more expensive "pager" units with finely tuned stim levels, but _I suspect_ most people would be unlikely to spend a great deal on a more sophisticated collar that _they feel_ doesn't punish the dog. This is, IMO, a huge mistake. You can't judge a dog's response by what you think it should be. That's one more thing on which the dog gets the final word. 

An example of that is my dog. I slap him (kinda hard) on his snout with my gloves, and he loves it. Really, it's a reward. People cringe or get into a state of high dudgeon when they see it, but they are judging their feelings and not the dog's. A far lighter slap on the top of the head sends him sprawling to the floor like he was hit with a hammer. I don't do that except for the times when I thought he would react the same as with the muzzle slap. Why the dramatic difference? I dunno.

My personal opinion is that e-collars have their place and utility. If it is used as a "last resort" on an atypical dog, then the results can not necessarily be judged as typical. Is that too obvious? Also my personal opinion, but I think that a minimum requirement for using an e-collar is the successful training of at least a few dogs, the old fashioned way. An e-collar is no better or worse than a prong collar, but the electronics provide no feedback to the trainer. The button feels the same to you on any setting.


----------



## wvasko

> An e-collar is no better or worse than a prong collar, but the electronics provide no feedback to the trainer. The button feels the same to you on any setting


MM, I agree 100%,
That's when you have to start the e-collar dog reading program. The problem as I see it, there are just too many illiterate dog-readers that want to jump in and press a button before going to school and learning how to read.


----------



## jesirose

EDIT: nevermind, my friend explained what I missed.


----------



## jiml

Unleashed Technology makes collars with variable pager.


----------



## sparkle

hunter22375 said:


> A wireless fence isn't a training "method" per say as it is a containment system for the safety of the dog, family, and legal purposes. With that said, if you have personnaly used a wireles fence...what age was the dog when you first began to use it? I don't believe the collar will actually have a negative effect physically on him (as I know of smaller dogs that use them) however, I have read that using a collar that delivers an electric shock on too young of a dog can have a negative emotional effect. So, I'm trying to determine a rough estimate on what the average age that this threshhold is. Thank you.


In response to some of the comments and without be inquisitive of prior approaches that were considered lacking in resolution....

I train and rehab dogs, several hundreds of dogs (numbers do not nec make one a expert I will admit) , in incorporating the use of operant and classical conditioning I use a mix of many methods and tools. I have "TRAINED" several dogs in special circumstances ( when the owner insists on this type/method of management and behavior control ) to respect/boundaries to geographics using remote -shock- collars. I would point out that in my opinion conditioning a dog to respect geographic markers/boundaries does require a form of training especially when doing so in preconcieved manner and the way in which one does so is very critical to the success/failure in the dogs understanding and health.

With that said it is not simply a matter of "AGE" or "SIZE" that determines whether a dog can "accept" the conditioning process or stimuli that a particular aversive tool might deliver in conditioning the desired response. Pups are exposed at early stages to aversive corrections and learn from them. Of course some breeds are more or less reactive/responsive to a single level process and need a customized approach. Electric shock "can have a negative emotional effect " on any dog... depending on a host of circumstances and details (not just "AGE" ) which can be different for each dog.

So my opinion is that you can use a shock collar at any time DEPENDING on (your needs,wants,desires,resources,skills,morals,ethics ect. )the dog at hand and the process by which you incorporate behavioral association through audible/visual/physical pre-conditioning,timing,threshold level,fit/function and the consideration of pain/drive levels of your dog,environment,relationship factors, and last but not least health condition of your dog. It is often better to have pre-conditioned your dog to except physical corrections to which I will not elaborate in detail since it is not part of the question.

Hope that helps

And I might comment just as with any training or management methods there are many documented failures/bad consequences . I would suggest that you research them and can spot them in each stage of your dogs training/conditioning so that you are most successful at your particular approach.


----------



## Northern_Inuit_Luv

Marsh Muppet said:


> An e-collar is no better or worse than a prong collar, but the electronics provide no feedback to the trainer. The button feels the same to you on any setting.


One could also argue that the correction given to the dog using the e-collar is the same everytime, rather than having a trainer/owner correcting more or less with a check chain or prong collar depending on his or her level of frustration. How many dogs have damage to their throat due to these other training tools? A shock is going to be the same amount of correction every time with less physical damage. In my opinion, its a safer alternative to a prong (as most people don't even know the correct way to put the prong collar on the correct way). But I don't think the e-collar is a good tool to use for all dogs. I've used one on my husky (in fact she gets excited when she sees it...because it means going somewhere off leash), but I don't know if I will ever use it on my new puppy, right now she's 6 months old and just the biggest baby ever, plus she is responding better to positive only where as my husky just laughed at our attempt at positive only. Every dog is different, thus training is never going to be the same for every dog. And NO correction tool should be used without training from a professional. That's my opinion.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

sparkle said:


> So my opinion is that you can use a shock collar at any time DEPENDING on the dog at hand and the process by which you incorporate behavioral association through audible/visual/physical pre-conditioning, timing, threshold level, fit/function and the consideration of pain/drive levels of your dog, environment, relationship factors, and last but not least health condition of your dog. It is often better to have pre-conditioned your dog to except physical corrections to which I will not elaborate in detail since it is not part of the question.
> 
> Hope that helps


To that list of caveats (as if it were not enough) I would insert "temperamental soundness/social adjustment" in there somewhere. It's actually in there, but not as obvious as I would make it. It's not that knotty behavioral problems can't ever be improved with physical correction, but that should be the exclusive province of very experienced individuals--not just any two-legged mutt with an advert on Craig's List. Certainly never an amateur with a blister-pack e-collar and a bright idea.

I have a pretty high opinion of my own abilities (if you don't believe me, you can ask my wife), but there are some things I wouldn't dream of tackling by myself.


----------



## sparkle

Northern_Inuit_Luv said:


> One could also argue that the correction given to the dog using the e-collar is the same everytime, rather than having a trainer/owner correcting more or less with a check chain or prong collar depending on his or her level of frustration. How many dogs have damage to their throat due to these other training tools? A shock is going to be the same amount of correction every time with less physical damage. In my opinion, its a safer alternative to a prong (as most people don't even know the correct way to put the prong collar on the correct way). . Every dog is different, thus training is never going to be the same for every dog. And NO correction tool should be used without training from a professional. That's my opinion.


One could also argue that in order for any physical aversive to act as a true correction it must be at or above the threshold to modify behavior/ the undesired behavior (to a level likely not to be repeated) and the advantage of using a prong collar is that the handler can use a appropriate level of stimuli as needed for any given infraction. That is why most manual remote shock collars have different selectable levels (from a nick pulse to steady) of shock amperage,virbration,tone and pulse.. Also one could argue or point out that a dogs drive level or distraction level varies from circumstance to circumstance which can result in even high levels of shock from being ineffective to include resultant possible negative backlash behaviors/circumstances.

Then there is the issue of fit and function of shock collars under a range of changing situations to include moisture levels, chemical changes in the dog,coat condition,tightness of collar,ect. ACtually there are some models of so called wireless fencing shock collars that give various verbal warnings and will increase the output level of the shock under certain conditions.

Yes one could reasonably argue/conclude that a shock cannot be as physically damaging to a dog as a prong collar inappropriately could be but others could reasonably argue and conclude that the use of a prong collar can be much more effective and thus better/safer especially under close/direct supervision and require far less complications. Also when using aversive corrections one could argue that in many cases it is far better that a dog knows from whom/where the correction is coming from in establishing a healthier relationship and again in some cases such a remote field work or boundary conditioning this may not the case/possible. 



MARSH MUPPET writes..worth repeating

""To that list of caveats (as if it were not enough) I would insert "temperamental soundness/social adjustment" in there somewhere. It's actually in there, but not as obvious as I would make it. It's not that knotty behavioral problems can't ever be improved with physical correction, but that should be the exclusive province of very experienced individuals--not just any two-legged mutt with an advert on Craig's List. Certainly never an amateur with a blister-pack e-collar and a bright idea.

I have a pretty high opinion of my own abilities (if you don't believe me, you can ask my wife), but there are some things I wouldn't dream of tackling by myself.

"""

My only belief in all of the assumptions to condtioning behavior is that there are very few absolutes. AND I DO AGREE WITH THIS ABSOLUTE!! ;')


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Northern_Inuit_Luv said:


> One could also argue that the correction given to the dog using the e-collar is the same everytime, rather than having a trainer/owner correcting more or less with a check chain or prong collar depending on his or her level of frustration. How many dogs have damage to their throat due to these other training tools? A shock is going to be the same amount of correction every time with less physical damage. In my opinion, its a safer alternative to a prong....


I agree with you 100%. In some significant ways--assuming competent use--the e-collar has real advantages. As you've stated, the handler's frustration level can increase the level of manual correction without him being aware of it. The e-collar correction is precise and repeatable; you have to intentionally bump up the juice. 

The other point is the timing of correction. Merely calling a dog back to do it over can cause real stress for the dog. One well timed correction can get him working right and avoid that. When working at distance, precise timing of corrections is a real advantage for all concerned. The dog more quickly progresses in his work, and fewer overall corrections are administered.

And you are right again: e-collars are not right for all situations. In that way, they are exactly like every other tool in the world.



sparkle said:


> Also when using aversive corrections one could argue that in many cases it is far better that a dog knows from whom/where the correction is coming from in establishing a healthier relationship....


Interesting and true, but sometimes maybe not. In some cases it may be better that the dog associate the correction with the relevant behavior vs. the handler--to the extent possible. If the only reliable predictor of a consequence is his own response to the command, the dog may focus on his own behavior, and less on the handler's attitude about it. He should focus on the handler more for direction, and less for emotional feedback. The latter may break his momentum.

Please note my generous use of weasel words in the above paragraph.


----------



## wvasko

> It is often better to have pre-conditioned your dog to except physical corrections.


Great term I have always use the word desensitize, I like your term better.



> Certainly never an amateur with a blister-pack e-collar and a bright idea.


90% of my collar experience is with the collars made 40 yrs ago that had one button that actually either knocked most dogs down or 7 ft into the air. It was claimed that an airplane flying over could actually set them off (probably wives tale) it never happened to me. I had a Tri-Tronics with advertised mile range(notice I said advertised) Please trust me on this (and I hate people that say trust me) it was not a collar to be used on all dogs. 10 yrs ago I puchased another Tri Tronics that had more safety settings that I ever needed but thought it was a humongous leap forward. 40 years ago all e-collar dogs were bird dogs and when I got my 1st horse the e-collar was relegated to mostly shelf use. I have only used an e-collar on one dog for an obedience problem and it was my own dog. I have always thought that e-collar work was for week-end warriors not necessary for people who worked their dogs through the week and on week-ends. That probably is my old-school attitude though.

As I have stated many time 90% of my work is prong-collar.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

wvasko said:


> I have always thought that e-collar work was for week-end warriors not necessary for people who worked their dogs through the week and on week-ends. That probably is my old-school attitude though.


I would agree with that as a pretty fair assessment. For those of who have to travel an hour or more just to get to decent training grounds, it's a very different situation from people who can put up birds out their back door. Every time I use my training pistol around here, I run the risk of being surrounded by the county SWAT team. I do it anyway, but I make sure I move quickly after touching one off.

I'm counting the days to retirement and the move to somewhere where folks aren't so excitable.


----------



## meandean

just a quick story here in regards to use of a shock collar:
our dog is 7 months and about 60 lbs. we live in a horse property community that backs up to a mountain park and rattlesnakes are a problem. we have had 3 rattlesnakes on our property in the last 2 years. so we took him to a community rattlesnake avoidance program which utilizes the use of a shock collar. it was a terrible sight to see....but it proved effective. about a month ago i took riley on a walk in the mountain park and as we approached a bend in the path he started whimpering and falling behind me. as soon as we got to the bend he tried to run past as quickly as possible. it wasn't until we passed and i made him sit that i saw a rattlesnake slithering up the mountainside about 30 yds away. basically in my usage of the collar it was an absolute 100% avoidance that was required and achieved. i fear that if i were to use it for say him chasing the cats around the house, he may whimper and run away from the cats. i would only use the collar for EXTREME problems/issues.


----------



## Northern_Inuit_Luv

Marsh Muppet said:


> Interesting and true, but sometimes maybe not. In some cases it may be better that the dog associate the correction with the relevant behavior vs. the handler--to the extent possible. If the only reliable predictor of a consequence is his own response to the command, the dog may focus on his own behavior, and less on the handler's attitude about it. He should focus on the handler more for direction, and less for emotional feedback. The latter may break his momentum.
> 
> Please note my generous use of weasel words in the above paragraph.


I have never thought of that agrument before. I will have to borrow that the next time I jump into one of these discussions  thanks!


----------



## jiml

i fear that if i were to use it for say him chasing the cats around the house, he may whimper and run away from the cats. i would only use the collar for EXTREME problems/issues.>>>.


the collar should not be used like it is for rattlesnake avoidance for other training. It is used at its highest levels to cause the dog to fear the snake.


----------



## poodleholic

wvasko said:


> MM, I agree 100%,
> That's when you have to start the e-collar dog reading program. The problem as I see it, there are just too many illiterate dog-readers that want to jump in and press a button before going to school and learning how to read.


Ditto!

I'd be curious about the responses to the poll:
What is your opinion on shock collars? I would never use one, nor would I enlist a professional to use one in training my dogs. 
Have you ever used one? No.
Would you use one again? N/A
How old are you? Old enough to know better, but young enough to do it again. HaHa.


----------



## brwneyegrl46

I'm glad to see this discussion because I'm considering using a shock collar on our 10 month old beagle who is very head-strong and stubborn. The biggest gripes that we haven't been able to correct with any other method are jumping on people, putting her nose on the table/sticking her face up there (even when the table is cleaned off) and getting into the cat food and cat litter (which we have to keep blocked off in a separate room). We've taken Puddin' to obedience school and all but we've never been able to break her of these habits. She clearly understands the commands but doesn't do them. At this point I don't know what else to do. Obviously I'd set it at the lowest setting possible to elicit the correct response. I plan to speak to the trainer we used to see if there are any other possibilities for training and ask for proper training. People seem to be very opinionated one way or the other on this subject, so it's been interesting.


----------



## Rayne01

A friend of mine has a dane and a bloodhound that wore shock collars to keep them confined to the yard. The bloodhound got shocked and stood straight up. The dane is afraid to leave the driveway. Goes to show you what happens.


----------



## txcollies

What is your opinion on shock collars? *In the right hands, and used properly, I think it is a valuable tool in some cases. I do think they serve their purpose.*
Have you ever used one? *No, but I might if I had to (stock chasing, etc). But I would find someone experienced and dog savvy, and wouldn't attempt it on my own.*
Would you use one again? N/A
How old are you? *I'm only 22. I don't have all the answers, and don't claim to be an expert, but I do know that I won't rule out any one thing. They have have their place, and I can see it being valuable in some situations.*


----------



## SupaSweet777

I have a funny story about those shock collars.

My mom used to have 2 JRT's. She used to take these pups everywhere. Well, she delivers papers so they always went with her. Moe used to bark all the time at everything so my mom bought one of those no-bark collars. Well, the first time she had it one it worked quite well. Too well as a matter of fact. Every time the other dog would bark it would shock her also. It took my mom a little while to figure out why Moe was whimpering every time Bubba barked. Needless to say, she never put it back on her!!


----------



## wvasko

brwneyegrl46 said:


> I'm glad to see this discussion because I'm considering using a shock collar on our 10 month old beagle who is very head-strong and stubborn. The biggest gripes that we haven't been able to correct with any other method are jumping on people, putting her nose on the table/sticking her face up there (even when the table is cleaned off) and getting into the cat food and cat litter (which we have to keep blocked off in a separate room). We've taken Puddin' to obedience school and all but we've never been able to break her of these habits. She clearly understands the commands but doesn't do them. At this point I don't know what else to do. Obviously I'd set it at the lowest setting possible to elicit the correct response. I plan to speak to the trainer we used to see if there are any other possibilities for training and ask for proper training. People seem to be very opinionated one way or the other on this subject, so it's been interesting.


Just suppose you used e-collar on dog jumping on somebody and she bit person when shocked. You have a 10 month old puppy and you're killing an ant with an elephant gun.

Just keep working the obedience because with some dogs obedience is like paddling a canoe upstream, it's not an easy job.


----------



## Elana55

wvasko said:


> Just suppose you used e-collar on dog jumping on somebody and she bit person when shocked. You have a 10 month old puppy and you're killing an ant with an elephant gun.
> 
> Just keep working the obedience because with some dogs obedience is like paddling a canoe upstream, it's not an easy job.


VERY IMPORTANT and worth PM'ing to the poster! Some dogs will, at even the mildest settings, bite anything within reach when shocked with an E collar _including themselves!_

Dogs have very few ways to express themselves when hurt or scared.. and biting is one of the ways. Running away or staying are the other ways....


----------



## jiml

Yes one could reasonably argue/conclude that a shock cannot be as physically damaging to a dog as a prong collar inappropriately could be but others could reasonably argue and conclude that the use of a prong collar can be much more effective and thus better/safer especially under close/direct supervision and require far less complications.>>

I would say it depends on the dog. W some a Prong is a dream others do not react well too it (same can be said for other methods shock, head halters, ect. My view is if the tool requires extensive desensitization try another.

Also I am reading E-fences, bark collars, and training e-collars lumped together - they are all different.

Also when working w electronics in this situation its prob not a time to be cheap. A good bark collar will not stim a dog because another dog barked and is adjustable.

A cheap E-collar may give inconsistent stim or have no range.

wvasko made the statement that stimming a dog for jumping up may cause the dog to bite. That is why knowing how the tool works and what levels to use is very important. the dog must understand what the stim means. 

good articles and guides to using an E-collar are available at http://www.loucastle.com and http://ponderosakennels.com/ for free. A very good intro to using the collar DVD is available http://www.thatsmydog.com/ 

(in My opinion of course)

Elana, I am far from an expert but I have educated myself and spoke to those that I consider experts. and I think your statement is incorrect (save a handler agressive dog that may bite regardless of the collar. the settings used are in the tickle/flea bite range, they cause a twitch in the ear, a scratch or a look around for what touched them.

example- I refer you to the beginning of this vid - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YRmnqZUWXw&feature=channel_page


----------



## Marsh Muppet

jiml said:


> Elana, I am far from an expert but I have educated myself and spoke to those that I consider experts. and I think your statement is incorrect (save a handler agressive dog that may bite regardless of the collar. the settings used are in the tickle/flea bite range, they cause a twitch in the ear, a scratch or a look around for what touched them.


Not exactly incorrect. "Protest biting" is not uncommon. Some dogs mouth or even snap when physically corrected. This has to be worked through before the e-collar is introduced, and may possibly resurface when it is. The point is (I believe) that jumping on people is fairly easy to extinguish without the use of exotic methods or tools. And...if the dog has been sufficiently trained/pre-conditioned for te e-collar to be appropriate, the jumping should long ago have passed.


----------



## wvasko

Jiml
I don't know for sure what can qualify as an expert with e-collar work but elana is correct because every individual dog in the world will have a reaction of some kind to an e-collar and as expert (if he/she is) can be, nobody can read the exact attitude ahead of time when shocking a dog, we can only surmise what a dog will do. On this forum I can pass for a semi-expert, because I have seen dogs leap straight in the air, I have seen dogs attack the ground and I had a GSP turn around on a force break retrieve program and bite the hell out of me and it's a good thing I had chaps on. This was an even tempered dog that never bit before or after work was finished. e-collars can do strange things even with the built in safety programs. 

The problem can be when owner gets collar and says well if a little electric is good then more will be even better and turns that rascal on all the way. It's like following a recipe that call for 1 teaspoon of sugar, I like sweet so I'll just put 2 cups in. I'm being a tad silly but I think you get my drift. My opinion like elana's is safety1st.


----------



## Squeeker

What is your opinion on shock collars? 

They are a valuable tool, but IMO a certain amount of research should be done before using one, and the user must realize that the behaviour must be taught understood by the dog BEFORE the e-collar is used.

Have you ever used one? 

Yes. We had a heck of a time training a recall on our young Brittany. We really did try every method available. We read many books, tried a variety techniques, took a number of classes, but nothing could break Libby out of "hunting mode" once she got into it. After consulting a number of trainers and doing a TON of research, we purchased an e-collar.

Would you use one again? 

Yes, though we would first try the other techniques available. Of course, we made mistakes with Libby and so I would change the way we did some things with our next dog, but if the e-collar was warranted, I would feel perfectly comfortable using it again.

How old are you? 

27.



> An e-collar is a tool. Like any tool, it is not the correct one for every application. Ideally, it will be part of a well defined program designed to achieve specific goals, and the user will have a solid understanding of its capabilities and limitations. An e-collar can't train your dog for you. If you've "tried everything" and not had success, an e-collar will likely make things worse. E-collars are for enforcing known commands. The only way to be sure a dog knows a command is if the dog obeys, ergo, the dog must already be trained before the collar is introduced. If you're thinking: "If my dog is already trained, then I don't need an e-collar...", you are probably correct.
> 
> Since Elana introduced the tool analogy, I'd liken the e-collar to a pneumatic paint sprayer. You can paint a whole house with a 2 inch paintbrush, but life is short. If you want to still have some summer left after you've finished, you'll use a sprayer. The sprayer adds an additional skill set to the job, and demands that you perform the necessary prep work before you open the paint can. Also, if you screw up with a high-volume sprayer, you tend to screw up big. The obvious difference being that your painting mishap means you may have the ugliest house on the block until you get a pro in to fix it. With a an e-collar, you can screw up your best pal, who's only trying to do what you want him to do, the best he knows how. And a pro might not be able to fix him when you're done screwing him up.


MM, this is a fantastic post. Well-written.


----------



## R.J.

There are other less painful ways to train a dog


----------



## jiml

E-collars are for enforcing known commands. The only way to be sure a dog knows a command is if the dog obeys, ergo, the dog must already be trained before the collar is introduced.>>>>

Id say that this is one technique. There are a lot of trainers that teach commands with the ecollar on low levels. In fact id say most of those I would consider "experts" do-sometimes in conjunction w other methods. I believe the vids I posted show trainers with untrained dogs using the e-collar.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Pat Nolan (of Ponderosa Kennels) was originally a Koehler trainer. Like most KTs, he has added new techniques to his bag of tricks, but the basic philosophy remains the same. I've talked to him a bit, and found I was quite simpatico with his methods.

The e-collar conditioning program widely considered to be the best is Mike Lardy's. The guy is more than expert enough for me. Here he briefly sums up his method:






I've read about Fred Hassen's system that uses the e-collar as a teaching tool, but I'll admit I'm sketchy on the details. He has no book of which I am aware, so you have to sign up with one of his franchise trainers to get the rundown. I've heard from multiple sources that all of his franchisees are not equally wonderful trainers.

There are exceptions to "the rule"--there are exceptions to everything--such as anti-bark collars. An anti-bark collar teaches the dog to not bark, but that's binary computing. Bark = stim, no bark = no stim. Dog of at least normal intelligence will figure that out PDQ. Complex series of behaviors strikes me as something else.


----------



## jiml

I've read about Fred Hassen's system that uses the e-collar as a teaching tool, but I'll admit I'm sketchy on the details. He has no book of which I am aware, so you have to sign up with one of his franchise trainers to get the rundown. I've heard from multiple sources that all of his franchisees are not equally wonderful trainers.>>>.

i THINK ONE OF the vids i posted was w robin mcfarlane. She was partners w fred hassen in his no limitations lecture seminars. I also have her video. She teaches with the collar but does use food ect in addition. I have heard that her methods are similar but that he is heavy handed compared to her.

Jim Dobs of the Dobbs Training Center, Martin Deely, Tom Dokken, pat nolan, lou castle are among others that train from the getgo wit the collar. Im not saying you need to or even should use this method. Just that its there and works. 

Interestingly the instruction books for I think every brand of collar states to use the collar to enforce known commands. Then they then include a DVD on how to train commands using the collar.


----------



## atterberrypm

In eastern Washington State, we routinely used e-collars for training hunting and farm dogs to stay away from rattlesnakes. This training started when the pups were about 4-6 months old. We would go out and collect a few rattlesnakes (ah, fond memories indeed  ), place them in wire mesh containers, and place them out in our fields. We would then walk the pups near the containers. As soon as the pups heard the rattle or noticed the snakes, we gave them a strong jolt. It rarely took more than two or three sessions for the pups to learn a rattlesnake meant "run away!" I agree with those who despise e-collars and find their use cruel, but death by snake venon is even more cruel. In the years since I moved from that farm, I have talked to many "positive reinforcement only" trainers who have suggested alternatives, that, frankly speaking, would simply get dogs killed. I agree that their use in general training is lazy and ignorant, for those situations where a dog's immediate death is possible, an e-collar seems to be the rational choice. 

With Respect,

Dr. P. M. Atterberry


----------



## wvasko

atterberrypm said:


> In eastern Washington State, we routinely used e-collars for training hunting and farm dogs to stay away from rattlesnakes. This training started when the pups were about 4-6 months old. We would go out and collect a few rattlesnakes (ah, fond memories indeed  ), place them in wire mesh containers, and place them out in our fields. We would then walk the pups near the containers. As soon as the pups heard the rattle or noticed the snakes, we gave them a strong jolt. It rarely took more than two or three sessions for the pups to learn a rattlesnake meant "run away!" I agree with those who despise e-collars and find their use cruel, but death by snake venon is even more cruel. In the years since I moved from that farm, I have talked to many "positive reinforcement only" trainers who have suggested alternatives, that, frankly speaking, would simply get dogs killed. I agree that their use in general training is lazy and ignorant, for those situations where a dog's immediate death is possible, an e-collar seems to be the rational choice.
> 
> With Respect,
> 
> Dr. P. M. Atterberry


No respect needed.
An excellent plan because it is a do or die program. I'm sure somebody may jump in and say the end does not justify the means(hope I got that right) It does not bother me in the least.


----------



## txcollies

atterberrypm said:


> In eastern Washington State, we routinely used e-collars for training hunting and farm dogs to stay away from rattlesnakes. This training started when the pups were about 4-6 months old. We would go out and collect a few rattlesnakes (ah, fond memories indeed  ), place them in wire mesh containers, and place them out in our fields. We would then walk the pups near the containers. As soon as the pups heard the rattle or noticed the snakes, we gave them a strong jolt. It rarely took more than two or three sessions for the pups to learn a rattlesnake meant "run away!" I agree with those who despise e-collars and find their use cruel, but death by snake venon is even more cruel. In the years since I moved from that farm, I have talked to many "positive reinforcement only" trainers who have suggested alternatives, that, frankly speaking, would simply get dogs killed. I agree that their use in general training is lazy and ignorant, for those situations where a dog's immediate death is possible, an e-collar seems to be the rational choice.
> 
> With Respect,
> 
> Dr. P. M. Atterberry



If I lived in rattlesnake country I'd do the avoidance training in a heartbeat. It's worth it, imo, and a lot of other people say so also.


----------



## Northern_Inuit_Luv

We very very very rarely get rattles this far north, but it has happened (probably owners letting them go or them getting out of cages). I shudder at the thought of my two meeting one...they wouldn't have a second thought before they jumped it. I think that would be good training for the places where rattlesnakes are common.


----------



## Cracker

I agree that in life or death situations (like snake proofing) an e collar is a good tool. Here the ends do justify the means. 
Lou Castle teaches with the ecollar using negative reinforcement (I understand the Sit means Sit people do as well) this is NOT the same as using it as a deterrent like in snake proofing. I still don't like it and it is not in my tool box (though I do know how it works). 

For the poster with the beagle.....positive reinforcement works on all of those behaviours that you mentioned and it IS a hound so the reinforcer has to be GOOD, better than the self reward he gets from performing them. I always wonder about the folks who say they've "tried everything"..this often either means the training was not applied over enough time, with good enough reinforcers, not done consistently and like in all forms of training the TIMING is often off. This is a TRAINER issue, not the fault of the dog. 

Personally I find that punishment when in regards to jumping on people or greetings can often result in discomfort in greeting at all....when using punishment one can never be sure what "connection" the dog will make with it's surroundings. Dogs don't generalize well but they sure as heck can discriminate. I would not want to risk the dog associating the punishment (ie a hard stim) with any person.


----------



## Evan Graham

FourIsCompany said:


> I answered the original question. And I stated that I have nothing against shock-based training. I just don't have any reason to resort to it.


It's good that you have a somewhat open mind. Perhaps that will open some doors for learning about both the tool (e-collar) and the methods designed for its use.

To begin, no aversive instrument should be abused. That seems logical enough, doesn't it? But one of the commonest abuses of aversive tools is using them in ignorance. Many trainers unthinkingly use leashes, pinch/prong collars, choke collars, crops and other tools without laying groundwork for the commands they enforce with them. The same happens with e-collars. But that isn't a reasonable, fair, or logical indictment of the tools. The fault lies with the human.

We are fortunate to live in the information age. It just isn't that hard to find good information about dog training anymore. If the e-collar really interests you, there are some solid sources available for its use.

Taken at face value, the e-collar is neither helpful nor harmful. It is, in fact, inert. It does nothing; no harm - no good, at least until someone puts it to use. If any dog is harmed in any way as a result of e-collar use, it was the fault of the person using it. That person would likely have found something else to harm the dog with if they didn't have an e-collar. The same is true of a leash, a crop, or a rolled up newspaper.

With the use of any tool of the trade, a trainer should follow a sequential order of training the commands and/or skills they desire for the dog to live under. Teach first. Do it thoroughly. Then involve the support of aversives to elevate the behavioral standards. Be fair about it. Quality training isn't something anyone needs to "resort to".

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Live dangerously. Get a little knowlege." ~ from the movie Lord Love a Duck

Evan Graham
***unauthorized advertisement***


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Disclosure: Evan has gotten a good bit of my money for his training materials, and I count myself as a fully satisfied customer.


----------



## Evan Graham

Thanks, MM! I hope there is enough interest here to hold a useful dialogue about higher level training.

EvanG


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

higher level training? definition? let me guess..e-collar right?


----------



## Evan Graham

Is this a purely rhetorical question, or do you really hope to know more tomorrow than you did this morning? As it's framed, your question smacks of myopia. If it's genuine, I would be happy to discuss this topic on an intellectual level. Dog training is my life's passion.

EvanG


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Evan Graham said:


> I hope there is enough interest here to hold a useful dialogue about higher level training.
> 
> EvanG


Prolly not so much. Most of the people who come here looking for advice on sporting dogs seem to move on quickly. Much better discussion can be found at RTF, the 'fuge, etc.... 

Many (most?) members here politely decline to accept the need for any form of aversive correction, or at least don't want to recommend it to people who haven't figured out why their puppy nips them or steps in his water dish. I can kinda see the point of that.

We do have a member who has competed in pointy dog field trials, but he started training dogs before electricity was invented and is fairly set in his ways. Just joshing Wvasko--we kid because we love.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

actually its a slightly sarcastic query into your rather statement...because it appears to be yet another slanted and insulting statement of superiority by people advocating one method or the other.

if its not thats cool, that was just how it appeared.

i dont really need any instruction on e-collars. ive had plenty and i still dont need them...and i still think its irresponsible to start posting about that stuff on the internet where joe blow can read and very well do some serious damage...im getting tired of cleaning up the messes people who go hop on the internet and read up about aversive methods without consulting someone in person make.


i m done with this.


----------



## Evan Graham

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> actually its a slightly sarcastic query into your rather statement...because it appears to be yet another slanted and insulting statement of superiority by people advocating one method or the other.
> 
> if its not thats cool, that was just how it appeared.
> 
> i dont really need any instruction on e-collars. ive had plenty and i still dont need them...and i still think its irresponsible to start posting about that stuff on the internet where joe blow can read and very well do some serious damage...im getting tired of cleaning up the messes people who go hop on the internet and read up about aversive methods without consulting someone in person make.
> 
> 
> i m done with this.


Sadly, what the Internet is fullest of are brazen opinions with minimal substance. You've made some assumptions and some accusations, none of which are accurate. Based you this, any indictment of e-collar use you may advance holds no water. You offer nothing to support your position, other than baseless condemnation.

You remind me of a Abraham Lincoln quote: "Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt". The offer to exchange useful information remains intact.

EvanG


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Zim, "higher level training" is not an insult to what you do, but is an objective standard of training at distances--and in the face of distractions--that puts dog and handler to the acid test. You can't get to that level by shocking a dog into submission.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

and calling me a fool isnt assumptive?

i made no assumption..i made a query in my own particular way. just as myself, i was asking if you were saying aversive training is superior to other methods..you taking offence is on you.

I use my own very quirky style of positive reinforcement and nothing else. i use it to train tracking, pulling and do behavioral modification on extreme rescue cases. i will not use aversion. i work with a shutzhund guy has done the aversive bit for quite a while. i know enough.


marsh it was an honest question..by now you should have figured out that im a snappy kind of of gal...its just my way.


----------



## Cracker

Evan, I am curious. I am not an advocate of aversive methods and use R+ and P- in my training. I also try my best to learn about the other methods as points of reference for myself.
When you use the ecollar, do you use it as R- in your training methods? (like a forced retrieve) Or is it used as P+? (like in rattler avoidance training) The advanced work you do (at a distance) with the working/hunting dogs, does it need to be so fine that an aversive tool is necessary to "fine tune" the retrieve? Is it, or do you think it is, impossible to fine tune the same behaviour using other methods (ie marker training)?

As for Zim's response...I was unsure about your use of wordage as well...keep in mind we may have a great deal of knowledge of OC, dog behaviour etc but many of us do not have "sport" dog experience and terms can be misinterpreted. Not many bird dog trials going on in Midtown Toronto..lol.


----------



## wvasko

Marsh Muppet said:


> Prolly not so much. Most of the people who come here looking for advice on sporting dogs seem to move on quickly. Much better discussion can be found at RTF, the 'fuge, etc....
> 
> Many (most?) members here politely decline to accept the need for any form of aversive correction, or at least don't want to recommend it to people who haven't figured out why their puppy nips them or steps in his water dish. I can kinda see the point of that.
> 
> We do have a member who has competed in pointy dog field trials, but he started training dogs before electricity was invented and is fairly set in his ways. Just joshing Wvasko--we kid because we love.


Heeeeyyyyy!!!!! MM
We had electricity, control was the problem. 1 button, 1 huge jolt, sparks flying. dog yelping and all was done. It was not for the faint of heart. The basic rule was the same, just the consequences were harsher.

Rule-THE DOG MUST KNOW WHY IT IS BEING SHOCKED. That was even true way back in the dinosaur, Old School Days.

As far as e-collar itself, Rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it, but I still do not advise amateur use. That's just me.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> marsh it was an honest question..by now you should have figured out that im a snappy kind of of gal...its just my way.


Some people may find that aversive...I'm just sayin'.


----------



## Evan Graham

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and calling me a fool isnt assumptive?


More of an observation. Sort the shoe appearing to fit.


zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i made no assumption..





zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> actually its a slightly sarcastic query into your rather statement...because it appears to be yet another slanted and insulting statement of superiority by people advocating one method or the other.
> 
> if its not thats cool, that was just how it appeared.


It looks more like an assumption than a question to me.


zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i made a query in my own particular way. just as myself, i was asking if you were saying aversive training is superior to other methods..you taking offence is on you.


So, if you're nasty to someone they should take no offense? It's just your little way of asking a question, and all the world can darn well passively understand that? Okay.


zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> marsh it was *an honest question*..by now you should have figured out that im a snappy kind of of gal...its just my way.





zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i dont really need any instruction on e-collars. ive had plenty and i still dont need them...and i still think its irresponsible to start posting about that stuff on the internet where joe blow can read and very well do some serious damage...im getting tired of cleaning up the messes people who go hop on the internet and read up about aversive methods without consulting someone in person make.
> 
> 
> i m done with this.


Train as you like. I'm not recruiting for a cause. I'm offering to discuss the subject of this thread from an informed position. 30+ years of experience in using the tool in question successfully with happy, stylish dogs as a uniform result position me to do that.

So, the offer is open.

EvanG



hunter22375 said:


> When would you consider a suitable age to begin using any sort of "shock" correction collar on a dog. This includes manual correction, bark collars, wireless fences, ect. Is this in relation to age, size, or what? I have reached a point with my dog where he is getting more and more independant and the usual training methods are starting to not work. Any help concering this question would be greatly appreciated.


Directly to the initial question, no techniques or tools can fairly be applied via a cookie-cutter formula. I'm sure you realize that, but it bears mentioning.

I don't personally subscribe to wireless fences or bark collars because they apply what is termed as "cold burns". The use of the term "burn" is innaccurate because there isn't any burn or even any risk of physical injury from these instruments. In the old days the e-collars most trainers had were one button, one level of stimulus, and the stimulus was of the continuous type. Today's units are vastly flexible, having a wide range of intensity levels, as well as options for continuous mode or so-called "momentary" mode; a pre-timed 'nick'. This makes them suitable for use with many more dogs and dog personalities. 

Before offering suggestions for your dog I would like to know more about him/her. What breed, age, sex, and performance goals you have would be very useful.

EvanG


----------



## Cracker

Evan Graham said:


> with happy, stylish dogs



Oh dear...now you are saying we're not happy and stylish? My Prada collar begs to differ....

Just kidding..lol.
You were so busy arguing with Zim to answer my questions so I thought I'd poke ya.


----------



## Evan Graham

Cracker said:


> Oh dear...now you are saying we're not happy and stylish? My Prada collar begs to differ....
> 
> Just kidding..lol.
> You were so busy arguing with Zim to answer my questions so I thought I'd poke ya.


Naw! Just draggin' my feet trying to refocus this discussion. I appreciate your thoughtful question. I'm a fan of Operant Conditioning, so I appreciate your framing it in those terms.


Cracker said:


> Evan, I am curious. I am not an advocate of aversive methods and use R+ and P- in my training. I also try my best to learn about the other methods as points of reference for myself.


So that we keep our discussion clear, I want to state first that, although it's sometimes spoken or written of in leading ways, no aversive constitutes a method. While there are methods designed around the use of a particular tool, the effectiveness of any method should not be dependent upon it. As I'm fond of saying at all my seminars, "If you can't train a dog without an e-collar, you probably can't train a dog _with_ one".


Cracker said:


> When you use the ecollar, do you use it as R- in your training methods? (like a forced retrieve)


Before answering in OC terms, let me state in plain English that the e-collar, like some other aversives, can be used as an active component to accomplish more than one goal. It may be used to correct unwanted behavior, or to support a known command, or to compel the dog to perform a known act or skill. In light of those things, we'll just take it a question at a time.

R- (negative reinforcement) is one application of the e-collar. So, the direct answer to this question is "Yes". That is clearly because the unpleasant stimulus is removed when the dog complies with the command to fetch. We'll move into how that takes place a bit later. It is significant to note that I do not force what has not previously been taught in any case.


Cracker said:


> Or is it used as P+? (like in rattler avoidance training)


I'm not sure how anyone could frame the use of e-collar stimulus as positive reinforcement. For the sake of all who may be following along, P+ occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a favorable stimulus (commonly seen as pleasant) that increases the frequency of that behavior. In my work, that is either praise, petting, a treat, or the object of the retrieve itself.


Cracker said:


> The advanced work you do (at a distance) with the working/hunting dogs, does it need to be so fine that an aversive tool is necessary to "fine tune" the retrieve?


At the high end, that is probably so. My method is used by trainers with a variety of performance goals ranging from pure hunting dogs, to hunt test dogs (only having to meet a prescribed standard for performance), and on to field trials where a dog must win to title and/or qualify for each year's national championship. Others simply use portions of the method to have a reliably obedient pet.


Cracker said:


> Is it, or do you think it is, impossible to fine tune the same behaviour using other methods (ie marker training)?


I am convinced that a dog can be trained to perform the same acts with reasonable reliability via more passive methods or tools, like clickers for example. However, I am also convinced that those methods and tools are self limiting to the extent that the level of precision, especially at much distance, would not be comparable to those obtained by methods involving aversives. There is a logical reason for this that many people have trouble honestly confronting. 

A majority of the acts we want trained dogs to perform are not the dog's idea. That's why they need to be trained. It's our idea. The more complex and demanding the skill, the greater are the demands on discipline. 

It is axiomatic that distance erodes control. The further a dog is from the handler, the less influence the handler tends to have on the dog, even when the dog knows full well what he _should_ do under command. All that changes _from dog to dog_ is the degree of willingness each tends to possess to comply with the handler vs. obeying his own desires or instincts. Enter aversives.


Cracker said:


> As for Zim's response...I was unsure about your use of wordage as well...keep in mind we may have a great deal of knowledge of OC, dog behaviour etc but many of us do not have "sport" dog experience and terms can be misinterpreted. Not many bird dog trials going on in Midtown Toronto..lol.


Contrast your well worded and polite question to Zim's, and the type of response each of you has elicited is clear and logical, don't you think? Thanks.

EvanG


----------



## jiml

I believe cracker was asking if you use negative reinforcement or positive punishment not pos reinforcement

<<<<Originally Posted by Cracker 
Or is it used as P+? (like in rattler avoidance training) 

I'm not sure how anyone could frame the use of e-collar stimulus as positive reinforcement. For the sake of all who may be following along, P+ occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a favorable stimulus (commonly seen as pleasant) that increases the frequency of that behavior. In my work, that is either praise, petting, a treat, or the object of the retrieve itself.>>>>


----------



## Evan Graham

I'm sorry about that, although I believe I _did_ address that mechanism previously. Positive punishment (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation") occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by an aversive stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior. So, when an aversive is used to extinguish a behavior, that would fit the definition of P+.

EvanG


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

im never deliberatly out to antagonize. im my own person however and while its unfortunate you misunderstood, i wont apologize for being me.



i appreciate your offer but i dont agree that aversives are 100% nessecary for precision in sporting environments..though birddogs arent my thing..i work almost exclusively with pits doing weight pull and learning how to train SAR dogs in addition to the work with rescues and extreme cases. done some adaption of shutzhund tracking styles to r+ methods and striving to avoid aversives can work if you can problem solve and have ingenuity. 

there are dogs with titles who have never been zapped or popped or etc. How far they get depends on the mindset of the trainer. some of what i do may be...unusual...but it works and it works without pain..



ps. Cracker thank you for the help with my paper.


----------



## Evan Graham

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> im never deliberatly out to antagonize. im my own person however and while its unfortunate you misunderstood, i wont apologize for being me.


But of course not. No apology was expected. No one should have to apologize for being themselves. Only for being out of line. But they could only be expected to do that if they recognized that they had been. Neither of us will lose any sleep over this.

The offer remains to one and all.

EvanG


----------



## Cracker

You are welcome Zim.

And yes, Jiml..that was what I meant. P+ (positive punishment)...

Thanks for the answers Evan. It doesn't change my belief that putting training under stimulus control for long distance can be achieved without aversives but your answer was helpful. 

All tools can work in training. It is up to the ability, timing and consistency of the trainer to make them work. I think our biggest difficulty when it comes to training dogs (and their humans) is the humans, not the dogs. Too much misinformation, too high of expectations in the early goings and a lack of understanding of how dogs learn.

I could probably discuss this more if I was into dog competition, but I am not. I simply help my clients have safe, well balanced, well mannered animals.


----------



## Evan Graham

Craker,

Thanks. I'm glad to have provided some information you found useful. I hope you understand that I'm providing that information to help clear the air, not to recruit anyone to e-collar use. 

I'm fully aware that there is far more misinformation circulated about the e-collar than real and accurate knowledge about them. That's largely true of most other aversives, and their use. 

It serves little purpose for people to duel on the Internet over opinions in cases like this, so I don't do that. I offer what I know and believe in, based on decades of experience, and people can do what they like with it. They will anyway. But, as an advocate for the dogs, I do what I can to provide correct information so at least the dogs have a chance to be their best if someone's intellectual curiosity is aroused enough and/or if they are adequately sincere about wanting what's best for their dogs.

If you ever really want to know the difference between top-end fieldwork with aversives involved and without, it's rather simple. This is not a personal challenge, but rather a simple formula to determine the reality of how effective each approach is to training at a level where subjective claims are not enough. 

Train a working retriever (for example) without aversives. Enter him in an event like a field trial where he will compete against his _peers_, so to speak (dogs in the same class). See how he does, and take note of how the other dogs do. Talk with the trainers of the winners, and see how they train. You can do that as many times as you like, and the answer will be the same each time. Best of all, it won't be a subjective claim. It will be fact...facts you will have witnessed for yourself. The reasons become more obvious when you do it. It is eye opening just to attend, even if you don't compete. Oh, by the way, it's also fun! 









It's been a pleasure. Please let me know if I can be of help in any way.

EvanG


----------



## txcollies

Evan Graham said:


> If you ever really want to know the difference between top-end fieldwork with aversives involved and without, it's rather simple. This is not a personal challenge, but rather a simple formula to determine the reality of how effective each approach is to training at a level where subjective claims are not enough.
> 
> Train a working retriever (for example) without aversives. Enter him in an event like a field trial where he will compete against his _peers_, so to speak (dogs in the same class). See how he does, and take note of how the other dogs do. Talk with the trainers of the winners, and see how they train. You can do that as many times as you like, and the answer will be the same each time. Best of all, it won't be a subjective claim. It will be fact...facts you will have witnessed for yourself. The reasons become more obvious when you do it. It is eye opening just to attend, even if you don't compete. Oh, by the way, it's also fun!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been a pleasure. Please let me know if I can be of help in any way.
> 
> EvanG


That's very interesting. 

Would a dog trained with some aversive (I know nothing about hunting training, but I do come from competition obedience) be more clear about what his job is and more precise and disciplined in that job once he got out there with the pressure on? Vs maybe a positive only dog, who was never shown that "yes, you will do this even when things get tough or you don't want to".

I'm trying to figure out how all this works. I'm getting an Irish Setter in the near future and it's one that's coming from a versatile line, so I do plan to get the pup out in the field.


----------



## Cracker

I have a friend who competes with his poodle mix (so therefore not in certain competitions as "mixes" are not accepted), this dog was trained fully with positive training and is extremely reliable. You should check out the Positive GunDog group on Yahoo.


----------



## Evan Graham

txcollies said:


> That's very interesting.
> 
> Would a dog trained with some aversive be more clear about what his job is and more precise and disciplined in that job once he got out there with the pressure on? Vs maybe a positive only dog, who was never shown that "yes, you will do this even when things get tough or you don't want to".


txcollies,

Of course, your question can only be addressed as asked; theoretically. There are too many variables involved to answer precisely. Which dog? Which aversive...which aversive trainer, etc.

But more to the premise of your question; one vs. the other. In my view, good training is good training. We're only discussing the effects of some of the tools used in doing it, or more specifically whether using aversives tends to render more reliable results than a passive-only approach.

A good trainer who uses aversives does not *only* use aversives. In my system we follow a complete training cycle:

Teach
Force
Reinforce
The latter two terms illicit misunderstandings, so I hope to bring clarity to the topic. No aversive should be used as a teaching tool. That isn't their role in the process. Teaching, in my method (and in the methods of my peers) is done as passively as possible, with a focus on making the task or skill as clear and rewarding to the dog as possible. Until we see a clear understanding of a task, we do not proceed in the formalization process, which involves force/pressure in temperate applications. That is why I can only address your question in principle. It isn't purely a question of one vs. the other because we also teach passively.

Generally, the answer is "yes". A dog fully schooled in the path of progression mentioned above should be distinctly more reliable, especially under demanding circumstances (distance, windy conditions, in water, with other dogs and/or birds as distractions and so on). If this were not so, there would not be such an overwhelming majority of top trainers using aversives. First and foremost, we all love dogs.

EvanG



Cracker said:


> I have a friend who competes with his poodle mix (so therefore not in certain competitions as "mixes" are not accepted), this dog was trained fully with positive training and is extremely reliable. You should check out the Positive GunDog group on Yahoo.


I have a Canadian friend who comes to all my seminars in the Vancouver area. She is purely a _standard poodle_ trainer, and competes in conformation, obedience, hunt tests, and other venues. What venue does your friend compete in?

EvanG


----------



## txcollies

Evan Graham said:


> txcollies,
> 
> A good trainer who uses aversives does not *only* use aversives. In my system we follow a complete training cycle:
> 
> Teach
> Force
> Reinforce
> The latter two terms illicit misunderstandings, so I hope to bring clarity to the topic. No aversive should be used as a teaching tool. That isn't their role in the process. Teaching, in my method (and in the methods of my peers) is done as passively as possible, with a focus on making the task or skill as clear and rewarding to the dog as possible. Until we see a clear understanding of a task, we do not proceed in the formalization process, which involves force/pressure in temperate applications. That is why I can only address your question in principle. It isn't purely a question of one vs. the other because we also teach passively.
> 
> Generally, the answer is "yes". A dog fully schooled in the path of progression mentioned above should be distinctly more reliable, especially under demanding circumstances (distance, windy conditions, in water, with other dogs and/or birds as distractions and so on). If this were not so, there would not be such an overwhelming majority of top trainers using aversives. First and foremost, we all love dogs.
> 
> EvanG


Thank you very much. I was thinking that's how it was done, but wasn't totally sure.


----------



## Evan Graham

You're welcome. Good luck with your setter! We have a very active club here in KC that is dedicated to promoting the working traits in the Irish Setter. They've made some great strides over the past 25 years.

EvanG


----------



## wvasko

Evan Graham said:


> You're welcome. Good luck with your setter! We have a very active club here in KC that is dedicated to promoting the working traits in the Irish Setter. They've made some great strides over the past 25 years.
> 
> EvanG


Is that the Irish Setter or the Red Setter or the ?. Just curious because I remember the Irish Setter before the show group got to it and decided they were so beautiful they did not need hunting drives in general. Before the show destruction they could not in all fairness compete with the English Setter or Pointer but they were a thing of beauty on point. Not meant to rock the boat, as I said just curious what direction the majority of the breed people are going.


----------



## txcollies

wvasko said:


> Is that the Irish Setter or the Red Setter or the ?. Just curious because I remember the Irish Setter before the show group got to it and decided they were so beautiful they did not need hunting drives in general. Before the show destruction they could not in all fairness compete with the English Setter or Pointer but they were a thing of beauty on point. Not meant to rock the boat, as I said just curious what direction the majority of the breed people are going.


I'm in the Irish Setter.

From what I can tell, the breed isn't in near as bad shape as some of the sporting breeds. And I see a lot of breeder breeding field dogs to conformation dogs. The breeder I'm getting my pup from is planning on getting a dual championship in the near future.


----------



## Lou Castle

Please forgive the length of this, my first post. I responded to many points made in the previous 100+ posts. Brevity has never been my strong suite. I've seen my name mentioned a couple of times and thanks to those who have done so. 

What is your opinion on shock collars? *It's the best tool for training a dog that exists today. * 

Have you ever used one? *Yes*

How old were/was the dog you used it on? (if more than one dog, age range) *Six months is the standard recommendation and I agree with it. I've gone as young as 10 weeks when a client was going to use it whether I helped or not. *

Would you use one again? *Yes*

How old are you? *Over 60*

How many dogs have you trained? *I've put Ecollars on over 4,000 dogs. I use whatever method is appropriate for the dog I'm working with and what I'm training. *

How many of those dogs were puppies (under 6 months old)?* Very few. Most of my work is problem solving with adults. *

The Ecollar is NOT just for reinforcing known commands. It's easily used to teach new behaviors. In fact, it's an excellent tool for that purpose. I think that it's easier to use than just about any other tool/method that exists. It's not just about "stubborn dogs" or a last resort, or after everything else has failed. 

Making comparisons to "electroshock" is off base and indicates that some don't understand modern versions of the tool and how it can be applied. 

The Ecollar is an easy tool to learn to use and I've devised many protocols that let people do basic training with their dogs. 

Having the owner feel the stim before putting the Ecollar on the dog is something that I have all my clients do. Those who say it has no connection to what the dog feels ignore the fact that all mammals process pain and discomfort the same way. Used at extremely low levels, where the dog first feels the stim, it's a minor discomfort. Many don't understand this, and some don't even believe that a dog can be trained with such low levels, but I do it all the time. 

Contrary to the opinion of some, there is no scientific evidence that supports an Ecollar causing death or physical injury to any dog, anywhere, any time. There are lots of opinion but no one has EVER established a cause – effect relationship. 

People making comparisons between modern Ecollars and electric fences are comparing two vastly different things. An Ecollar used, as I advocate, emits 0.000005 Joules. An electric fence charger emits 3.2 Joules, 640,000 times more powerful. Ecollars are best used where the dog first feels the stim at the lowest levels. 



wvasko said:


> elana is correct because every individual dog in the world will have a reaction of some kind to an e-collar and as expert (if he/she is) can be, nobody can read the exact attitude ahead of time when shocking a dog, we can only surmise what a dog will do.


HERE'S a video of a dog feeling his first stim. 

This response is common. Others include flicking an ear, scratching as if from a flea bite, blinking, and moving to another location. 

It's not necessary to cause what people think of as "pain" to use an Ecollar. 



jiml said:


> I'm not sure how anyone could frame the use of e-collar stimulus as positive reinforcement.


It's done by making an association between very low level stim and something the dog like. Very similar to "loading a clicker." There are a few trainers doing this. It's too touchy for me and not intended for the general public.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Lou Castle said:


> The Ecollar is NOT just for reinforcing known commands. It's easily used to teach new behaviors. In fact, it's an excellent tool for that purpose. I think that it's easier to use than just about any other tool/method that exists. It's not just about "stubborn dogs" or a last resort, or after everything else has failed.


Lou, I've been aware of this thinking for quite a while, and have seen examples of dogs trained in this way, but know next to nothing about how it's done. Just too ignorant to have much of an opinion about it.

What kinds of training do you use this for? What, if any, kinds of issues arise with its use? Are there any good books on the subject--preferably not loaded with technical jargon? What, if any, kinds of dogs are (or are not) good candidates for it.

Can you give us a "back of the envelope" description of how it's done?


----------



## Lou Castle

Marsh Muppet said:


> What kinds of training do you use this for?


I use it for basic OB of green dogs and for tuning up the OB of dogs trained with other methods. I use it to rehabilitate fear aggressive dogs. I use it to stop dogs from chasing game (commonly known as crittering.). I use it to teach the out (release on a verbal command) to police dogs. I use it for OB on SAR and police dogs and pets alike. 



Marsh Muppet said:


> What, if any, kinds of issues arise with its use?


Little if any. Using stim at low levels mean that the fallout that can occur with methods that use aversives, just don't occur. The discomfort levels are too low and the dogs tend to relate the discomfort to their own actions not with the handler as with leash methods. The main issue comes from people who don't like Ecollars and argue against them based on either a lack of knowledge or knowledge of how Ecollars used to be used. 

Contrary to popular belief, using the Ecollar as I do actually *builds *a bond between the dog and the handler. 



Marsh Muppet said:


> Are there any good books on the subject--preferably not loaded with technical jargon?


I'm not aware of any. I'll write privately. 



Marsh Muppet said:


> What, if any, kinds of dogs are (or are not) good candidates for it.


I've yet to come across a dog that is not a good candidate for Ecollar training. 



Marsh Muppet said:


> Can you give us a "back of the envelope" description of how it's done?


LOL. Remember my comment about "brevity" in my first post? 

I'll talk about the recall as that is what most people want but often have difficulty in getting with other methods. First step is getting a quality Ecollar. I only recommend three brands, Tri-Tronics, Dogtra, and Unleashed Technology. It needs to have at least 15 levels. I prefer the Dogtras because they have 127 levels and I like how they feel and work. 

Next find the dog's working level. For this training, that means the level where the dog first feels the stim when he's at rest. It will change as the dog's distraction level changes. 

Next, is the training. I use a retractable leash but it's not necessary. I let the dog wander out to the end of that leash. I press the button on the Ecollar, with it set at the dog's working level and at the same time I pull him towards me. As soon as he's moving towards me, in response to the leash pull, I'm off the button. The stim lasts for about 1.5 seconds. 

Most dogs think that the "ground over there was _hot_" so they move to a new place. This is repeated until the dog figures out that _"out there"_ is uncomfortable and _"near me"_ is comfortable. The dog is rewarded for coming to me. 

Next once the dog is staying with me I turn and walk away from him while pressing the button. Some dogs will turn and walk with me. If they do, I'm off the button. If not, I'll give a small pull on the leash and as soon as they start towards me, I'm off the button. After a bit of this I add the "here" command. This is continued until the dog is walking with me and turning with me. Here the dog is rewarded for turning and moving with me. 

This quickly becomes loose leash walking which can be refined, if desired, into heeling. 

That's the nickel version and I'm sure it raises more questions than it answers. I've written articles on doing this in great detail, but the rules of this forum prevent me from giving my site where they are posted. At least I think they do. Perhaps someone can clarify that rule for me.


----------



## Evan Graham

Lou Castle said:


> The Ecollar is NOT just for reinforcing known commands. It's easily used to teach new behaviors. In fact, it's an excellent tool for that purpose.


Lou,

I agree with most of your points. I believe there are really few clearly wrong ways to train dogs, or absolutely right ones either. Going on my fourth decade of e-collar use, I've seen it through a long evolution in form and function, as I'm sure you have too.

I don't subscribe to teaching with e-collars, or other aversives. But I do use it to support known commands, as well as to compel certain behaviors. I also use it to correct undesireable acts or behaviors. I just do my teaching in more passive ways. To each his/her own, as long as it's fair to the dog. I don't think our methods really oppose each other to any significant degree.


Lou Castle said:


> I think that it's easier to use than just about any other tool/method that exists. It's not just about "stubborn dogs" or a last resort, or after everything else has failed.
> 
> Making comparisons to "electroshock" is off base and indicates that some don't understand modern versions of the tool and how it can be applied.


Amen!


Lou Castle said:


> The Ecollar is an easy tool to learn to use and I've devised many protocols that let people do basic training with their dogs.


I learned a majority of my protocols from the late Hall of Fame trainer Rex Carr. I've streamlined the method, and added steps of sequential development to help dogs learn more easily.


Lou Castle said:


> It's not necessary to cause what people think of as "pain" to use an Ecollar.


Nicely worded. This isn't the easiest point to make to the uninitiated. I'm delighted to see better information about this wonderful tool coming forth.

EvanG


----------



## wvasko

Ok I really try to stay out of this collar thing as much as I can, but training for a very long time I sometimes have to jump in with things that I get curious about.



> How many dogs have you trained? I've put Ecollars on over 4,000 dogs. I use whatever method is appropriate for the dog I'm working with and what I'm training.


I started thinking "over 4000 dogs," if I trained 1 dog a day that's almost 11 yrs, If each dog needed 2 days of work it stretches out to 22 yrs and I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. There are some trainers out in the world that claim they can train a dog in 2 weeks. I know this because I have had to retrain some of the 2 week dogs. You have me interested in the time span involved with this training because as long as I am in this I still believe I can learn from others. I spend 30 to 45 days training basics to a dog and when done I just call them started dogs.


----------



## Evan Graham

Suppose you have 15-20 dogs in for training at a time? Add to that several each day that are brought in for daily work by their owners. Then add those belonging to your training partners several days per week. Then, of course, there are 30-50 that are brought to half dozen seminars each year.

Warm up the calculator!

EvanG


----------



## wvasko

It's not a calculator program, It's my method that I only count dogs trained that I personally did the training. I have never counted dogs in classes, because I discovered early that I lacked some people skills and only spent maybe 3 years tops in class work. I guess it's the old saying those who can, do, those who can't, teach. It's a personal hands on dog thing with me.

I train the dog and then send them home with a DVD so owner can watch his dog doing work and instructions are on the DVD so they can continue the work in their home. I like this program as the dogs have to look good (stylish/happy etc) or I would have been out of business a long time ago. When you are old school negative type trainer you need self-policing. The big bonus is I don't even have to give the owners lessons when they pick up the dog. This is just the last 25 years with the VHS/DVD program. No taping the 1st 25 years. This is not a program for everybody, just something that helped with my personal people shortcomings.


----------



## Lou Castle

Evan Graham said:


> I agree with most of your points. I believe there are really few clearly wrong ways to train dogs, or absolutely right ones either. Going on my fourth decade of e-collar use, I've seen it through a long evolution in form and function, as I'm sure you have too.


Evan you've been using Ecollars for a lot longer than I have. I've little experience in your line, gundogs, but I have a bit with pets, police and SAR dogs. Most of my work is with police dogs and their search work is very delicate. Putting too much compulsion into the mix will hurt that work. And so I found a way of using very low level stim to reduce the amount of compulsion that's necessary. I also work to eliminate, or at least reduce as much as possible, the conflict that much of that work includes. The Ecollar is a great tool for that. 



Evan Graham said:


> To each his/her own, as long as it's fair to the dog.


I've read that about you. I agree, the issue is "fairness to the dog." 



Evan Graham said:


> I don't think our methods really oppose each other to any significant degree.Amen!I learned a majority of my protocols from the late Hall of Fame trainer Rex Carr.


My mentors include Donn Yarnall (Former head of K-9 training for LAPD), Wendell Nope (Head of K-9 training for the state of Utah), and Brian Mowry (Head of K-9 training for the US Secret Service).

Earlier I wrote,


> I've put Ecollars on over 4,000 dogs …





wvasko said:


> You have me interested in the time span involved with this training because as long as I am in this I still believe I can learn from others. I spend 30 to 45 days training basics to a dog and when done I just call them started dogs.


I think we're talking about two different things here. You're talking about training a dog from start to finish and I'm talking about problem solving. Most of those 4,000 dogs had some issue or other. The most common ones are with the police dogs – not releasing a bite on command; or with pets – not recalling; or with SAR dogs – chasing game or not recalling. 

Those 4,000 dogs include dogs that I've worked at seminars, my own dogs and those of my clients.


----------



## Elana55

wvasko said:


> I started thinking "over 4000 dogs," if I trained 1 dog a day that's almost 11 yrs, If each dog needed 2 days of work it stretches out to 22 yrs and I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. There are some trainers out in the world that claim they can train a dog in 2 weeks. I know this because I have had to retrain some of the 2 week dogs. You have me interested in the time span involved with this training because as long as I am in this I still believe I can learn from others. I spend 30 to 45 days training basics to a dog and when done I just call them started dogs.


Well, I cranked up the calculator and put out 20 dogs at 6 weeks each and got 22.8 years too. No trials. No finished dogs. Just cranking out dogs at 6 week intervals. 

Seminar dogs are advised but not trained by the seminar giver. Their owners or handlers use this advise to train the dogs.. so they do not count. Remember.. we go to seminars and if we are smart owners and/or handlers we take away what is useful and continue our work with either improvement or lack there of. 

Ultimately, I too question the numbers. 

I have heard some pretty amazing testimonials by ecollar trainers. I will not say they do not work. I still would not recommend them for the average pet dog.

I recall going to a horse training seminar and ultimately I attempted the techniques there on my horse. Fortunately no one died (like me) but ultimately what will work systematically for one person does not always translate over for other people. This includes all training methods including the clicker and food.

The difference is that if you misapply the clicker and food, you end up with a well fed happy dog that is not well trained but is probably not suffering from neurosis. If you misapply the E Collar you can end up with a very bad result. As a result of this, I do not suggest an ecollar for the average pet dog owner. 

Carry on....


----------



## txcollies

I actually know of some people who use an ecollar when teaching high level obedience work for competition obedience. How it works, I'm not sure. But they swear that for those few dogs, it's very clear for the dogs, gets the point across fast and works great!

Guess it does, one of them is an OTCH and placed at the NOI one year.


----------



## Elana55

Well, I am not saying never use one. I am saying the avg. pet dog owner, which most of this forum is aimed at, should not use an ecollar for the reasons stated.

When you are competing things change. The pressure is different and the goals are different. 

I mean.. here on the DF (and this is NOT meant as a bash at anyone or their method) most folks have enough trouble getting the dog to poo and pee outside, walk a loose lead and come when called. Getting into advanced training and/or competition is not their goal... and that is fine.


----------



## Evan Graham

Elana55 said:


> Seminar dogs are advised but not trained by the seminar giver. Their owners or handlers use this advise to train the dogs.. so they do not count. Remember.. we go to seminars and if we are smart owners and/or handlers we take away what is useful and continue our work with either improvement or lack there of.
> 
> Ultimately, I too question the numbers.


Elana,

That depends on the seminar and the trainer. When I do 4-day seminars I often do a fair portion of the actual training, especially in problem solving. Once the process (and the dog) rolls along, I turn it over to the owner. That's part of the fun for me. Humans are much harder to train that dogs. But people who have just watched a significant improvement in their dogs before their eyes become more receptive, and subsequently more trainable.

What Lou said was "I've put Ecollars on over 4,000 dogs". That's not the same as saying "I've trained over 4,000 dogs from beginning to end", or even through a specific course.


Elana55 said:


> I have heard some pretty amazing testimonials by ecollar trainers. I will not say they do not work. I still would not recommend them for the average pet dog.


It may be more useful to all if we confine our assessments to actual comments made by those participating in this discussion, who can respond to questions and criticisms, don't you think?

Thanks,

EvanG


----------



## txcollies

Elana55 said:


> Well, I am not saying never use one. I am saying the avg. pet dog owner, which most of this forum is aimed at, should not use an ecollar for the reasons stated.
> 
> When you are competing things change. The pressure is different and the goals are different.
> 
> I mean.. here on the DF (and this is NOT meant as a bash at anyone or their method) most folks have enough trouble getting the dog to poo and pee outside, walk a loose lead and come when called. Getting into advanced training and/or competition is not their goal... and that is fine.


LOL very true, I'm sorry, forgot to think things through.

I'd most def use the ecollar for stuff like stock chasing, etc and serious stuff like that.


----------



## Lou Castle

Elana55 said:


> Seminar dogs are advised but not trained by the seminar giver. Their owners or handlers use this advise to train the dogs.. so they do not count.


I guess we do seminars differently. I take the dog and work him, demonstrating a change in his behavior to the audience. It's not finished, but it _is training _and it DOES count. Notice that I did not say that I'd trained 4,000 dogs from start to finish. I said, _"I've put Ecollars on over 4,000 dogs."_ 



Elana55 said:


> Ultimately, I too question the numbers.


You're free to question anything that you like. But I'd suggest that you read what I wrote and the clarification of it. 



Elana55 said:


> I have heard some pretty amazing testimonials by ecollar trainers.


I'm not sure how much value there is in a testimonial *from the trainer. * I can direct you (or anyone else who is interested) to many testimonials by people who have used my methods. Inquire via PM. Some I've never met. They found my articles in the web and used them to train their dog to their satisfaction. 



Elana55 said:


> I will not say they do not work. I still would not recommend them for the average pet dog.


I do and I've developed protocols that have allowed many "average pet owners" (whatever that means) to use them to train their dogs. 



Elana55 said:


> The difference is that if you misapply the clicker and food, you end up with a well fed happy dog that is not well trained but is probably not suffering from neurosis.


You can easily end up with an overweight dog whose health will suffer from that condition for the rest of his life. And you can end up with a very confused dog that is not obedient. 



Elana55 said:


> If you misapply the E Collar you can end up with a very bad result. As a result of this, I do not suggest an ecollar for the average pet dog owner.


You can end up with "a very bad result" from the misuse of any tool. Because they are so easy to learn to use, because they give very fast results and because they are the only tool that allows behaviors to be reinforced at a distance – I DO suggest an Ecollar for the average pet owner (but I'm still not sure what this means).



Elana55 said:


> Well, I am not saying never use one. I am saying the avg. pet dog owner, which most of this forum is aimed at, should not use an ecollar for the reasons stated.


There's that phrase, "avg. pet dog owner" again. Can you define what you mean when you say it please? BTW I DO recommend the Ecollar for those people. My protocols were written especially for them. 



Elana55 said:


> When you are competing things change. The pressure is different and the goals are different.


My goal for a pet owner is for them to have a dog that comes when he's called no matter how far away he is or what distractions are in the mix. He should do some other OB movements, the sit and the down as well. He should not tear up the house or the yard. He should not be aggressive towards other dogs. 



Elana55 said:


> I mean.. here on the DF (and this is NOT meant as a bash at anyone or their method) most folks have enough trouble getting the dog to poo and pee outside, walk a loose lead and come when called. Getting into advanced training and/or competition is not their goal... and that is fine.


I don't think that my goals for a pet are "advanced training and/or competition." I also doubt that as you say _"*most folks" *_ [my emphasis] have _"trouble getting the dog to poo and pee outside, walk a loose lead and come when called."_ I have little doubt that some do, especially newcomers who come here looking for advice on just those topics, but I'm sure that they're not in the majority, as you've said.


----------



## wvasko

> I guess we do seminars differently. I take the dog and work him, demonstrating a change in his behavior to the audience. It's not finished, but it is training and it DOES count. Notice that I did not say that I'd trained 4,000 dogs from start to finish. I said, "I've put Ecollars on over 4,000 dogs."


Well let's build a training scenario, owning and operating a boarding kennel means I have to be in and out of dog runs to clean and feed etc. While I do this I like dogs back from gate so I can enter safely and not have some wild very spoiled dogs bolting out of kennels. I also like to put the pan down so dogs can eat etc. It works much better if the dogs are not leaping up into the pan. Now there is a small amount of training I'm doing so that dogs can be kept properly. I suppose I then could classify this as training, But it would be a huge stretch of the imagination to do so and then add that to my training statistics. I'm assuming at a seminar if you take a dog and put a collar on him and do whatever it is you do, I know there will be a change in the dog. When owner after the 10 or 15 minutes you spend with the dog goes home is that a lasting impression that dog carries home. I don't know I'm just asking. I have my own ideas but not necessary here.

Now let's go further the owner is so enamored with his only dog he's ever owned and likes what he saw at seminar he buys an e-collar. Let's get in the real world, by the time the owner was half way home from your seminar he has forgot most of what was going on at the seminar. He now has this e-collar and seeing that his dog is back home in his familiar surroundings where he has been spoiled for life owner needs to put more e-collar juice to dog to fight the problem. He doesn't have your expertise/timing etc and by the time he is through the dog that you say you trained is a totally different and possibly damaged dog. What I don't like about amateurs is if the trainer had the e-collar set on this setting, I am in a hurry and trainer has said e-collar work is fast I'm gonna jump the setting 2 more notches. It will work faster and better. See where I'm going.


----------



## jiml

I think its fair to say evan and lou have a lot of experience using e-collars on dogs regardless if anyone agrees with the method.


----------



## Lou Castle

wvasko said:


> Well let's build a training scenario, owning and operating a boarding kennel means I have to be in and out of dog runs to clean and feed etc. While I do this I like dogs back from gate so I can enter safely and not have some wild very spoiled dogs bolting out of kennels. I also like to put the pan down so dogs can eat etc. It works much better if the dogs are not leaping up into the pan. Now there is a small amount of training I'm doing so that dogs can be kept properly. I suppose I then could classify this as training, But it would be a huge stretch of the imagination to do so and then add that to my training statistics.


If you want to call that training, feel free but I don't think that many would agree. OTOH at a seminar I'm training dogs so I think that anyone would consider that's exactly what I'm doing. I have no idea why you've fixated on this but you have. AGAIN, please read what I've said. _"I've put Ecollars on over 4,000 dogs."_ At least you've gotten off the "start to finish" horse. LOL. 



wvasko said:


> I'm assuming at a seminar if you take a dog and put a collar on him and do whatever it is you do, I know there will be a change in the dog. When owner after the 10 or 15 minutes you spend with the dog goes home is that a lasting impression that dog carries home.


Yes. This occurs with the Ecollar more than with other tools, I think it's because the sensation is so novel to dogs that have never before felt the stim. And so they pay more attention to it. When the owner continues the work it's familiar to the dog. 



wvasko said:


> Now let's go further the owner is so enamored with his only dog he's ever owned and likes what he saw at seminar he buys an e-collar. Let's get in the real world, by the time the owner was half way home from your seminar he has forgot most of what was going on at the seminar.


That's why he has my articles freely available. He's also had the experience of working the dog himself at the seminar. So he has 1. seen it done, 2. done it himself AND 3. has written instructions on how to do it and how to accomplish other training as well. 



wvasko said:


> He now has this e-collar and seeing that his dog is back home in his familiar surroundings where he has been spoiled for life owner needs to put more e-collar juice to dog to fight the problem.


Nope not necessary. Remember that in an earlier post I mentioned the elimination or reduction of conflict? There's no fight necessary. The protocols were written specifically to avoid any "fight." 



wvasko said:


> He doesn't have your expertise/timing etc


He doesn't need it. This is a myth propagated by people who don't like Ecollars. Actually success in using a clicker takes better timing than does an Ecollar. 



wvasko said:


> and by the time he is through the dog that you say you trained is a totally different and possibly damaged dog.


I've never been able to figure out why people who don't like Ecollars, nearly always go to this place. Usually they have little to no experience with modern versions of the tool, used as I do. Since you've gone here, can you tell us of your experience with modern methods with modern Ecollars please? 

I find it fascinating that they don't do the same thing with their choice of methods. Most often they ONLY talk about the Ecollar and describe it's misuse. All the while ignoring or pretending that their own methods don't suffer from the same sorts of problems. 



wvasko said:


> What I don't like about amateurs is if the trainer had the e-collar set on this setting, I am in a hurry and trainer has said e-collar work is fast I'm gonna jump the setting 2 more notches. It will work faster and better. See where I'm going.


Yes, I do see where you're going. It's the same place that virtually every other person who dislikes Ecollars goes. Almost IMMEDIATELY you start talking about misuse (talk of abuse usually follows). It's just intended to scare people away from using Ecollars. 

In any case anyone who's been to one of my seminars has been warned against increasing the stim level as you describe, dozens of times.


----------



## wvasko

I also agree with their experience, I just like to stir stuff up and make people think, because people thinking about what they do to a dog before they do it is not a bad thing. In this world we live in there are good doctors, plumbers, dog trainers etc and the opposite is true of all 3. The same can also be said of anybody's training methods. (including mine)



> I've never been able to figure out why people who don't like Ecollars, nearly always go to this place. Usually they have little to no experience with modern versions of the tool, used as I do. Since you've gone here, can you tell us of your experience with modern methods with modern Ecollars please?


The Tri Tronics I have now is approximately 8 yrs old and only used on my personal bird dog. I have absolutely no experience with the modern e-collar. I have never used one to train in basic obedience work, as the prong collar has always been my weapon of choice. The older collar I used was again only on bird dogs for steadying to wing/shot and kill for field trial work. 

Now you asked why I got hung up on the 4000 dog routine. Well through the years many quote-unquote dog trainers that I met or talked to should not have been allowed near a dog leash. There was a gentleman and I use that term loosely that had 10 kennel runs, 5 on each side facing each other. He would get people to drop their dogs off and then he would put a dog in each run and he would then spend 15 minutes working his dog in the space between the kennel runs. He had the owners convinced that by working his dog the other dogs learned from watching him. He made 200.00 for an hours work (actually only 15 minutes the other 45 he lectured the people about what they had just seen. This absolutely has nothing to do with your working ability or reputation. It has to do with my suspicions of dog trainers in general especially online. Oh one last thing in those days 200.00 for an hrs work was big money especially for nothing.


----------



## jiml

<<<He would get people to drop their dogs off and then he would put a dog in each run and he would then spend 15 minutes working his dog in the space between the kennel runs>>>>

Social learning theory taken to an extreme


----------



## Lou Castle

wvasko said:


> I also agree with their experience, I just like to stir stuff up and make people think, because people thinking about what they do to a dog before they do it is not a bad thing.


I think that your posts go far beyond merely making "people think" about what's going on. Rather it seems to be the usual scare tactics that we see from people who oppose Ecollars. You hint about misuse. You insinuate that someone going home from a seminar would promptly forget what he'd learned and would start cranking up the stim level. 



wvasko said:


> The Tri Tronics I have now is approximately 8 yrs old and only used on my personal bird dog. I have absolutely no experience with the modern e-collar. I have never used one to train in basic obedience work, as the prong collar has always been my weapon of choice.


I too use the pinch collar. I know that it's a far more dangerous tool when misused than an Ecollar. AND it CAN cause physical injury, something that an Ecollar is not capable of. 



wvasko said:


> Now you asked why I got hung up on the 4000 dog routine. Well through the years many quote-unquote dog trainers that I met or talked to should not have been allowed near a dog leash. There was a gentleman …


I fail to see what this has to do with you questioning the number of dogs that I've put Ecollars on.


----------



## wvasko

> I think that your posts go far beyond merely making "people think" about what's going on. Rather it seems to be the usual scare tactics that we see from people who oppose Ecollars. You hint about misuse. You insinuate that someone going home from a seminar would promptly forget what he'd learned and would start cranking up the stim level.


I was the one who said "I would rather have one and not need it than need it and not have it" I am not against e-collars, I am not hinting about misuse by amateurs. I am outright shouting it, misuse is definitely possible. 

The going home from seminar, I'm not insinuating, it is possible that people could forget part of or a lot of the seminar. The reason I say this is when giving lessons pre VHS/DVD era people would call and ask what was this or what was that and I would say we discussed that at great length and then I'd get the "Oh yeah, I guess I forgot" answer.

So far what I get from your posts is that all dogs could/should be trained with an e-collar. I just don't agree. Earlier on this thread there was a puppy whose amateur owners are buzzing him with a collar for everything. A puppy.


----------



## Lou Castle

wvasko said:


> Would it be wrong to call it a social fleecing.


Who is this comment aimed at?


----------



## Evan Graham

Possibly both of us, Lou. There are several scalding generalities casually thrown about here.

Folks, if you truly desire to advance your knowledge, or to help enlighten others on the board, why not observe some common sense and decorum about doing it. If you have some point of contention, please be specific. Let's address the ideas you have problems with, and not be petty or personal, okay?

EvanG


----------



## wvasko

I was commenting on the story I told about the trainer who had the 10 dog kennels because jim said it was social learning to the extreme. I guess neither one of you read my reply or jiml answer.

I haven't said anything unpleasant about anybody here on DF. Please read all replies. Check out link 138.


----------



## Lou Castle

wvasko said:


> I was commenting on the story I told about the trainer who had the 10 dog kennels because jim said it was social learning to the extreme. I guess neither one of you read my reply or jiml answer.


I read it wv. But the reference to the trainer who had the 10 dogs, wasn't there. It looked like it could have applied to anyone in this conversation and given your tone and given the way that Ecollar users are often pilloried for using the tool by those who oppose it, it wasn't unreasonable for Evan to think that you were referring to us. I wanted to make sure before I arrived at that conclusion and that's why I asked. 



wvasko said:


> Check out link 138.


Jiml's post was clear because he referred back to your post mentioning this other trainer. Your reference was not clear and again, that's why I asked.


----------



## wvasko

Lou Castle said:


> I read it wv. But the reference to the trainer who had the 10 dogs, wasn't there. It looked like it could have applied to anyone in this conversation and given your tone and given the way that Ecollar users are often pilloried for using the tool by those who oppose it, it wasn't unreasonable for Evan to think that you were referring to us. I wanted to make sure before I arrived at that conclusion and that's why I asked.
> 
> 
> 
> Jiml's post was clear because he referred back to your post mentioning this other trainer. Your reference was not clear and again, that's why I asked.


Well the reply started with answering jiml and in the middle of that I got short-circuited answering your replies and dementia set in and I totally forgot jiml's post. See the excuses you can come up with as you attain a lot of years under your belt.


----------



## Cracker

Hi Lou! Long time no see.

Guess you've been googling for ecollar convos. I believe it was me who mentioned you earlier so that hopefully people would google YOU and you wouldn't need to come here. My mistake.
I am gracefully withdrawing from this thread, the circling gives me a headache.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

I don't have any e-collars to sell, so thankfully I can have an objective, unbiased view on it's use. Personally I don't need one, and have never had a need for one...kudos to me I guess. I understand that some types of training have a higher demand on behavior than what I do, where an e-collar *may* be more applicable...though I doubt they are necessary when others have succeeded without it. Of the handful of e-collar trainers I know, none of them advocate their use without trying other methods first. I guess I don't belong in the other circle, and that's okay with me.

What I have observed first hand with e-collar training is a distinguishable difference in posturing of the dog being trained, ever so subtly, and a higher frequency of calming signals. I'm a quantitative person when observing other trainers, so yes, I do take note of these things. 

I don't personally know, with the kind of conviction e-collar trainers tend to have (yes this is a generalization), how the dog feels about a stim, but, if this amateur can notice a dog who may not be as comfortable being trained with an e-collar than without, the e-collar can't be a magic wand, or a priority in a training protocol...at least not by my recommendation. My experience tells me differently, and I don't know how to rid my mind of these observations in preference for the e-collar. So, it is a last resort tool in my book. Sorry fellas, the eyes don't lie.


----------



## Lou Castle

Cracker said:


> Hi Lou! Long time no see.
> 
> Guess you've been googling for ecollar convos. I believe it was me who mentioned you earlier so that hopefully people would google YOU and you wouldn't need to come here. My mistake.


You're one of a couple of people who mentioned me. I didn't find the discussion via Google but someone who saw it let me know that it was going on. I have spies everywhere! LOL. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> I don't have any e-collars to sell, so thankfully I can have an objective, unbiased view on it's use.


I had discussions just like this one long before I became a dealer for Ecollars. But they're a loser for me. If you look at the big picture, I lose money on the sales of them. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> Personally I don't need one, and have never had a need for one...kudos to me I guess.


No one "needs" an Ecollar. We trained dogs for thousands of years before they came along. But they're here now and they're not going to go away. We also have computers, indoor plumbing, jet planes and microwaves. They're not necessary either but I wouldn't want to do without any of them. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> Of the handful of e-collar trainers I know, none of them advocate their use without trying other methods first. I guess I don't belong in the other circle, and that's okay with me.


I'm one who doesn't advocate trying other methods first. I'll concede that many people don't like the sound of the Ecollar and may have some emotional response to it and so if they want to try some other method first, that's fine with me. As I said, most of my work these days is in problem solving. By the time people get to me they've already tried many other trainers and other methods. None of them have given the desired results. I've never failed to fix whatever issue has been presented by using the Ecollar. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> What I have observed first hand with e-collar training is a distinguishable difference in posturing of the dog being trained, ever so subtly, and a higher frequency of calming signals. I'm a quantitative person when observing other trainers, so yes, I do take note of these things.


I've seen this with the work of other Ecollar trainers as well. I'll have to say that you've never seen a dog that's been trained with my methods because it doesn't happen, the work is too subtle. At my seminars, it's happened many times that after I've been working with a dog for 10-15 minutes, that someone will ask, _"When are you going to start using the Ecollar?"_ Fact is I'd been using it since I started with the dog! I've heard this from very experienced dog trainers who are unable to tell when I'm pressing the button and the dog is only a few feet away from them. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> I don't personally know, with the kind of conviction e-collar trainers tend to have (yes this is a generalization), how the dog feels about a stim, but, if this amateur can notice a dog who may not be as comfortable being trained with an e-collar than without, the e-collar can't be a magic wand, or a priority in a training protocol...at least not by my recommendation.


As I've said, very experienced trainers standing feet away can't tell when I've been using the Ecollar. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> My experience tells me differently,


I'm pretty confident that your experience does not involve seeing me work or seeing any dogs that I've trained. HERE is some video of two dogs playing. One of them used to be aggressive towards the other. Can you tell me with any conviction, which dog used to be the aggressive one. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> and I don't know how to rid my mind of these observations in preference for the e-collar. So, it is a last resort tool in my book. Sorry fellas, the eyes don't lie.


Please tell me which dog had the Ecollar used on him and why you think so.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

no offence lou but it sounds like you are here because you have something to sell(and im not referring to your e collars).

there is no trainer on the face of the planet...i dont care who you are...that is 100% perfect and their method never fails. so if you arent here selling something, why dont you tell us about that?

then i would think about the rest. but the fact that you make grandiose claims with no apparent humility is a put off and imo worthy of distrust.

disclaimer in light of the previous encounter: i have no intent of being offensive, i am a very blunt sort and when something smells fishy i am going to say something.

so..what's the deal? its an honest question.


----------



## Keechak

R.J. said:


> There are other less painful ways to train a dog


e-collars are only painful if you misuse them. I've shocked myself with several levels on a shock collar and it was only surprising not painful untill I got up to the higher levels.


----------



## Lou Castle

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no offence lou but it sounds like you are here because you have something to sell(and im not referring to your e collars).


You're right. I do have something to sell. It's the concept of easy, reliable dog training. I've seen too many dogs hit by cars because they didn't recall. I've seen too many dogs sent to the shelter because their owners could not get a handle on their behavior. I've seen too many owners tearing their hair out or accepting bad behavior because they were unable to train it away. I used to train my clients with conventional leash and collar methods. But the results took forever and few of them learned to give effective corrections. When I started using the Ecollar instead of conventional methods, things turned around overnight. 

People started getting results from the first lesson. It only got better from there. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> there is no trainer on the face of the planet...i dont care who you are...that is 100% perfect and their method never fails. so if you arent here selling something, why dont you tell us about that?


I'm quite sure that somewhere out there is a dog, maybe a lot of them, that won't respond to what I do. I just haven't met them yet. And the count of over 4.000 dogs still stands. That's certainly not "all dogs" and that's why I've never claimed that I'm perfect. Just that my record, so far is. That could change tomorrow. 

At my seminars I take all comers. I don't pre–screen dogs as some seminar–givers do. Whatever problem, whatever issue that a dog has, is what I work with. Of course I'm not able to provide a complete fix for some issues, such as dog to dog aggression. But I've never failed to make dramatic changes in the dog's behavior and give the owner a push in the right direction. 

When I get called to a police department to give an Ecollar demo I know that they've got a problem that no one else has been able to solve. Usually it's that a given dog won't release a bite. I've never failed to get a verbal out on such dogs and there have been hundreds of them. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> then i would think about the rest. but the fact that you make grandiose claims with no apparent humility is a put off and imo worthy of distrust.


I'm sorry that you're put off by my success. Some call it bragging. But as Dizzy Dean said, _"It ain't bragging if you can do it!"_ 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> disclaimer in light of the previous encounter: i have no intent of being offensive, i am a very blunt sort and when something smells fishy i am going to say something.


I consider your words to be rude, but I'll live. I've heard far worse. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> so..what's the deal? its an honest question.


And you just got an honest answer. 

I'm always happy to supply references to back up what I say. I can't post my website here because of the rules of the forum but there are any number of testimonials there. Most people who have written them have given me permission to pass their email addresses along so they can be verified.


----------



## RBark

Lou Castle said:


> You're one of a couple of people who mentioned me. I didn't find the discussion via Google but someone who saw it let me know that it was going on. I have spies everywhere! LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> I had discussions just like this one long before I became a dealer for Ecollars. But they're a loser for me. If you look at the big picture, I lose money on the sales of them.
> 
> 
> 
> No one "needs" an Ecollar. We trained dogs for thousands of years before they came along. But they're here now and they're not going to go away. We also have computers, indoor plumbing, jet planes and microwaves. They're not necessary either but I wouldn't want to do without any of them.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm one who doesn't advocate trying other methods first. I'll concede that many people don't like the sound of the Ecollar and may have some emotional response to it and so if they want to try some other method first, that's fine with me. As I said, most of my work these days is in problem solving. By the time people get to me they've already tried many other trainers and other methods. None of them have given the desired results. I've never failed to fix whatever issue has been presented by using the Ecollar.
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen this with the work of other Ecollar trainers as well. I'll have to say that you've never seen a dog that's been trained with my methods because it doesn't happen, the work is too subtle. At my seminars, it's happened many times that after I've been working with a dog for 10-15 minutes, that someone will ask, _"When are you going to start using the Ecollar?"_ Fact is I'd been using it since I started with the dog! I've heard this from very experienced dog trainers who are unable to tell when I'm pressing the button and the dog is only a few feet away from them.
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said, very experienced trainers standing feet away can't tell when I've been using the Ecollar.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty confident that your experience does not involve seeing me work or seeing any dogs that I've trained. HERE is some video of two dogs playing. One of them used to be aggressive towards the other. Can you tell me with any conviction, which dog used to be the aggressive one.
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me which dog had the Ecollar used on him and why you think so.


To this I'd have to say... those experienced trainers must be blind.

I mean, even assuming the dog doesn't give a single calming signal. The dog would have to move, correct, and so on, for you to push the button. So either you accidently put the collar on a statue, or the "experienced" trainers are like most "experienced trainers" where they don't know poop, or you're lying.

If I saw a dog self correct, I'd be able to note the marker. If you're zapping the dog and the dog is not doing anything, then you're, i dont know what you're doing.

I use an e-collar for Kobe's recall, and only for that. But make no mistake, he does give off calming signals. A dog that doesnt give it off is not a dog at all. That you're interpreting calming signals to mean pain, only serves to reinforce my belief you really just simply do not know dog body language. Dogs give off calming signals all the time, all day long. They give them when you enter a room, when you leave a room, when you pet your dogs, when they are just laying around. A calming signal in itself does not mean anything.

All curbside noted was not the existence of it, but the frequency of it going up. I'm surprised that you did not understand that.


----------



## Lou Castle

RBark said:


> To this I'd have to say... those experienced trainers must be blind.


Pretty rude but since it's not directed at me, I'll let it pass. 



RBark said:


> I mean, even assuming the dog doesn't give a single calming signal. The dog would have to move, correct, and so on, for you to push the button.


Sorry but you're wrong. It's a simple matter of you assuming that you know what I do, when it's obvious that you don't. 



RBark said:


> So either you accidently put the collar on a statue,


Again, pretty rude. This time it IS directed at me. But I'll not respond in kind. I wonder why you folks always go to rudeness when your arguments fall apart? 



RBark said:


> or the "experienced" trainers are like most "experienced trainers" where they don't know poop, or you're lying.


AGAIN, rude. This time VERY rude! I'll just write it off to your ignorance of what I do. 



RBark said:


> If I saw a dog self correct, I'd be able to note the marker.


You wouldn't see anything of this nature when I was working a dog. 



RBark said:


> If you're zapping the dog


I don't "zap" dogs. I apply low level stimulation at the level that they can just barely perceive. 



RBark said:


> and the dog is not doing anything, then you're, i dont know what you're doing.


You're right. You don't know what I'm doing. Instead YOU'RE ASSUMING. And then, based on those assumptions you're drawing conclusions. When you start from false assumptions, you're not going to get good conclusions. 



RBark said:


> I use an e-collar for Kobe's recall, and only for that. But make no mistake, he does give off calming signals.


I'd bet the farm that you're not using my methods. 



RBark said:


> A dog that doesnt give it off is not a dog at all.


ROFL. Or perhaps the truth is that he doesn’t need to give off calming signals because he's not stressed enough to do so. 



RBark said:


> That you're interpreting calming signals to mean pain, only serves to reinforce my belief you really just simply do not know dog body language.


I have a hard time accepting that you're this rude to someone whose work you've never seen. But the evidence is quite clear. Notice that your rudeness and personal attacks are not returned. 

Here's something that someone who attended one of my seminars wrote. This was an experienced SAR worker with several finds to her credit. She's very good at reading dogs. She wrote,


> … Lou Castle can read dogs like few people can. He is among the top three that I have seen work with dogs and 'read' their body language and use that knowledge in training. BTW, I have seen the best and the worst and I make a point to see how trainers read dogs. … What Lou Castle teaches is Observing your dog, reading what is necessary and what is confusing.





RBark said:


> Dogs give off calming signals all the time, all day long. They give them when you enter a room, when you leave a room, when you pet your dogs, when they are just laying around. A calming signal in itself does not mean anything.


Yes I know. I wonder why you keep harping on them. 



RBark said:


> All curbside noted was not the existence of it, but the frequency of it going up. I'm surprised that you did not understand that.


Since neither you nor curbside have seen my work, you're coming from a place of ignorance of what I do and how I do it. That is not to say that either of you are "ignorant people." It IS to say that you don't know the details of my work. Your assumptions are probably based on what you know of how Ecollars are used and your own experience with them. It's silly to think that the tool can't be used in other ways than you are familiar with. Nonetheless you have done just that.


----------



## RBark

Since I'm apprently at a disadvantage here. I'm going to have to ask what, in the name of god, your dog is doing.

You've eliminated the following scenarios:

1) The dog is not a statue
2) The dog is not doing any command (sit, stay, come, anything. because according to you, the dog was not moving)
3) The dog is not giving off calming signals

So um. If you're not training it to do something, what are you using it for?

It doesn't matter what your training method is. Your dog would have to be doing SOMETHING, anything, to learn. You're clearly not sitting in front of the dog and explaining it verbally how to sit down. And even if you were, the dog would react to that somehow. Whether it's by looking at you, licking it's nose, looking away, there would be SOME movement.

The laws of learning are the same, no matter what method is applied. I could tell you stim the dog, just based on the dog adjusting from the stim. Because if the dog did the right action from beginning to end, then there would be no reason for a stim. I would be able to observe based on an incorrect action that the dog got stimmed, even if the dog itself does not react in pain. If you were training using a method of, for instance, continuous stim as soon as you mark it, then releasing as the dog arrives at you, for recall, I would still be able to note that the dog reacted to such.

Why you are so persistent in denying that the dog reacted in any way boggles my mind. I hate to emphasize it again, if the dog is not doing anything, then there's no reason to stim it. Surely you can comprehend that.



> I don't "zap" dogs. I apply low level stimulation at the level that they can just barely perceive.


Zap, stim, it doesnt matter. It's a marker.



> Since neither you nor curbside have seen my work, you're coming from a place of ignorance of what I do and how I do it. That is not to say that either of you are "ignorant people." It IS to say that you don't know the details of my work. Your assumptions are probably based on what you know of how Ecollars are used and your own experience with them. It's silly to think that the tool can't be used in other ways than you are familiar with. Nonetheless you have done just that.


What I'm basing it on is, that the method does not matter. You could be training with a whip. You could train with a clicker. You could train with a ecollar. With constant treats. Positive, negative, punishment, reinforcement. It does not matter how you define it. There is one universal, and it's the dog, and that a behavior must happen for a consequence to occur. What you have denied, in my last post, is any possibility of a behavior occuring. That is simply incomprehensible.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

im not put off by your success. im put off by your attitude.


----------



## Shaina

Lou Castle said:


> Since neither you nor curbside have seen my work, you're coming from a place of ignorance of what I do and how I do it. That is not to say that either of you are "ignorant people." It IS to say that you don't know the details of my work. Your assumptions are probably based on what you know of how Ecollars are used and your own experience with them.


What else are one's opinions to be based upon beside one's own experiences? You repeatedly complain that people are only questioning you because they haven't seen your methods...I have to ask, do you expect them to believe you _without_ having seen them? 

In turn, you have time and time again immediately denounced anyone's opinion which is not in agreement with yours, though you have clearly not seen _their_ methods in practice. 

I may be alone, but this seems highly hypocritical.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Lou Castle said:


> I had discussions just like this one long before I became a dealer for Ecollars. But they're a loser for me. If you look at the big picture, I lose money on the sales of them.


Oh, did the shoe fit...I was merely trying to qualify my lack of bias. I had no idea you were in sales. 



> No one "needs" an Ecollar. We trained dogs for thousands of years before they came along. But they're here now and they're not going to go away. We also have computers, indoor plumbing, jet planes and microwaves. They're not necessary either but I wouldn't want to do without any of them.


Ya, I get that but it doesn't explain why I need to spend hundreds of dollars on a tool that is not nearly as powerful as my brain...plus I like the idea of $aving that money and $pending it $omewhere more necessary...like on new stuffed toys for my dog. Can't have too many Dirty Rotten Kitties, ya know. They get alot of behavior where I'm not sure an e-collar could. 



> I'm one who doesn't advocate trying other methods first. I'll concede that many people don't like the sound of the Ecollar and may have some emotional response to it and so if they want to try some other method first, that's fine with me.


I will always try more humane methods first and demand other trainers do the same with my dog. If you don't do that, I won't be calling for your services...just a fact of life, no offense. How you train your dog or your clients isn't a concern of mine...being humane and demonstrating it is. Why use a hammer when a tape measure will do? 

And before you rehearse your next claptrap, I'm not suggesting e-collars are inhumane. They do look cool in a box and on a shelf where I'm sure they'll hurt no one.











> As I said, most of my work these days is in problem solving. By the time people get to me they've already tried many other trainers and other methods. None of them have given the desired results. I've never failed to fix whatever issue has been presented by using the Ecollar.


Business must be good then. Unfortunately, or rather fortunately, this forum has nothing to do with your business, so this point is meaningless to the discussion. Anyone can sleep at a Holiday Inn Express on the internets. 



> I'm pretty confident that your experience does not involve seeing me work or seeing any dogs that I've trained. HERE is some video of two dogs playing. One of them used to be aggressive towards the other. Can you tell me with any conviction, which dog used to be the aggressive one.


Again, how you train your dog doesn't tell me anything about how you can help me or my dog. How you advertise the e-collar won't likely convince me differently of my convictions. Your just gunna have to accept that my opinion diverges from yours.











> Please tell me which dog had the Ecollar used on him and why you think so.


Which dog? Wilbur. Do you know him? A year old setter mix. I'm not sure how this information helps you or why it's necessary. Nevertheless, and as I said earlier, I noticed a higher frequency of calming signals from the dog and distinguishably different posturing, especially in his ear position during training (much lower). That's why I "think so". And ya, I got it that people wouldn't notice it with you, you are after all, the best e-collar trainer in the world, no? But I also get that some dogs are better at masking discomfort, pain and stress than others, so it's mute point.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Curbside Prophet said:


> But I also get that some dogs are better at masking discomfort, pain and stress than others, so it's mute point.


How does one determine whether a dog is masking discomfort, pain, and stress or merely less bothered by them?


----------



## wvasko

Lou Castle said:


> Pretty rude but since it's not directed at me, I'll let it pass.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but you're wrong. It's a simple matter of you assuming that you know what I do, when it's obvious that you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, pretty rude. This time it IS directed at me. But I'll not respond in kind. I wonder why you folks always go to rudeness when your arguments fall apart?
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN, rude. This time VERY rude! I'll just write it off to your ignorance of what I do.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't see anything of this nature when I was working a dog.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "zap" dogs. I apply low level stimulation at the level that they can just barely perceive.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. You don't know what I'm doing. Instead YOU'RE ASSUMING. And then, based on those assumptions you're drawing conclusions. When you start from false assumptions, you're not going to get good conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd bet the farm that you're not using my methods.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL. Or perhaps the truth is that he doesn’t need to give off calming signals because he's not stressed enough to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a hard time accepting that you're this rude to someone whose work you've never seen. But the evidence is quite clear. Notice that your rudeness and personal attacks are not returned.
> 
> Here's something that someone who attended one of my seminars wrote. This was an experienced SAR worker with several finds to her credit. She's very good at reading dogs. She wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I know. I wonder why you keep harping on them.
> 
> 
> 
> Since neither you nor curbside have seen my work, you're coming from a place of ignorance of what I do and how I do it. That is not to say that either of you are "ignorant people." It IS to say that you don't know the details of my work. Your assumptions are probably based on what you know of how Ecollars are used and your own experience with them. It's silly to think that the tool can't be used in other ways than you are familiar with. Nonetheless you have done just that.


Well I see my work is done here. Lou I did not even know you were in e-collar sales aside from your dog work. I should have, it's "my Bad" I just don't like it when somebody says they can do it all. My problem is that this is the internet and I while claiming to be wvasko dinosaur trainer from Central IL could be Nan from Nantucket who had never trained or even petted a dog but spent all day reading books about the wonderful world of dogs.



> I'm one who doesn't advocate trying other methods first. I'll concede that many people don't like the sound of the Ecollar and may have some emotional response to it and so if they want to try some other method first, that's fine with me. As I said, most of my work these days is in problem solving. By the time people get to me they've already tried many other trainers and other methods. None of them have given the desired results. *I've never failed to fix whatever issue has been presented by using the Ecollar.*


I've never met a dog trainer who has never failed. Actually I've never met a person who has never failed at something. I said yesterday that e-collar misuse was possible by amateurs and I said that the prong collar was my weapon of choice. You answered back and said the prong collar could also be misused. I agree wholeheartedly, I have been on DF almost a year and have never advised use of prong collars to amateurs. If somebody was already using one and needed help I have been PMed and given advice.

Now just a short response to the following


> … Lou Castle can read dogs like few people can. He is among the top three that I have seen work with dogs and 'read' their body language and use that knowledge in training. BTW, I have seen the best and the worst and I make a point to see how trainers read dogs. … What Lou Castle teaches is Observing your dog, reading what is necessary and what is confusing.


I have had customers who believe I can walk on water, they would give you glowing reports on my prowess as a trainer. I'm being a tad facetious but the law of averages says you will fix some dogs and make some people very happy with your services. (I hope) Remember though this is the internet and anything I say that people have said about my training is suspect. I could be a baldfaced liar.

I have mentioned this probably 10 or 15 times that I have seen dogs when an e-collar was used bite dirt or jump 6 ft high or actually turn and bite owner or anybody near. Those are facts not guesses. But I still think it's a nice tool for a professional to have in the toolbag. 

My time on this thread is done. Good luck with your e-collar sales. Please don't take this personal as I would try to jump on anybody who says they are perfect and never made a mistake/failed etc


----------



## Evan Graham

Marsh Muppet said:


> How does one determine whether a dog is masking discomfort, pain, and stress or merely less bothered by them?


I get the strong impression this point will also be artfully dodged, MM. This formerly informative topic has quickly declined into a closed-minded feeding frenzy. I'm sorry to see it, but I was forwarned. Best of luck in the future, and keep those brain cells well fed! 

EvanG


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

its not a feeding frenzy. i looked ol' Lou up and didnt like what i saw. 

as for determining when a dog is masking, its somewhat individual from dog to dog.so its a matter of close observation and familiarity with the dog.

like my own. my ex used to try and train her with a prong. and she would just lay down. if you correct her, she will lay down no matter what you want her to do. and if you correct her again she gets even more passivey non compliant. 

other dogs will be different...i just chose her as an example because what she does is very very blaten.


----------



## Evan Graham

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> its not a feeding frenzy.


It looks, acts, walks, and talks like a feeding frenzy. The eye of the beholder tells some that there are no "illegal aliens", only "undocumented workers". Just as drug dealers are merely "undocumented pharmacists". You're welcome to see what you want to see. Yet the truth does not cease to exist merely because it's ignored.


zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i looked ol' Lou up and didnt like what i saw.


I'm sure that's fine with Lou. That's your personal opinion, and everyone is welcome to one of those. I'm pretty sure in a civilized society, not liking what you see _is not _the same as as a gang attack.

I don't have any problem with someone questioning ideas, or even opposing them. Turning questions or opposition into personal attacks is an entirely different issue.


zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> as for determining when a dog is masking, its somewhat individual from dog to dog.so its a matter of close observation and familiarity with the dog.....other dogs will be different...i just chose her as an example because what she does is very very blaten.


That's a very good example. Masking can really only be determined when there is discernable behavioral evidence of it. That, I believe, is what MM was questioning.

EvanG


----------



## Elana55

Question for Lou and Evan:

Have either of you ever trained a dog to do a new behavior using a marker and reward to show the dog what he has done correctly? Some use a clicker and food and others use the word yes as a marker and food and even others use a marker and play. 

Just curious. 

Have a good day and Carry On.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

forums are funny thing Evan. something can look like a gang attack and not be. and that could even be the case in real life...for example...if you were out somewhere and saw me and my sister saying goodbye to our dad you would probably think its a nasty fight or something. when in reality saying "f*** you too dad" and flipping him the bird is a personal joke between us and our father...and he says "f*** y'all too" right back.

those who took issue with some of what was posted responded to it. but we did so independantly. you are free to interpret it as you wish however..


----------



## Evan Graham

Elana55 said:


> Question for Lou and Evan:
> 
> Have either of you ever trained a dog to do a new behavior using a marker and reward to show the dog what he has done correctly? Some use a clicker and food and others use the word yes as a marker and food and even others use a marker and play.
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> Have a good day and Carry On.


Elana,

Thanks for asking. I really have no idea what Lou's history in training is prior to e-collar use in his method. We all had different beginnings.

But I can tell you that I've never forgotten being new to it all. I was just as green and mistake prone as anyone. I got my first Labrador Retriever from a newspaper ad (1st mistake), learned to train from one of VERY few books about the subject in those days (kind of a mistake, but whatcha' gonna do? LOL). I'm sure I made countless mistakes learning along the way. When you're new at this it's hard to know where to look for viable help.

Roughly 25 years, and many trophies & ribbons later, I was and am still learning about these wonderful dogs. A lady in Vancouver BC had been a highly successful obedience trainer for years - titling many OTCH's among her Golden Retrievers. She became interested in fieldwork and bought my books. A short time later she contacted me to do a seminar there. In the weeks I've spent with her, I also became her student in Operant Conditioning. She taught me things about treat training that I had never known, and I'll always be grateful.

That's the long way of saying "yes"! Again, thanks for asking. I've incororated those techniques into my puppy program.

EvanG


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Marsh Muppet said:


> How does one determine whether a dog is masking discomfort, pain, and stress or merely less bothered by them?


By quantifying it through observation of behavior.



Evan Graham said:


> I get the strong impression this point will also be artfully dodged, MM.


Artfully dodged? I suppose that's what Darwin was doing when he learned of fitness.


----------



## jiml

Lou is passionate about his training method that he feels is unfairly attacked by many. nothing wrong with that. 

The reason I originally posted to this old topic was to educate people that this can be a fairly gentle method of training compared to peoples preconceived notions of dogs being shocked and jumping six feet and biting the ground (evan and lou - you have trained the most dogs with thise method - is this a common reaction when using the device correctly). I actually started using this (and clicker training) because a dog I have reacted terribly to any correction to choke and pinch collars ,which is the way I had trained all my prev dogs relatively easy. could I have worked through it sure but it would have fit my definition of abuse just desensitizing her to it. 

that's all I was hoping to do is educate people (some far better trainers than ill ever be). This does not mean that you need to convert from a clicker trainer that tries to minimize adversives (there is no way to eliminate) into an e-collar trainer. Im sur if you would never use a choke chain or a pinch then you would never use an e-collar. that's fine. doesn't hurt to know how they should be used though.

On a different note lou, I was recentlly at a fare in dutchess county NY. A bunch of the local police were showing there SAR dogs. Let me say I NEVER want too be in a situation where they have their dogs bite me. Not one (out of about 12 dogs) released on command. And the best trained of the bunch was attacked by beacon NY's dog.


----------



## Elana55

Thanks for the Reply Evan. I will not say I am a many dogs trained person.. I have trained about 20 dogs using various methods including a German Bred GSD who I trained to work cattle on my dairy farm. She would work with the horse and the horse with her moving cattle.. and it was an amazing experience. The only decision I made was what field we were going to. 

I did use an Ecollar on this GSD (not to train for herding but to keep her off something that was going to cost her being alive if I did not do it.. sort of like the rattlesnake training discussed here). She was correction based trained as were all my other dogs prior to her. 

My current dog is mostly Pos. reinf. trained and we are just starting formal obedience title work and this is my first competition dog (no more farm.. or she would be herding and that would be that). 

I guess I look at all the things you can put in your dog training tool box.. much like a carpenter puts various tools in the box for that occupation. 

The more tools I have in the tool box the more flexibility I have to train dogs. I don't think any single tool is the answer and some tools I almost never use. 

I am not new to animal training and have trained many more horses and cats than dogs. I made money on the horses and did a lot of rehab training and lived to tell the tale.


----------



## Evan Graham

Elana55 said:


> Thanks for the Reply Evan.
> 
> I did use an Ecollar on this GSD (not to train for herding but to keep her off something that was going to cost her being alive if I did not do it.. sort of like the rattlesnake training discussed here). She was correction based trained as were all my other dogs prior to her.


Elana,

You're welcome. I trust this went well?


Elana55 said:


> My current dog is mostly Pos. reinf. trained and we are just starting formal obedience title work and this is my first competition dog (no more farm.. or she would be herding and that would be that).


What breed is your current dog? I have some friends in the obedience ring who are very successful. If you need any tips, they may be willing to help.


Elana55 said:


> I guess I look at all the things you can put in your dog training tool box.. much like a carpenter puts various tools in the box for that occupation.
> 
> The more tools I have in the tool box the more flexibility I have to train dogs. I don't think any single tool is the answer and some tools I almost never use.


That's how Bruce Lee viewed the martial arts. He was originally schooled in one specific style. But later on, as he matured, he realized that being myopic in adherence to a single style excluded some very effective techniques, and Jeet Koon Do was born. I think that is true of many pursuits, including dog training. 

It is an old asian philosophy that the teacher and the student can produce the learning together.

EvanG


----------



## Elana55

I did not know there were other breeds of dogs past the German Shepherd... There are OTHER breeds???? 

And yes. Using the E Collar on Kazi (last dog) eliminated her desire to go near the life costing thing. 

Current dog is progressing nicely. We all know the weak link is her handler... and if I make a mistake she tells me all about it. This dog is not a patient trainer.


----------



## Evan Graham

Elana55 said:


> I did not know there were other breeds of dogs past the German Shepherd... There are OTHER breeds????


Breed snob alert!!!









Elana55 said:


> And yes. Using the E Collar on Kazi (last dog) eliminated her desire to go near the life costing thing.
> 
> Current dog is progressing nicely. We all know the weak link is her handler... and if I make a mistake she tells me all about it. This dog is not a patient trainer.


They have a way of telling on us, don't they?

EvanG


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

You mean Pit Bull right Elana? Other breeds are fairy tales...


----------



## KBLover

Wow, I missed this one LOL 

Anyway, I have never used and e-collar, and really don't see where using one would be needed for my dog. Wally is already fearful and overly submissive and I know the first time he feels that shock, he's going to be scared out of his mind. I'd like to avoid that as much as possible. There's enough things that can happen suddenly that I can't control that might scare him or make him anxious.

Last thing I want to do is "re-generalize" his fear or bring back the mindset that he needs to be constantly ready to run and being over vigilant because "something" might happen to him.

As far as aversives - I use them, if a hard tone of voice counts or a "hard expression". That's enough to get the point to him that what he just did ain't right. Big difference between getting food (he loves food) and getting the "Icy eyes" and the "booming voice".

However, I believe in doing what works without harming the dog. Personally, I think any method, well-used, will be effective. Some say R+ doesn't work (or work fast), but only corrections do. My dog is the exact opposite. Too many corrections will just make him scared/too nervous and R+ works like a charm on him.

Depends on the dog and the handler's approach/ability/personality, imo.


----------



## jiml

You mean Pit Bull right Elana? Other breeds are fairy tales>>> i agree

May i ask why lou was banned. there are others that I think were more of instigators.


----------



## Elana55

Oh those Pit Bull People.. they are so "other breed aggressive..."


----------



## Evan Graham

At least you folks who have a breed fetish always know where you stand! I'm conflicted, I guess. I pretty much like all of them.

Currently I own half interest in a Labrador Retriever (a field trial dog in the making), A Golden Retriever (we'll see what he does ), and....are you ready?...a Yorkie! Variety is the spice of life!

EvanG


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

breed fetishists are actually lunatics you know. totally codependant personalities(i need to rethink taking more psychology classes lmao)


----------



## Evan Graham

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> breed fetishists are actually lunatics you know. totally codependant personalities(i need to rethink taking more psychology classes lmao)


Cool! then you can help me with my _conflicted_ attraction for so many different breeds. 

EvanG


----------



## MegaMuttMom

Evan Graham said:


> Cool! then you can help me with my _conflicted_ attraction for so many different breeds.
> 
> EvanG


Do what I did! Get the all-in-one mega mutt!


----------



## Evan Graham

MegaMuttMom said:


> Do what I did! Get the all-in-one mega mutt!


Now, why didn't _I_ think of that??? 

EvanG


----------



## Elana55

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> breed fetishists are actually lunatics you know. totally codependant personalities(i need to rethink taking more psychology classes lmao)


YIKES! I do not mind being a lunatic.. I DO mind being codependent! 

Oh wait.. I have to go see what my DOG thinks....


----------



## Evan Graham

You guys should be comedy writers!!! 

EvanG


----------



## Evan Graham

hunter22375,

I was wondering if you got any or all of your questions answered through all of this?

EvanG


----------



## Evan Graham

Okay. Well, for the record (since the e-collar's reputation is often tarnished by outright prevarications) there is no display of "sparks", no physical injury - even possible, and no literal relationship to "electroshock" treatment. None of that has any relationship to the truth about e-collars...none.

If you, or anyone, care to ask about accurate information regarding the tool itself, or the methods designed to include it, please ask. I'll be glad to help.

EvanG


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

thats not exactly true Evan. not all of what you listed is prevarication or 100% false. 

especially the comment about injury. injury is very possible. ive seen it happen and in other instances viewed the result. you can argue that if you wish but the FACT remains is that if you wish to use an ecollar you NEED a pro who is well versed in its use...there, in person with you to keep you from screwing up your dog.


----------



## jiml

especially the comment about injury. injury is very possible. >>>

what injury, The only lejit physical injury I know of is from leaving wet collars on and getting a infection from the probes rubbing. I use Electric stim on people at far higher levels than a collar uses for far longer times without ever injuring anyone.


<<<<but the FACT remains is that if you wish to use an ecollar you NEED a pro who is well versed in its use>>>>

this certainly is helpfull and certainly they should at least resurch proper use. But this is your opinion but its not fact - as was stated by others earlier. 
You can go on any gundog forum and find loads of people who trained their dogs quite well with vids such as evans.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

guy said he had done everything right with the collar and he put it on the dog and used it. the dog started spazzing out and having convulsions and hurt himself. Dog had a neurological issue that the collar set off an attack of. 

should check with your vet before using an e-collar. just in case.


----------



## JamesNpuppy

i'm using e-collar on my pit bull . It works well , but you need to use it correctly .


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

oh please dont even say that...that so makes me cry...and for reasons you will probably never understand that dont really have much to do with the collar at all..


----------



## RBark

Dogs with heart conditions can have issues with the collar.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

jiml said:


> especially the comment about injury. injury is very possible. >>>
> 
> what injury, The only lejit physical injury I know of is from leaving wet collars on and getting a infection from the probes rubbing. I use Electric stim on people at far higher levels than a collar uses for far longer times without ever injuring anyone.
> 
> 
> <<<<but the FACT remains is that if you wish to use an ecollar you NEED a pro who is well versed in its use>>>>
> 
> this certainly is helpfull and certainly they should at least resurch proper use. But this is your opinion but its not fact - as was stated by others earlier.
> You can go on any gundog forum and find loads of people who trained their dogs quite well with vids such as evans.


we arent talking gundogs here...we're talking average joe owners with so called "problem dogs" 

i see Joe Q. Public using ecollars around here a bunch and i see them using them for some really illogical reasons and in some strange ways. 

those are the people that need real live in person help.


----------



## jiml

RBark said:


> Dogs with heart conditions can have issues with the collar.


is this documented? E-stim is used in Physical therapy, chiropractic, pain surgical implants, implants for bladder control and pacemakers. The only time i know in humans that E-stim is conta-indicated w heart conditions is with a patient with an existing pacemaker. 

As for a dog having epilepsy - kids have had siezures watching cartoons.

<<oh please dont even say that...that so makes me cry...and for reasons you will probably never understand that dont really have much to do with the collar at all..>>>>

Zim if this has too do with a fear of elec compared to other adversives Your fear in my opinion is unfounded. However, if you like to stay more pos (ex:clicker) that is reasonable argument to me. I may or may not agree with it but its reasonable.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). Correlation does not equal causation. The plural of "datum" is not "anecdote". I got a million of 'em. 

It may be possible that electrical stim can trigger a seizure in an epileptic dog. I can't say either way (though I tend to doubt it), but the fact remains that the neurological malfunction caused the seizure. I had someone tell me about the light array on an ambulance causing a seizure in her epileptic kid. I am satisfied this individual believed it to be true, but I've read studies that place the odds into the realm of "not worth discussing".



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you can argue that if you wish but the FACT remains is that if you wish to use an ecollar you NEED a pro who is well versed in its use...there, in person with you to keep you from screwing up your dog.


That's is a strongly held opinion, but it's not even close to a "fact". I am not a pro and I did it without help--beyond commercially available training materials and my own knowledge gained from limited experience. There's a great deal more going on when one is operating an automobile on a public highway. The e-collar is not that difficult to grasp for the amateur trainer.

Now, if you just purely disagree with the idea of physical correction, then there's not enough common ground on which to base a useful discussion. If someone says that "X" is just wrong, I can't really disagree no matter how strongly I may believe otherwise. We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

no it has nothing to do with a fear of using aversives..ive used them before and id use them again if i was allowed to use them on people.


it has to do with my experiences. do rescue long enough and you run into all kinds of well meaning ninnies who dont know wtf they are doing to their dogs thinking they are doing something to benefit them.

and the neurological condition wasnt epilepsy...it was something else that i cant remember the name of right off the top of my head.

jiml i misunderstood part of your post.

my pit bull comment was about pit bulls...more based in that. if you are curious you can pm me but i wont derail this thread into a pit discussion

and i want to know what the hell is so objectionable about advocating that people see a trainer and check with the vet before attempting this stuff??? you act like eveyone out there is the same and every dog out there is the same...they are not and each situation is going to potentially have issues a freakin booklet isnt going to be able to inform you about.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

You can do the same damage--and worse--to a dog with a leather belt, and everybody's already got one of those.

If making a technology foolproof were a prerequisite for it's use, we humans would have abandoned fire a couple of millennia ago. I doubt it would ever get approved.


----------



## jiml

Just dont like the villification if thats the correct term and incorrect fear based arguments. The correct info should be out there because the tool is. Some are going to use it and they should know that how to use it correctly so the dog doesent jump six feet in the air. I still believe that used correctly this tool can be more humane than other adversives. 

Recommending prof help and saying its a Fact that its NEEDED are different


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

the operative word there is *used properly*

I rehab real problem dogs for rescue efforts. a lot of the history sheets from the owner surrenders include the mention of ecollars and how they failed even after "all that research"

this is why I say its needed because at least in my area I see an ugly trend and id like to have less dogs needing to come to me at all. let alone for those reasons...

that's all gentlemen.


----------



## wvasko

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> guy said he had done everything right with the collar and he put it on the dog and used it. the dog started spazzing out and having convulsions and hurt himself. Dog had a neurological issue that the collar set off an attack of.
> 
> should check with your vet before using an e-collar. just in case.


I'm thinking of the reply with the 4000 dogs out of 4000 dogs that all were helped and problems fixed with the e-collar,100% I wonder if the convulsing dog was dog number 4001 how it could have been helped. 

I will certainly agree that many dogs have been and more will continue to be trained with an e-collar. I'm worried about the owner who has raised a nice pup, maybe even paid more than he could afford for the pup. Then he reads the advertisement that says e-collars are 100% safe for your dog and anybody can use them on any dog at any age. 

I know there are manuals and DVDs etc on proper use but I often think about people(myself included) that buy a do it your self desk or TV stand and you take everything out of the box and there are 200 parts etc laying on floor and the manual is gibberish. A pup is not a desk etc and can be damaged and sometimes cannot be fixed.


----------



## jiml

<<<I'm thinking of the reply with the 4000 dogs out of 4000 dogs that all were helped and problems fixed with the e-collar,100% I wonder if the convulsing dog was dog number 4001 how it could have been helped.>>>

Wvasco, Im not a vet but I in the medical field and I cant think of many nero things that could have been set off by what amounts too a static elec charge. If this happened Im sure its something that was going to happen at some point caused by the enviroment. 

As for the Nice pup ruined by well meaning (and sometimes not) people. We all worry about such things. that is part of the good purpose of forums like this. 

As far as outright abuse Im sure we have all have are stories ranging from e-collars and pinch collars to 2X4s


----------



## rushane

Interesting subject. If anyone is counting, I use a E-collar on one of my dogs. He isn't a problem dog, nor is he a "handful". He does what he's told, has had no professional training, but still knows 11 commands. He wears the collar for the singular purposes of deer chasing. When we're hiking in the woods, he completely goes singular focus when he see's game. He gets a shock to bring him out of it. I probably shock him anywhere from 1-5 times a month. 

It may seem cruel to some, Lord knows that I've gotten "the look" from other folks. My love is for the dogs though. I don't like the sneers I get, but the safety of my dog overrides the attitude I get from others. I quit trying to explain away my reasoning for using the collars.


----------



## RBark

I am not totally against the use of e-collars. I'm against the advocation of it. I'm against using it for stuff that can be done easily through other means. There's no sense in using a e-collar to teach sit when a treat will do. I don't recall the last time I rewarded a sit, and he still does it 100% the time. No collar needed there.

It is not needed for so many things in life. Advocating that it is needed for simple things is what I dislike. I don't see the point of using an e-collar when doing things for fun. Seems counterproductive.

However, there are cases where I believe it can be benefical, used properly.

I use a e-collar for recalls. My dog's a Alaskan Malamute and true to his breed, he will run forever and ever. I believed that being off leash is an improvement to his quality of life, at a very minimal cost. All other methods were tried and exhausted to limited results. 

I looked for weeks for a trainer, and overtrained using the collar. I was told that I'd have 99% recall using his program in 4 weeks, guaranteed! I know that is not true. The 4 week program got stretched into a 12 week program. And because of this, he had a very very solid base by the time he was ever let off leash.

The way e-collar trainers make it sound is that you pick it up, zap the dog, and it's a magic wand. It's not. It's a tool you need to learn properly. You're not going to hurt a dog using reward training improperly. You're not going to hurt a dog clicking improperly. You can hurt a dog using a prong, or a choke collar improperly. You CAN, however, create lifelong repercussions using a e-collar improperly. 


In the hands of a person who doesn't even know the basics of learning theory, the basics of dog training using reward based program... the chances of that consequence rise dramatically.

*EDIT* to expand on the 4 week training program. I am sure you could have a dog that recalls 99% at the end of the 4 week program, following it religiously. But the issue with these is, people think that at the end of 4 weeks, the dog is now perfectly trained and will recall forever, even if they never train it again. That is not so.


----------



## Evan Graham

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> especially the comment about injury. injury is very possible. ive seen it happen and in other instances viewed the result.


I would be very interested in what injury you have observed that were caused by an e-collar. Of course I am not likely to accept inuendo, but rather would readily accept hard evidence.

EvanG



RBark said:


> Dogs with heart conditions can have issues with the collar.


Is there any clinical evidence of this? Being a registered nurse, I'm acutely aware of heart rhythm issues, and connections with certain electrical stimulus. But e-collars don't issue the quality of electricity to either cause or change fibrillation issues, other than dogs with such severe cardiac problems that any kind of stress - even emotional stressors - may be dangerous to them.

But Im open to clinical data. In this discussion, however, I am not open to accepting hystrionics as evidence.

Guys and gals, have you noticed that what is continuing are assertions, and unsupported claims against the instrument and its use, but still for all the interest and emotion, no one is asking about anything. Please, let's turn this into the learning opportunity that lies before you. You have real genuine questions? Please ask them. Yes, I am an expert on this subject with nearly 40 years of study and use of the instrument in question. Ask away!

EvanG


----------



## Marsh Muppet

wvasko said:


> I wonder if the convulsing dog was dog number 4001 how it could have been helped.


If that were true, that (.025%) would probably be less than the percentage of birdogs who take a load of shot every season.

If a tool is to be judged by any possible harm it may contribute to--no matter how remote--or by the misuses it can be put to, we wouldn't be having this "conversation" because the internet woulda been banned a long time ago. Forget about bathtubs, swimming pools, plastic buckets, hospitals, automobiles, and about 10,000 other useful items.

Let's just hold morons responsible for their own behavior, and move on from there.


----------



## Elana55

OK. Here is a legit question. 

Using an e collar I have noted these dogs, while well behaved, also appear to be less than stylish.. they do what they must and seem afraid to try anything new for fear of being stimulated by the e collar. 

How do those ppl with E Collar trained dogs:

1.) get the dog to have more style

2.) wean the dog from the E collar for competition purposes where an e collar is not allowed to be worn

3.) wean the dog from the E collar for problematic behavior (such as RBark's running Malamute) and retain reliable compliance to cues/command? (I am thinking there may be situations where an E Collar may not be working such as dead Batteires, emergency situations where e collar is not on the dog etc)


----------



## wvasko

> I looked for weeks for a trainer, and overtrained using the collar. I was told that I'd have 99% recall using his program in 4 weeks, guaranteed! I know that is not true. The 4 week program got stretched into a 12 week program. And because of this, he had a very very solid base by the time he was ever let off leash.


Well, that's the argument that I have been putting on the table. The guaranteed part.



> The way e-collar trainers make it sound is that you pick it up, zap the dog, and it's a magic wand. It's not. It's a tool you need to learn properly. You're not going to hurt a dog using reward training improperly. You're not going to hurt a dog clicking improperly. You can hurt a dog using a prong, or a choke collar improperly. You CAN, however, create lifelong repercussions using a e-collar improperly.


I have seen a young huge running stylish young dog that turned into a bird blinking rascal that never recovered. This was done by a knowledgeable amateur who thought if a little electric was good, more was better. 

I also watched an amateur who watched 2 professional trainers use something called a flushing whip on their dogs that broke on a bird flushes. This amateur later had his dog break and along with the flushing whip work also decided to throw a couple knees into the side of his dog's ribs. When done he put dog in truck kennel and when he returned to feed later the dog was dead. In training dogs sometimes bad stuff happens 



> If a tool is to be judged by any possible harm it may contribute to--no matter how remote--or by the misuses it can be put to, we wouldn't be having this "conversation" because the internet woulda been banned a long time ago. Forget about bathtubs, swimming pools, plastic buckets, hospitals, automobiles, and about 10,000 other useful items.


I have no argument with the above, as an x-biker who never wore a helmet as a person who when purchasing a lawn tractor immediately turns off all the safety mowing programs. But I would never advise somebody else to do the same. I also have used an e-collar, I'm still gonna use the same rule as above "not gonna advise anybody else to do the same"


----------



## Elana55

Marsh Muppet said:


> If a tool is to be judged by any possible harm it may contribute to--no matter how remote--or by the misuses it can be put to, we wouldn't be having this "conversation" because the internet woulda been banned a long time ago. Forget about bathtubs, swimming pools, plastic buckets, hospitals, automobiles, and about 10,000 other useful items.
> 
> Let's just hold morons responsible for their own behavior, and move on from there.


I was going to touch on this and then backed away slowly.. but WVasko did (bless his dinosaur heart) so I will say it here....

Just because I decide to jump off a cliff to see if I can really fly does not mean I should invite anyone else to (the story of the lemmings and the sea is not ture). My jumping is my decision and my responsibility. If anyone sees me jumping they have a choice to try and stop me or to join me or ignore me. 

Unless you live in NY. In NY you are never responsible for your own actions.. it is all the fault of someone else and if you doubt this, just call a lawyer. In NY if you do not successfully stop the person from jumping off the cliff you will probably be at fault and be sued. If you do stop the person I am sure some Civil Legal group will sue you for infringing on the rights of the jumper to be free to jump! 

If you decide to use an E Collar on your dog in NY and the dog runs away and gets hit by a car, a good lawyer would probably sue the E Collar maker (and you would get your money back and a large settlement for pain and suffering); Sue the driver of the car (and get the costs associated with your dog back along with an award for pain and suffering) and sue every land owner over whose land your dig ran for having inadequate fencing thereby allowing said dog to run into the road... 

... and if the land was yours would then likely sue all the local fence companies for not having sold you a fence to prevent all of this.

It is tough to get anyone to be responsible for their actions in NY.... its always someone else's fault and up for a money settlement.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

I hear what you're saying about NY.

For the record, I don't "advocate" e-collar use. I do object to the implication that those who use them (including me) are lacking humanity and/or lazy individuals who don't want to take the time to really train a dog. There's a lot of that on this board.

To touch on your questions, an e-collar is a tool. There has to be actual training going on or the desired result will not be obtained. If the dog won't work without the collar, you screwed up. If the dog doesn't work with enthusiasm, you screwed up. If you develop a relationship of trust in which the dog understands he will always be dealt with fairly, you teach/train by sound methods, and you reinforce and practice your skills, the dog just gets out of the habit of disobeying. The more times you practice a skill, the more completely habituated the dog gets to it. It doesn't work any differently from what you do.

Like with any other type of training, you can't say the dog is 100% until the dog is dead and you can look back to count zero mistakes. That doesn't happen in real life. The trainer that puts in some time with the dog, every day, is going to have the better dog than one who thinks he can "set it and forget it".


----------



## Evan Graham

Elana55 said:


> OK. Here is a legit question.
> 
> Using an e collar I have noted these dogs, while well behaved, also appear to be less than stylish.. they do what they must and seem afraid to try anything new for fear of being stimulated by the e collar.


Elana,

First, let me thank you for asking this (these) question(s). 

The premise above is legitimate; i.e. diminished style as a result of e-collar use. This has also been a pet peeve of mine. However, you could have just as legitimately inserted words like "leash", "crop", "prong/choker", et al in the place of "e-collar". Not because all are aversives, which they are, but because to get a result that is demonstrated by noteably less style in a dog would require the misuse of any of them; e-collar included. Proper, balanced use of any of them (e-collar included) should not result in a less stylish dog, nor should it produce a fearful one. Onward!


Elana55 said:


> How do those ppl with E Collar trained dogs:
> 
> 1.) get the dog to have more style


Specifically, learn first how to use the e-collar as a component of a proven method. Then follow a couple axioms from one of my teachers, the late Rex Carr:

"Learn not to burn" (meaning don't be so quick to push the button to solve everything - teach first)
"Simplify" (meaning don't just push dogs around with aversives and call yourself a trainer - make the tasks simple and rewarding for the dog, and only support commands your dog knows)
In programs like mine, a dog's first exposure to an e-collar comes after significant teaching of standard commands in clear, passive ways. Virtually _all_ the best e-collar trainers with whom Im famliar follow this path of logic. By far, most are trainers of hunting dogs, but not all.

In addition to this, we use to its greatest advantage the vast flexibility of today's variable intensity e-collars. The reason we use pressure in any form for dog training is simply to change behavior. If a passive/positive measure will accomplish this, even in cases where a circumstance distracts or frightens a dog beyond his ability to do what he was been previously taught, then we have no need of pressure. But, if something distracts or diverts a dog from an important task, some measure of pressure may be used to change his behavior. Before having a knee-jerk fainting spell, consider that the actual amount of pressure is often nearly indiscernable. We are, after all, only using pressure to change behavior where in must change, and where passive measures fail.

Each dog has its own responsiveness - its own measure of willingness to comply in most circumstances. Likewise, each one responds to pressure in various amounts. Where one dog may find a low level 2 nick (momentary stimulus) overwhelming, another dog may not even notice it. It is not, at any time, our intent or goal to overwhelm any dog with pressure, but merely to change behavior as needed. Often, such a change may save the dog's life.

More on this later.


Elana55 said:


> 2.) wean the dog from the E collar for competition purposes where an e collar is not allowed to be worn


I understand what you're asking. But, coming from an intensly competitive background, I think "wean" is not an applicable term. In actuality, many trainers in many venues place their dogs in performance competitions before the dog is adequately trained. 

Our goal in this regard is to make sure we don't fall into that trap. More correctly, we should not place our dogs in this situation because they end up as the ones having to pick up the checks that our ego's have written. With that in mind, I do not enter any dog in competition until his daily performance, even at the highest skill levels, is so reliable that the e-collar is rarely employed. We're going to get into some very good training discussions in this area. It will take some time, but I'm looking forward to it.


Elana55 said:


> 3.) wean the dog from the E collar for problematic behavior (such as RBark's running Malamute) and retain reliable compliance to cues/command?


There is a very close relationship between the previous point, and RBark's question. That is, that a time table was attached to someone's guarantee of results (extra dumb on the trainer's behalf!), and then it sounds very much like the training was prematurely tested and failed. All that needed to happen was to be fairer to the dog in the first place.

One of my personal axioms is "Train the dog you're training". That simply means that a trainer should not make unfair performance or developmental comparisons between dogs. Placing time constraints on the training of any animal is both unwise and unfair. Train each one on that dog's schedule, at that dog's rate of learning, and be sure not to inflict unfair corrective measures in unfair amounts just to speed up the process.

When a dog shows not only a clear understanding of the task, but also a reliable response - even during distraction, then it's time to begin exposing him to circumstances that test his work and reliability under judgment.


Elana55 said:


> (I am thinking there may be situations where an E Collar may not be working such as dead Batteires, emergency situations where e collar is not on the dog etc)


One of Rex's suggestions was to purposely conduct training sessions with the dog wearing a dummy collar, or with a real e-collar that isn't activated. We retriever people often keep training journals. As part of our record keeping on each dog, we keep special notes of those days because we need to know what the dog's purest responses have been during demanding training exercises without any corporal corrections.

I know this doesn't address all the questions you have, but it's a start. 

EvanG


----------



## wvasko

Evan
Excellent reply.

Style has plagued many bird dog trainers, whether it's pointing or retreiving. As far as obedience it seperates the dogs from the pooches. There is nothing worse than the proverbial inverted U dog and a owner or trainer that is so dog blind and incompetent they should not be allowed near a dog lead. I'm not even gonna get into judges. Sorry somehow a minor ancient history vent got in here.

I have preached daily journals on DF for all dog training. These journals should start the day the owner walks in home with their new pup.


----------



## Elana55

Marsh Muppet said:


> I hear what you're saying about NY.
> 
> For the record, I don't "advocate" e-collar use. I do object to the implication that those who use them (including me) are lacking humanity and/or lazy individuals who don't want to take the time to really train a dog. There's a lot of that on this board.
> 
> To touch on your questions, an e-collar is a tool. There has to be actual training going on or the desired result will not be obtained. If the dog won't work without the collar, you screwed up. If the dog doesn't work with enthusiasm, you screwed up. If you develop a relationship of trust in which the dog understands he will always be dealt with fairly, you teach/train by sound methods, and you reinforce and practice your skills, the dog just gets out of the habit of disobeying. The more times you practice a skill, the more completely habituated the dog gets to it. It doesn't work any differently from what you do.
> 
> Like with any other type of training, you can't say the dog is 100% until the dog is dead and you can look back to count zero mistakes. That doesn't happen in real life. The trainer that puts in some time with the dog, every day, is going to have the better dog than one who thinks he can "set it and forget it".


This sounds a very balanced approach. I love the 100% until the dog is dead.. yeah.. tho I think you know what I am driving at. Now I will also qualifiy that I am not training a hunting dog. I am training a German Shepherd and I am going for competitive obedience. 

I started this dog with Pos. Reinf. and a clicker (and the marker word, YES) and have had excellent results. I also tried non aversive corrections and had some success with this but also some real failures depending on the level of self reward for the undesired behavior. I have introduced some pos. punishment type corrections when I am certain the dog heard the command and understood it and made a decision to do something else. This is rarely needed. I find that showing the dog when she is right is very valuable. 

I think that all these tools and devices are in a training tool box. Food and clickers and non aversives at one end of the spectrum and the E Collar at the other. I will always recommend working the pos. stuff first. If you can get the job done to your satisfaction in that manner, I am going to raise my hat to you. It is where I will always start (now that I have done it) and where I will always try to get others to try first. 



Evan Graham said:


> When a dog shows not only a clear understanding of the task, but also a reliable response - even during distraction, then it's time to begin exposing him to circumstances that test his work and reliability under judgment.One of Rex's suggestions was to purposely conduct training sessions with the dog wearing a dummy collar, or with a real e-collar that isn't activated. We retriever people often keep training journals. As part of our record keeping on each dog, we keep special notes of those days because we need to know what the dog's purest responses have been during demanding training exercises without any corporal corrections.
> 
> I know this doesn't address all the questions you have, but it's a start.
> 
> EvanG


OK.. I get it. This is very similar to how you train horses.. but you would be insane to use an E collar on a horse (their response to any electrical stimulus is usually, shall we say, "dramatic."). Pressure on animals I understand. Horses and cattle and moving cattle with dog and horse and on foot.. well you understand pressure. 

Now I realize you are training dogs for competitive field trial work. I am not doing that and the GSD is not exactly your best FT dog tho they are smart.. and I bet could learn it (tho probably not to competitive levels). In that venue I also know it is common to train with an E collar. 

However, in your discussion above you mention various level of pressure and so my question is that if you have a compliant dog that is doing his job regardless of distraction.. do you ALWAYS go to the e collar tool in the tool box. IOW's there are many dogs that reach very high levels of training that are never exposed to an e collar. Is it an assumed progression in the one program you work intensively in (field trials)? 

Here is a real life situation.. I am training in competition obedience. Working on heel, my dog is very accurate except for circles and turns to the right where she needs to speed up to keep up.. so she lags a bit. I want better position. 

Yesterday I got out the Clicker and food and started to work her at heel. I worked her first straight with halts and starts.. clicking and treating for proper position. I then added turns to the left and cirles to the left, spiraling in and back out.. again, showing her the right place with clicks and treats to mark what I wanted. 

Now I started turns to the right. She was hungry so was eager (never hurts.. LOL). 90 degree right turns she lagged.. I encouraged her with my voice and the instant she was in the correct position IN the turn, I clicked and treated. Did this a few times then started a large right (clockwise) circle and spiraled in.. about 1/4 thru this she suddenly was like, "aHA! She will click and feed when I keep a little further forward.. " and after this there was no losing her.. not in an about turn, a 90 degree rt. turn, cicles and I even turned in a circle on the ball of my foot and she was right there.. perfect. 

Later we repeated this in another location and I had no food and she was still perfect. I gave her a release and we had a big game of tug as her reward. 

I will continue to reinforce correct position in this manner for a few sessions in various locations and I think we will have it. No corrections needed and the result is good. 

Would you have handled this lagging on a circle with an E collar or other aversive? 

Ultimately, with the result I had, I am now pretty certain the dog did not KNOW she was out of position and it seems unfair to correct a dog that does not know what is expected. She was, after all, heeling.


----------



## pattymac

Quickie comment here...now I've only used my e-collar a few times and not to judge anyone's training method, just an observation from Evan's website. I learned a different method to use the e-collar and when I mention it, you'll no doubt know who I got the method from. It seems your method uses an avoidance technique, so dog sits butt on ground and the stim stops...right? Whereas what I learned, it's more of give the command...no response...give a NO...give dog a chance to respond...then a nick...then command again. Now I only needed to work a recall with my dog a few times...mainly to see how effective it would be, cause sometimes I'd call her, she'd start coming and suddenly find something in the dirt to sniff or go check out. I used the e-collar on about 3 occassions and now I have a reliable recall. 

I may go back and use it again especially for distance, but only on commands that she knows well. The other day, she was a ways off and I asked for a sit...it was ya sure mom..hahahaha. Alrighty then, gotta work on that!! I start on a long line so I can give a little reminder by leash at first. I never used it high enough to get a yelp out of her. Ok when testing to check what level to use, I gave her a bit high of a nick. Oh and I did test it on myself before putting it on her. Mine also has a tone so I can use that as well.

One aside though that I discovered is that now she knows what NO means. Believe me, that's a good thing especially as before if she saw a dog and was in the car...well the explosion of barking and snarling was loud and not pleasant especially if she was right beside my head when she went off!! now when we see a dog, a NO, don't have to yell, keeps her from going off in 50 different directions. She still huffs a bit, but I don't mind a bit of huffing to what I used to get!!


----------



## mightymal

I use an e-collar on my malinois, especially the younger one, for off leash work. Both are incredibly high drive dogs and having the collar on adds an additional "insurance" policy to their off leash work. 

However, I have trained my dogs properly to respond to the e-collar, which involves negative reinforcement, NOT punishment, combined with positive reinforcement, and I am very wary to recommend an e-collar to others because of its possible misuse. Nothing makes me sadder than to hear someone say "I just love my e-collar because as soon as I pick up the remote, my dog stops doing whatever he's doing and lays on the ground. He's so much easier to train this way!" And the owners think this is great, that they have successfully "trained" their dogs to behave.  My own cousin has recently complained to me that he can't even use their e-collar anymore because their rottie submissively pees whenever he picks it up to put it on her; clearly he did not follow any of the instructions that I gave him, which shouldn't have surprised me, given that I told him he wasn't ready to use an e-collar to begin with.

My dogs do not cower when they see me pick up the e-collar/remote, nor do they stop what they are doing. They do, however, run doughnuts in the backyard because they are excited - they know that e-collars = time to work = FUN! They shake with excitement, not fear, when I ask them to sit so I can put their collars on. It is another training tool, _ and when used correctly_, can help communicate to the dog what is being asked of them. The problem comes when people want to slap an e-collar on to fix every problem, from barking to recalls and everything in between, expecting instant results, without putting the time and work into actually training their dog.


----------



## RBark

Negative reinforcement + Positive reinforcement is what I use for Kobe's recall as well.

To me it worked so that Kobe viewed that coming to me was a good thing, not a bad thing. Combined with the reward for coming.

And so far, Kobe doesn't seem collar-smart. He has bolted out the door, into traffic, and obeyed a recall instantly once my shock was over and I calmed myself. He did not have a collar at the time. There are a few instances of this. I believe this is because he had already entered a stage of variable reinforcement. 

When we first used it, he would wear the collar every day, for various things, without even using it. This lasted weeks. And once the training started, I eventually got to the point I did not have to stim every recall and started making it 9 out of 10. Slowly reducing it to 8 out of 10, down to 1 out of 10.

Even now, I still do training sessions twice a week with him off leash. He's worn the collar for about 6 months now, I think. I incorporate really reliable recall methods too.

But I had a professional guide me every step of the way, as well as many training friends of mine questioning me every step of the way and keeping me on my toes *pokes* and making sure I am making the right decisions every step of the way. This was not something I wanted to mess up at all.


----------



## wvasko

> My own cousin has recently complained to me that he can't even use their e-collar anymore because their rottie submissively pees whenever he picks it up to put it on her; clearly he did not follow any of the instructions that I gave him, which shouldn't have surprised me, given that I told him he wasn't ready to use an e-collar to begin with.





> But I had a professional guide me every step of the way, as well as many training friends of mine questioning me every step of the way and keeping me on my toes *pokes* and making sure I am making the right decisions every step of the way. This was not something I wanted to mess up at all.


Above 2 dogs and look at the differences that can occur with e-collar use. That being said, to be fair the female Rottie might have had same problem with use of a prong collar or even a loud voice. This is where a competent professional trainer that could read the dog might have helped. 

Would, could, should, can, can't, will, won't, just a bunch of words that describe possibilities with dog work of any kind because dogs are living, breathing creatures. The variables are mind boggling. There is no such thing as the "Only Way" to train dogs.


----------



## Squeeker

> Negative reinforcement + Positive reinforcement is what I use for Kobe's recall as well.
> 
> To me it worked so that Kobe viewed that coming to me was a good thing, not a bad thing. Combined with the reward for coming.
> 
> And so far, Kobe doesn't seem collar-smart. He has bolted out the door, into traffic, and obeyed a recall instantly once my shock was over and I calmed myself. He did not have a collar at the time. There are a few instances of this. I believe this is because he had already entered a stage of variable reinforcement.
> 
> When we first used it, he would wear the collar every day, for various things, without even using it. This lasted weeks. And once the training started, I eventually got to the point I did not have to stim every recall and started making it 9 out of 10. Slowly reducing it to 8 out of 10, down to 1 out of 10.
> 
> Even now, I still do training sessions twice a week with him off leash. He's worn the collar for about 6 months now, I think. I incorporate really reliable recall methods too.
> 
> But I had a professional guide me every step of the way, as well as many training friends of mine questioning me every step of the way and keeping me on my toes *pokes* and making sure I am making the right decisions every step of the way. This was not something I wanted to mess up at all.


RBark, this is exactly how we trained Libby's recall as well, with the same results.


----------



## canteloupe

Sorry this response is kind of late, but I just now read this thread and I wanted to comment on something that was said earlier.



Evan Graham said:


> R- (negative reinforcement) is one application of the e-collar. So, the direct answer to this question is "Yes". That is clearly because the unpleasant stimulus is removed when the dog complies with the command to fetch.


This is a fairly common mistake. *Actually, the use of the e-collar is always punishment (positive, to be specific)*. Negative reinforcement happens when an adverse stimulus occurs and is followed by a mitigating behavior. The behavior is then reinforced (which means that it is more likely to occur in the future).

So, for example: One morning my alarm clock goes off and I respond by throwing it across the room. This causes the alarm sound to cease, which reinforces my behavior, so I'm more likely to throw the alarm clock on future mornings.

Thus, in negative reinforcement:

adverse stimulus -----> mitigating behavior -----> cessation of stimulus -----> reinforcement of that behavior

The use of an e-collar can never be cast as R- because it is always used _after_ a preceding behavior. That's the biggest difference between R- and P+. In negative reinforcement, the adverse stimulus comes first, and then the behavior. In punishment (positive) the behavior comes first, and then the adverse stimulus that punishes that behavior and makes it less likely in the future.

Positive Punishment:

unwanted behavior -----> aversive stimulus -----> cessation of behavior -----> cessation of stimulus

So, for instance, you wouldn't make a command and then zap your dog before he even had a chance to perform it. You would wait, and if he was performing a behavior other than the behavior you wanted, then you'd zap him. You would be punishing the behavior you don't want, which is non-compliance with the command.

Or, in the rattlesnake example that someone else gave earlier, you'd be punishing the dog's behavior of looking at the rattlesnakes or moving towards them, thus making this behavior less likely in the future.

As for the rest of your response... It would serve you well to be a little less pompous, particularly if you're going to be making mistakes. No offense.



mightymal said:


> However, I have trained my dogs properly to respond to the e-collar, which involves negative reinforcement, NOT punishment, combined with positive reinforcement, and I am very wary to recommend an e-collar to others because of its possible misuse.


I see that others are making this same mistake. You may not like the word "punishment" but by the definitions of learning theory, that is what an e-collar does.


----------



## wvasko

Pet Peeve



> adverse stimulus -----> mitigating behavior -----> cessation of stimulus -----> reinforcement of that behavior





> unwanted behavior -----> aversive stimulus -----> cessation of behavior -----> cessation of stimulus


Being only semi-educated by the time I get done reading the above quotes my eyes start to glaze over. Surely if after almost 50 years training dogs and I get confused understanding some replies, I wonder is it just me. Does a brand new dog owner who jumps on DF understand these dog training answers. Just curious.

How bout 
Dog do bad---->Dog get zapped---->Dog stop doing bad---->Dog no get zapped

The above is not meant to offend anybody. I just know if I were to try to explain to dog owners using some of the above quotes I would be in a world of trouble.



> I see that others are making this same mistake. You may not like the word "punishment" but by the definitions of learning theory, that is what an e-collar does.


You should not say punishment. It's politically incorrect, people are gonna think bad thoughts about you. Even if it is the absolute truth.


----------



## canteloupe

wvasko said:


> Pet Peeve
> 
> Being only semi-educated by the time I get done reading the above quotes my eyes start to glaze over. Surely if after almost 50 years training dogs and I get confused understanding some replies, I wonder is it just me. Does a brand new dog owner who jumps on DF understand these dog training answers. Just curious.
> 
> How bout
> Dog do bad---->Dog get zapped---->Dog stop doing bad---->Dog no get zapped
> 
> You should not say punishment. It's politically incorrect, people are gonna think bad thoughts about you. Even if it is the absolute truth.


Punishment is the correct operant conditioning term! We are talking about learning theory here, and I'm not going to forgo the correct, decades-old term because it makes laypeople uncomfortable.

Okay. I'll try to rewrite what I said in the simplest possible terms.

The use of e-collars is always punishment, not negative reinforcement, because it occurs _after_ a behavior in response to that behavior, whereas in negative reinforcement the stimulus is first.



> Lou Castle:
> I've put Ecollars on over 4,000 dogs… BTW I DO recommend the Ecollar for [average pet dog owners]... My goal for a pet owner is for them to have a dog that comes when he's called no matter how far away he is or what distractions are in the mix. He should do some other OB movements, the sit and the down as well. He should not tear up the house or the yard. He should not be aggressive towards other dogs.


*shudder*

This kind of blanket use of any aversive by amateurs is appalling.

I'm not saying that there aren't appropriate situations -- like life or death situations involving rattlesnakes, busy roads, etc. (and maybe with gundogs; I don't know anything about that) -- but I think it's incredibly irresponsible to advocate their use by amateurs for getting their dog to stop "tearing up the house or yard". Ever heard of exercise?



> Marsh Muppet:
> If a tool is to be judged by any possible harm it may contribute to--no matter how remote--or by the misuses it can be put to, we wouldn't be having this "conversation" because the internet woulda been banned a long time ago. Forget about bathtubs, swimming pools, plastic buckets, hospitals, automobiles, and about 10,000 other useful items.


That's an incredibly facetious argument. No one's judging e-collars for "any possible harm it may contribute too". If they were, they'd be talking about the possibility of accidental strangulation. Be serious! People are judging e-collars for their intended purpose and use, not random chance accidents.


----------



## wvasko

canteloupe said:


> Punishment is the correct operant conditioning term! We are talking about learning theory here, and I'm not going to forgo the correct, decades-old term because it makes laypeople uncomfortable.
> 
> Okay. I'll try to rewrite what I said in the simplest possible terms.
> 
> The use of e-collars is always punishment, not negative reinforcement, because it occurs _after_ a behavior in response to that behavior, whereas in negative reinforcement the stimulus is first.
> 
> 
> 
> *shudder*
> 
> This kind of blanket use of any aversive by amateurs is appalling.
> 
> I'm not saying that there aren't appropriate situations -- like life or death situations involving rattlesnakes, busy roads, etc. (and maybe with gundogs; I don't know anything about that) -- but I think it's incredibly irresponsible to advocate their use by amateurs for getting their dog to stop "tearing up the house or yard". Ever heard of exercise?
> 
> 
> 
> That's an incredibly facetious argument. No one's judging e-collars for "any possible harm it may contribute too". If they were, they'd be talking about the possibility of accidental strangulation. Be serious! People are judging e-collars for their intended purpose and use, not random chance accidents.





> Lou Castle:
> I've put Ecollars on over 4,000 dogs… BTW I DO recommend the Ecollar for [average pet dog owners]... My goal for a pet owner is for them to have a dog that comes when he's called no matter how far away he is or what distractions are in the mix. He should do some other OB movements, the sit and the down as well. He should not tear up the house or the yard. He should not be aggressive towards other dogs.


*Double and triple shudders*
Check yesterday's entries we went round and round about that huge blanket.


----------



## canteloupe

wvasko said:


> *Double and triple shudders*
> Check yesterday's entries we went round and round about that huge blanket.


Yeah, I'm still reading over the posts. I skimmed a lot of it before because there's so much, but I'm going to read the last few pages more carefully now.


----------



## Elana55

This is what I get from Learning theory and Operant conditioning:

*Negative reinforcement *is an increase in the future frequency of a behavior when the consequence is the removal of an aversive stimulus. 

Example (from Psyche 101 class years ago). Dogs placed in a pen with a fence down the middle. One side of the pen could have the floor electrified. The other side could not. Dogs all on electrified side. Bell rings. Floor electrified. Dogs scream and bounce around until the jump over the fence to the non electrified side of the pen. (BTW my objection to this experiement and its being repeated almost got me tossed out of class! ) *Aversive is used in Negative Reinforcment. Removed on display of desired behavior*. 

*Positive reinforcement* is an increase in the future frequency of a behavior due to the addition of a stimulus immediately following a response. Giving (or adding) food to a dog contingent on its sitting is an example of positive reinforcement (if this results in an increase in the future behavior of the dog sitting). *No physical aversive is used in Positive reinforcement. *

*Negative Punishment* is removing something the dog desires in response to undesirable behavior. Walking away and leaving the dog alone when he has jumped on you is a form of negative punishment. Not allowing a child dessert because he did not complete his homework prior to dinner is also a from of negative punishment. * No physical Aversive is involved in Negative punishment. *

*Positive Punishment* is the application of an aversive in response to an undesired behavior. A dog is walking in heel position and leaves heel position to sniff a flower. Handler jerks or snaps the collar and the dog returns to heel position. *Physcial Aversive used in Positive punishment. *

That is the psyhcology definitions.. and yes, there are those who use an E collar as a tool of neg. Reinf. One example that comes to mind is a dog is running toward something it wants (hopefully in a fenced enclosure) and the handler cues the dog to "come here" and the dog keeps running so the handler holds down the zapping button on the e collar. Some dogs will stop and come.. and others will keep running and go even faster... As the dog stops and comes, the zapping is stopped. The dog that keeps running may scale the fence and keep going until it is out of range (and then run some more for good measure). 

Bottom line is WVasko has described it much more effectively than the psychologists. And beyond that, the use of the E collar by amateurs without professional guidance (in WVasko's previous post with the two examples next to each other) can lead to some very undesirable results. 

If you use this tool, the bottom line is you really do need to know what you are doing.


----------



## canteloupe

Elana55 said:


> This is what I get from Learning theory and Operant conditioning:
> 
> *Negative reinforcement *is an increase in the future frequency of a behavior when the consequence is the removal of an aversive stimulus.
> 
> Example (from Psyche 101 class years ago). Dogs placed in a pen with a fence down the middle. One side of the pen could have the floor electrified. The other side could not. Dogs all on electrified side. Bell rings. Floor electrified. Dogs scream and bounce around until the jump over the fence to the non electrified side of the pen.
> ...
> That is the psyhcology definitions.. and yes, there are those who use an E collar as a tool of neg. Reinf. One example that comes to mind is a dog is running toward something it wants (hopefully in a fenced enclosure) and the handler cues the dog to "come here" and the dog keeps running so the handler holds down the zapping button on the e collar. Some dogs will stop and come.. and others will keep running and go even faster... As the dog stops and comes, the zapping is stopped. The dog that keeps running may scale the fence and keep going until it is out of range (and then run some more for good measure).


I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I know that it's complicated, but if you look again at how I explained it you might understand why you're wrong.

In my autism seminar a couple years ago we ended up having a huge debate about this. One girl babysat an autistic child in the afternoons, and she often sent him to his room for a time-out when he did something he wasn't supposed to do. She simply could not understand why this was punishment and not negative reinforcement, despite the teacher explaining it over and over again. There are other reasons why they are different, but the single easiest way to distinguish between the two is:

Did the behavior occur first?
- or -
Did the stimulus occur first?

Let's look at the example that you gave: "One example that comes to mind is a dog is running toward something it wants (hopefully in a fenced enclosure) and the handler cues the dog to "come here" and the dog keeps running so the handler holds down the zapping button on the e collar."
The behavior is the dog ignoring recall cues. The resulting stimulus is the shock. *This is positive punishment. You are NOT reinforcing the dog's return, you are punishing the dog for ignoring the recall.*
After the dog starts to recall, the cessation of the shock could be considered negative reinforcement. But the actual application of the shock is indisputably punishment.

Conversely, the first example that you used (with the dogs in the pen from your psych class) _is_ negative reinforcement, because the stimulus occurred first and it wasn't a response to any behavior on the part of the dogs.



Elana55 said:


> Bottom line is WVasko has described it much more effectively than the psychologists.


I know from another thread a while ago that you have a low regard for psychologists. All I can say is... It's a vast field. What some psychologists do bears zero relation to what others do. But as far as learning theory goes, I don't think anyone has ever approached it as thoroughly as psychologists, and their efforts are ongoing.

And if only you knew how often you post comments that could be directly out of a psych textbook when you're talking about dog behavior... well, I think you'd feel differently about psychology.


----------



## wvasko

Well I never figured I would hear wvasko and psychologists in same sentence unless I was being examined/fixed etc as doG knows my mental status has always been questionable.


----------



## RBark

I am unsure where you are getting that the method I use is positive punishment based on your own definitions.

The stim is not used to stop the dog, in the negative reinforcement method. We apply the aversive (continuous stim) and then request the behavior (recall) and upon arrival to the handler, the aversive is removed.

You seem to be reading this as in: The dog is running away, we call the dog, and it ignores, then we start continuous stim until it arrives. This is incorrect, and not what I do. And yes, that would be positive punishment.


----------



## canteloupe

RBark said:


> I am unsure where you are getting that the method I use is positive punishment based on your own definitions.
> 
> The stim is not used to stop the dog, in the negative reinforcement method. We apply the aversive (continuous stim) and then request the behavior (recall) and upon arrival to the handler, the aversive is removed.
> 
> You seem to be reading this as in: The dog is running away, we call the dog, and it ignores, then we start continuous stim until it arrives. This is incorrect, and not what I do. And yes, that would be positive punishment.


I don't think you understood what I wrote. The use of the e-collar for even a fraction of a second is positive punishment if it is used in response to an undesired behavior.

I can't see any possible use that wouldn't be in response to a behavior. Unless people are just zapping their dogs for the hell of it, without anything before it.

Please re-read my previous posts if you don't understand. I'm not judging the use of the e-collar when I say that it's punishment -- that's simply the correct term. I think that it should be called what it is, and my hope is that the incorrect use of the term "negative reinforcement" will stop here.


----------



## RBark

canteloupe said:


> I don't think you understood what I wrote. The use of the e-collar for even a fraction of a second is positive punishment if it is used in response to an undesired behavior.
> 
> I can't see any possible use that wouldn't be in response to a behavior. Unless people are just zapping their dogs for the hell of it, without anything before it.
> 
> Please re-read my previous posts if you don't understand. I'm not judging the use of the e-collar when I say that it's punishment -- that's simply the correct term. I think that it should be called what it is, and my hope is that the incorrect use of the term "negative reinforcement" will stop here.


I have no qualms in regards to calling punishment, punishment. The error you are making on your part is that I am stimming as a response to a behavior. I am not.

There are many things you would recall a dog for. The scenario you are envisioning is that the only times I recall my dog, is when he's doing something I do not like. This is untrue.

One of the many instances would be... out of respect to other hikers, I will recall Kobe to my side and stand off the trail until they pass. Kobe in particular does not care, does not hassle them, does not even approach them. However, I would, in the negative reinforcement sense.. the desired behavior I want is for him to recall.

So I see a group of hikers is coming, and Kobe is just running around sniffing. I would begin the stim, and due to the foundation training, he knows that coming to me removes the aversive. So he is not doing anything wrong here, and I am not beginning the shock to stop him. I am beginning it so that he performs the behavior which removes the shock.

So what I would do is begin the continuous shock, say "Kobe, come", and he will arrive at me to remove the aversive.

The scenario you are envisioning is... Kobe will see teh group of hikers, and begins running towards them (unwanted behavior) and I begin the stim (positive punishment) until he performs the desired behavior (coming to me).


----------



## canteloupe

PBark:
You are using the stimulus in response to your dog's behavior of "just running around sniffing." If he were already at your side, you would not use the stimulus. That means that you are using it in response to his behavior. He doesn't have to actually be running towards the hikers; he can simply be doing _anything other than recalling_.


----------



## RBark

You have me at a loss, then. In that concept, there is no such thing as negative reinforcement, except in clinical trails. You said yourself, the difference is in whether the behavior occurs first, or the stim. The behavior desired is the recall.

The stim is done first, before the behavior. In the case you mentioned of the woman sending the kid into a timeout, is obviously positive punishment. The unwanted behavior occured, a positive punishment was applied to reduce the frequency of unwanted behavior.

However, Kobe running around sniffing is not unwanted behavior. It is the behavior I desire. When I decide I want him at my side, the stim is applied, then after the stim is applied, the recall is requested as a secondary marker. However, despite the secondary marker, the training he had... he knows that once the aversive is applied, the way to remove it is to arrive by my feet.

So... in that clinical trail before, the aversive (electric floor) was applied, and the way to avoid it was to jump over the fence, so the dogs jumped over the fence (desired behavior).

Here... the aversive (electric collar) was applied, and to avoid it they come to my side (desired behavior).

Perhaps you can explain a real life situation using negative reinforcement? That would help.


EDIT: Don't get the wrong idea. The intent here is not to make the e-collar sound nicer by not using the word punishment. I, too, have read a lot on learning theory, and it is a highly fascinating subject for me. And if I am, in fact, mistaken in my use of the term then I would be interested in knowing why. So I am not arguing with you because I don't want to sound like i'm doing something inhumane. I'm debating it because I want to learn something from the debate. 

I am unsure if I am mistaken or not. So the goal of this back and forth, to me, is to learn if I am indeed using it incorrectly or if we are misunderstanding each other.



canteloupe said:


> PBark:
> You are using the stimulus in response to your dog's behavior of "just running around sniffing." If he were already at your side, you would not use the stimulus. That means that you are using it in response to his behavior. He doesn't have to actually be running towards the hikers; he can simply be doing _anything other than recalling_.


Ok, I just sat down to try to wrap my head around this. But I simply cannot. Using this logic, you could say that the Neg. Reinforcement clinical trail is Positive Punishment.

Because if the dogs were on the other side of the fence to begin with, they would not get the aversive. By being inside the fence, they got the aversive. So we are shocking the dogs inside the fence in response to the behavior of being inside that.

That is basically what you are telling me. I simply cannot comprehend it.


----------



## canteloupe

RBark said:


> You have me at a loss, then. In that concept, there is no such thing as negative reinforcement, except in clinical trails. You said yourself, the difference is in whether the behavior occurs first, or the stim. The behavior desired is the recall.


Negative reinforcement happens when my alarm clock goes off, and I have to touch snooze to make the unpleasant stimulus go away. Negative reinforcement often happens in conjunction with other types of learning. In real life there aren't that many instances where it occurs completely on its own, without some other event and learning taking place before it.



> The stim is done first, before the behavior. In the case you mentioned of the woman sending the kid into a timeout, is obviously positive punishment. The unwanted behavior occurred, a positive punishment was applied to reduce the frequency of unwanted behavior.


Well, that seems obvious to us. But the girl in my class saw it as negative reinforcement because she thought she was reinforcing that he couldn't do something negative. She didn't understand the definitions.



> However, Kobe running around sniffing is not unwanted behavior. It is the behavior I desire. When I decide I want him at my side, the stim is applied, then after the stim is applied, the recall is requested as a secondary marker. However, despite the secondary marker, the training he had... he knows that once the aversive is applied, the way to remove it is to arrive by my feet.


Kobe running around and sniffing is only unwanted behavior when you want him to be doing something else, like recalling. Again, you only use the stimulus when you _don't_ want him to be doing something else (anything other than recalling).

Unfortunately, I can't respond to the rest of what you said because I have to go now. But I will respond later today.


----------



## RBark

Yeah but.. you're applying my intentions as a handler into the behavior pattern.

To Kobe's perspective. He's running around (you sleeping) then the stim begins (the alarm clock starts) and he comes to the handler to remove aversive (you turning the alarm off).

So his behavior of going to the handler was strengthened (reinforcement) by the removal of a aversive (negative).



> Negative Reinforcement strengthens a behavior because a negative condition is stopped or avoided as a consequence of the behavior.
> 
> Punishment, on the other hand, weakens a behavior because a negative condition is introduced or experienced as a consequence of the behavior.


The aim is to strengthen the behavior of being at the handler's side because the aversive was stopped as a consequence of the behavior (coming to me).



> In an attempt to decrease the likelihood of a behavior occurring in the future, an operant response is followed by the presentation of an aversive stimulus. This is positive punishment.


If I wanted to do positive punishment using e-collar, it would be that I ask him to recall to me, and he ignores me. I want the behavior of him ignoring me to be reduced. So I apply an aversive to him to reduce this behavior.


----------



## jiml

giving more thaught like all areas this falls into more than one catagory sometimes at the same time. during conditioning and training the collar is usually (unlless using leerburgs comand no stim) as neg re. later when used as a responce to complience it would be both +p and neg reinforcment


----------



## Cracker

Positive is adding something, negative is taking something away.
I've had this discussion before and I think that in some ways it's a chicken and egg thing when it comes to a stim situation.

In most p+, say a leash correction..it is momentary. Stops the unwanted behaviour (if applied correctly) and then (again if done correctly) a behaviour that IS wanted is cued and then positively reinforced (R+). In that sequence there was two behaviours, two consequences and two different applied OC parts.

I think that Kobe's owner is using the stim as a conditioned CUE (and yes punishment can become a cue) and then as negative reinforcement for when the behaviour that has been cued is completed (the recall). Kobe have you thought about replacing the stim cue with a verbal now that the behaviour is known to him? That would be the wanted end result, no?

Either way..when you add the stim it is a positive, when it is removed it becomes negative. So, it is both. I think....lol.

I'm glad Lou is gone so I could come back and join in the fray!


----------



## RBark

Cracker said:


> Positive is adding something, negative is taking something away.
> I've had this discussion before and I think that in some ways it's a chicken and egg thing when it comes to a stim situation.
> 
> In most p+, say a leash correction..it is momentary. Stops the unwanted behaviour (if applied correctly) and then (again if done correctly) a behaviour that IS wanted is cued and then positively reinforced (R+). In that sequence there was two behaviours, two consequences and two different applied OC parts.
> 
> I think that Kobe's owner is using the stim as a conditioned CUE (and yes punishment can become a cue) and then as negative reinforcement for when the behaviour that has been cued is completed (the recall). Kobe have you thought about replacing the stim cue with a verbal now that the behaviour is known to him? That would be the wanted end result, no?
> 
> Either way..when you add the stim it is a positive, when it is removed it becomes negative. So, it is both. I think....lol.
> 
> I'm glad Lou is gone so I could come back and join in the fray!


That is what it is now. I am only talking about the training method used for recall on e-collar.

And yes, you could say that the stim is the cue, and my verbal marker was the secondary cue. Through association, once the behavior was solidified (On my definition, that was 20 out of 20 recalls over a span of 2 weeks on a cold start), I started a variable rate of reinforcement. Instead of stimming 20 out of 20 times, I reduced it to 19/20 times. If he recalled on that one verbal cue, and 19/20 on the rest, on a cold start... it was bumped down to 18. This process lasted months, down to 0. The times I did not use Neg. Reinforcement on the recall, I jackpotted him with treats, water, etc.

Nowdays, I train with the e-collar once or twice a week, just short training sessions. Every other recall is a R+ recall.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

canteloupe said:


> That's an incredibly facetious argument. No one's judging e-collars for "any possible harm it may contribute too". If they were, they'd be talking about the possibility of accidental strangulation. Be serious! People are judging e-collars for their intended purpose and use, not random chance accidents.


Not at all. Every one of these threads--and others all over the 'net--bring forth horror stories of the damage done by e-collars. Some, like the "e-collar made a dog's eyeballs explode" _type_ comments are pure bunk. A bit of Googling will locate essays on the horrors of e-collar use that make me wonder if the writer has ever met any dogs, let alone used an e-collar. Others, like the "e-collar made my dog so scared he won't come out from under the bed", are clearly man-caused disasters. 

Used properly, e-collars cause negligible harm. We'll never abolish stupid, but ignorance is quite curable.


----------



## RBark

Marsh Muppet said:


> Not at all. Every one of these threads--and others all over the 'net--bring forth horror stories of the damage done by e-collars. Some, like the "e-collar made a dog's eyeballs explode" _type_ comments are pure bunk. A bit of Googling will locate essays on the horrors of e-collar use that make me wonder if the writer has ever met any dogs, let alone used an e-collar. Others, like the "e-collar made my dog so scared he won't come out from under the bed", are clearly man-caused disasters.
> 
> Used properly, e-collars cause negligible harm. We'll never abolish stupid, but ignorance is quite curable.


Nobody is saying that e-collars are inherently evil. But the law of averages apply. There are so many people on this forum, a dog loving forum, who are incapable of using the e-collar properly. The rest of the population... I dare not say.

Horror stories serve it's purpose. Most people buy e-collars to be a magic wand, and the horror stories serve to deter people from thinking that. Making it sound all happy and perfect will make the ignorant and the stupid ruin their dogs. They need to be aware of the consequences of buying and using an e-collar.


----------



## Elana55

FWIW the instances I gave and the definitions I gave were from various Psychology Text. 

Yes, I have read psychology as it relates to learning theory and I do understand the wide array of psychological applications in that field. I also understand that the study of pyschology is not confined to learning theory and the clinical applications go far beyond the scope of learning theory. 

My experience with clinical psychology (in addition to my classroom experience in Psyche 101) is less than positive. After watching Psychologists and Psychiatrists with combinations of drugs, counseling, No drugs, counseling, only drugs and no counseling over 20 years try to help my terminally depressed and self destructive/suicidal husband, I come from a different place. 

That is a place that experienced a call from my sister that my husband had committed suicide while being confined to a State Psychiatiric facility as a committed inpatient for 8months. 

He had been so placed by his family and the courts after our divorce was final and I had moved on with my life. The 'science' of psychology had no answers. 

Not that this experience would make me cautionary of psychology as applied to humans in the most mild or bitter toward the profession in the most extreme. 

I have elected caution (with mistrust) because the alternative (bitterness) hurts only me. 

Learning psychology is interesting and it has application in training animals (which I have used successfully in both operant conditioning and classical conditioning). I am glad for that knowledge while understanding a lot of it is theoretical and has no solid "proof" other than statistics. 

This does not make it wrong.. it makes it a work in progress. It makes it a very small grain of knowledge in a large beach of unknowns. 

Learning theory as it relates to any individual animal's response to an E Collar Stimulus is interesting. Without the level of effort someone like RBark put into it for his dog, things can go severely haywire. He called in a professional dog trainer expereinced with the equipment for his desired result, not a psychologist. 

He needed WVasko at that point and not Mr. Skinner et al.


----------



## wvasko

> Horror stories serve it's purpose. Most people buy e-collars to be a magic wand, and the horror stories serve to deter people from thinking that. Making it sound all happy and perfect will make the ignorant and the stupid ruin their dogs. They need to be aware of the consequences of buying and using an e-collar.


Then imagine advising somebody on DF to use an e-collar on what I would call a soft dog with a very low pain threshold. For whatever infraction of home rules the owner zaps dog and dog screeches. Oh yes add to the adventure that advice came from somebody that did not read the dog and had no idea that it was an extremely soft dog. 

Well with an extremely soft dog a proper voice correction might have been only thing needed with a treat and problem solved.

Well it's a long way from his heart so dog is not gonna die and if dog does not get into a peeing program anytime owner approaches or raises voice no big problem at all. As a bonus the dog has stopped the unwanted action so it's a success story all around. All that happened was some pain. What's the big deal. This isn't a horror story, just an unnecessary pain story.

Now was there also a shock to this dog's mental attitude, could be, but nothing bad's happening now. Down the road maybe dog does develop something because of possible insecurities caused by the e-collar. Is this possible, I don't know. I have my own ideas on that.


----------



## Elana55

wvasko said:


> Then imagine advising somebody on DF to use an e-collar on what I would call a soft dog with a very low pain threshold. For whatever infraction of home rules the owner zaps dog and dog screeches. Oh yes add to the adventure that advice came from somebody that did not read the dog and had no idea that it was an extremely soft dog.
> 
> Well with an extremely soft dog a proper voice correction might have been only thing needed with a treat and problem solved.
> 
> Well it's a long way from his heart so dog is not gonna die and if dog does not get into a peeing program anytime owner approaches or raises voice no big problem at all. As a bonus the dog has stopped the unwanted action so it's a success story all around. All that happened was some pain. What's the big deal. This isn't a horror story, just an unnecessary pain story.
> 
> Now was there also a shock to this dog's mental attitude, could be, but nothing bad's happening now. Down the road maybe dog does develop something because of possible insecurities caused by the e-collar. Is this possible, I don't know. I have my own ideas on that.


Yes, for the pet owner the behavior may have extinguished and IF the pet owner now puts the collar in stoarge and forgets it, things may be good.

However, most ppl are not that smart. They paid $XX or even $XXX for that shock collar and well, it worked to stop that one behavior and it worked just GREAT.. so the owner is now thinking he might be able to use that collar to fix something else... and then something else.. and pretty soon you got a dog that has some real issues that may make submissive pee look like a gift. 

Because, as previously stated, you cannot fix the stupid and while ignorant can be fixed, it may not be fixed soon enough, the owner is not going to stop using the shock collar with those great results with first time use. 

Well, WVasko, you know where this is going and I am probably preaching to the choir. 

BTW when I used it on my one dog I used it one time for one situation. I never used it again and it did stay in storage for years. I was ignorant when I used it, but not stupid since I did put it away. That dog was not soft.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Horror stories and "what ifs" are perfectly fine if they are instructive, predictive, and ultimately true. The problem in Wvaskso's parable still originates with the human who didn't even bother to read the instruction manual included with the e-collar. For the record, I'd strap a collar on that owner and zap him 'til he peed his pants every time he saw me reach for the transmitter. If I were King...but I'm not. Everybody's loss.

I'd take it a step further and suggest that some people should never be allowed near a dog. It could be argued that advising everybody and his uncle Festus to go down to the local shelter to adopt a dog is as (or more) irresponsible than discussing e-collars in a positive light.


----------



## Elana55

Marsh Muppet said:


> Horror stories and "what ifs" are perfectly fine if they are instructive, predictive, and ultimately true. The problem in Wvaskso's parable still originates with the human who didn't even bother to read the instruction manual included with the e-collar. For the record, I'd strap a collar on that owner and zap him 'til he peed his pants every time he saw me reach for the transmitter. If I were King...but I'm not. _Everybody's loss._


I had to laugh at this one. I just love it. You can ONLY be King if you let me help you with that e Collar program for people. 

There is always some one who will hurt themselves or their dog with something sold. They still sell choke collars and there are still people who tie their dogs out on them and there are still dogs that hang themselves and the owners return to find the dog dead. Seems it would be common sense to not tie a dog out on a choke collar but there are no instructions with the things and you can't fix stupidity. 



> I'd take it a step further and suggest that some people should never be allowed near a dog. It could be argued that advising everybody and his uncle Festus to go down to the local shelter to adopt a dog is as (or more) irresponsible than discussing e-collars in a positive light.


This is so true... and all the people who get cute free puppies and who end up with dogs tied up out back (one such dog lives down the road from me.. it used to be a big black long haired dog tied to the dog house. I guess he died because a new Pit Bull ahs been there all summer.. gosh knows what will happen to him when winter comes. Pits are not known for heavy hair coats).

There is a lot of abuse in the world.. we can only try to put it to bed one dog at a time (one cat or child at a time as well). 

Personally I believe this thread has been very E collar educational. It HAD pointed up wth awfuls but also the successes. Is that not part of education? 

When you teach a child how to operate the lawn mower you teach safe handling in addition to how it operates. As part of the safe handling you say, "Keep your feet and hands out from under the deck or you may mangle or lose them." Awful is when you don't say that and the kid ends up with a mangled hand or foot. More awful is when you say it and the kid elects to ignore it and ends up mangled anyway. 

Instructions need to be read or heard but then they also must be followed.


----------



## Shaina

I was wondering, for all you self-professed e-collar users out there...something like this was asked earlier (sorta), but regarding fading the ecollar when used as P+...how do you do this?

I understand keeping the collar even when you aren't using it to prevent the dog from becoming "collar wise" (as well as other strategies) but...

Say for heeling. We'll go ahead and assume the dog knows the concept of heeling.

Using R+ once the dog more or less knows what he is doing, you start intermittently rewarding only the better efforts...then when "better" became the norm, the even better efforts, until eventually only some of the most outstanding efforts are rewarded. The goal being that the dog never knows which attempt to reach that "perfect" is going to be rewarded and will keep trying even if the first few attempts result in no reward. For many dogs this is the point where (hopefully) heeling becomes somewhat self-rewarding and therefore self-perpetuating.

Using P+ I would presume that the dog's worst transgressions from heeling would be marked/punished first, then as those faded the less serious flaws, and so on and so forth until there are basically no flaws to punish. However, I can't imagine that it would even be intermittent...that is one would never only punish a lag _sometimes_ and not others...that would be self-defeating, correct? So if the dog would lag at some point without the e-collar on and wasn't punished...couldn't that immediately send up a red flag for the dog? "Hm well that's never happened before..." It wouldn't take a particularly brilliant dog to figure out when he would/would not get stim'd (I would think) since a single trial would prove the point...and once he wasn't stim'd once, he would not be stim'd for the rest of that session (unless the person stopped and put the ecollar on and started punished partway through, but if that wouldn't teach the dog that the stim only occurs when the collar is on, I don't know what would).


That was very rambly but hopefully made some degree of sense...


----------



## RBark

I've never really heard of fading a dog from the ecollar from a P+ method.

Most of those who preach P+ also fall under the category of believing the dog should always have the collar on, no matter what. So the e-collar never gets faded out.


----------



## Shaina

RBark said:


> I've never really heard of fading a dog from the ecollar from a P+ method.
> 
> Most of those who preach P+ also fall under the category of believing the dog should always have the collar on, no matter what. So the e-collar never gets faded out.


If that's the case, what about those who ultimately wish to compete in obedience/field trials/etc? They train til the incidence of mistakes is as low as possible and hope the dog makes it through the trial without figuring the whole thing out?


----------



## Elana55

well, yes... I was wondering the same. 

With a leash and collar and treats and clicker and all ofthat the object is to be rid of it at some point. In competition obedience you want to work off lead and by the time you get to UD or UDX the dog is working off lead and away from you. Schutzhund is the same thing as are many other dog works like French Ring and Herding. 

This (and results) are why I train with Pos. Reinf. first and if that holds it together then that is what we do. You cannot enter the ring in most dog sports with an E collar on the dog. 

I am sure that some dog competition is taught regularly by some trainers with an e collar so I wondered that too. How do you get past it if you use it as a cue device? Do you naturally segue into that secondary cue? 

Even talked of dummy collars and the rest.. but is there a day when you can walk out the door with no collar on the dog (like I did with my last dog.. she never wore a collar for about 8 years of her life)? I don't know. 

If the collar is only used for a single behavior modification, can extingusihing that behavior with the e collar carry over into the realm of no E collar and no dummy collar? I do not know. 

With Kazi, she was well versed in not exhibiting the life ending behavior when I was present (this was a dog trained on correction based methods but no e collar). If I left the area, she would check to see where I was and then and go do this behavior. 

To that end, I got the e collar and put it on her cold. I set it fairly hot and then went on about my business. She was good and then I left the area, kept the remote and watched her thru a crack in the door. She got up and looked for me. Not like she wanted to find me.. just sort of checking around for a clear coast.. and then she immediately went to do this thing that was not allowed. As she started to do it, I zapped her.. I think you could have heard the scream in Florida... and she ran right back to ther "place" in the barn and laid down.. looking very submissive. 

I left the e collar on her for a day or so. The next time the event occured that lead up to her undesirable behavior, she got up and went outside the barn and laid down. She wanted nuthin' to do with THAT anymore. 

I put the E collar in storage. Kazi lived to be almost 14 years old. She was an exceptional individual dog.


----------



## RBark

Shaina said:


> If that's the case, what about those who ultimately wish to compete in obedience/field trials/etc? They train til the incidence of mistakes is as low as possible and hope the dog makes it through the trial without figuring the whole thing out?


That's a good point, I did not think of that. No answer to that from me! My gut tells me that they have a secondary cue such as a verbal "No". Every time they zap the dog, they say "No!" By the time the collar is getting faded, "No" has a strong association with the shock, the same way that heeling becomes self reinforcing.

But that's just my gut thought. I have no idea.


----------



## Evan Graham

pattymac said:


> Quickie comment here...now I've only used my e-collar a few times and not to judge anyone's training method, just an observation from Evan's website. I learned a different method to use the e-collar and when I mention it, you'll no doubt know who I got the method from. It seems your method uses an avoidance technique, so dog sits butt on ground and the stim stops...right?


Patty,

Thanks for the question. I recognize the temptation to minimize the role of the e-collar as a pure punisher, and then formulate this type of description. But it isn't quite that simple. It also doesn't quite describe the approach. It sounds very much like the handful of trainers who literally use e-collars (or some other aversive) to teach with. I do not.

Long before an e-collar enters the picture our pups learned their standard obedience commands passively through OP (treat training). Before detailing the chronology of formalization for any command, I want to say that it's my intention to keep explanations simple and dog-oriented. I'm not intent upon impressing anyone with technical hyperbole, as more dog trainers tend to be confused by it than educated in functional ways. In other words, dogs are simpler critters than people, so our interaction should be in simple terms.

In a forthcoming post I'll simply lay out a simple process we follow in my method leading up to, and following through with the standard use of e-collars.


pattymac said:


> Now I only needed to work a recall with my dog a few times...mainly to see how effective it would be, cause sometimes I'd call her, she'd start coming and suddenly find something in the dirt to sniff or go check out. I used the e-collar on about 3 occassions and now I have a reliable recall.


I'm interested in what conditioning you did for this dog prior to putting the e-collar to active use in supporting that command?


pattymac said:


> I may go back and use it again especially for distance, but only on commands that she knows well.


Does your dog wear the e-collar all the time when training, or only when you plan to use it? This is connected with the questions others have posed, also.

EvanG



canteloupe said:


> This is a fairly common mistake. *Actually, the use of the e-collar is always punishment (positive, to be specific)*. Negative reinforcement happens when an adverse stimulus occurs and is followed by a mitigating behavior. The behavior is then reinforced (which means that it is more likely to occur in the future).


This is a fairly common mistake. Many people assume e-collars are applied in only one way, since most people have not taken the necessary steps to learn about the methodology designed for its use. Therefore, it's rather common for them to make erroneous statements like "the use of the e-collar is always punishment ", which is not so. Whether it's used after an infraction as a punisher, or before the fact as a reinforcer, depends on the context of usage.


canteloupe said:


> *The use of an e-collar can never be cast as R- because it is always used after a preceding behavior.* That's the biggest difference between R- and P+. In negative reinforcement, the adverse stimulus comes first, and then the behavior. In punishment (positive) the behavior comes first, and then the adverse stimulus that punishes that behavior and makes it less likely in the future.


That's a clear difference, alright. But it's used both ways, depending on how the trainer employs it, and under what circumstances.

In a forcing procedure (there are several) the application requires for stimulus first. Just one example.


canteloupe said:


> As for the rest of your response... It would serve you well to be a little less pompous, particularly if you're going to be making mistakes. No offense.
> 
> I see that others are making this same mistake. You may not like the word "punishment" but by the definitions of learning theory, that is what an e-collar does.


As for your response, it would serve you well to be both _more_ informed about e-collar methodology, and _less_ pompous and presumptuous about dog training knowledge before making more mistakes of like kind. No offense.

EvanG


----------



## wvasko

> Long before an e-collar enters the picture our pups learned their standard obedience commands passively through OP (treat training). Before detailing the chronology of formalization for any command, I want to say that it's my intention to keep explanations simple and dog-oriented. I'm not intent upon impressing anyone with technical hyperbole, *as more dog trainers tend to be confused by it than educated in functional ways.* In other words, dogs are simpler critters than people, so our interaction should be in simple terms.


Thank you 
Simple is good.


----------



## Evan Graham

RBark said:


> Nobody is saying that e-collars are inherently evil. But the law of averages apply. There are so many people on this forum, a dog loving forum, who are *incapable* of using the e-collar properly.


I'm curious about how many of these people you know well enough to pronounce them "incapable"? Pretty presumtive, don't you think? Do you really view humanity as a collection of incompetent boobs? 

It is axiomatic that people fear most what they understand least. But that doesn't mean they can't come to understand that which they fear, does it?

How can anyone posting on an Internet forum position themselves so as to judge all others as unable to learn how to train a dog a different way? As an old coach once said, "It's easy when you know how."


RBark said:


> Horror stories serve it's purpose. *Most people *buy e-collars to be a magic wand, and the horror stories serve to deter people from thinking that. Making it sound all happy and perfect will make *the ignorant and the stupid *ruin their dogs. They need to be aware of the consequences of buying and using an e-collar.


Who are these people? I wonder if "most people" have been put on notice that they're "ignorant and stupid"? You speak for a lot of people in these statements. I wonder what qualifies you to do so?

EvanG


----------



## mightymal

Evan Graham said:


> In a forcing procedure (there are several) the application requires for stimulus first. Just one example.As for your response, it would serve you well to be both _more_ informed about e-collar methodology, and _less_ pompous and presumptuous about dog training knowledge before making more mistakes of like kind. No offense.
> 
> EvanG



Ditto this; I'm with Evan Graham and RBark on this. I have a degree in psychology and I'm quite aware of the differences between +P, -P, +R, -R; I used -R with an e-collar under most circumstances. My understanding of rattlesnake training for dogs (never having done it) would fall under +P. But my general use of the e-collar is -R, not +P.


----------



## RBark

Evan Graham said:


> I'm curious about how many of these people you know well enough to pronounce them "incapable"? Pretty presumtive, don't you think? Do you really view humanity as a collection of incompetent boobs?
> 
> It is axiomatic that people fear most what they understand least. But that doesn't mean they can't come to understand that which they fear, does it?


Well I don't know, when someone comes here and goes "help! I used a e-collar and my dog now pees every time he sees it!" It's a pretty clear indicator that they are incompetent. I wish I could say I am exaggerating, because people DO post that, and similar stories to it. You are new here, so you may not know any of that. So I can understand that. However, I've been here for several years now, and I've seen plenty of idiots with e-collars.

That is not to say you are one of those, if that is what you are taking offense at. You have not struck me in any way other than someone who appears to know the various uses of it.




> How can anyone posting on an Internet forum position themselves so as to judge all others as unable to learn how to train a dog a different way? As an old coach once said, "It's easy when you know how." Who are these people? I wonder if "most people" have been put on notice that they're "ignorant and stupid"? You speak for a lot of people in these statements. I wonder what qualifies you to do so?
> 
> EvanG


My qualification is that I'm an armchair psychologist, peering through his little curtain with the big scary face shouting and breathing fire at you. So yes, I'm very qualified sir.


----------



## .308

Don't use electric collars so much for training but to keep some of the dogs on my property if one of them gets a bug up their butt and wants to run after something running away from them (or they think they see something). Turn your head for a second, or have a couple occupy you when one takes off, and in a short time, dog running full tilt can be a good ways away down in the fields.

Actually, just picked up a new Dogtra 2302NCP two dog system. VERY nice product.

Listen, I'm no gay mexican who can speak to dogs that has his own TV show, but bottom line, if one of my dogs gets a bugg up their butt and want to run, they run a good chance of being shot on someone elses property or hit by some young idiot kid doing 60mph on a back country road that shouldn't be driving.

The dogs I know who could use the E collar get it, and if I need to use it, it works (along with my voice) to bring them back.



> My qualification is that I'm an armchair psychologist, peering through his little curtain with the big scary face shouting and breathing fire at you.


Come on over, like to see how your fire breathing holds up to some heavy turkey loads


----------



## mightymal

Evan Graham said:


> I'm curious about how many of these people you know well enough to pronounce them "incapable"? Pretty presumtive, don't you think? Do you really view humanity as a collection of incompetent boobs?
> 
> 
> 
> EvanG


I know you weren't talking to me, but I'll answer anyway.  And my answer is that when it comes to dogs and dog behavior, yes, I think the majority of the population is sadly incompetent of what motivates their dog and why their dog acts like he does. Not a week (heck, usually not a day) goes by that I don't hear someone say that their dog is doing something "just to spite them", like chasing squirrels out of the yard, or how their dog "knows he did something bad and feels guilty about getting into the trash" because of the way he acted when they got home, so they spanked him because "he knew he'd been bad." When people are still functioning at that level and believing that dogs are capable of human emotions like spite and guilt, or that a dog should inherently understand the human moral code, I don't want them using an e-collar to try to solve their dog's "problems".

That is the reason that I don't recommend e-collars to the general public or over the internet very often - I am not there to show them how to use it correctly, and when used incorrectly, can have terrible consequences for the dog. I would rather recommend clicker training because, in the worst case scenario, the dog is not going to learn the command, or is going to learn the wrong behavior for a command, because his owner can't get the timing of the +R right. Clicker training "gone wrong" results in a dog that is no worse off than he was previously as opposed to the possibilities that can go wrong if an amateur misuses an e-collar on their dog. I think it is also important to say that I don't expect the majority of the population to understand animal behavior in depth or have a keen interest in it like I do - all they need to do is get along with their family dog, which is usually a fairly easy task to do without any knowledge of what makes dogs tick. But if they want to pick up a tool like an e-collar, then I feel that they need to do the work and research to use it correctly, not turn it into a DIY project.

I will admit that I am cynical and jaded about humans after working in animal welfare. I'm not saying it is the right stance, or that it is something I encourage others to think, but it is the way that I personally feel.


----------



## Evan Graham

mightymal said:


> I know you weren't talking to me, but I'll answer anyway.  And my answer is that when it comes to dogs and dog behavior, yes, I think the majority of the population is sadly incompetent of what motivates their dog and why their dog acts like he does.


I understand, and I have similar feelings. But the statements I'm reviling against are the blanket indictments of "most people" as being incapable of learning how to train dogs with e-collars. Even citing a few cases that are clearly good examples of stupidity cannot be a fair assessment of so many others, can it?

"I once saw someone jump off a building. Therefore, most people jump off buildings." Does that compute?

That's all I'm implying. I give seminars all across north America. I find many people are surely in need of the education. But I also find most of them are plenty bright enough to grasp it, once they've been shown what is correct.

Most people do stupid things. But that does not mean most people are stupid. So far, most people who have posted in this discussion seem perfectly bright, including those who disagree with me. I'm good with that, as long as there is reasoned rationale for their positions.

EvanG


----------



## Shaina

Evan Graham said:


> I understand, and I have similar feelings. But the statements I'm reviling against are the blanket indictments of "most people" as being incapable of learning how to train dogs with e-collars. Even citing a few cases that are clearly good examples of stupidity cannot be a fair assessment of so many others, can it?
> 
> [...]
> 
> That's all I'm implying. I give seminars all across north America. I find many people are surely in need of the education. But I also find most of them are plenty bright enough to grasp it, once they've been shown what is correct.


I could be mistaken but I believe the point is not necessarily that most people _can't_ learn so much as that most people _won't_. They simply either do not want to or do not know there is anything more to learn about it.

Those who attended your seminars were clearly people who at least had a good idea that there was something to learn. Most people who participate regularly on a dog forum and engage in a training technique debate most likely, at some point, also realized there was more to learn and have taken at least some limited steps toward exploring what that is. But despite how many people are on this board and how many attended your seminars, I would say it's a safe assumption that they represent only a small percentage of dog owners. 

When it comes to instruments of pain, _especially _when used in situations in which the dog's life is not in danger (non-essential), the burden of proof lies in determining the user IS competent, starting with the assumption that the person is most likely not qualified.



Evan Graham said:


> Most people do stupid things. But that does not mean most people are stupid.


But if those stupid things have a strong potential to cause harm to others _when used inappropriately_ and you are blanket recommending them to the general population then it doesn't matter whether the person who did the harm was stupid or just misinformed/uneducated. The harm was still done.


----------



## RBark

If you are taking my words literally, then we are going to have a very long and rocky relationship here which will ultimately lead to the demise of one of us, hopefully over katanas under the grassy moonlight in awesome robes.

Generalizations are just that, generalizations. You come from a position of going through the country in seminars, people who are motivated enough to attend them and attempt to learn. 

I, on the other hand, have worked... albeit for a relatively short time, in two rescues. I have also worked in the low income areas in CA (Oakland, Richmond, etc). You imply "a few cases" but it's just a few I'm citing. I've seen hundreds.

But that doesn't matter, it's still a generalization. I'm not going to advise a random person on the internet I don't know to use a e-collar. Because I don't know who they are, and AM going to assume the worst for the sakes of their dogs.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

^^^^^+1000000


----------



## Evan Graham

Shaina said:


> But those stupid things have a strong potential to cause harm to others _when used inappropriately_ and you are blanket recommending them to the general population then it doesn't matter whether the person who did the harm was stupid or just misinformed/uneducated. The harm was still done.


That would be true whether anyone was willing to provide better information or not, wouldn't it? Why do you insist upon judging people in such a broad manner? Should no one speak up in behalf of those who actually desire to learn, merely because some people are intellectually lazy?

Sorry, but that does not make sense to me. I don't believe any of us should be able to speak for the masses in that way.

Those who would do harm in ignorance, will do so in spite of anyone else. That's going to happen, even if you wring your hands over it in deep sincerity. Sadly, there are no dog police. In other words, "you can be sincere and still be stupid." (Dave Ramsey) But can you point at any crowd and discern who among them is stupid?

Also, those attending seminars are far from the only students I have. I wasn't making that point at all. It's just that I have actually met those people, so I am positioned to make the assessment I did. Making broad accusations about "most people" in the ways that are being made here are unfair and lacking in evidence. If you desire to think badly of people, I won't be able to alter that.

EvanG


----------



## RBark

You are generalizing just as much as I am, just in the opposite direction. You are generalizing that most people are good, so it's a moot point either way. What we believe about most people is irrelevant.

If a person pops up wanting to fix their dog. We, as trainers, have two choices. We can offer them a e-collar, without being there to show it to them, to observe the dog's behavior, to meet the dog, and get a general idea of who they are as person. If we're lucky, they will use it well. If we're not, they will hurt their dog irrepairably, not necessarily physically, but mentally and emotionally.

The alternative is to recommend clicker training to them, or lure training. If we're lucky, it will work for them. If we're not, no real harm is done. What they do from here is something we cannot do other than recommend that they meet with a trainer in person. If that trainer, who has met the family, and the dog.. feels that they can use a e-collar and it's a good solution to the dog's problem, then they can go from th ere. If the dog ultimately ends up harmed, then at least we would have tried.

I mean really. Would you really recommend a e-collar to a person, over the internet, not knowing if their dog is the type that would roll over and pee everywhere at the slighest raise of voice? Is that the right thing to do, as trainers? Are you willing to take that responsiblity, because if the dog ends up harmed, that's a black mark on you, not just the people for being stupid.


----------



## Cracker

To address Shaina's question:

I will first say I am NOT an ecollar trainer and do not advocate their use because I believe reliable behaviour CAN be developed through strictly R+/P- methods. 

In order for P+ to be truly effective it must:

1. Be of *significant force *to be effective within *three* applications. Anything else is nagging and not effective because it becomes an "intermittent" punishment..just like in using rewards..intermittent application will often strengthen the unwanted behaviour (especially if it is a self rewarding behaviour, which most natural dog behaviours are).

2. Be applied within 1-2 seconds of the unwanted behaviour (this has naught to do with the question..but is important so I thought I'd say it).

If this is true, then a properly applied (at the right intensity) stim would stop the behaviour so no "weaning" would be necessary. If a cue was used along with the collar and the punishment was intense enough, the cue would become a predictor of the stim and the dog would work to avoid further stim.

On a slightly different topic. Punishment WORKS. Applied properly all of the quads of OC work. We must all remember though that the OC applies to us as well and can backfire for the dog....for example:

The handler punishes a transgression, dog responds appropriately, _handler is rewarded _and starts to use punishment more frequently for behaviours not necessary to be punished but deemed "punishable" by the human. 

OR, punishment is misapplied and doesn't work, so handler is frustrated and punishment becomes more aggressive and more frequently applied as the application of the punishment itself relieves stress in the human (it is an outlet and becomes self rewarding) and dog ends up nagged or abused.

Now, both of those examples may be seen as extreme and I still believe that punishment properly applied can effective...it's the human element that is the issue when using aversives. They can be addictive.

This is part of the reason I train with a drop lead or off lead or hands free. This reduces the ability of the handler to inadvertently and inefficiently apply punishment. It is a learning curve for both dog and handler.

I find dogs ultimately quite predictable..humans are the wild card here..it's because of our big brains!


----------



## mightymal

Evan Graham said:


> I understand, and I have similar feelings. But the statements I'm reviling against are the blanket indictments of "most people" as being incapable of learning how to train dogs with e-collars. Even citing a few cases that are clearly good examples of stupidity cannot be a fair assessment of so many others, can it?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> That's all I'm implying. I give seminars all across north America. I find many people are surely in need of the education. But I also find most of them are plenty bright enough to grasp it, once they've been shown what is correct.


I agree with what you are saying, 110%. I believe that the concepts behind using an e-collar, clicker training, or really any +R, -R training techniques can be learned and understood by the majority of people. Middle school children can understand these concepts, when explained at a certain level using examples that they can relate to; there is no reason that the majority of adults, when provided with the facts and education, can't learn the information as well. I believe the basic problem is getting the information to the people that need it, explaining it in a way that makes sense to them, and helping them build a better relationship with their dog. My concern is people hearing that using an e-collar works, but then never seeking out the appropriate resources to educate themselves about what kind of training is actually being done and how.

The bigger problem is when these uneducated people see me (or somone) at the park, using an e-collar on my dog, and think to themselves "Well, it's just pushing a few buttons to tell the dog he's being bad - I'll just pick one up at Walmart and teach myself how to use it." Furthermore, somehow the message needs to get out to these people that paying $90 for a series of obedience classes, a seminar, or a conference is well worth the money to improve their relationship with their dog with a professional's help rather than making training a cheap DIY project.


----------



## Evan Graham

RBark said:


> You are generalizing just as much as I am, just in the opposite direction. You are generalizing that most people are good, so it's a moot point either way. What we believe about most people is irrelevant.


Well, not quite. I've said nothing about people being good or bad. I've only spoken to their general intellegence, and I know from experience that sound e-collar methodology is not brain surgery. Most dog owners can, if they desire to, learn to use one correctly, even for pet use. It's up to the individual. What I don't recommend is for anyone to use one without first learning how.


RBark said:


> If a person pops up wanting to fix their dog. We, as trainers, have two choices. We can offer them a e-collar, without being there to show it to them, to observe the dog's behavior, to meet the dog, and get a general idea of who they are as person.


Really? Those are the only two choices?


RBark said:


> I mean really. Would you really recommend a e-collar to a person, over the internet, not knowing if their dog is the type that would roll over and pee everywhere at the slighest raise of voice?


Interestingly, in spite of all the inferences, I have yet to recommend e-collar use to a single soul in this discussion. I'm only offering to answer questions about the tool and methods for its use.


RBark said:


> Is that the right thing to do, as trainers? Are you willing to take that responsiblity, because if the dog ends up harmed, that's a black mark on you, not just the people for being stupid.


Yes, I have been and remain willing to answer anyone's questions. That's how we learn. Assuming we're all too stupid to understand something new is far riskier for the dogs. We then actively send out uninformed trainers to do whatever they can think up. Now _there_ is potential for harm...with any tool they may choose.

EvanG



mightymal said:


> I agree with what you are saying, 110%. I believe that the concepts behind using an e-collar, clicker training, or really any +R, -R training techniques can be learned and understood by the majority of people. Middle school children can understand these concepts, when explained at a certain level using examples that they can relate to; there is no reason that the majority of adults, when provided with the facts and education, can't learn the information as well.


Well said. My 12 year old grandson understands most of this. He trains with me, and helps at seminars when school is not in session. He's really becoming a fine trainer.


mightymal said:


> I believe *the basic problem is getting the information to the people that need it*, explaining it in a way that makes sense to them, and helping them build a better relationship with their dog.


Again, well said.

EvanG


----------



## RBark

Evan Graham said:


> Well, not quite. I've said nothing about people being good or bad. I've only spoken to their *general* intellegence, and I know from experience that sound e-collar methodology is not brain surgery. Most dog owners can, if they desire to, learn to use one correctly, even for pet use. It's up to the individual. What I don't recommend is for anyone to use one without first learning how.


Ok, so you're generalizing their intelligence, then? Again, all this is a moot point. You are taking me literally in an attempt to discredit me, but two can play the game. It's redundant, give it up. What I think about people's intelligence does not matter, and you are in no position to make any observations based on such (you said so yourself! Ha ha).



> Really? Those are the only two choices?Interestingly, in spite of all the inferences, I have yet to recommend e-collar use to a single soul in this discussion. I'm only offering to answer questions about the tool and methods for its use.Yes, I have been and remain willing to answer anyone's questions. That's how we learn. Assuming we're all too stupid to understand something new is far riskier for the dogs. We then actively send out uninformed trainers to do whatever they can think up. Now _there_ is potential for harm...with any tool they may choose.


Where in this thread do you think I said that YOU were the one recommending it to people. Let's not be egoistical here, the world certainly doesn't revolve around you! It revolves around me.

And again, what did I say about taking my words literally? You really could do with learning to read between the lines. What I think about people, again, is irrelevant. My point, from the beginning to now, was that I would not recommend a e-collar to a person without knowing the person, without having met the dog, without having observed their interactions with each other, and observing the behavior they find unwanted. They could be the most intelligent person in the world, or the dumbest person in the world, this is irrelevant. Trying to discredit me based on my annoyance with the general populance is silly.

I will educate ANYONE, smart or stupid, who is willing to learn. All I said is, I would not recommend an e-collar to anyone without first meeting them (I know, I said this several times now, it does not seem to get through to you). 

I don't think most people comprehend that there is more to using an e-collar than hitting the red button and electrocuting the dog. Could they learn that? Yes. But I am not going to ASSUME that they would learn it. If someone came here asking about using an e-collar, my answer would be... seek out a professional. That's not because I think they are stupid or smart, it's because that is the RIGHT thing to do over a forum.

If they come here asking for advice on R+ training... I will be willing to educate them over a forum. They should still get a trainer, but learning the timing and what errors they make on clicker training are far less risky than learning the timing and errors on a e-collar. This does not make an e-collar inherently bad, it makes it something that people need to seriously educate themselves on before they pick it up. And I am not the one who shoudl be educating them, unless I know them in person.


----------



## canteloupe

Let me just say, I am seriously impressed by the level of discussion on this thread. I really like a lot of the stuff you guys are posting.


RBark said:


> Originally Posted by canteloupe:
> You are using the stimulus in response to your dog's behavior of "just running around sniffing." If he were already at your side, you would not use the stimulus. That means that you are using it in response to his behavior. He doesn't have to actually be running towards the hikers; he can simply be doing anything other than recalling.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I just sat down to try to wrap my head around this. But I simply cannot. Using this logic, you could say that the Neg. Reinforcement clinical trail is Positive Punishment.
> 
> Because if the dogs were on the other side of the fence to begin with, they would not get the aversive. By being inside the fence, they got the aversive. So we are shocking the dogs inside the fence in response to the behavior of being inside that.
> 
> That is basically what you are telling me. I simply cannot comprehend it.
Click to expand...

I know, it's kind of a brain-twister. I'm so glad you're taking my posts seriously enough to think about all this!

Basically, the dogs being in their first little fenced in area is just a pre-existing state. It's not a behavior. Ultimately, though, these things are somewhat subjective. It's possible to construe them being in that area as a behavior, and the subsequent floor shock as a +P, and the cessation of the shock when they jump into the other area as -R because it reinforces leaving the first area... But it's kind of a stretch. At some point we have to draw the line between what is a concrete behavior and what is simply a state of being.

PBark, you know, I don't know exactly how you use the collar. It's possible that I'm wrong about you. If you truly are using the stimulus of the e-collar without any behavior preceding it, and no prior verbal cues, _maybe_ you aren't using +P. To be honest, I can't quite visualize that scenario. So I'm leaving my mind open to the idea that there is a possible other application that I don't understand.

But from what most of the people on here are saying (including the advocates and sales reps), e-collars are used as punishment for all the reasons I've described in my last few posts. (You know, the order of behavior then stimulus, etc. etc. etc.)



RBark said:


> To Kobe's perspective. He's running around (you sleeping) then the stim begins (the alarm clock starts) and he comes to the handler to remove aversive (you turning the alarm off).
> 
> So his behavior of going to the handler was strengthened (reinforcement) by the removal of a aversive (negative).


Ha! That's a rather ingenious re-interpretation of the alarm clock analogy. My answer would be that sleeping is a pre-existing state of being (again, this is somewhat subjective) rather than a behavior that's occurring in that moment.



> The aim is to strengthen the behavior of being at the handler's side because the aversive was stopped as a consequence of the behavior (coming to me).


Okay, that's totally right. The cessation of the aversive stimulus as a consequence of the behavior of coming to you _is_ negative reinforcement. But the actual application of the aversive stimulus in the first place is +P. Basically, these are two different (but connected) learning experiences. The first sequence involves the application of the aversive stimulus (+P) which decreases the likelihood of the preceding behavior (not recalling); the second sequence involves the cessation of the stimulus (-R) which increases the likelihood of the preceding behavior (recalling).

Blerg. This is like a big brain twister. Keep in mind that the above summary is very, very stripped down. I could try to make a long string of lines and arrows that includes all the different parts, but somehow I don't think it would be appreciated. 



jiml said:


> giving more thaught like all areas this falls into more than one catagory sometimes at the same time. during conditioning and training the collar is usually (unlless using leerburgs comand no stim) as neg re. later when used as a responce to complience it would be both +p and neg reinforcment


Ah! Bingo! This is exactly what I mean. Almost all the learning we (and our dogs) do in life can be subdivided into a bunch of little sub-learning categories, and this is no exception. So when the stimulus is applied it is +P, and when it ends it is -R.

I suppose I should have thought about it in these terms from the beginning, and written about it that way. But I was focusing on the actual application of the e-collar stimulus, not the cessation of that application.



Cracker said:


> Positive is adding something, negative is taking something away.
> I've had this discussion before and I think that in some ways it's a chicken and egg thing when it comes to a stim situation.
> ...
> Either way..when you add the stim it is a positive, when it is removed it becomes negative. So, it is both. I think....lol.
> 
> I'm glad Lou is gone so I could come back and join in the fray!


I see that you're also on the same page! To some extent it is semantics. But there is a real, definable difference, and with e-collars the +P has to come before the -R because, well, you can't stop applying the stimulus before you've started.
I'm glad Lou's posts weren't deleted, because it would have made a lot of this discussion pretty nonsensical.



Elana55 said:


> My experience with clinical psychology (in addition to my classroom experience in Psyche 101) is less than positive. After watching Psychologists and Psychiatrists with combinations of drugs, counseling, No drugs, counseling, only drugs and no counseling over 20 years try to help my terminally depressed and self destructive/suicidal husband, I come from a different place.
> ...
> The 'science' of psychology had no answers.


I have also seen clinical psychology fail. The truth is, clinical psychology is the least scientific of all the various fields within psychology, although good clinical psychologists draw heavily from scientific data.
[self-editing...I deleted a bunch of stuff here to make this post shorter.]



> This does not make it wrong.. it makes it a work in progress. It makes it a very small grain of knowledge in a large beach of unknowns.


Oh, how right you are. When I think about the vastness of the universe and how much there is that is unknown out there, I think it still must be a fraction of what is unknown about human brains and behavior.



mightymal said:


> Ditto this; I'm with Evan Graham and RBark on this. I have a degree in psychology and I'm quite aware of the differences between +P, -P, +R, -R; I used -R with an e-collar under most circumstances. My understanding of rattlesnake training for dogs (never having done it) would fall under +P. But my general use of the e-collar is -R, not +P.


Can you explain (please be very specific so I can understand) how you use the e-collar as purely -R?

Yikes, please forgive the length of this post. I couldn't respond to all this stuff until now, so it kind of built up.


----------



## RBark

I have no issues calling it P+. Most people who use e-collars do use it as P+. If we are only looking at the behavior sequence up until the shock begins, then yes, I can see how it could be considered P+. But, to me, the sequence begins when the aversive is applied, and ends when he is at my side. This is the behavioral pattern I am looking for.

For instance: a typical e-collar user would use P+ with recall. What they do is, they first call the dog. If it does not comply, the aversive is then applied (in the form of a momentary shock). The behavior of not coming to the handler is then reduced with the applicant of an aversive.

In my instance, I am not trying to reduce Kobe's behavior of running around sniffing and playing. So, once I apply the aversive while Kobe is running around, it would consequently need to reduce that behavior.

However, I do not desire to reduce that behavior. If I was training him to off leash heel, then that might be a case of being P+. But the behavior of running around playing is what I desire, him being by my side is a temporary behavior I request of him.

And yes, there is no verbal cue at all before the aversive is applied. Maybe you just need to see it to understand.

EDIT: As for using the collar for purely -R, while it is not something I do (I'm a +R trainer 99% the time, outside Kobe's recall. Priscilla's recall was trained using +R) but it basically works like this. Averisive is applied, behavior is requested, once behavior is performed the aversive is removed.

So if I want her to sit, I would apply the aversive (e-collar stim) and tell her to "sit!" and once her butt hits the ground, the aversive would be removed.


----------



## wvasko

Rbark 
I'm curious, what you are saying is dog running around in yard and you want dog to return to your side. You do no verbal command to dog you zap him(much easier to type than aversive)maybe I'm reading it wrong.

2nd example, you want dog to sit you zap 1st and then verbal sit. Or verbal sit and then zap. I'm just curious.

Evan 
There is nobody arguing against e-collar use, most everything I'm reading is just arguing the advising of people to use collar on a forum. 

MM
I like the concept of putting e-collar on some people, I wish I had my old one-button Tri-Tronics to send you to do the zapping as the sissy collars they sell now might not do a proper job.


----------



## Elana55

An aside on using aversives much like R Bark is....

I have a book that is well renowned for how to train border collies to herd sheep. One of the most important commands is Lie Down or Down. A dog that drops on command takes pressure off the sheep so they do not run willy nilly (remember, in herding sheep the dog is a tool and the sheep are your important asset that you must protect because that is your income source). 

Anyway, in that book, you teach a reliable lie down by putting the dog down FIRST and then giving the command. The writer discusses doing this both ways.. Command first then putting the dog down and said it just is not as quick or as effective as putting the dog down first and then giving the command. He qualifies this by also saying he does not know WHY putting the dog down first and then saying "DOWN!" works better. 

I will not describe how he puts the dog on the ground. Lets just say it is not done with Positive reinforcement and not done with an e collar. 

And it is also important to note that the point is to get the dog to stop and go down, no matter what, without collars, leads or aversive influence. Sheep herding is very drivey and stimulating to the dog and that drive and stimulation must be controlled by both the handler and the dog (dog sometimes must work out of sight of the handler). There are no leashes.


----------



## wvasko

Elana55 said:


> An aside on using aversives much like R Bark is....
> 
> I have a book that is well renowned for how to train border collies to herd sheep. One of the most important commands is Lie Down or Down. A dog that drops on command takes pressure off the sheep so they do not run willy nilly (remember, in herding sheep the dog is a tool and the sheep are your important asset that you must protect because that is your income source).
> 
> Anyway, in that book, you teach a reliable lie down by putting the dog down FIRST and then giving the command. The writer discusses doing this both ways.. Command first then putting the dog down and said it just is not as quick or as effective as putting the dog down first and then giving the command. He qualifies this by also saying he does not know WHY putting the dog down first and then saying "DOWN!" works better.
> 
> I will not describe how he puts the dog on the ground. Lets just say it is not done with Positive reinforcement and not done with an e collar.
> 
> And it is also important to note that the point is to get the dog to stop and go down, no matter what, without collars, leads or aversive influence. Sheep herding is very drivey and stimulating to the dog and that drive and stimulation must be controlled by both the handler and the dog (dog sometimes must work out of sight of the handler). There are no leashes.


Very interesting, I don't understand as down the road the dog has to go down with a command. 



> A dog that drops on command takes pressure off the sheep so they do not run willy nilly


What is the advantage of Down 1st, Command 2nd when training, if it's just quicker, well quicker is not always better. If it's more effective, never having tried it, I got no argument.


----------



## Evan Graham

wvasko said:


> Rbark
> 
> Evan
> There is nobody arguing against e-collar use, most everything I'm reading is just arguing the advising of people to use collar on a forum.


Yes, I've responded to that already. I appreciate that no one should offer advice for just anyone in any case to use one. I've only responded that I have not done so. I may, if I believe the circumstance is appropriate. But all I've offered so far is correct information about the tool and the methods for its use.

EvanG


----------



## Cracker

wvasko said:


> Very interesting, I don't understand as down the road if the dog has to go down with a command
> 
> 
> 
> What is the advantage of Down 1st, Command 2nd when training, if it's just quicker, well quicker is not always better. If it's more effective, never having tried it, I got no argument.



This is something that comes up in R+ a lot...teach the behaviour FIRST, name it later. It's like the dog learning a physical cue/hand signal first...once you get reliable response to the hand signal THEN you add the cue..though you do "say it" before the hand signal, then get the behaviour...and eventually you fade the hand signal and only use the verbal or vice versa. We have found the dog does better "one step at a time"..since dogs do not speak english and it can take longer to put meaning to a word than to a body movement. So if it's already understanding what the ACTION of down is, the word is easier to learn.

I just went to a herding clinic for my first time on Saturday. I tagged along with a friend. There was no forcing into downs there..but the down is taught well before the herding begins, using R+. Then, they use P+ in the form of a rake (sounds worse than it is, really..) to keep the pups off the sheep when needed. It was a fascinating thing to see though..the concepts of pressure, energy and intent, it was like metaphysics in action.


----------



## wvasko

Cracker said:


> This is something that comes up in R+ a lot...teach the behaviour FIRST, name it later. It's like the dog learning a physical cue/hand signal first...once you get reliable response to the hand signal THEN you add the cue..though you do "say it" before the hand signal, then get the behaviour...and eventually you fade the hand signal and only use the verbal or vice versa. We have found the dog does better "one step at a time"..since dogs do not speak english and it can take longer to put meaning to a word than to a body movement. So if it's already understanding what the ACTION of down is, the word is easier to learn.
> 
> I just went to a herding clinic for my first time on Saturday. I tagged along with a friend. There was no forcing into downs there..but the down is taught well before the herding begins, using R+. Then, they use P+ in the form of a rake (sounds worse than it is, really..) to keep the pups off the sheep when needed. It was a fascinating thing to see though..the concepts of pressure, energy and intent, it was like metaphysics in action.


Cracker
Thank you, I have mentioned in earlier replies that I'm not a dog trainer anymore, I am now a blacksmith trying to forge or fix broken dogs etc. with very limited times schedules involved.(30 to 45 days)

On a down (which is a forced down) the handsignal and verbal command all done at the same time. Force+Signal+Verbal. In 30 days the dog downs with hand signal or voice command. It's not open for discussion.

When I was a dog trainer, Bird-dogs/Protection, more time allowed a finer tuned intricate training program. I could start whoa work with a bird dog pup at 8 weeks of age. A wing attached to a bamboo pole(flirtpole now) would start pups pointing etc. The average AKC-FC was finished between 4 and 6 yrs of age. This is all ancient history. Statistics may not be the same now. 

I do believe that's whether it's competiton or personal, herding dogs are also started as pups as a lot of groundwork and drive build up has to be started early. 

This is strictly a guesstimate though never having worked in that field.


----------



## Evan Graham

I'm enjoying all the discussion in behavioral terms, and certainly the well reasoned opinions on various topics along this line. I'm not sure how others who may not be so well versed in the terms are coping with it, however.

Many people can understand dog training in terms of cause and effect, but may not have had schooling in OP (operant conditioning) terms, for example. I'm just going to list terms as a reference table for those who care. But I'll also try to keep stating training principles in simpler/more common terms because I hope to engage as many in this discussion as have an interest.

*Reinforcement* and *punishment*, the core tools of operant conditioning, are either positive (delivered following a response), or negative (withdrawn following a response). This creates a total of four basic consequences, with the addition of a fifth procedure known as extinction (i.e. no change in consequences following a response)

It's important to note that *organisms* (dogs in this case) are not spoken of as being reinforced, punished, or extinguished; it is the *response* (resulting behavior) that is reinforced, punished, or extinguished.

Additionally, reinforcement, punishment, and extinction are not terms whose use is restricted to the laboratory. Naturally occurring consequences can also be said to reinforce, punish, or extinguish behavior and are not always delivered by people. Things in a dog's environment can cause or change their behavior.

·	*Reinforcement* is a consequence that causes a behavior to occur with greater frequency. 
·	*Punishment* is a consequence that causes a behavior to occur with less frequency. 
·	*Extinction* is the lack of any consequence following a behavior. When a behavior is inconsequential, producing neither favorable nor unfavorable consequences, it will occur with less frequency. When a previously reinforced behavior is no longer reinforced with either positive or negative reinforcement, it leads to a decline in the response. 

Four contexts of operant conditioning: Here the terms "positive" and "negative" are not used in their popular sense, but rather: "positive" refers to addition (something is introduced or added), and "negative" refers to subtraction (something is removed or taken away).

1.	*Positive reinforcement* (R+) occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by a favorable stimulus (commonly seen as pleasant) that increases the frequency of that behavior. 
2.	*Negative reinforcement* (R-) occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of an aversive stimulus (commonly seen as unpleasant) thereby increasing that behavior's frequency. 
3.	*Positive punishment* (P+) (also called "Punishment by contingent stimulation") occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by an aversive stimulus, such as introducing a shock or loud noise, resulting in a decrease in that behavior. 
4.	*Negative punishment* (P-) (also called "Punishment by contingent withdrawal") occurs when a behavior (response) is followed by the removal of a favorable stimulus, such as taking away a child's toy following an undesired behavior, resulting in a decrease in that behavior.

I think it's perfectly understandable that this use of language confuses people who aren't used to it. This is not the way most people are used to thinking about these terms, and it certainly isn't the way most people talk. That, however, does not mean that you're stupid or inept. I just means you haven't learned this yet. At some point, even our resident "experts" didn't know it yet either.

In addressing questions about training techniques I may refer to these terms, but also will endeavor to provide a simple explanation in layman's terms. Dog training is not terribly complicated. In fact, for the dog's sake, it's best kept pretty simple and clear. It is we humans who tend to over complicate things.

EvanG


----------



## Elana55

wvasko said:


> What is the advantage of Down 1st, Command 2nd when training, if it's just quicker, well quicker is not always better. If it's more effective, never having tried it, I got no argument.


According to this author, it was both faster AND more effective. 

This is done b4 exposing the dog to sheep and proofed every place in every situation you can think of so that when you say "Down!" the dog folds. 

By the time the dog sees sheep, he should have a good down. Training is initiated with a rope with knots on it tied to the dog that the dog drags and a rake or rattle to move the dog off. The rope to stop the dog so there is no damage to the livestock. 

Herding, we must remember, is NOT about the dog.. it is about the livestock. It is about moving the livestock in the most efficient manner possible with the least stress to the livestock as possible. Training the dog is necessary for that to happen but the primary goal and primary concern is for the livestock. Trial ppl who trial and do not own sheep or cattle as means of livelihood sometimes forget this.. and it ends up all about the dog. 

This is not to say they are mean to their dogs.. not so.. but these dogs working for a living are not pets. Usually. Some live indoors but many do not. I know farmers who have both.


----------



## cshellenberger

atterberrypm said:


> In eastern Washington State, we routinely used e-collars for training hunting and farm dogs to stay away from rattlesnakes. This training started when the pups were about 4-6 months old. We would go out and collect a few rattlesnakes (ah, fond memories indeed  ), place them in wire mesh containers, and place them out in our fields. We would then walk the pups near the containers. As soon as the pups heard the rattle or noticed the snakes, we gave them a strong jolt. It rarely took more than two or three sessions for the pups to learn a rattlesnake meant "run away!" I agree with those who despise e-collars and find their use cruel, but death by snake venon is even more cruel. In the years since I moved from that farm, I have talked to many "positive reinforcement only" trainers who have suggested alternatives, that, frankly speaking, would simply get dogs killed. I agree that their use in general training is lazy and ignorant, for those situations where a dog's immediate death is possible, an e-collar seems to be the rational choice.
> 
> With Respect,
> 
> Dr. P. M. Atterberry


This is the ONLY training using an E coller as a PRIMARY means I agree with. It's a training that saves the lives of dogs every year around here.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

I've edited Cracker's comments slightly, but only for the purpose of addressing specific points.



Cracker said:


> I will first say I am NOT an ecollar trainer and do not advocate their use because I believe reliable behaviour CAN be developed through strictly R+/P- methods.


There's no question about the truth of this, but "positive" trainers will run into difficulty as distances and distractions increase. To a green dog, formal tests and trials can induce sensory overload, but they are still a somewhat controlled environment and the distractions can largely be trained for.



Cracker said:


> In order for P+ to be truly effective it must:
> 
> 1. Be of *significant force *to be effective within *three* applications. Anything else is nagging and not effective because it becomes an "intermittent" punishment....
> 
> 2. Be applied within 1-2 seconds of the unwanted behaviour (this has naught to do with the question..but is important so I thought I'd say it).


I'm not sure how we are defining "effective within *three* applications", but yeah. If you are not seeing improved response PDQ: a) the dog doesn't understand what's required of him; b) the dog doesn't understand the meaning of the correction, or; c) the correction hasn't communicated your point emphatically enough.



Cracker said:


> If this is true, then a properly applied (at the right intensity) stim would stop the behaviour so no "weaning" would be necessary. If a cue was used along with the collar and the punishment was intense enough, the cue would become a predictor of the stim and the dog would work to avoid further stim.


The trick, of course, is to keep the dog from figuring out--and predicting--the function of the collar or other corrective device. It's all too easy to underestimate dogs. You have to stay ahead of the curve, 'cause being behind it is a bad place to be.

You make obedience to a command as rewarding as you can make it, and make disobedience _sufficiently_ unpleasant, and the process of training remains (on balance) a positive experience for all concerned.

There's also the part about selecting the right dog for the job. My Golden will endlessly retrieve objects "for free". He mainly needed to learn the when (and when-not), and the how. I doubt there is anything I could do to make him worth his feed as a guard dog.

Here he is as an 8-ish week old pup, knowing what to do with a bumper.


----------



## wvasko

Elana55 said:


> According to this author, it was both faster AND more effective.
> 
> This is done b4 exposing the dog to sheep and proofed every place in every situation you can think of so that when you say "Down!" the dog folds.
> 
> By the time the dog sees sheep, he should have a good down. Training is initiated with a rope with knots on it tied to the dog that the dog drags and a rake or rattle to move the dog off. The rope to stop the dog so there is no damage to the livestock.
> 
> Herding, we must remember, is NOT about the dog.. it is about the livestock. It is about moving the livestock in the most efficient manner possible with the least stress to the livestock as possible. Training the dog is necessary for that to happen but the primary goal and primary concern is for the livestock. Trial ppl who trial and do not own sheep or cattle as means of livelihood sometimes forget this.. and it ends up all about the dog.
> 
> This is not to say they are mean to their dogs.. not so.. but these dogs working for a living are not pets. Usually. Some live indoors but many do not. I know farmers who have both.


Question
Would that mean pups are not allowed near stock as pups to see if they have natural herding instincts? Young GSP pups can have pigeons planted properly so that pups can be viewed for potential as birds are found and flushed.


----------



## Evan Graham

cshellenberger said:


> This is the ONLY training using an E coller as a PRIMARY means I agree with. It's a training that saves the lives of dogs every year around here.


Do you know any others? Have you studied any other recognized methods or techniques in order to have made this declaration?

I mention this more in response to wvasko having posted this:

Evan 
*There is nobody arguing against e-collar use*, most everything I'm reading is just arguing the advising of people to use collar on a forum.

Other examples are;

If I was worried about a training method having a negative affect on my dog, I simply would NOT use it. 
FourIsCompany

Although I don't need to see or use a nuclear bomb to know I'm generally not in favor of them.
winniec777

Not for use on pet dogs by owner/trainers. There are better ways to train a dog. You just have to be willing to do the work and learn/figure out how, even if you are under a time constraint.
Elana55

I would never use one
Toby4Life

I would never use one, nor would I enlist a professional to use one in training my dogs.
Poodleholic

And, of course: *I agree with those who despise e-collars and find their use cruel*, but death by snake venom is even more cruel…
This is the ONLY training using an E collar as a PRIMARY means I agree with.
Cshellenberger


I surely do not argue with all the logic. I only point out that numerous posts "arguing against e-collar use" have been made, few of whom have provided supporting data or experience.

Once more with feeling, e-collars are not cruel; some _people_ behave cruelly. Sometimes they do it with e-collars. But they would be cruel whether or not they had e-collars to do it with. Do as you will with the people, if you can. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

EvanG










I just wanted to say "Nice picture"! 

EvanG


----------



## Evan Graham

I enjoyed that puppy pic so much I thought I'd share a couple of my own. This is my Golden male. He's being trained in the same way I train field trial retrievers, but I have not decided whether or not he'll run them. We may just run a hunt test or two for fun. It's not about the ribbons for me anymore. 










This is Moose at 8 weeks, taken on the day we picked him up from the airport in Houston. We drove down from KC to pick him up, as he was flown from Vancouver BC.










Now, at 19 months, he looks a bit different! Obviously he's field bred; for Go not Show. He's 76 pounds, and a real clown.










Here he is learning one of life's little lessons; kitties have stickers in their feet!!! Anyway, just thought I'd share. He's a wonderful house dog.

EvanG

For anyone who has not seen well trained retreivers performing fieldwork, I have training clips that can be posted. This short one is from a *field trial* last year. There are four stakes (classes). This is an intermediate class called "Qualifying". It is only a glimpse, but perhaps there may be questions about it that relate to our topic?

HERE'S the clip.

EvanG


----------



## RBark

> What is the advantage of Down 1st, Command 2nd when training, if it's just quicker, well quicker is not always better. If it's more effective, never having tried it, I got no argument.


The advantage is in association. When you shape a behavior using clicker training, you go about it as such that (entire process abbreviated, it's a longer, but just shortening it for simplicity's sake) once a dog sits down, you click and reward that. Once the dog knows that sitting down earns a reward, you stop rewarding it and wait. The dog will eventually try something new to get it, maybe it will try laying down. 

Once it lays down, you reward it. Once it lays down every time reliably, you start adding the cue. So it associates the already complete act of laying down with the cue.

If the cue is said during the training process, then when the dog fails or does it incorrectly, it doesn't know what the word is associated with. Eventually it realizes that laying down = down command.

Many clicker trainers believe that shaping the behavior first makes it far faster, and more effectieve, with longer term results. E-collar -R training is somewhat similar, in the opposite direction. 

Doesn't mean that the other methods are wrong, but certain people believe this method is a lot better. I employ the clicker shaping method too, but I'm not going to argue someone who uses lure training (luring a dog into a down).


----------



## wvasko

I also have no argument, what works for you and you're comfortable with is the way to go. Who can argue with success.


----------



## KBLover

wvasko said:


> Cracker
> Thank you, I have mentioned in earlier replies that I'm not a dog trainer anymore, I am now a blacksmith trying to forge or fix broken dogs etc. with very limited times schedules involved.(30 to 45 days)


Wvasko Dogsmith?

Is that your name? 

*sigh* and again I miss all the interesting operant conditioning discussion


----------



## wvasko

KBLover said:


> Wvasko Dogsmith?
> 
> Is that your name?
> 
> *sigh* and again I miss all the interesting operant conditioning discussion


You should hear what my wife calls me when she's mad.


----------



## Evan Graham

Again, for anyone who has not seen well trained retreivers performing fieldwork, I have training clips that can be posted. This short one is from a *field trial* last year. There are four stakes (classes). This is an intermediate class called "Qualifying". It is only a glimpse, but perhaps there may be questions about it that relate to our topic?

By the way, it gets bigger, better and harder!

HERE'S the clip.

EvanG


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Evan, why don't you just go ahead and give a brief synopsis of the action, and some of the training issues involved. I'm not a competitor, but I have a passing acquaintance with the terminology. To someone without, that might have looked like "Go gittit, boy!".

Very nice hustle, overall, and a good job on the blind. BTW, for those who were watching closely, that lip licking at the end was not a "calming signal". That was the dog trying to spit the feathers out. I'm teasing you.


----------



## Evan Graham

Giving a brief explanation of this clip would be very hard to do without a more in-depth explanation of retriever fieldwork overall. So, I’ll start with an overview of their work, and a few of the terms common to it.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of retrieves; marks and blinds. A “mark” is a fall the dog saw. If you were hunting, and shot a bird in view of the dog, he could see it fall and his natural abilities would tell him where it is, how far and in what area to hunt, etc. A memory mark is still a mark, but one that went down and was followed by another, and perhaps yet others. The last bird down (most recently fallen) is a reflex mark, as opposed to the memory marks, which the dog must retrieve from memory after having retrieved the last bird down.

Another type of retrieve is a “Blind” retrieve. This would be a fall that the dog didn’t see go down for some reason. For this type of retrieve the handler will give the dog what is called a “line”, as seen on the last retrieve of the clip. If the dog gets off line en route, the handler will blow a single whistle blast to stop the dog. The dog is to stop, turn, sit and look at the handler for direction. The handler will provide a hand signal toward the fallen bird. Other handling will be done if needed. The dog in the clip required two “handles” on this 275-yard “land blind” retrieve. The first two retrieves made on this clip were marks; one of which was a memory mark (the one retrieved second).

We haven’t even spoken of water yet! Did that help, or make it more confusing?

EvanG


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Evan Graham said:


> Did that help, or make it more confusing?
> 
> EvanG


More clarity, and in fewer words, than I could have provided.


----------



## Elana55

I watched a fellow with a lab work a blind retrieve at the Town Park where I train Atka. I did not know what I was seeing other than it was really good to watch and unforgettable.

He launched a dummy and then sent the dog. Dog did EXACTLY as described by Evan. It was really interesting to see and now it is explained. 

I never saw the guy or the dog again.. but I will never forget it either. That dog turned and sat like a champ on the whistle and then went as directed, right or left. His reward was finding the dummy (no it was NOT me!!! I was pretty close tho!) and bringing it back. That lab was wiggling all OVER when he found the dummy and his race back to the handler would have made a greyhound drool. 

The dog acted like he had just won the lotto. Gotta love them labs!


----------



## KBLover

Marsh Muppet said:


> Evan, why don't you just go ahead and give a brief synopsis of the action, and some of the training issues involved. I'm not a competitor, but I have a passing acquaintance with the terminology. To someone without, that might have looked like "Go gittit, boy!".


LOL 

I think it looked like more than that. The whole setup implied they weren't out there for just for some random fetching.




Marsh Muppet said:


> Very nice hustle, overall, and a good job on the blind. BTW, for those who were watching closely, that lip licking at the end was not a "calming signal". That was the dog trying to spit the feathers out. I'm teasing you.


Yeah, I think it's pretty clear they ain't stressed but excited so no calming signals.



Evan Graham said:


> HERE'S the clip.


That was awesome.

I wish Wally could do that. That's where you need a dog with the natrual instincts I guess?


----------



## Marsh Muppet

KBLover said:


> I think it looked like more than that. The whole setup implied they weren't out there for just for some random fetching.


True dat, but a good dog/handler team can make the whole thing look deceptively easy.


----------



## Elana55

wvasko said:


> You should hear what my wife calls me when she's mad.


HA! And there are those who think a Shock collar is rough.....


----------



## Evan Graham

KBLover said:


> LOL
> 
> That was awesome.
> 
> I wish Wally could do that. That's where you need a dog with the *natrual instincts* I guess?


Working retrievers are an optimal blend of natural ability and trained skills. To be successful, they need plenty of both, and they need to be developed to their highest levels. They also need constant maintenance!

HERE'S another quicky.

EvanG


----------



## sparkle

wvasko said:


> Question
> Would that mean pups are not allowed near stock as pups to see if they have natural herding instincts? Young GSP pups can have pigeons planted properly so that pups can be viewed for potential as birds are found and flushed.


Different people have different opinions on when and how to expose pups (herding breeds) to livestock and one has to take into account the FACT that even the finest working bred herding dog may not turn on (show herding instinct) until later in life and sometimes only after repeated exposures to livestock. A pups mind and body many say is not ready to properly deal with exposure to livestock and if allowed, should only be done for a brief session . Some people do not expose the dog to livestock untill around 8 months or later so that the dog learns fewer bad habits. Some people have no problem with letting 9 week old and older pupipes chase livestock around. 

Regardless many so called experts do not think it wise to let a herding breed interact with livestock without focused supervision and should not be allowed to do what is termed as "herd in it's mind" which means being allowed to watch/interact/react with the livestock from the other side of a fence .


----------



## wvasko

sparkle said:


> Different people have different opinions on when and how to expose pups (herding breeds) to livestock and one has to take into account the FACT that even the finest working bred herding dog may not turn on (show herding instinct) until later in life and sometimes only after repeated exposures to livestock. A pups mind and body many say is not ready to properly deal with exposure to livestock and if allowed, should only be done for a brief session . Some people do not expose the dog to livestock untill around 8 months or later so that the dog learns fewer bad habits. Some people have no problem with letting 9 week old and older pupipes chase livestock around.
> 
> Regardless many so called experts do not think it wise to let a herding breed interact with livestock without focused supervision and should not be allowed to do what is termed as "herd in it's mind" which means being allowed to watch/interact/react with the livestock from the other side of a fence .


That makes a lotta sense as sometimes there are bird dog pups that are late bloomers and sometimes no bloomers. This can be out of good stock also. Teaching the down/drop in herding dogs is as important as teaching whoa to bird dogs. I always started whoa work with pups. Much less pressure when done away from birds.


----------



## Elana55

Tending is often started along a fence FWIW because the job, tending, is using the dog as a fence. By starting a dog on the worng side of the fence, he learns to draw a line. These are very young dogs BTW and it is not done a lot. It is done to see if the dog has any herding tendencies. 

The GSD was bred to tend, hence that long trotting stride which they can swing into and stay in all day long. 

Driving, which a GSD must learn to do as part of tending (got to get livestock from barn to field) is a different sheep herding job. Border collies are much more suited for this work.


----------



## sparkle

Elana55 said:


> Tending is often started along a fence FWIW because the job, tending, is using the dog as a fence.
> The GSD was bred to tend, hence that long trotting stride which they can swing into and stay in all day long.
> 
> Driving, which a GSD must learn to do as part of tending (got to get livestock from barn to field) is a different sheep herding job. Border collies are much more suited for this work.


Good point Elana55 ..entirely 2 different disciplines in herding style I would agree and although GSd's where bred/used primarily for TENDING/Boundary type work one can find many GSD's being trailed/trained in AKC and some USBCHA non tending events. 

I have been to many Tending trials and have rarely observed Border Collies entered. All my GSD's have been trained for the heavy fetching/driving and livestock breaking work ....as tending training is much more resource demanding and most of my dogs are used on ranch/farm operations that do not require the special skills of tending.

It is a marvel to watch a GSD perform tending/boundary work.

oops I guess I strayed off of topic so I would ask if remote shock collars are used for this type of work by the majority of trainers or only a few here and there?

or at all?


----------



## Elana55

I have only heard (herd? ) that shock collars have been used for some serious corrective work (gripping) and even then all else is exhausted first. The reason is that you can put the dog off sheep or livestock. The other thing you need in a livestock dog is for the dog to think independently of the handler sometimes. 

I have seen dogs put pressure on sheep when the handler told them to back off and if the dog did not think and put the pressure on the trial would have been lost. Sometimes the human IS wrong 

Obedience can be had with shock collars and we have seen that here, but aversive training can shut down the dog doing original thinking. Most work with dogs requires obedience and not so much original thiking. Herding is different. The dog must learn to read the livestock and think in concert with the job to be done and the handler. 

The only time I have seen a shock collar used on a herding dog (Border Collie) was a bark deterrent collar when the dog was kenneled and not any where near sheep.


----------



## Evan Graham

Something alluded to earlier that I wanted to expand upon is that I hand-test all my e-collars (aka "shock collars"). I did it back when they weren't as flexible as they are now. The new units from the better makers now have wide flexibility; from indiscernably low to very high.

The range on my Tri Tronics Pro 500 is 0 - 6; zero being no stimulus, and 6 being its highest setting. With each setting on that scale, there is a "low - medium - high" available at the touch of buttons on the transmitter. That's actully 18 levels; quite a range.

Most of our dogs work on a 2; usually low or mediem. I've often demonstrated this on my bare hand at seminars on "continuous" mode. 

EvanG


----------



## KBLover

Just curious - are there dogs that would only respond to/have problems that require the highest settings e-collars have to offer? 

I'm guessing for true aggression and other such cases only?


----------



## wvasko

Of course there is as it can also be used on bad neighbors and unwelcome relatives.


----------



## Evan Graham

wvasko said:


> Of course there is as it can also be used on bad neighbors and unwelcome relatives.


OH, soooooooo tempting! 

Actually, I haven't seen many cases of aggression that I thought an e-collar was a good treatment for, especially at high intensity. Very few dogs I've come in contact with have required stimulus at that level. In each case it was simply a dog with Alpha trait to the extreme. Not prone to be trainable or what has often been called "biddable". 

The Alpha thinks they are, or should be in charge. They are far less affected by praise because they don't much care about your opinion of things, anyway. They only believe there is one leader, and that's _them_. So, when we try to get them to do some manmade tasks, they of course resist, and the battle may very well begin early!

EvanG


----------



## jiml

I'm guessing for true aggression and other such cases only?>>>>

People I know that use the collar for aggression generaly use it on mild settings at distance in many ways similar to methods used in clicker methods but adding a mild stim followed by taking the dog in the opposit direction at the first sign of attention on the other dog, followed by praise (treat) for attention on you. There is a person on Youtube that demonstrates using very high levels. What happens is the dog becomes afraid of other dogs, most Even on E-collar lists feel this is abuse and may cause a fearfull timebomb.


----------



## Cracker

I agree, for dog aggression an ecollar blast would most likely be counterproductive and most ecollar trainers that I know would concur. The only time I would think a high level stim would be necessary would be in avoidance training..like snake issues.

Of course, there is a difference between a so called "hard dog" and an aggressive dog. If someone is going to use the word "dominant" or "alpha" it is important to recognize that they are not one and the same. There is also that old problem that the alpha wolf has only been shown to be the breeder of the pack..but old habits and memes die hard.

I really enjoyed the herding add in to this thread...I do think that aversives (beyond protecting the sheep in the beginning training) would be a problem as they do tend to reduce the independence of the dog to make certain decisions. This is one of the pitfalls of punishment. I was amazed at the session I went to....the experienced dogs/handlers let each other make certain decisions based on the particular moment. It's a fine line between the dog making the right decision and not and the handler is just as responsible in figuring out when to LET the dog do it and not.


----------



## wvasko

jiml said:


> I'm guessing for true aggression and other such cases only?>>>>
> 
> People I know that use the collar for aggression generaly use it on mild settings at distance in many ways similar to methods used in clicker methods but adding a mild stim followed by taking the dog in the opposit direction at the first sign of attention on the other dog, followed by praise (treat) for attention on you. There is a person on Youtube that demonstrates using very high levels. What happens is the dog becomes afraid of other dogs, most Even on E-collar lists feel this is abuse and may cause a fearfull timebomb.


I'm not sure about fear of other dogs or a possible timebomb. But being not sure is a tad scary with a time bomb.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Cracker said:


> I do think that aversives...would be a problem as they do tend to reduce the independence of the dog to make certain decisions. This is one of the pitfalls of punishment.


I'm going to somewhat disagree. Yes, in some respects, that's precisely the point of using aversives. I want the responses to _specific commands_ to be as close to reflexive as possible, but I haven't seen any _general_ unwillingness to think through a problem by dogs that have been trained "Old School". That may be true of dogs trained with too heavy a hand, but I don't otherwise see it.


----------



## KBLover

wvasko said:


> Of course there is as it can also be used on bad neighbors and unwelcome relatives.


LOL 

How do you get them to put it on, though? 



Marsh Muppet said:


> I'm going to somewhat disagree. Yes, in some respects, that's precisely the point of using aversives. I want the responses to _specific commands_ to be as close to reflexive as possible, but I haven't seen any _general_ unwillingness to think through a problem by dogs that have been trained "Old School". That may be true of dogs trained with too heavy a hand, but I don't otherwise see it.



Yeah, I think it also depends on the dog's personality. 

For Wally, it absolutely would. He'd be back to being scared to move or act without a direct command. It was hard to even get him to think/try things independently. The "heavy hand threshold" is really easy to reach with him. That's why even if I was an avid e-collar user, I probably would not use it on him. Not only because I would likely go too far with the setting, the shock "out of nowhere" would drive him up a wall.

For a dog with a stronger personality/less handler oriented, they'd probably be able to separate the situations easier, unless, like you said, it was way over the top in whatever method was used..


----------



## Cracker

Marsh Muppet said:


> I'm going to somewhat disagree. Yes, in some respects, that's precisely the point of using aversives. I want the responses to _specific commands_ to be as close to reflexive as possible, but I haven't seen any _general_ unwillingness to think through a problem by dogs that have been trained "Old School". That may be true of dogs trained with too heavy a hand, but I don't otherwise see it.


I'm sorry, no one is allowed to disagree with me!  The nerve!

The dogs I was referring to (herders) were not encouraged as youngsters to make their own decisions, hence the rake (and eventually the shepherd's crook) but they WERE allowed to make "mistakes" occasionally, which were "corrected" with a command to do something else. So they learned that certain predator behaviours (the last parts of the prey sequence) were not allowed but that they were also able to control the direction of the sheep using the earlier parts of the sequence. I didn't mean to imply that all corrections or punishment turns into an unwillingness to perform certain independent behaviours but that, it CAN. If you want a good herder and to be part of the triad, punishment of all uncued behaviours does increase the risk. 

In R+ training, one of the main reasons we don't use punishment (P+) is that it often reduces the dog's willingness to offer NEW behaviours, and if you are shaping complex sequences it is important the dog be comfortable offering these new bits so we can shape it. If it's something we don't want in the sequence they are not clicked or are given an non reward marker..which simply means uhuh, try again, try something different. If the dog thought that this "something different" may result in a correction they are less likely to offer it...as the whole idea of punishment is to reduce the frequency of a behaviour.

Dogs trained from the beginning using R+ show little or no hesistancy in trying something new, crossover dogs (like Cracker) take a LOT longer to be willing. Shaping things with her was painful in the beginning...she's getting better though. 

So it's really all about risk assessment when using aversives. I just think that if you CAN teach something without it, that's the way I would rather do it. Regardless of the temperament of the dog.


----------



## canteloupe

Cracker said:


> In R+ training, one of the main reasons we don't use punishment (P+) is that it often reduces the dog's willingness to offer NEW behaviours, and if you are shaping complex sequences it is important the dog be comfortable offering these new bits so we can shape it. If it's something we don't want in the sequence they are not clicked or are given an non reward marker..which simply means uhuh, try again, try something different. If the dog thought that this "something different" may result in a correction they are less likely to offer it...as the whole idea of punishment is to reduce the frequency of a behaviour.
> 
> Dogs trained from the beginning using R+ show little or no hesistancy in trying something new, crossover dogs (like Cracker) take a LOT longer to be willing. Shaping things with her was painful in the beginning...she's getting better though.


That makes a ton of sense to me. Shaping complex sequences when the animal is unwilling to try new behaviors would be incredibly difficult.

Do you think that aversives would be completely unsuited for entire types of training? Like I imagine that training seeing-eye dogs involves a lot of shaping, so would aversives be much less recommended there? Versus with gundogs? (Which I admit I don't know anything about.)


----------



## Evan Graham

canteloupe said:


> That makes a ton of sense to me. Shaping complex sequences when the animal is unwilling to try new behaviors would be incredibly difficult.


Some things make more sense in theory, or in conversation than in practical context. The above is not at all a logical result of the fair use of aversives. I'll be happy to post up a series of videos of dogs trained with the use of aversives routinely, in which you will see animals that are clearly happy in their work, and every willing to change or acquire behaviors eagerly.


canteloupe said:


> Do you think that aversives would be completely unsuited for entire types of training? Like I imagine that training seeing-eye dogs involves a lot of shaping, so would aversives be much less recommended there? Versus with gundogs? (Which I admit I don't know anything about.)


I'm confident that there are several types of training that aversives may be at least a second rate tool vs. R+. But the higher the technical demands, and the greater the importance of compliance under distraciton, the more apt aversives are to be needed. It isn't automatic, of course, and must take into consideration the individual dog, their breed, temperament, etc.

EvanG


----------



## wvasko

Steadying a GSP pointing dog to wing/shot and kill can sometimes be a brutal program. Dog points bird, handler flushes bird, gunner kills bird and then handler after bird drops sends dog for retrieve. Heavy, heavy prey drive. I will not get into old school aversive methods used as the 1st sentence in reply says it all. I had a dog that I broke with little more than voice. That should explain the differences in dogs. If any harsh or even lighter aversives were used this FC would have been ruined completely. The 1st sentence covers other dogs I broke.


----------



## KBLover

Evan Graham said:


> Some things make more sense in theory, or in conversation than in practical context. The above is not at all a logical result of the fair use of aversives.


Wally would like a word with you.

Using an aversive on him will cut off his offering behaviors.

He won't get scared, necessarily (though it's possible), but he won't do anything else until directed.

So if I'm shaping him, giving him an aversive is counter-productive, even if it's "fair" (i.e. he didn't offer what I wanted him to or is doing something he shouldn't).


----------



## Evan Graham

KBLover said:


> So if I'm shaping him, giving him an aversive is counter-productive, even if it's *"fair"* (i.e. he didn't offer what I wanted him to or is doing something he shouldn't).


If it cannot be used productively on a specific dog, that reflects certain traits about the animal demand a different approach. Using an aversive on such a dog would not be "fair". I believe this is rare, but surely exists. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for dogs.

EvanG


----------



## Elana55

Evan Graham said:


> There is no one-size-fits-all solution for dogs.
> 
> EvanG


That Fact should be emblazoned in the brain of EVERY dog trainer and EVERY dog owner.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

i have another one..that as previously mentioned cant be corrected. 

she just stops everything, good or bad.


it might not be as rare as you think.



and then there is this.

the dog i raised up on r+. the one who had never been corrected for anything....lunged for another dog one day. all it took was a quick "aht". she stopped, looked like she had been slapped with a golf club and never did it again.


thats one of the major reasons i will never touch a e collar.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

It can't be said too often: if you don't like electric collars, don't use them. The use of aversive correction is not right for every dog, nor every trainer.


----------



## filkertus

I have a labrador retriever who is almost 7 now. He is a very large, strong, and strong willed dog. I am not a professional dog trainer but have owned dogs all my life and been successful training all of them without a shock collar. However, with my latest dog I had a lot of trouble. I bought a shock collar as a last resort. It worked very well for me and I only had to use it very few times. He is a very well disciplined dog on and off lease and I think, for whatever reason, the shock collar was the only thing that was going to work for him.


----------



## meandean

just wanted to add in here:

when we first got riley we could do nothing to keep him away from the chicken. (yes we have/had a chicken as a pet) no matter what we did we couldn't keep him away from the chicken. riley is a retriever/lab/sheppard mix, all with really high prey drives of course. we bought a shock collar as a last resort to keep him away from the chicken. well we used it for about 2 weeks and it did wonders. we had no problems with him and the chicken. that brings me to this last weekend, 2 months after the use of the collar, and no more chicken. i guess this can best be attributed to not using the collar continuously? but we had to return within 2 weeks to get our money back. lol.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

meandean said:


> 2 months after the use of the collar, and no more chicken. i guess this can best be attributed to not using the collar continuously? but we had to return within 2 weeks to get our money back. lol.


I wouldn't give strong odds on the likelihood of any strong drive being permanently extinguished after only 2 weeks of work. You could have saved the dog and yourself the trouble, and just let him have at the chicken from the beginning.


----------



## Elana55

meandean said:


> just wanted to add in here:
> 
> when we first got riley we could do nothing to keep him away from the chicken. (yes we have/had a chicken as a pet) no matter what we did we couldn't keep him away from the chicken. riley is a retriever/lab/sheppard mix, all with really high prey drives of course. we bought a shock collar as a last resort to keep him away from the chicken. well we used it for about 2 weeks and it did wonders. we had no problems with him and the chicken.


If using and aversive, the dog will typically associate the aversive with the object, not with the behavior. 



meandean said:


> that brings me to this last weekend, 2 months after the use of the collar, and no more chicken. i guess this can best be attributed to not using the collar continuously? but we had to return within 2 weeks to get our money back. lol


It can best be contributed to lack of supervision when the dog and chicken were together. Otherwise, the dog and chicken needed to be separated in such a way that the dog newver had access to the chicken when you were not there. 

I have said this with dogs chasing cats. IF you need to go to a shock collar to save the cats, you still CANNOT leave the dog and cats together unsupervised. Ever. Crate or confine the dog or put the cats in an absolutely positively dog proof area if you cannot be there with them. 

Longer exposure to the shock collar would have helped. Never allowing dog and chicken in the same space w/o supervision would have worked even better.


----------



## Evan Graham

Elana55 said:


> If using and aversive, the dog will typically associate the aversive with the object, not with the behavior.


That will depend on whether or not you have previously done any conditioning to the e-collar. It will also depend on _how_ you have done that, as to the predictable reaction. It's only fair to pre-condition.

I don't use e-collars for so-called 'cold burns' (a commonly used term meaning that there is no previously taught skill or command being supported, but rather the stimulus is a punisher out of the blue), but rather to support previously taught commands. So, the stimulus is directly associated with the command. If, however, you are using cold burns to stop an unwanted behavior, the stimulus is likely to be associated with the collar at least as much as with the situation. I like giving my dogs information about their job. I also prefer owner/trainers to take resonsibility for the human's job on the team and perform due diligence.


Elana55 said:


> It can best be contributed to lack of supervision when the dog and chicken were together. Otherwise, the dog and chicken needed to be separated in such a way that the dog newver had access to the chicken when you were not there.


Absolutely. Dogs, no matter how well trained, don't become human beings. They will still need supervision to keep out of trouble. If you see something they're doing that needs to be corrected, a well trained dog will respond to command. That helps everyone. But you do need to take precautions to keep them from being in a position to make independent decisions that a person would make.


Elana55 said:


> Longer exposure to the shock collar would have helped. Never allowing dog and chicken in the same space w/o supervision would have worked even better.


In other words, being luck and being smart are not the same things!

EvanG


----------



## Elana55

Evan Graham said:


> That will depend on whether or not you have previously done any conditioning to the e-collar. It will also depend on _how_ you have done that, as to the predictable reaction. It's only fair to pre-condition.
> 
> I don't use e-collars for so-called 'cold burns' (a commonly used term meaning that there is no previously taught skill or command being supported, but rather the stimulus is a punisher out of the blue), but rather to support previously taught commands.
> 
> EvanG


 (edited quote)

I think 2 weeks with an E collar is likely a cold burn.


----------



## Evan Graham

Seemed a little vague in that area. "Used" for 2 weeks may or may not have implied any conditioning prior to its use. It is the presence or absence of pre-conditioning that would really make the difference, don't you think?

EvanG


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Evan Graham said:


> Seemed a little vague in that area. "Used" for 2 weeks may or may not have implied any conditioning prior to its use.
> 
> EvanG





> but we had to return within 2 weeks to get our money back. lol.


A reasonable inference would be that the collar was purchased with the intent to use it during the 2 week window in which it could be returned without financial penalty. Without more information, I think it is a fair assumption that no dummy collar was used, and little or no preconditioning was done.


----------



## wvasko

I just feel sorry for the chicken


----------



## meandean

wvasko said:


> I just feel sorry for the chicken


lol. well the chicken was 9 years old so i'm no expert on chicken life expectancy but that seems pretty darn good.

the only drag was that it was my gf parent's chicken. my gf and i werent too upset, all a chicken does is make noise and poop all over the deck anyways. 

our dog had a great amount of aversion from the chicken after we used the collar. the dumb chicken would go up to our dog and try to get at his food during feeding times. so things were a bit chaotic. 

long story short, chicken dead and it wasn't a good pet anyways. dog doesn't chase the outside cat or the 2 indoor cats....but rabbits beware, he's all ready gotten 3 in the backyard.


----------



## jaysin

First let me say that any method of dog training, in an unexperienced hand, can b just a bad for a dog as the next method. Shock collars get a bad rap because they are often used by inexperienced dog owners who lack both patience and temperment to do things the right way and look to shock collars as a ''quick fix'' to a problem. I am an experienced dog owner an trainer. That being said...there is a time and place for any training method in the right hands. Unqualified trainers and owners trying things as ''cure alls'' is one of many problems with the dog world now. Shock collars serve their purpose in life if used correctly...just like other methods...if used correctly...serve theirs. On topic...I have never used a shock collar on a dog younger than a year old. A year in human years is 7 in dog years. U wouldn't wanna shock a 7 year old human in order to make them learn sumthing and u shouldnt do so to a dog either. 1 year old is the soonest a shock collar should b considered. Before then...dogs are too welcome to everything u attempt to show them. Unlike everyone else...I do believe that shock collars do have a use and have personally used them with great success. But again...any method in untrained hands can be just a bad for any dog as the next...shock collars included. Nothing is going to teach a dog other than repetative love and attention.


----------



## jiml

Id like to get peoples feedback (those not adamantly against e-collars) on this letter regarding a trainers CCPD certification regarding not using E-collars on dogs under 1 yr.

"To the CCPDT Board,

I am writing regarding the CCPDT Policy on Training Practices, both as it affects my ability to maintain my CPDT-KA status, and out of concern for how certain claims made in the statement of that policy reflect on the CCPDT and its certification programs.

The policy refers to “certain practices which can in no way be considered humane or sound by scientific standards”, the implication being that some science exists which shows the enumerated practices to be irrefutably inhumane and unsound.

The problem is that no science exists that in any way addresses, much less refutes, the use of very low-level electronic stimulation as either a cue or a distinctly mild aversive as an element in a training program.

I understand the policy does not outlaw the use of electronic stimulation as a sort of last resort for certain adult dogs. But it does outlaw what to my mind is the more humane application of the tool, as a very mild aversive in the context of a mainly positive training program, at least in any dog under one year of age.

[....] while I have no formal training in the field of animal behavior, I like to think I have a more than passable ability to think critically, a skill I do my best to bring to bear both in my training practice (evaluating as objectively as possible the prudence and outcome of my choices at every step), as well as in my approach to any article, book, or scientific study I encounter.

I also take pride in being a humane and effective trainer, who attempts to take all available knowledge into consideration when making choices among the many different tools and methods at her disposal. I recognize the need for standards of ethics and practice in dog training, and hope to make some contribution to the effort to establish and maintain such standards.

[....]

So what does science have to say about electronic stimulation and training? Very little as it turns out, and what it does have to say is hardly definitive. Even the authors of Electronic Training Devices: A Review of Current Literature, in contemplating the body of relevant scientific research, admit that “most studies involving dogs have discernible methodological weaknesses”.

I’ve read each study surveyed in the above review fairly closely, by the way, and the authors of A Review of Current Literature could not be more correct in their appraisal. But the key thing to understand, is that there have been exactly zero studies using very low-level stimulation, such as one may achieve with a number of high quality units these days, and such as the vast majority of dogs tend to find only very mildly aversive. In other words, the research that has so far been done is incredibly limited in its scope, so much so that drawing broad conclusions, such as that voiced in the Policy on Training Practices, is illogical.

Extending scientific conclusions regarding stress and/or training effectiveness of high level shock, to the use of such low levels that a dog might only barely perceive them, is frankly unscientific. And treating all forms and intensities of electronic stimulation as by definition strongly aversive (as is implied by the policy to avoid using electronic collars “without first attempting alternative strategies [etc]”) is likewise unjustifiable.

[....]

So by what “scientific standards” does the CCPDT claim that low-level electronic collar stimulation need be either a last resort or reserved only for dogs over one year of age? If by none, then I suggest the CCPDT refrain from invoking such phrases, and consider substituting more accurate language, such as “practices that are politically awkward to defend, despite their being potentially more humane and less stressful than other allowable practices.”

I have enclosed the required materials for recertification, minus a signed copy of the Code of Ethics, as it would bind me to endorsing the above discussed policy.

I have enjoyed holding my certification up to now, and have honored its requirements, with the exception of never using electronic stimulation on any dog under one year old. I have broken that exactly twice, once with an eleven-month-old bullmastiff [...] and once with a six-month-old pit bull [....] Both dogs remain happy and confident, and take low-level electronic stimulation in stride as a very mild aversive, used to remind them of what has mainly been taught through positive training.

[....]

According to the CCPDT statement on training practices, science has irrefutably determined that my work with the above mentioned dogs was both unsound and inhumane, because it involved the application of electronic stimulation on a dog under one year of age. If that is the case, I would appreciate your pointing me to that science.

I do not expect to be re-certified, though I would obviously prefer that to resigning the certification that I have taken some trouble to earn and maintain over the past three years. Either way, I hope you will respect my honesty and my concerns. [....]"


----------



## wvasko

What is the CCPDT. Why is having their certification important. While I actually agree with pups not being fried and also would not use an e-collar before other programs had been tried. Why would you care.

Years ago when ABKA started (hope I got initials right) they would send literature out for membership enrollment. If you joined for (don't remember exactly) 100.00 or so they would put you on their lists as an excellent establishment for dog care. There were no inspections involved just send money etc. As far as they knew you could have been running a pig sty for dogs. I never joined and do not know if they inspect anything now when new members join. I am so burned out on associations that want joiners for no apparent reason than to collect money from them. More opinions please.


----------



## Cracker

CCPDT is the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers, KA means Knowledge Assessed (thorough written test of theory, methods etc).
www.ccpdt.org


----------



## CricketLoops

jaysin said:


> I have never used a shock collar on a dog younger than a year old. A year in human years is 7 in dog years. U wouldn't wanna shock a 7 year old human in order to make them learn sumthing and u shouldnt do so to a dog either. 1 year old is the soonest a shock collar should b considered.


What? Honestly, this argument sounds a little ridiculous to me. A 1 year old dog is not the equivalent of a 7-year-old child. This is pretty severe anthropomorphizing, especially when you use this conclusion to then make an argument that you wouldn't shock a "7-year-old human" so you wouldn't shock a 1-year-old dog. I wouldn't shock an 8 year old human, either... or 9, or 10. Would you? Are you saying it's okay to use electric shock to teach third graders? I'm really confused by your analogy. I think there are a lot of god reasons people have for not using electric shock collars on dogs under 1 year old, but I don't think this is one of them. 



jiml said:


> Letter to CCPDT


There are a LOT of bracketed ellipses here. What information has been taken out? Ideally I would like to be able to judge the letter based on the entirety of its content or at least know why what appears to be a significant portion of this letter's content has been removed. 

Something about the "attitude" of the writer is bothering me (although I know it is probably a silly idea to try to determine "tone" from writing). He or she seems to be adding more flourishes than are absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, by using/admitting to using shock collars on dogs under 1, he/she has removed themselves from the network of CCPDT trainers and labelled him/herself as a "rule breaker." I feel like this person could have done a lot more to create change in the organization by staying a member and working from within to both understand the views of the board/many other CCPDT members and to more successfully convey his/her own views. 

I wish, instead of taking a "I can't find ANY scientific literature that talks about low level stim (I wonder what journals this person is subscribed to?), therefore there is no reason to have this policy, therefore I am going to break the policy and then complain about the policy when I am applying for recertification and do something like withholding the code of ethics as a DRAMATIC statement so the CCPDT will understand how SERIOUS I am! Nevermind that if we had had an ongoing dialogue about this issue, they may have been willing to change the code and/or come to some other arrangement with me. Definitely under no circumstances will I at any time during the past THREE years that I've been certiffied, call/email/write the CCPDT board members to inquire about the reasoning of this policy. I am not going to do something like that after the first time I break the policy. Definitely not the second time, either. No, I'm going to do it during recertification."

It just seems like a mildly childish way to address the issue.


----------



## wvasko

Cracker said:


> CCPDT is the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers, KA means Knowledge Assessed (thorough written test of theory, methods etc).
> www.ccpdt.org


 Thank you Cracker, I looked around on web site a bit I'm not sure but could you get online and get this certification without actually touching a live dog.


----------



## Cracker

Eligibility requirements:
At least 300 hours experience in the last five years. 225 must be actual teaching as a head trainer (privates, classes). 75 hours can be alternate experience at a shelter, assisting in classes, working as a vet asst. or groomer.
High school diploma or GED equiv.
3 References: a veterinarian, a client and a professional colleague
Completion of exam and application
Signed Code of Ethics
Copy of Gov't issued photo identification
Payment of fee

So yes, you have to have touched a live dog.


----------



## wvasko

Cracker said:


> Eligibility requirements:
> At least 300 hours experience in the last five years. 225 must be actual teaching as a head trainer (privates, classes). 75 hours can be alternate experience at a shelter, assisting in classes, working as a vet asst. or groomer.
> High school diploma or GED equiv.
> 3 References: a veterinarian, a client and a professional colleague
> Completion of exam and application
> Signed Code of Ethics
> Copy of Gov't issued photo identification
> Payment of fee
> 
> So yes, you have to have touched a live dog.


in 95 I had a bout with cancer and hired a trainer who was able to get through barely.
When done with all that silly C stuff, I decided to train a person in case of relapse, She got no certificate though as I don't deal with that stuff but I changed her title from poop-scooper to trainer when she trained 125 dogs that had enough manners to be video recorded so owners had DVD instructions on how to continue working their dogs. This would not compare with modern methods, it was more old school way. A WYSIWYG program.


----------



## Cracker

I am not certified. I would like to be eventually, as it IS an indicator to clients that you have the knowledge and experience. But it's not the first thing on the list, if you know what I mean. At least this certification constitutes proof of education on learning and teaching. Instead of just learning from a tv show..lol


----------



## wvasko

Cracker said:


> I am not certified. I would like to be eventually, as it IS an indicator to clients that you have the knowledge and experience. But it's not the first thing on the list, if you know what I mean. At least this certification constitutes proof of education on learning and teaching. Instead of just learning from a tv show..lol


Hey you would be a fool if you didn't get every weapon out there, from your replies that I've read you don't strike me as the fool type. I'm just sayin'...


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness

We actually had that happen to us, someone was throwing food laced with rat poison over ppls fences so I taught mine not to touch food from ppl they didn't know.


----------



## Cracker

wvasko said:


> Hey you would be a fool if you didn't get every weapon out there, from your replies that I've read you don't strike me as the fool type. I'm just sayin'...


Like I said, it's on the list. LOL. I'm accumulating private hours, assisting in a puppy class (though contemplating switching that up..) etc. It will take a while to get the proper number of basic hours. 

And thanks for the compliment. I'm not a fool, but you can't kid a kidder


----------



## lil_fuzzy

I am currently doing a dog trainer course, and I have learnt a lot about punishment. I used to be completely against using positive punishment in the form of e-collars and check chains etc, but after learning the CORRECT use of them (the image I had in my head of them being used was the incorrect use by people who don't know what they are doing) I now feel that for SOME dogs in SOME cases, it's less aversive to put an e-collar on them than "less aversive" collars.

Such as the gentle leader/haltis. In my training classes I see a LOT of dogs constantly struggling against the head collars, some dogs spend most of the class lying on the ground because they hate the collar so much, and the owners are using the head collar as a fix rather than as a management tool while they train the dog not to pull. In those cases, the least aversive method might be to use an e-collar and shock the dog a couple of times for pulling, and then put it back on a normal collar.

There are a whole bunch of rules for how to use punishment correctly, and the idea I had in my head of how to use punishment was completely wrong. Not saying I will now use punishment to fix behavioural issues, I am just saying that in some cases punishment is the least aversive option. The course I am taking also emphasised that there are 8 other methods other than punishment for modifying behaviour, but if you use punishment correctly it's not the end of the world.


----------



## Cracker

I'm curious, what are the eight other methods?

And using a shock collar for pulling on a leash? That's really extreme, though I agree about GL's and Haltis. Properly conditioned, some dogs don't mind them, but many hate them. There are better choices. The only time I would use an ecollar would be for high risk/life threatening behaviours like snake training or emergency recall and ONLY when other methods had been used.

I wonder if you have learned yet about the pitfalls and risks of using punishment for basic behaviour training? Improper associations being the most dangerous one.


----------



## lil_fuzzy

Well maybe the e-collar for pulling was extreme, maybe a check chain is a better example. We mostly talked about using punishment to modify problem behaviour, or snake/poison training, not for actual obedience training. I actually wondered about using punishment for obedience training myself during the class, and it wasn't covered, so I reckon there is never any good reason to use it for that. I agree though, I would only ever suggest punishment if every other method had been tried or it was a matter of life and death. I'm not advocating punishment here.

The other 8 methods have not been covered yet, he just briefly mentioned some of them while going over punishment. The ones he mentioned are putting the problem behaviour on cue, teaching incompatible behaviours, management (eg, blocking access to the rubbish bin if the dog keeps getting into it).


----------



## RaeganW

lil_fuzzy said:


> I am currently doing a dog trainer course, and I have learnt a lot about punishment.


What course?



> I used to be completely against using positive punishment in the form of e-collars and check chains etc, but after learning the CORRECT use of them (the image I had in my head of them being used was the incorrect use by people who don't know what they are doing) I now feel that for SOME dogs in SOME cases, *it's less aversive to put an e-collar on them than "less aversive" collars.*


The dog always defines what is aversive, a punisher, a reinforcer. So if a dog is lying on the ground because he's wearing a head collar, yeah, I'd say that dog finds it pretty dang aversive. Honestly I'm less and less impressed with the tools on the market to prevent a dog from pulling. Most dogs just learn to pull anyway, and owners are usually using it as a crutch instead of teaching the dog to walk nicely.



> Such as the gentle leader/haltis. In my training classes I see a LOT of dogs constantly struggling against the head collars, some dogs spend most of the class lying on the ground because they hate the collar so much, and the owners are using the head collar as a fix rather than as a management tool while they train the dog not to pull. In those cases, *the least aversive method might be to use an e-collar and shock the dog a couple of times for pulling, and then put it back on a normal collar.*


Uhhhh, what course is this? I'm no expert on e-collars, not by a long shot, but I'm pretty sure it's not something you slap on the dog, light him up, and switch collars again. I'd say that's a surefire way to make a collarwise dog, if you want my nonexpert opinion.

If you are interested in R-/P+ obedience training, read the Koehler Method of Dog Training. I got the Novice, Open, and Utility books for under $20 total on Amazon. There's actually a lot of parallels to R+/P- training, very much two sides of the same coin. It's very, very interesting reading.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

RaeganW said:


> *The dog always defines what is aversive, a punisher, a reinforcer. *


That bears repeating.


----------



## RonE

I'm curious about how a 2-year-old thread suddenly becomes the hottest topic on the forum.

And, no, it's not breaking any rules. Just curious.


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips

Marsh Muppet said:


> That bears repeating.
> *RaeganW* *The dog always defines what is aversive, a punisher, a reinforcer. *


But the Koehler methods (like hanging a dog until he is thick tongued and gagged) are not so hot either.
Dogs have actually lost their vision from hangings - because of lack of oxygen to the brain
If you have tell someone it doesn't hurt, it probably does: http://blog.mysanantonio.com/latrenda/2011/05/when-someone-says-its-doesnt-hurt-it-probably-does/

If the head collar bothers a dog, then don't use it. Or acclimate the dog to it. Just because a head collar doesn't work doesn't mean you resort to shocking.



lil_fuzzy said:


> The course I am taking also emphasised that there are 8 other methods other than punishment for modifying behaviour, but if you use punishment correctly it's not the end of the world.


What are the 8 methods?


----------



## petpeeve

Puddin's Training Tips said:


> What are the 8 methods?


I suspect the 8 methods are likely:

1) Shoot the animal
2) Punishment
3) Negative reinforcement
4) Extinction
5) Train an incompatible behaviour
6) Put the behaviour on cue
7) Shape the absence
8) Change the motivation

Could this be ... plagiarism at it's finest ??? 



jaysin said:


> Nothing is going to teach a dog other than repetative love and attention.


Ahhhh ... lines to live by.

I particularly agree the "nothing" reference, although I would qualify that with the additional use of the term "_properly_ teach".


----------



## Marsh Muppet

RonE said:


> I'm curious about how a 2-year-old thread suddenly becomes the hottest topic on the forum.


A perennial crowd pleaser.



Puddin's Training Tips said:


> If you have tell someone it doesn't hurt, it probably does....


Nobody, not even Mr. Koehler, claims it doesn't hurt. Whatever can be said for or against it, a look into the abyss can dramatically reorganize the mental processes. But every undesirable behavior is not a threat to life and limb, and every correction is not hanging a dog 'til his eyes bug out and his tongue turns blue.


----------



## RaeganW

Puddin's Training Tips said:


> But the Koehler methods (like hanging a dog until he is thick tongued and gagged) are not so hot either.
> Dogs have actually lost their vision from hangings - because of lack of oxygen to the brain
> If you have tell someone it doesn't hurt, it probably does: http://blog.mysanantonio.com/latren... It's fairer than I would want to be trained.


----------



## jiml

puddin and peeve - i think I asked for peoples feedback that were NOT against the use of aversives. LOL

From what I know of the author she is what I would call a balanced trainer that uses a lot of pos reinforcement. 
that said she does use ecollars/pinch ect. She is not what I would consider a yank/crank - all/most +pun type trainer

<<<<Now, I would say that getting into a battle of wills and strength with a dog who reacts to correction with handler aggression is maybe not the best of ideas, but it's misleading to suggest that Koehler condones that for most pet dogs. The method is actually exceptionally fair. >>>>>

agreed. But I do think If a trainer is working w big powerful dogs that are handler/animal aggressive that "choking the dog off" is in their knowledge base even if never/rarely used.



Also I should add that the CCPDT line on E-collars was New as of 2010.


----------



## RaeganW

I'm hardly one to suggest that people SHOULD train dogs from the Koehler books. If you've seen any of my other posts on dog training you can be sure of that. But, as a textbook on R-/P+ training and as a historical text (as far as I can tell, EVERY dog training book after Koehler has drawn on it in some fashion) it can't be beat. If you consider yourself a dog trainer, you should read his books, in the same way history students read Mien Kampf.


----------



## Willowy

I was trying to think of why a description of Koehler as "fair" kinda bugged me. I decided it's because a lot of people think "fair" = "right". Which isn't necessarily true. I mean, I suppose it would be "fair" to beat your kid to a bloody pulp for doing something you don't like, as long as you warned him first and made sure he knew he shouldn't be doing it. But it's not right to treat people like that. So I guess hanging/choking a dog blue or half-drowning a dog for digging could be considered fair in certain circumstances but I certainly hope nobody thinks it's right to treat dogs like that.


----------



## RaeganW

It *is* fair. You spend a week (or longer) showing the dog _precisely_ what you want. When he's willingly and automatically doing _precisely_ what you want, you start correcting for deviating from that. You set the dog up for an action, and hold him accountable for that action. Every. Time. Like I said, it's fairer than I would want to be trained. I certainly think there are more effective methods, but it would be a shame if the information in those books disappeared.

Good R+ is better than good R-, but good training is better than none at all.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness

Ppl also don't realize that his method was originally intended for military dogs & their trainers NOT the average Joe Blow with his golden retriever if I remember correctly.

I am a balanced trainer, I will use a leash pops, body blocking & such.


----------



## Willowy

RaeganW said:


> It *is* fair. You spend a week (or longer) showing the dog _precisely_ what you want. When he's willingly and automatically doing _precisely_ what you want, you start correcting for deviating from that. You set the dog up for an action, and hold him accountable for that action. Every. Time. Like I said, it's fairer than I would want to be trained. I certainly think there are more effective methods, but it would be a shame if the information in those books disappeared.
> 
> Good R+ is better than good R-, but good training is better than none at all.


Well, sure, but like I said, it's fair to beat your kid into a bloody pulp if you've trained him and made sure he knows better, but it's not right for civilized humans to act like that. Fair doesn't = right.

I do think the books are designed for the average Joe Blow and his Golden. Some of them at least. And if I remember correctly, drowning the dog for digging was recommended as a first-line aversive (if he didn't listen when you told him not to, at least).


----------



## cshellenberger

jiml said:


> puddin and peeve - i think I asked for peoples feedback that were NOT against the use of aversives. LOL
> 
> From what I know of the author she is what I would call a balanced trainer that uses a lot of pos reinforcement.
> that said she does use ecollars/pinch ect. She is not what I would consider a yank/crank - all/most +pun type trainer
> 
> <<<<Now, I would say that getting into a battle of wills and strength with a dog who reacts to correction with handler aggression is maybe not the best of ideas, but it's misleading to suggest that Koehler condones that for most pet dogs. The method is actually exceptionally fair. >>>>>
> 
> agreed. But I do think If a trainer is working w big powerful dogs that are handler/animal aggressive that "choking the dog off" is in their knowledge base even if never/rarely used.
> 
> 
> 
> Also I should add that the CCPDT line on E-collars was New as of 2010.


I think you'll have a hard time finding people that use harsher adversives here, most of us don't even use a choke chain much less an E collar. That said I think the E collar has it's place, most prominent to me is the use of E collar in snake avoidance training and long distance recall. Both are uses that would require the dog be trained on the basics and I'm a firm believer that the E collar should NEVER be used on an untrained dog or to correct behavior problems as it's too easy to make the problems worse with a pain stimulas adversive.


----------



## wvasko

Willowy said:


> Well, sure, but like I said, it's fair to beat your kid into a bloody pulp if you've trained him and made sure he knows better, but it's not right for civilized humans to act like that. Fair doesn't = right.
> 
> I do think the books are designed for the average Joe Blow and his Golden. Some of them at least. And if I remember correctly, drowning the dog for digging was recommended as a first-line aversive (if he didn't listen when you told him not to, at least).


Having trained my very 1st personal protection dog from Koehler's Guard Dog book and I was just a snot-nosed kid who thought he was a man, not quite 20 and even I knew some stuff was Ok and other stuff was bordering on dog terrorism. Cause you read something does not mean you are forced or dumb enough to use what you read.

People have to decide themselves what use is proper and then live with it and adjust as they and their knowledge of dog work/care grows.


----------



## jiml

I think you'll have a hard time finding people that use harsher adversives here,>>>>>

I thgink this forum has somewhat of a left leaning balance. there are people who are as kikopup would say "Progressive Reinforcement Traininers" and a few who use primarily correction and lots in the middle.


----------



## RaeganW

jiml said:


> I thgink this forum has somewhat of a left leaning balance. there are people who are as kikopup would say "Progressive Reinforcement Traininers" and a few who use primarily correction and lots in the middle.


So I guess you'd say we're *normal*.


----------



## Pawzk9

RaeganW said:


> It *is* fair. You spend a week (or longer) showing the dog _precisely_ what you want. When he's willingly and automatically doing _precisely_ what you want, you start correcting for deviating from that. You set the dog up for an action, and hold him accountable for that action. Every. Time. Like I said, it's fairer than I would want to be trained. I certainly think there are more effective methods, but it would be a shame if the information in those books disappeared.
> 
> Good R+ is better than good R-, but good training is better than none at all.


Isn't the longe line work (where you basically set the dog up to hit the end of a long line at full speed) the method Koehler encouraged to TEACH the dog to heel? (Yes, I read my Koehler for a historical perspective - like Mien Kampf.) But of course, when I started training, it was a pretty standard handbook.



dogdragoness said:


> Ppl also don't realize that his method was originally intended for military dogs & their trainers NOT the average Joe Blow with his golden retriever if I remember correctly.
> 
> I am a balanced trainer, I will use a leash pops, body blocking & such.


Well, actually no. The Koehler Method of Dog Training was written for the general public.


----------



## RaeganW

Well, I'd call it more accurately LLW, but yes, basically.

I mostly object to the demonization of the books based on the last chapter (which admittedly does open by telling you to train the dog before you resort to trying to drown him, duct tape a shoe to his mouth, or beat him with a belt and by that time most of the Problems will have gone away) by people who never bothered to read the whole book. 

It's hardly the book I'm handing people in my adolescent dog class. I find the idea that people are still using it as their dog training bible a little like finding natives in the Outback. Culturally interesting and possessing the right to live/train as they wish, but not who I'd suggest people model their life after.


----------



## Pawzk9

RaeganW said:


> Well, I'd call it more accurately LLW, but yes, basically.
> .


So would I. Haven't read it in a while, but I think he referred to it as heeling.


----------



## Willowy

I would argue that he deserves demonization just based on those chapters. I can't possibly think of a situation in which it would ever be OK to drown a dog, beat him with a belt, or duct tape a shoe in his mouth, no matter what he does or how well-trained he is. Particularly when those methods are supposed to be corrective, touted as actual training, not posited as an emergency measure in some extreme situation like self-defense. 

And I wouldn't consider someone who behaved like that to be "culturally interesting and possessing the right to train as he wishes"; I would consider him to be an abusive jerk who needs to be stopped. Same as someone who treats their child that way needs to be stopped (although it's possible that dunking your kid's head in a vat of apple juice until he's coughing juice out of his lungs might cure him of throwing his sippy cup off the table, I don't think it could ever be justified just because it "works").

And I hate to think how many dog owners turned to that part of the book first, because they bought the book to help with behavioral problems, not for general training.


----------



## wvasko

> Isn't the longe line work (where you basically set the dog up to hit the end of a long line at full speed) the method Koehler encouraged to TEACH the dog to heel? (Yes, I read my Koehler for a historical perspective - like Mien Kampf.) But of course, when I started training, it was a pretty standard handbook.


That was something that I always thought was kinda stupid, depending on length of line there were probably a bunch of dogs running around with very long necks. The ones that survived. Through the years I have seen that method used much more on stay and whoa work not so much for heeling. I always preferred leather gloves and slowing dog down and just bringing him back to the stay/whoa break spot. Again that's just me.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Pawzk9 said:


> Isn't the longe line work (where you basically set the dog up to hit the end of a long line at full speed) the method Koehler encouraged to TEACH the dog to heel?


Actually, it teaches the dog to PAY ATTENTION. Obviously there is some real potential for injury to the dog if he bolts, at speed, one way, while the handler charges off in the opposite direction. The combined speed of both particpants could be (rough guess) 15 mph or better, and then a sudden stop. The prospective dog trainer needs common sense along with a dog/leash/collar.

If you injure your dog doing what someone else told you to do, it is still your fault the dog got hurt.


----------



## wvasko

> If you injure your dog doing what someone else told you to do, it is still your fault the dog got hurt.


The interesting part when giving aversive advice is persons taking advice always got to add a little bit to the aversive giving. 1 lead pop becomes 6 because obviously if one is good then 6 will be better. I'm just sayin'.....


----------



## Pawzk9

Marsh Muppet said:


> Actually, it teaches the dog to PAY ATTENTION. Obviously there is some real potential for injury to the dog if he bolts, at speed, one way, while the handler charges off in the opposite direction. The combined speed of both particpants could be (rough guess) 15 mph or better, and then a sudden stop. The prospective dog trainer needs common sense along with a dog/leash/collar.
> 
> If you injure your dog doing what someone else told you to do, it is still your fault the dog got hurt.


I think it is also the fault of the person who gave the dangerous advice. Right or wrong, many people trust "experts"


----------



## cshellenberger

wvasko said:


> Having trained my very 1st personal protection dog from Koehler's Guard Dog book and I was just a snot-nosed kid who thought he was a man, not quite 20 and even I knew some stuff was Ok and other stuff was bordering on dog terrorism. Cause you read something does not mean you are forced or dumb enough to use what you read.
> 
> People have to decide themselves what use is proper and then live with it and adjust as they and their knowledge of dog work/care grows.


I trained my first dog at 12 years old using Koehler, I hated the technique, but it took me and the dog to obediance titles, I thank goodness I had a tolerent, high threshold dog now.


----------



## wvasko

cshellenberger said:


> I trained my first dog at 12 years old using Koehler, I hated the technique, but it took me and the dog to obediance titles, I thank goodness I had a tolerent, high threshold dog now.


I haven't read the book since, but I remember that he wanted agitator/helper to look like a bum with snot running from nose if possible. Did he not have a stop dogs from eating food on ground with some kind of car batteries and cables/meat etc. Still have book somewhere but not gonna spend time hunting it down.

I'm not knocking man or book just people that would jump off a bridge if somebody told them to. There is a lot of silly stuff written in articles/books about many things in life, the fun is in the "choosing"


----------



## Willowy

But people who present themselves as experts are supposed to know what they're doing. If wvasco (seeing that he's a professional dog trainer) trained someone's dog, and they came to pick it up and he said "you need to do this and this to maintain the dog's training" and they said "no way! We aren't going to do that!", pretty sure he'd tell them that whatever they just paid for the training was wasted and they can't expect the dog to stay well-trained without maintenance. Which might scare them into doing what he told them to do, because they do want a well-trained dog. 

Similarly, a lot of the trainers who write books will say something like "if you don't follow all of these rules to the letter, your dog will be a spoiled beast who eats children and gets run over!". I don't expect people to pick and choose among "expert" advice when those kinds of scare tactics are used. Maybe they should know enough to be more selective, but a lot of people who buy training books do so because they don't know much about dogs, and if they're told that that trainers methods are the only way to have a well-behaved dog, they'll believe it, and do what that expert tells them to do. 

Basically, I do think that if someone injures their dog doing what an expert told them to do (to the letter!), it is at least partially the expert's fault.


----------



## cshellenberger

wvasko said:


> I haven't read the book since, but I remember that he wanted agitator/helper to look like a bum with snot running from nose if possible. Did he not have a stop dogs from eating food on ground with some kind of car batteries and cables/meat etc. Still have book somewhere but not gonna spend time hunting it down.
> 
> I'm not knocking man or book just people that would jump off a bridge if somebody told them to. There is a lot of silly stuff written in articles/books about many things in life, the fun is in the "choosing"


Yeah, I believe he did, my instructor ( a friend of the family) was a Koehler method trainer, he was also my moms handler for her show dogs and owned a Sister to her foundation bitch. He had some wonderfully trained dogs for gaurd work, one of which was loaned out to me when I had a guy stalking me. The dogs were anyones best friend UNLESS the handler gave the 'watch' command and could be called out in the air on a take down.


----------



## wvasko

> If wvasco (seeing that he's a professional dog trainer) trained someone's dog, and they came to pick it up and he said "you need to do this and this to maintain the dog's training" and they said "no way! We aren't going to do that!", pretty sure he'd tell them that whatever they just paid for the training was wasted and they can't expect the dog to stay well-trained without maintenance.


I have mentioned this before ( I think ) When customers drop dog off I make sure I get good eye contact and I explain to them I am starting your dog in the 30 to 45 days it is here, tell them I can train a young dog but can't make it an old dog and very last thing is the money they are spending, I tell them "If they do not continue the work, I don't care as I will have spent their money" That's when I do the eye contact thing while making the "money spent" statement. 

Now I try to make it easy for them I video record their dog and send them home with a training/instruction DVD with their dog as the star of the movie.

I learned a long time ago that I cannot drive to owner's homes beat them up and make them work their dogs and I lose no sleep over people who won't continue work.


----------

