# Are E Collars Painful or Just Annoying to Dogs? A New Study Reveals Some Answers



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

Are Electronic Shock Collars Painful or Just Annoying to Dogs? A New Study Reveals Some Answers | Blog | Dr. Sophia Yin, DVM, MS



> Trainers often debate about the use of electronic shock collars. Some trainers find these collars unethical and unsafe. The pro-collar camp takes a different stance. Some say it just distracts the dog, calling it “tap technology” and others say it may be painful at the instant but then the dog learns to behave and there are no lasting negative effects.
> 
> In 2003, researchers from the Netherlands, Matthijs Schilder and Joanne van der Borg, assessed the short and long term behavioral effects of dog training with the help of shock collars. They wanted to know three things:


open the article to read the rest!

Interesting article but I have issues with it. Cause they used the collars exactly the way I was told NOT to. As a correction at a high enough level so the dogs will yip.

To used for TRAINING (not just as correction) you use the lowest rating on the collar that your dog feels (not that makes them yip). 

Be interesting if the study was used with the proper way to use the collar well.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

I didn't read the article, just read what you posted. But I do know that they can do damage, because I was watching It's Me or the Dog, and there was a bulldog whose owner had an ecollar that put scars on her neck. 

But I've used it on myself on the lowest setting to see what it felt like and it didn't hurt. But I'd quit doing whatever I was doing if it was zapping me. LOL


----------



## liv (Sep 1, 2010)

MaggieRoseLee said:


> Be interesting if the study was used with the proper way to use the collar well.


So true. My girl's collar is set between 3 and 8 out of 127 levels depending on the day and distractions. I can just barely feel it at 10 - more of a tingle/tickle feeling and not painful at all. She has never shown any fear or avoidance related to it, and actually comes running when I pull it out. 

Used actually SHOCK/punish a dog and as a painful aversive I can absolutely see where it would have the effect in the study.

I really wish someone impartial would do a study using the collars properly so that we could actually get a real answer.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

Studies are pointless unless they're done right....


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

These scientists certainly had an agenda when they made this study. Of course dogs are going to show fear behaviour when you are shocking them so much they give 'barking screams'. They could have at least had the shock collar intensity the same as a pinch or choke correction. I'm sure if they had a trainer that was really ripping at the dog with a prong collar, it would show the same signs of pain and fear as the dogs wearing shock collars.

I use a shock collar, and he's never shown any signs of fear or signs of not being able to recover from a correction because I don't abuse the tool by using ridiculously high settings. The thing that bothers him the most and takes him time to recover from is actually the _vibration feature_, which is clearly not painful.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Syaoransbear said:


> These scientists certainly had an agenda when they made this study.


This is what I see after reading it too. The people doing the study knew what they wanted it to "prove" so they set about ensuring that it did. Bad science.

Unfortunately, like many other agenda driven studies have in the past, it will no doubt soon be heralded as truth by those with an anti-ecollar agenda and plastered all over the internet, and people will assume it is proof and treat it as such, without ever actually looking at it in detail to see how poorly done it was and that the conclusions were clearly a matter of (probably intentional) self fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Konotashi said:


> I didn't read the article, just read what you posted. But I do know that they can do damage, because I was watching It's Me or the Dog, and there was a bulldog whose owner had an ecollar that put scars on her neck.


 Wanted to comment on this. The sores you see on dog's necks from ecollars are not caused by the shock, even though it appears that way at first glance. These sores are actually rub marks caused by the ecollar being left on too long. Ecollars fit quite snug against the neck and there is constant pressure on the skin from the prongs. When the collars are left on too long (even if they aren't used, even if they have no batteries in them) the pressure from the prongs, coupled with dirt and moisture will caused sometimes very nasty sores on the dog's necks. You are most likely to see this with IF collars because so many people leave them on 24/7 but it can happen with any ecollar or a even a prong collar. The bark collars I have state in the instructions to not leave them on more than I think 10 hours at a time.

As for "proper use", many feel that using the ecollar as a punishment on higher levels is proper use and until recent times that was the main use of them. I would suspect that is also still the most common use of them.


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

I know it's a preference for the dog owner but I have never used one so I can't say for sure. I agree that the people doing the study probably had an agenda so it is going to slant the results.
I've done a little bit of looking around and cannot seem to find much for scientific studies done on e collars.
I've had one on and it depends on the setting you use, but I can tell you it does hurt at a higher setting. 
I kind of illustrates to me something my grandfather used to say. "You can make numbers come out almost any way you want them to. Figures lie and liars figure."


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

It's interesting that Dr. Yin calls this a "new study." It was done in 2003, making it EIGHT years old! But I guess that "new" is a relative term. Since she's brought it up ... 

The _"Schilder Study"_ as it's known is an excellent example of how misguided and how misleading the anti Ecollar forces can be. As several have pointed out the study used ONLY high level stim for their study and most people using modern methods are using low level stim. They will say that it has the same effect on the dogs but all they do is display their ignorance with such a comment. It's a bit like comparing a child bumping into you accidentally with a collision between two tractor-trailers. 

The group they studied, are famous for using the highest levels of stim IN THE WORLD in their training. 

Here's something that I find quite interesting about this study. They go into great detail about the equipment that they used. We know the various breeds of dogs used. We know their sexes and ages. 

We know how many wore Ecollars and how many did not. We know the brand of camera used to film the study; its model number and the size of film it used. We even know that it had a 40X optical zoom! 

We know the sampling method they used, the number of training sessions they observed and the number of sequences they filmed. We know the OB commands that were used during the "walking" phase of the study and what "protection" movements were involved. 

We know how the data was analyzed; we know what sampling method was used; we know how each ear and tail position was scored and we know how the data from the two samples was compared. 

All of these things are clearly stated in the study as is common with such things. But somehow ... they forgot to mention the brand/model of Ecollar that they used! AMAZING that they forgot to mention this! Well, not really. I found out by going through some contacts I have in Europe that they used a Shecker Teletakt an obsolete collar that is no longer made. This model has contact points located on both sides of the dog's neck (as opposed to most modern Ecollars that have their contact points about 1 1/4" apart), so there's MUCH MORE tissue involved than with modern Ecollars. AND it has much higher stim levels than do today's collars! 

The results of the study rather than being scientifically determined were completely subjective, with the _scientists _using rather worthless measures of when the dogs were stressed. They looked at such things as "ear carriage, lip licking, tail carriage and others. But they failed to mention (or take into account) the fact that MANY other factors can cause these to occur. 

Stephen Lindsay, author of the three volume set of books _"Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training."_ said this about the Schilder study, 




> This was an *intentionally deceptive study, *designed to reach predetermined conclusions. And that couldn't have supported the findings that it reached even if it had been competently done. [Emphasis Added]


 

I've written up a detailed critique of the study if anyone is interested. You can see it HERE 

These folks will never rest. They keep _rediscovering _old studies pretending that they're brand new and re-releasing them as if they had just been completed. Unethical at best. Dishonest at worst.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

So Lou, can you tell us what you really think of the study? 

Heh! Heh! Just kidding of course!

Sounds like real "science!"


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

liv said:


> I really wish someone impartial would do a study using the collars properly so that we could actually get a real answer.


Ditto. But its never going to happen, because who would pay for it? Those that are anti collar are only interested in biased studies. Those that are pro collar are too busy training their dogs


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

LouCastle said:


> It's interesting that Dr. Yin calls this a "new study." It was done in 2003, making it EIGHT years old! But I guess that "new" is a relative term. Since she's brought it up ...


 Actually it's quite possible that if it was done in 2003, the published results are fairly new. It takes quite a long time for studies to be completed and published. One of my ferrets was part of a study for a new treatment of a common disease and the actual study was only maybe a year but I was told it would be years before the results would be published anywhere. Once the results are published, no doubt people will refer to it as a new study on treating this disease.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

Lin said:


> Ditto. But its never going to happen, because who would pay for it? Those that are anti collar are only interested in biased studies. *Those that are pro collar are too busy training their dogs*


That's too funny....


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

AgileGSD said:


> Actually it's quite possible that if it was done in 2003, the published results are fairly new. It takes quite a long time for studies to be completed and published. One of my ferrets was part of a study for a new treatment of a common disease and the actual study was only maybe a year but I was told it would be years before the results would be published anywhere. Once the results are published, no doubt people will refer to it as a new study on treating this disease.


Except, that is not the case. This study was accepted for publication in October 2003 and the results were published early in 2004. It is not "new" in any way.

The fact that this blogger calls it such in an entry today is deceptive at best.


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

Lou that was an awesome critical evaluation of the study! I subscribe to Dr. Yin's blog, and had read her interpretation of the study and took it at face value. I am not in favor of the use of e-collars, but I don't like biased science either.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Wildtim said:


> Except, that is not the case. This study was accepted for publication in October 2003 and the results were published early in 2004. It is not "new" in any way. The fact that this blogger calls it such in an entry today is deceptive at best.


I shoulda read Wildtim's post before I wrote my response to AgileGSD. Mine has a touch of additional info so I sent it in. 




AgileGSD said:


> Actually it's quite possible that if it was done in 2003, the published results are fairly new. It takes quite a long time for studies to be completed and published.


This study was *accepted *August, 23, 2003. It was *published *in Applied Animal Behavior Science, Volume 85, Issues 3-4, *March 25, 2004 *. It's been the subject of discussion on many forums, including at least 7 threads on this one dating back to 2008. The study is FAR from _"new"_ except perhaps to Dr. Yin or to some warped definition of the word "new."


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Good_Karma said:


> Lou that was an awesome critical evaluation of the study! I subscribe to Dr. Yin's blog, and had read her interpretation of the study and took it at face value. I am not in favor of the use of e-collars, but I don't like biased science either.


Thanks for the kind words Good_Karma. Actually there's quite a bit of science on Ecollars that's out there. Some of it is kinda odd though. In one study, Schalke, they found


> ... animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action ... and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, *did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators. *[Emphasis Added]


 

Yet in the conclusion they wrote


> The results of this study suggest that poor timing in the application of high level electric pulses, such as those used in this study, means there is a high risk that dogs will show severe and persistent stress symptoms.


Yet their study clearly shows that when training is done properly, such a risk does not exist! 

Ruth Crisler has done an excellent writeup on the studies that are available out there on Ecollars. CLICK HERE. It's the March 30, 2010 blog entry If the link doesn't take you right to the article.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

LouCastle said:


> Yet their study clearly shows that* when training is done properly*, such a risk does not exist!


Isn't that the problem with the ecollars in general? In the hands of someone who knows what they're doing they can be an effective tool. 
Put one in the hands of a hot headed trainer that has no patience and the dog suffers.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

It's not just a problem with "Ecollars in general." It's a problem with ANY tool. The only thing that changes is the nature of the dog's "suffering" especially at the hands of a _"hot headed trainer that has no patience."_ If that's the case it really makes no difference what tool is in use. 

At least with an Ecollar, that kind of person can't do any physical damage.


----------



## SJHancock (Jan 27, 2011)

Hey Lou - where did this quote from Steve Lindsay come from? I searched one of the largest abstract and citation databases thinking he had done some research or something and he isn't listed at all. That paper is 7 years old but his book is even older. I was looking for something newer.  
thanks SJ.


----------



## SJHancock (Jan 27, 2011)

where does this quote come from?


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

LouCastle said:


> It's not just a problem with "Ecollars in general." It's a problem with ANY tool. The only thing that changes is the nature of the dog's "suffering" especially at the hands of a _"hot headed trainer that has no patience."_ If that's the case it really makes no difference what tool is in use.
> 
> At least with an Ecollar, that kind of person can't do any physical damage.


 I do think that e-collars are much easier to misuse and it can't be ignored that many trainers do use them regularly as a very hard correction. I have seen more dogs mentally damaged by e-collar training than by any other one tool. I know a dog who who was sent to a franchise e-collar trainer and once home flipped out so badly he had to be euthanized in his crate the morning after attacking his owner. That trainer claims to use "low-stim". I had a puppy in my class that who would panic, run away and urinate on himself whenever his owners called him, due to an incident with an e-collar. I know a dog who after being trained for an IR developed phobias to beeping noises and crossing noticeable barriers (even say, where the kitchen tile meets the carpet or the frame of a removable baby gate). I have seen and known many other dogs who developed anxiety related issues after their owners starting using e-collars.

I use bark collars on my own dogs. I am not opposed to e-collars across the board and am not supportive of banning them. But the truth is, they are a very powerful tool which is very capable of physiologically damaging dogs, even when used "properly", even without a hot headed trainer. IMO people need to hear that before going out to Petsmart and buying themselves one.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

AgileGSD said:


> I do think that e-collars are much easier to misuse and it can't be ignored that many trainers do use them regularly as a very hard correction. I have seen more dogs mentally damaged by e-collar training than by any other one tool. I know a dog who who was sent to a franchise e-collar trainer and once home flipped out so badly he had to be euthanized in his crate the morning after attacking his owner. That trainer claims to use "low-stim". I had a puppy in my class that who would panic, run away and urinate on himself whenever his owners called him, due to an incident with an e-collar. I know a dog who after being trained for an IR developed phobias to beeping noises and crossing noticeable barriers (even say, where the kitchen tile meets the carpet or the frame of a removable baby gate). I have seen and known many other dogs who developed anxiety related issues after their owners starting using e-collars.
> 
> .


Biggest problem I see with the e-collars is the same with all dog training. US! The human part of the training chain. Instead of doing what's best for the dog and really LEARNING how to use the 'whatever' to train the best way for you and the dog. It's way better to just charge in and work it out on the way, right? (the answer to that it NOT!!!  )

E-collars used properly to train (not correct) are amazing. But when used by we 'stupid humans' with no knowledge of the correct way, it can really be a mess for the dog.

I love them. I'll always use them. BUT before I ever put the collar on my dog I read up on them, purchased the correct one for my needs and then went to a few private sessions with a trainer who was training the method I wanted.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

SJHancock said:


> Hey Lou - where did this quote from Steve Lindsay come from? I searched one of the largest abstract and citation databases thinking he had done some research or something and he isn't listed at all. That paper is 7 years old but his book is even older. I was looking for something newer.


 
And then less than an hour later he asked, 



SJHancock said:


> where does this quote come from?


 
SJ didja get impatient that I didn't answer within an hour? Lol

There's good news and bad news. I hate this because I'm a stickler for accurate citing but I lost the specific reference data when I moved from an older computer. I'm 99% sure that it was in one of the three volumes of his books but can't remember which one. I loaned out my copies several years ago and never got them back. I can't remember who I loaned them to so they're probably gone. Perhaps he'll read this and get them back to me! 

In any case, doing a search for Steven Lindsay + Schilder brought me to a Google Books site that opens with references to the Schilder study. CLICK HERE Lindsay makes reference to the study and to several others written around the same time and a little before.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

AgileGSD said:


> I do think that e-collars are much easier to misuse


 
I'll disagree. They're not harder nor any easier to misuse than other tools. Perhaps you can show us why you think this is so. I think that the leash, with virtually any collar, is far easier to misuse even if it's only through "doing nothing" and letting the dog slam against it repeatedly. That can cause physical injury while the Ecollar can't. 




AgileGSD said:


> and it can't be ignored that many trainers do use them regularly as a very hard correction.


 
Yes, and? Citing ways that tools can be misused does nothing for your argument. Any tool can be misused. Any tool can be abused. No tool is idiotproof to the right idiot. The answer, as it has always been is education and training of the trainers. EXACTLY as it is with all tools. 




AgileGSD said:


> I have seen more dogs mentally damaged by e-collar training than by any other one tool. I know a dog who who was sent to a franchise e-collar trainer and once home flipped out so badly he had to be euthanized in his crate the morning after attacking his owner.


 
I've heard this anecdote so many it's assumed the proportions of an urban legend. You say that you "know" this dog. Do you actually know him or do you "know of him?" there's quite a difference. If the first then I invite you to put me in touch with his former owner. I've probably seen quite a few more Ecollar trained dogs than most and I've *NEVER * seen one that had to be PTS due to poor training with Ecollars. I've seen quite a few that were badly confused, and some who had their aggression issues worsened by poor Ecollar use. But I've never seen one that I could not fix! 




AgileGSD said:


> That trainer claims to use "low-stim".


 
Who was that trainer? If you don't want to name him in the open forum, feel free to PM me. Failing that I'll have to call BS on this. 




AgileGSD said:


> I had a puppy in my class that who would panic, run away and urinate on himself whenever his owners called him, due to an incident with an e-collar.


 
Please tell us who this trainer was? The same invitation to PM me applies here. Also, please tell us how you "know" that this was _"due to an incident with an e-collar."_ 




AgileGSD said:


> I know a dog who after being trained for an IR developed phobias to beeping noises and crossing noticeable barriers


 
Same invitation applies. 




AgileGSD said:


> I have seen and known many other dogs who developed anxiety related issues after their owners starting using e-collars.


 
Ditto. I've seen hundreds of dogs brought to my seminars and in private classes that were horribly confused by inappropriately applied methods with various tools. The difference is that I place the blame where it belongs, on the poor training done by a poor trainer (or owner), rather than on the tool as you do. This is fairly common with those who do not favor the Ecollar. They blame the tool, rather than holding the trainer (including the owner) responsible. This is just illogical and irrational. It's like a fat person blaming the spoon. 




AgileGSD said:


> But the truth is, they are a very powerful tool which is very capable of *physiologically damaging dogs, * even when used "properly" [Emphasis Added]


 
No. you're quite wrong. NOT ONE STUDY has shown any physiological damage that an Ecollar can cause. If this was true it would occur EVERY TIME that an Ecollar was used. AGAIN you're invited to tell us who the trainers were. Please describe these physiological injuries. Did you mean "psychological damage?" BTW that too has never been shown either. Even the study that started this discussion (Schilder) does not show it. The ONLY way that injuries can occur with an Ecollar is from leaving them on for waaay too long and/or having them waaay too tight or waaay too loose. Then you can get some irritation where the contact points rest on the dog's skin. At worst that irritation can lead to an infection that's easily treated. 




AgileGSD said:


> even without a hot headed trainer. IMO people need to hear that before going out to Petsmart and buying themselves one.


 
I suggest NEVER going to Petsmart and buying an Ecollar. They don't carry quality units. But AGAIN, this is true with many of the tools that they carry. 

As with any tool, for it to be used properly, education is necessary. I wouldn't expect that something as simple as a clicker could be used properly without some education and training. It's true of the Ecollar just as with any other tool. People often have this "blind spot" and make statements as you have when it comes to Ecollars. I've never been able to figure out why. 

Often those folks ONLY discuss the Ecollar as used improperly all the while ONLY discussing their own choice of tools when used properly.


----------



## SJHancock (Jan 27, 2011)

SJ didja get impatient that I didn't answer within an hour? Lol

Sorry - no I didn't see my post and thought I hadnt sent it correctly so repeated.

The thing about the steve lindsay stuff is that they are just his opinions so you are trading his opinions for those of the researchers and in your critical evaluation you are trading your opinions for those of the researchers. what we need to have is some good unbiased information to evaluate. other wise its all just opinions . we all have opinions.


----------



## Larien (Sep 26, 2010)

I have a question about e-collars, a tad off topic, but points to the issue of uninformed people using them incorrectly.

So the stable where my horses are, the owner has a 1 yr old highly obnoxious Golden Ret. that jumped on me and would not stop, and it even ripped my jacket. Anyway, there was absolutely no correction from the owner in verbal or physical form. All he did was whip out the remote to the e-collar the dog had on, and press it repeatedly. Nothing happened, and he said, "Ah it must be off, 'cause I'm pressin' it like crazy!" I was really disturbed by this. It seemed like pure laziness - just slap the thing on and buzz him constantly when he's bad, (and it obviously didn't work, since he was jumping on me) without doing any other training (he admitted to another boarder that the dog isn't trained, and I tried to get him to sit, but he didn't know the command) and that way he doesn't have to bother with any obedience training.

So I don't know anything about e-collars, but would you guys consider that improper use? To just throw it on without any training and press it over and over whenever the dog does something he deems as bad? Should I say anything, I mean I'd hate to see this poor dog get screwed up over this.


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

MaggieRoseLee said:


> Biggest problem I see with the e-collars is the same with all dog training. US! The human part of the training chain. Instead of doing what's best for the dog and really LEARNING how to use the 'whatever' to train the best way for you and the dog. It's way better to just charge in and work it out on the way, right? (the answer to that it NOT!!!  )
> 
> E-collars used properly to train (not correct) are amazing. But when used by we 'stupid humans' with no knowledge of the correct way, it can really be a mess for the dog.
> 
> I love them. I'll always use them. BUT before I ever put the collar on my dog I read up on them, purchased the correct one for my needs and then went to a few private sessions with a trainer who was training the method I wanted.


 
I'm not going against you but I have to ask......you say "E-colars to train and not correct are amazing"? So do you just put the collar on and not use it? The second the button is pushed , it IS a correction, weather it be on vibrate or stim, there is a correction there.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Jeff - my trainer has me working to teach Jax that the vibrate is a marker meaning that good things are coming her way! It just replaces Yes! Or the clicker. 

So, the stim will be a correction and the vibrate will be a 'command'. However, I agree with you. The stim is a correction no matter how you look at it. 

So, MLR, what do you mean by "E-collars used properly to train (not correct)"?


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

Ahhh ok Jax. That's good then, she gets something "positive" out of it. Thats probably what MRL meant.

I used vibrate and stim at the same time when I was training, although the vibrate was used in a "correction" it conditioned the dogs that in time and through training, I would only need to vibrate the collar. So vibrate was a warning and the stim would follow if not compliant if that makes sense. 

I'll also add that the only thing I am using the stim for is long recalls, the dogs have been trained first on a long line for some time and know what a recall is before the collar is introduced. The other nice thing about having a dog trained to recall first is that you rarely need to use the collar.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

LouCastle said:


> I'll disagree. They're not harder nor any easier to misuse than other tools. Perhaps you can show us why you think this is so. I think that the leash, with virtually any collar, is far easier to misuse even if it's only through "doing nothing" and letting the dog slam against it repeatedly. That can cause physical injury while the Ecollar can't.


 How can I show you? I feel this way based on my experience. I have seen average owners misuse all sorts of training tools but I don't see those dogs behave the way I see some ecollar trained dogs behave.




LouCastle said:


> Yes, and? Citing ways that tools can be misused does nothing for your argument. Any tool can be misused. Any tool can be abused. No tool is idiotproof to the right idiot. The answer, as it has always been is education and training of the trainers. EXACTLY as it is with all tools.


 What you consider "misuse" of e-collars is their traditionally and still widely accepted use. 





LouCastle said:


> I've heard this anecdote so many it's assumed the proportions of an urban legend. You say that you "know" this dog. Do you actually know him or do you "know of him?" there's quite a difference. If the first then I invite you to put me in touch with his former owner. I've probably seen quite a few more Ecollar trained dogs than most and I've *NEVER * seen one that had to be PTS due to poor training with Ecollars. I've seen quite a few that were badly confused, and some who had their aggression issues worsened by poor Ecollar use. But I've never seen one that I could not fix! Who was that trainer? If you don't want to name him in the open forum, feel free to PM me. Failing that I'll have to call BS on this.


 I know the dog and owner. I saw the owner 2 weeks after it happened, still bandaged up from the attack. I trained at the owner's facility, did CGC testing there and competed in agility there. The dog without a doubt had issues. Those issues got worse when he was sent to a franchise e-collar trainer. I sent you a PM with the training facility's name, although I'd think many people could figure out who I mean by "franchise e-collar trainer". 




LouCastle said:


> Please tell us who this trainer was? The same invitation to PM me applies here. Also, please tell us how you "know" that this was _"due to an incident with an e-collar."_


 That incident was a DIY. I know because they were students of mine. They told me they when he was 4 months old they wanted to "proof" his boundaries (because the instructions with the IF said they should) so they would throw toys out of the boundary, run out of the boundary and have their friends try to tempt the dog to cross the boundary. The they tried running out of the yard and calling him through the boundary themselves. "It only took a couple tries and after that, even us calling him wouldn't get him out of the yard". It took them three weeks to figure out that is why the dog basically had a panic attack any time they called him. I doubt that dog will ever have a solid recall.




LouCastle said:


> Same invitation applies.


 IF. And I know the dog very well. They have another dog who took to the IF training fine with no negative behavioral side effects.





LouCastle said:


> Ditto. I've seen hundreds of dogs brought to my seminars and in private classes that were horribly confused by inappropriately applied methods with various tools. The difference is that I place the blame where it belongs, on the poor training done by a poor trainer (or owner), rather than on the tool as you do. This is fairly common with those who do not favor the Ecollar. They blame the tool, rather than holding the trainer (including the owner) responsible. This is just illogical and irrational. It's like a fat person blaming the spoon.


 I don't think I blamed the tool. I simply pointed out that there is a very real potential of people seriously screwing their dogs up with e-collar training. IME more so than with other training tools. 





LouCastle said:


> No. you're quite wrong. NOT ONE STUDY has shown any physiological damage that an Ecollar can cause. If this was true it would occur EVERY TIME that an Ecollar was used. AGAIN you're invited to tell us who the trainers were. Please describe these physiological injuries. Did you mean "psychological damage?" BTW that too has never been shown either. Even the study that started this discussion (Schilder) does not show it.


 Yes psychological damage. The dogs I mentioned above had psychological damage due to e-collar training, I don't need a study to know that. owners, that is 




LouCastle said:


> The ONLY way that injuries can occur with an Ecollar is from leaving them on for waaay too long and/or having them waaay too tight or waaay too loose. Then you can get some irritation where the contact points rest on the dog's skin. At worst that irritation can lead to an infection that's easily treated.


 I'm pretty sure I mentioned this same thing very early on in this thread. 





LouCastle said:


> As with any tool, for it to be used properly, education is necessary. I wouldn't expect that something as simple as a clicker could be used properly without some education and training. It's true of the Ecollar just as with any other tool. People often have this "blind spot" and make statements as you have when it comes to Ecollars. I've never been able to figure out why.
> 
> Often those folks ONLY discuss the Ecollar as used improperly all the while ONLY discussing their own choice of tools when used properly.


 I'm not sure what you mean by my having a "blind spot" about e-collars. I'm pretty sure I stated I wasn't opposed to the use of e-collars. I stated my dogs wear bark collars, which are self operating e-collars. My dogs suffer no ill effects of these collars but it does make them be quiet  I do think people needed to understand that they can really screw their dog up with e-collar training though. The vast majority of people I come across who want to use e-collars want a quick fix for their dog's behavior. They never consider that there could be any side effects of using such a tool and IMO that is a problem. 

FWIW I dislike head collars for most dogs. I think they are inappropriate for most pulling dogs, although can be useful with some reactive dogs. My main complaint with them is the effect it has on many dogs psychologically. That said, with head collars those effects go away once the tool is removed from the dog. IME that isn't necessarily the case with e-collars.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

Denali Girl said:


> Ahhh ok Jax. That's good then, she gets something "positive" out of it. Thats probably what MRL meant.


I don't believe thats what she meant. A correction is a form of positive punishment, something you apply to decrease the likelihood of that behavior repeating. Waiting for the dog to do something bad and then shocking them, is using an ecollor as positive punishment (a correction) and is improper use. 

Proper use of the collar is negative reinforcement. The negative means take away (as opposed to positive meaning to apply something) and reinforcement means something that is increasing the likelihood of a behavior (as opposed to punishment which decreases it.) So you apply stim (at the just barely felt level), and then give a command. When the dog performs the command, the stim is released. Removed the stim, to increase the likelihood of the dog performing the command. 

Training, not correction.


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

Lin said:


> I don't believe thats what she meant. A correction is a form of positive punishment, something you apply to decrease the likelihood of that behavior repeating. Waiting for the dog to do something bad and then shocking them, is using an ecollor as positive punishment (a correction) and is improper use.
> 
> Proper use of the collar is negative reinforcement. The negative means take away (as opposed to positive meaning to apply something) and reinforcement means something that is increasing the likelihood of a behavior (as opposed to punishment which decreases it.) So you apply stim (at the just barely felt level), and then give a command. When the dog performs the command, the stim is released. Removed the stim, to increase the likelihood of the dog performing the command.
> 
> Training, not correction.


 
Lin.........you lost me here? She said that she uses an e collar for training but never for correction. I do understand what you are saying and I am aware of negative and positive reinforcement but none the less, there is a correction weather the dog feels it before the command or after.

I was referring to Jax's vibration thread, meaning there is no stim at all, the vibrate is being used as a positive and the stim is being used as a correction.

Can I ask, you said you give the stim first then give the command and I get what you are doing but here is a scenario........your dog already knows how to recall and he is in a field 20 yards away from you, you want him to come what do you do? Are you going to stim him first? If so, why? He already has a strong recall.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

I know what you were referring to, and I was disagreeing that it could be what MRL was referring to. 

A correction is generally considered a form of positive punishment, or a stimulus *applied* to *decrease* the likelihood of a behavior. In using an e collar, an easy example of this is waiting for the dog to do something wrong and then shocking them as a way of telling them no that behavior was wrong. In correct use of an ecollar, the important part is actually the *removal* of the stim which tells the dog something. You remove the stim when the dog obeys the command, thus *increasing* the likelihood of the dog obeying the command. So with these definitions, proper use of an e collar includes no corrections from the e collar. Training, not corrections. I believe this is what MRL meant. 

In your scenerio, I would apply the stim at the command and when the dog has recalled release the stim. The dog knowing what the recall means is very important to the training, rather than blindly shocking the dog for every incorrect behavior. You are using the ecollar to proof the recall, increase the recalls and speed of recall as opposed to punish every which odd possibility there is other than the recall. It reminds me of a recent statement someone here on the forum made, about how if you tell the dog BOTH yes and no they will learn much faster than just using no. Using an e collar just to say no, or give corrections, is improper use. And unfair to the dog.


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

Lin said:


> I know what you were referring to, and I was disagreeing that it could be what MRL was referring to.
> 
> A correction is generally considered a form of positive punishment, or a stimulus *applied* to *decrease* the likelihood of a behavior. In using an e collar, an easy example of this is waiting for the dog to do something wrong and then shocking them as a way of telling them no that behavior was wrong. In correct use of an ecollar, the important part is actually the *removal* of the stim which tells the dog something. You remove the stim when the dog obeys the command, thus *increasing* the likelihood of the dog obeying the command. So with these definitions, proper use of an e collar includes no corrections from the e collar. Training, not corrections. I believe this is what MRL meant.
> 
> In your scenerio, I would apply the stim at the command and when the dog has recalled release the stim. The dog knowing what the recall means is very important to the training, rather than blindly shocking the dog for every incorrect behavior. You are using the ecollar to proof the recall, increase the recalls and speed of recall as opposed to punish every which odd possibility there is other than the recall. It reminds me of a recent statement someone here on the forum made, about how if you tell the dog BOTH yes and no they will learn much faster than just using no. Using an e collar just to say no, or give corrections, is improper use. And unfair to the dog.


 
Lin, in a way I think I am saying the same thing you are to a point...I'm not good at getting my point accross..

IMO, I wouldn't give the dog a stim to recall if he already knows how to recall, I would give him the chance to come first. If he didn't come then I would stim and hold and when he starts comming in, release. I now you say this is wrong but I have never had a problem with it at all. Now mind you I'm on vibrate only due to the fact the dog was trained with low stim and vibrate at the same time, then you can graduate to vibrate only.

I do have a video on here with some recalls, they are fast and precise. I can post them again?


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

I wouldn't consider that wrong. As long as you're using the appropriate level of stim it sounds right to me! Its still being used as negative reinforcement, the removal of the stim increases the likelihood or speed of the recall. Now if you stood in a field and called him and then started randomly stimming him for running away, or to the side, or continuing to sniff, etc, thats wrong. But you're applying the stim and releasing it when the command is obeyed. Thats negative reinforcement used correctly  

It can get very confusing with the semantics of language. I was a psychology major, and in operant conditioning you have to pull out the key parts, like in a math word problem. Key parts being are you adding or removing the stimulus, and are you trying to increase or decrease the behavior. Which, is also not so simple! Reading the examples, it could seem to go different ways. Trying to decrease the running off, or trying to increase the running to you... I'll shut up now before I go blabbering on forever


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

Lin said:


> I wouldn't consider that wrong. As long as you're using the appropriate level of stim it sounds right to me! Its still being used as negative reinforcement, the removal of the stim increases the likelihood or speed of the recall. Now if you stood in a field and called him and then started randomly stimming him for running away, or to the side, or continuing to sniff, etc, thats wrong. But you're applying the stim and releasing it when the command is obeyed. Thats negative reinforcement used correctly
> 
> It can get very confusing with the semantics of language. I was a psychology major, and in operant conditioning you have to pull out the key parts, like in a math word problem. Key parts being are you adding or removing the stimulus, and are you trying to increase or decrease the behavior. Which, is also not so simple! Reading the examples, it could seem to go different ways. Trying to decrease the running off, or trying to increase the running to you... I'll shut up now before I go blabbering on forever


You are a psychology major and I am a Correctional Officer so we know where the brains are lol not here. You just have to spell it out for this Polock Lin lol. Here is "Ali", 8 months old, sorry about the "pee break"


----------



## JKlatsky (Apr 21, 2007)

After seeing it done by some training folks that I highly respect, we've recently started using the E-collar as a positive reinforcer.  Application of the stim will increase the liklihood of a behavior (in this case attention). 

We started out hitting the collar at a low level and treating, loading the ecollar in much the same way you would a clicker. Stim on the Ecollar = reward. We started luring behaviors we wanted using the Ecollar as a marker. We're using this on an easily attracted puppy, that tends to lose concentration on stationary tasks, but at the same time is handler soft and sensitive to verbal or collar correction. We started pushing the dog to offer attention behaviors and would mark them with the E-collar. E-collar stim comes to mean Pay Attention, rewards are coming. As we continue this the goal is to create an increase in drive behavior and attention with the application of Stim. As we develop further in training I expect to have to dial up the Stim level (currently operating on 5 out of 127) but I equate that shouting a command. Start out teaching in a soft voice, and if the attractant for the dog becomes too great, we increase our volume to be heard....The E-collar will just do it physically instead of aurally. 

Thus far, I have a puppy that LOVES to put on his E-collar. No flinching, no neurotic behavior. I'm really excited to see what I can continue doing with this tool as I explore.


----------



## Lin (Jul 3, 2007)

That sounds great JK. I would really like to get a collar to use the same way, for attention and also for Lou's crittering approach. I'm thinking I probably will sometime soon, I'm working with a trainer who does ecollar work so when I have the money I'd like to get a good collar and do some private ecollar lessons. 

Emma can be very soft to corrections. And she is very adhd! She has to sit and give me eye contact before getting anything. At the back door is the hardest because she wants to sniff the kitchen garbage, or go stare at the cats... She sits nicely but her head goes all over the place for ages before she's able to focus on me lol. Sometimes in class with certain exercises she cannot focus, even holding food right in front of her.. And she is super food motivated. The attention goes back and forth, in and out!


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

JKlatsky said:


> After seeing it done by some training folks that I highly respect, we've recently started using the E-collar as a positive reinforcer.  Application of the stim will increase the liklihood of a behavior (in this case attention).


 You mean as a marker? I'm not sure why you'd need an ecollar for this? You can use a clicker, voice marker or for very long distance, a vibration collar. Or is the stim a cue to pay attention? I'm not sure I see the practicality of it as a cue.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

SJHancock said:


> The thing about the steve lindsay stuff is that they are just his opinions so you are trading his opinions for those of the researchers and in your critical evaluation you are trading your opinions for those of the researchers. what we need to have is some good unbiased information to evaluate. other wise its all just opinions . we all have opinions.


 
I agree that we're dealing with opinions here. But a supposedly scientific study should NOT be opinion. It should be set up so that bias cannot enter the picture at all. The data should be collected on a manner that makes it impossible for the biases of the scientists to influence the outcome. This study was set up purposefully so that it WAS possible for the opinions of the data collectors to allow them to interpret the data any way that they chose. At the time of this study it was well known that cortisol was related to the amount of stress that an animal feels but instead of collecting cortisol, numbering the vials and having a lab that did not know the numbering system do the analysis, they chose to select such things as ear carriage, and lip licking as the stress indicators. While they did this they did not allow that OTHER THINGS besides stress can cause these signs. 

These are the things that Lindsay (and I) looked at while forming our opinions, as should be the case.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Larien said:


> I have a question about e-collars, a tad off topic, but points to the issue of uninformed people using them incorrectly.


 
Lots of people use lots of tools "incorrectly." Some even use them abusively. 




Larien said:


> So the stable where my horses are, the owner has a 1 yr old highly obnoxious Golden Ret. that jumped on me and would not stop, and it even ripped my jacket. Anyway, there was absolutely no correction from the owner in verbal or physical form. All he did was whip out the remote to the e-collar the dog had on, and press it repeatedly. Nothing happened, and he said, "Ah it must be off, 'cause I'm pressin' it like crazy!" I was really disturbed by this. It seemed like pure laziness - just slap the thing on and buzz him constantly when he's bad, (and it obviously didn't work, since he was jumping on me) without doing any other training (he admitted to another boarder that the dog isn't trained, and I tried to get him to sit, but he didn't know the command) and that way he doesn't have to bother with any obedience training. So I don't know anything about e-collars, but would you guys consider that improper use? To just throw it on without any training and press it over and over whenever the dog does something he deems as bad? Should I say anything, I mean I'd hate to see this poor dog get screwed up over this.


 
It’s a combination of laziness and ignorance; never a good combination.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> I'll disagree. They're not harder nor any easier to misuse than other tools. Perhaps you can show us why you think this is so. I think that the leash, with virtually any collar, is far easier to misuse even if it's only through "doing nothing" and letting the dog slam against it repeatedly. That can cause physical injury while the Ecollar can't.


 




AgileGSD said:


> How can I show you? I feel this way based on my experience. I have seen average owners misuse all sorts of training tools but I don't see those dogs behave the way I see some ecollar trained dogs behave.


 

The fact that you have to ask "how can I show you?" is my point. Your opinion, based on your experience is all you've got. Truth is that ANY tool can be misused or abused. My experience is quite the opposite. And you've got no facts to back up your previous statement that it's easier to misuse than other tools. I think the theory and operation of the Ecollar is much easier to grasp for the novice pet owner and the timing is easier to apply than with many other tools used to train a dog. And many agree with me and have said so in letters they've written. 




AgileGSD said:


> What you consider "misuse" of e-collars is their traditionally and still widely accepted use.


 
As with anything education is the key. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I've heard this anecdote so many it's assumed the proportions of an urban legend. You say that you "know" this dog. Do you actually know him or do you "know of him?" there's quite a difference. * If the first then I invite you to put me in touch with his former owner. * I've probably seen quite a few more Ecollar trained dogs than most and I've NEVER seen one that had to be PTS due to poor training with Ecollars. I've seen quite a few that were badly confused, and some who had their aggression issues worsened by poor Ecollar use. But I've never seen one that I could not fix! Who was that trainer? If you don't want to name him in the open forum, feel free to PM me. Failing that I'll have to call BS on this. [Emphasis Added]


 




AgileGSD said:


> I know the dog and owner.


 
I notice that you did not fulfill my request for be "put in touch with the owner. The fact that you instead tell us that you know the owner hardly makes this anecdote true or accurate. 




AgileGSD said:


> I saw the owner 2 weeks after it happened, still bandaged up from the attack.


 
So you did not see the attack, instead you took the owner's word for what happened. After so many discussions on these forums about people not being able to read their dog, not really seeing what was going on, you assumed that they WERE able to read their dog and COULD see what was going on. LOL! 




AgileGSD said:


> The dog without a doubt had issues.


 
So now we find out that the dog "had issues" PRIOR to the use of the Ecollar. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that the training tools/methods that the owner used BEFORE the Ecollar came along in fact caused those issues. It is also completely possible that the dog was generically or environmentally predisposed to attack the owners and in fact the training (both what was done prior and what was done with the Ecollar) merely delayed it? Interesting that you somehow forgot to mention this when you first described the incident. 

It's also interesting that you are able to tell us, with only coincidence as your clue, that the Ecollar "caused" this. Coincidence is NOT causation. But many people make this error. Similarly it's a pretty safe bet that just about every serial killer on the planet ate carrots at some point in his life. It would be perceived as rather absurd to say "carrots caused multiple murders." Yet this is pretty much what you've said about Ecollars. 




AgileGSD said:


> Those issues got worse when he was sent to a franchise e-collar trainer.


 
AGAIN relying on the owners for proper interpretation of what had happened and what was going on. 




AgileGSD;20I19086 said:


> I sent you a PM with the training facility's name


 
Uh, no you did not. You gave a vague reference to a franchise in the "area" of a large metropolitan city. You most certainly DID NOT send me the "training facility's name." If it's a franchise then the specific one, there are many, just as there are many McDonald's franchises, would suffice. 




AgileGSD said:


> although I'd think many people could figure out who I mean by "franchise e-collar trainer".


 
You're the one telling the story. The burden of supplying such information (if you want to be believed) is on you. 




AgileGSD said:


> That incident was a DIY. I know because they were students of mine.


 
So it could have been YOUR TRAINING that actually "caused this attack!" No wonder you want to blame the Ecollar. 




AgileGSD said:


> They told me they when he was 4 months old they wanted to "proof" his boundaries (because the instructions with the IF said they should) so they would throw toys out of the boundary, run out of the boundary and have their friends try to tempt the dog to cross the boundary. The they tried running out of the yard and calling him through the boundary themselves. "It only took a couple tries and after that, even us calling him wouldn't get him out of the yard". It took them three weeks to figure out that is why the dog basically had a panic attack any time they called him. I doubt that dog will ever have a solid recall.


 

I'd also bet that the instructions with the IF said not to use the collar on the dog until he was six months old. Just about every manufacturer makes that recommendation. Did you see these instructions? 

As to your "doubts" that he'd "ever have a solid recall" I bet that you're talking about YOUR ABILITY to train it after the confusion caused by the owners. I have no doubt that I could have trained it or that the owners could have by using the protocols on my website. Thousands of other owners, with no previous Ecollar experience, have done so. 




AgileGSD said:


> IF. And I know the dog very well. They have another dog who took to the IF training fine with no negative behavioral side effects.


 
I bet he wasn't 4 months old! Also notice that WE are talking about Ecollars as used for training and YOU'RE talking about something completely different! You said this dog was "damaged" by an Ecollar." That's NOT the truth. 

In any case, in proper Ecollar training the dog is clearly shown what's causing his discomfort and what makes it stop. This, based on results, WAS NOT DONE by the owners of this dog. AGAIN, education is the key. I don't' see anywhere that you warned them of the dangers of improper use so I'll have to assume that you did not do so. 




AgileGSD said:


> I don't think I blamed the tool. I simply pointed out that there is a very real potential of people seriously screwing their dogs up with e-collar training. IME more so than with other training tools.


 
I'll disagree. You wrote this, "I have seen and known many other dogs who developed anxiety related issues after their owners starting using e-collars." That's hardly, as you now claim, "a warning of potential screwing up ... " That's sounds to me as if it's placing the blame for any "screwing up? On the tool, NOT on the trainer who is ultimately responsible for who ANY tools is used. Fact is a poor trainer can "screw up a dog" with ANY tool, including the ones that you favor. But most people would rather blame an inanimate object for their problems rather than take responsibility for their own actions. It's very freeing if you're not responsible for what you do, if instead you can blame "that evil tool." 




AgileGSD said:


> Yes psychological damage.


 
As I thought. 




AgileGSD said:


> The dogs I mentioned above had psychological damage due to e-collar training, I don't need a study to know that. owners, that is


 
I'm sorry but you're expressing an opinion here, NOT A FACT. The facts are that no study ever done has shown this link that you want us to accept, that Ecollars cause "psychological damage" even when the researchers have hoped that it would. And we know that you're drawing a cause and effect relationship between the alleged "psychological damage" and the Ecollar when the truth is that none has been shown. You are entitled to your own opinion. You're NOT entitled to your own facts. 

Earlier I wrote,


> The ONLY way that injuries can occur with an Ecollar is from leaving them on for waaay too long and/or having them waaay too tight or waaay too loose. Then you can get some irritation where the contact points rest on the dog's skin. At worst that irritation can lead to an infection that's easily treated.


 




AgileGSD said:


> I'm pretty sure I mentioned this same thing very early on in this thread.


 
Yes, you did. And then in your post that preceded this one you wrote this, "* But the truth is, * they are a very powerful tool which is very capable of * physiologically damaging dogs, * even when used "properly" [Emphasis Added]" 

NOW that I've corrected you everyone knows that you chose the wrong word, "physiologically" when you actually mean "psychologically." So your statement was not only NOT "the truth" as you claimed it to be, but it was highly misleading. Without my rebuttal people would think that dogs could be physically harmed from the current from an Ecollar and that is simply NOT the case. 




AgileGSD said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by my having a "blind spot" about e-collars.


 
I'm referring to your repeated reference to the dangers of the Ecollar. Those dangers only exist when they're used improperly, NEVER when they're used properly. You focus on the misuse while ignoring the fact that any tool can be misused. Instead of suggesting that people learn about whatever tool they choose, you give them misinformation and warning about horrorshows that you claim exist without any supporting information! 




AgileGSD said:


> I do think people needed to understand that they can really screw their dog up with e-collar training though.


 
Here's your blind spot again. You're not warning people about the truth or the reality, that "they can screw up their dog with" *ANY *training tool. Your warning is ONLY about Ecollars as if they were the ONLY tool that can "screw up their dog." That's misleading at best and dishonest at worst. FACT IS, as I state, it can be done with any tool used improperly. You seem to be blind to this obvious fact. 




AgileGSD said:


> The vast majority of people I come across who want to use e-collars want a quick fix for their dog's behavior. They never consider that there could be any side effects of using such a tool and IMO that is a problem.


 
AGAIN showing your blind spot. AGAIN, the fact is that "the vast majority" wishes there was a "quick fix for their dog's behavior" no matter what methods they favor. The Ecollar, used properly will give quicker and longer lasting results than just about any other tool extant in dog training. I've given results to people in days when they've been struggling, sometimes for years, with other tools/methods.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Earlier JKlatsky wrote,


> After seeing it done by some training folks that I highly respect, we've recently started using the E-collar as a positive reinforcer. Application of the stim will increase the liklihood of a behavior (in this case attention).


 



AgileGSD said:


> You mean as a marker? I'm not sure why you'd need an ecollar for this? You can use a clicker, voice marker or for very long distance, a vibration collar. Or is the stim a cue to pay attention?


 
You can't use a clicker at very long distances (as you allude to) and you can't use either the clicker, voice or the vibration collar to deliver aversives. The Ecollar can be used for those and more. There's that "blind spot" again. 




AgileGSD said:


> I'm not sure I see the practicality of it as a cue.


 
It's being done by quite a few bomb dog handlers and trainers in the Sand Boxes. THEY don't have such a blind spot. Lol.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

LouCastle said:


> I notice that you did not fulfill my request for be "put in touch with the owner. The fact that you instead tell us that you know the owner hardly makes this anecdote true or accurate.


 I am not going to give you contact information for the owner. That is a ridiculous request for an internet discussion. 




LouCastle said:


> So now we find out that the dog "had issues" PRIOR to the use of the Ecollar. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that the training tools/methods that the owner used BEFORE the Ecollar came along in fact caused those issues. It is also completely possible that the dog was generically or environmentally predisposed to attack the owners and in fact the training (both what was done prior and what was done with the Ecollar) merely delayed it? Interesting that you somehow forgot to mention this when you first described the incident.


 The issues became clearly worse after the dog was sent to board and train with the e-collar trainer. 



LouCastle said:


> Uh, no you did not. You gave a vague reference to a franchise in the "area" of a large metropolitan city. You most certainly DID NOT send me the "training facility's name."


 I told you the franchise name and would tell anyone who wanted the info in PM. I wasn't aware there was more than one in that city and I certainly could ask which one it was but again, it seems a bit silly for an internet discussion. You are clearly a strong proponent of e-collar training and I'm not going to change your mind. I may be mistaken but don't you make a living off of e-collar training? That would explain why you seem to be threatened by anyone posting anything potentially negative associated with e-collar use.




LouCastle said:


> I'd also bet that the instructions with the IF said not to use the collar on the dog until he was six months old. Just about every manufacturer makes that recommendation. Did you see these instructions?


 Sit Means Sit method seem to agree with you on the age e-collars should be used. There are Sit Means Sit videos all over Youtube of 3-5 month old puppies being trained with e-collars. A quick search showed several other, less well known trainers advocating e-collar training with puppies under 6 months old. 




LouCastle said:


> I bet he wasn't 4 months old! Also notice that WE are talking about Ecollars as used for training and YOU'RE talking about something completely different! You said this dog was "damaged" by an Ecollar." That's NOT the truth.


 Again, you have stories confused. Neither of those dogs (the one who did well with IF training and the one who developed anxiety after IF training) were 4 months old at the time of the training. 



LouCastle said:


> In any case, in proper Ecollar training the dog is clearly shown what's causing his discomfort and what makes it stop. This, based on results, WAS NOT DONE by the owners of this dog. AGAIN, education is the key. I don't' see anywhere that you warned them of the dangers of improper use so I'll have to assume that you did not do so.


 You don't know the dog or owners or how the training was done. How can you say for sure what the situation was? 




LouCastle said:


> I'll disagree. You wrote this, "I have seen and known many other dogs who developed anxiety related issues after their owners starting using e-collars." That's hardly, as you now claim, "a warning of potential screwing up ... " That's sounds to me as if it's placing the blame for any "screwing up? On the tool, NOT on the trainer who is ultimately responsible for who ANY tools is used. Fact is a poor trainer can "screw up a dog" with ANY tool, including the ones that you favor. But most people would rather blame an inanimate object for their problems rather than take responsibility for their own actions. It's very freeing if you're not responsible for what you do, if instead you can blame "that evil tool."


 I never said I blamed the tool. I simply said that IME the tool has a great potential to do harm. You can argue all you want that all tools can be equally and as easily misused but it doesn't change my experience. 

Again I use electronic bark collars on my dogs. Obviously I am not totally opposed to e-collars.




LouCastle said:


> I'm sorry but you're expressing an opinion here, NOT A FACT.


 And you are also expressing an opinion. You aren;t gong to change my mind or my experiences. I won't attempt to change your's. I do question why you seem to be so angry that anyone would have a differing viewpoint though. Can't you calmly and rationally discuss your opinions?






LouCastle said:


> I'm referring to your repeated reference to the dangers of the Ecollar. Those dangers only exist when they're used improperly, NEVER when they're used properly. You focus on the misuse while ignoring the fact that any tool can be misused. Instead of suggesting that people learn about whatever tool they choose, you give them misinformation and warning about horrorshows that you claim exist without any supporting information!


 Misuse or proper use is extremely subjective - an matter of opinion.




LouCastle said:


> The Ecollar, used properly will give quicker and longer lasting results than just about any other tool extant in dog training. I've given results to people in days when they've been struggling, sometimes for years, with other tools/methods.


 Really I have never felt I needed an e-collar for training my dogs. I can teach dogs most things in a pretty short time. Some advanced behaviors take a bit longer but I'm generally happy with the rate of progress. I teach some pet training, some performance training and 4H and so far, I haven't felt a need to suggest e-collars for my students with the exception of bark collars. I'm happy with the methods I use and it sounds like you're happy with what you use. I am always open to learning about different techniques though.

I am curious. Would you suggest using an e-collar to 4H members (ages 8-19ish)? And if so, for all training or only certain things?




LouCastle said:


> You can't use a clicker at very long distances (as you allude to) and you can't use either the clicker, voice or the vibration collar to *deliver aversives*. The Ecollar can be used for those and more. There's that "blind spot" again.


 That is actually where I was confused. It sounded like the e-collar was only being used as "positive reinforcement", although I'm still not sure if they mean a marker or a cue or a secondary reinforcer or what. If the e-collar is being used for it's traditional purpose of being an aversive that makes more sense. 



LouCastle said:


> It's being done by quite a few bomb dog handlers and trainers in the Sand Boxes. THEY don't have such a blind spot. Lol.


 Instead of becoming defensive, why not share how and why one would use an e-collar as a cue. I questioned how it's practical and that was all. It's your defensive attitude that is making it appear to you that I am against e-collar use and unwilling to learn anything about it. There are lots of successful trainers using all different methods but that doesn't explain the how and why of it.


----------



## JKlatsky (Apr 21, 2007)

AgileGSD said:


> You mean as a marker? I'm not sure why you'd need an ecollar for this? You can use a clicker, voice marker or for very long distance, a vibration collar. Or is the stim a cue to pay attention? I'm not sure I see the practicality of it as a cue.


I am creating a conditioned response in my dog in response to the E-collar that increases drive and has a positive association- initially. The difference between the Ecollar and the other items, is that the E-collar has more versatility in the longevity of the training. And it IS just another tool. It's certainly not the ONLY tool that we use. We certainly started with clickers and with voice markers, and our collar does have a vibrate feature which we have also used. And we will often pair verbals with other tools, because someday the collar has to come off. But with the E-collar, there is the ability to adjust the level and the types of stim (pages vs nicks vs continuous at the different levels) to create a "conversation" if you will. Puppy currently receives a low level nick- this nick will eventually be able to stim him into more and more drive. Someone else explained how you can use the continuous button on the e-collar. 

People also do this with prong collars. Quick short pops bring dogs up in drive. Hard long pulls can take drive out of the dogs. Same tool can be used in different ways in different situations. The problem occurs when you lose track of what you are trying to do and give the wrong type of stim. People trying to use prongs to correct reactive behavior will too often give pops, which will increase the drive of the dog and increase reactive behavior. NOT what you want to do. A different kind of application of the prong collar will take the dog out of drive and be an actual correction for the behavior. Likewise with the E-collar. There is a reason they put all those features on those E-collars and today's collars are much more advanced than the first ones. 

That being said, of course there are other tools that can get you to the same place. I could give you a toothbrush, a rag, a mop, and a super hardwood floor steamer. All will get my floor clean. A person who cannot properly use a prong collar is often given a halti. They are not taught to properly use the prong, and mistakenly blame the collar for the results of the training. Likewise people who have poor timing and no clear understanding of how an ecollar works will not have success with the tool. I think it's human nature to blame the tool and not ourselves. It's not that you HAVE to use the ecollar, heck I don't always love it for everything. My first experiences with E-collars were with high level stim to stop behavior and I created problems in my dog. My bad. But people understanding that they really have no idea how to use it, were never properly taught HOW to use it, and that their ignorance or lack of facility is the problem are much more likely to do better as trainers than people who just want to rant about E-collars are terrible.

The more tools you have in your tool box...the better able you will be to keep everything in working order.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

AgileGSD said:


> I am not going to give you contact information for the owner. That is a ridiculous request for an internet discussion.


 
What is ridiculous is that you expect us to believe this anecdote "just because you say it's so" in the complete absence of any verifying information. 

Your position on this might make sense if both of us were completely anonymous. I've been using this email address and name on the Net for decades. It's my true name. You however hide behind a nickname and I have no idea who you really are. I would not give you any such information but giving it to someone who can be held responsible for what happens to it is a bit different. I think the real reason that you won't release it is that your story is not complete. As I asked questions about it new and important details were revealed over and over. For reasons known only to you, you hid vital details from us when you described the incident. 

It's understandable that you might not want to give out private information on the owner of this dog but it still does not tell us why you'd refuse to give us information on the commercial trainer who "damaged" this dog. 

In any case, I'll be glad to supply you with my personal information, heck my email address and website address are in my signature line, you can give it to these folks and *they can contact me! * 




AgileGSD said:


> The issues became clearly worse after the dog was sent to board and train with the e-collar trainer.


 
And so you have drawn a cause and effect relationship between the dog's aggression and the Ecollar. Problem is that you have assumed this to be so when there is nothing but coincidence to support such a position. It's quite possible that this dog had a brain tumor or a chemical; imbalance that ALSO would have gotten worse as time passed after the dog was sent out for training. AGAIN, You've assumed something to be the case when there is absolutely nothing but coincidence. 




AgileGSD said:


> I told you the franchise name and would tell anyone who wanted the info in PM. I wasn't aware there was more than one in that city and I certainly could ask which one it was but again, it seems a bit silly for an internet discussion.


 
I'll disagree. I'm saying that this anecdote did not happen the way that you claim it did. You are the one who's finding excuse after excuse to keep us from finding out the truth. I think that speaks volumes. I don't know how many franchises there might be in that city. But it's not up to me to find out. YOU are the one making the claim that a certain trainer did something untoward or at least, performed bad training. If you expect to be believed you need to supply information for us to talk to the trainer and find out their side of the incident. As always, the burden lies with the person making the claim. 




AgileGSD said:


> You are clearly a strong proponent of e-collar training and I'm not going to change your mind.


 
You don't need to and I'm not asking you to try. But if you expect this little story to be believed, you need to supply supporting information. You've already demonstrated your propensity to make assumptions, see cause and effect relationships where there's no proof that one exists and to purposefully hide information. 

I already know and have said that ANY training tool, and of course, that includes the Ecollar, can be misused and abused to bad results. 




AgileGSD said:


> I may be mistaken but don't you make a living off of e-collar training?


 
Yes you are mistaken. It's a clever debate technique but like some other tricks you've tried, it has failed you. I DO NOT make my living from "Ecollar training." I l have a great pension from nearly 30 years of law enforcement and I do make extra income *from dog training. * Sometimes, I use an Ecollar and sometimes I use clicker methods. Sometimes I use leashes and correction collars, sometimes harnesses, sometimes old tires. I use whatever tool/method is best for what I'm teaching and best for the dog that I'm training. 




AgileGSD said:


> That would explain why you seem to be threatened by anyone posting anything potentially negative associated with e-collar use.


 
You think I'm "threatened" by your anecdote that you refuse to supply supporting information for? ROFLMFAO But there are some here who might actually believe this nonsense and I want to make sure that they realize the truth. It would probably be best for this discussion if you didn't add your perceptions of my emotional state or guesses at my motivation to it. Such assumptions often lead to these conversations becoming personal and that's never a good thing. 

IN FACT I've posted quite a bit of negative comments associated with Ecollar use. But most poor results coming from any tool comes from ignorance of how to use that tool properly. As someone keeps saying, education is the key. 




AgileGSD said:


> Sit Means Sit method seem to agree with you on the age e-collars should be used. There are Sit Means Sit videos all over Youtube of 3-5 month old puppies being trained with e-collars. A quick search showed several other, less well known trainers advocating e-collar training with puppies under 6 months old.


 
Not sure what this has to do with this discussion. I'd bet that the instructions that you said the owners followed contained a warning not to use it with puppies under six months of age. You allege that these owners read and followed the instructions contained with the IF, but if that warning was present (and it is almost all the time with all the brands and all the various tools that use Estim) then THEY DID NOT FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS! 




AgileGSD said:


> Again, you have stories confused. Neither of those dogs (the one who did well with IF training and the one who developed anxiety after IF training) were 4 months old at the time of the training.


 
If I have this wrong it's because in describing the IF incident you wrote, "They told me [that] when he was 4 months old ... "

Earlier I wrote,


> In any case, in proper Ecollar training the dog is clearly shown what's causing his discomfort and what makes it stop. This, based on results, WAS NOT DONE by the owners of this dog. AGAIN, education is the key. I don't' see anywhere that you warned them of the dangers of improper use so I'll have to assume that you did not do so.


 



AgileGSD said:


> You don't know the dog or owners or how the training was done. How can you say for sure what the situation was?


 
I don't know them because you refuse to supply information on them. The fact that you cite this as what you perceive to be a weakness in my argument is HILARIOUS. YOU created this situation, not me. But with well over twenty years of having used Ecollars extensively I can spot what caused issues that occur fairly easily in some cases. This is one of them. If the dogs are not shown what causes the stim to start and stop they develop phobias and other fallout often occurs. OTOH, if they ARE shown this, the phobias and fallout DO NOT OCCUR. 

In any case I have no idea what the situation was, But then I'm not pretending to, as you are. I do know, based on the results and what you've told us, that the dog did not make the proper association between the stim he got from the IF (AGAIN not really the tool under discussion) and his own actions. YOU have told us that the training was not properly done. 




AgileGSD said:


> I never said I blamed the tool. I simply said that IME the tool has a great potential to do harm.


 
ANY tool used poorly "has the potential to do harm." Many people refuse to acknowledge this about their choice of tools. That does not change the truth. 




AgileGSD said:


> You can argue all you want that all tools can be equally and as easily misused but it doesn't change my experience.


 
Your experience on this sort of thing is highly limited. You know of a few anecdotes that you refuse to support so they may or may not be true. You've also got the experience, repeated a couple of times of assuming a cause and effect relations between bad outcomes and the use of the Ecollar. That's not your "experience." Those are your *assumptions. * They are nowhere near the same thing. 




AgileGSD said:


> Again I use electronic bark collars on my dogs. Obviously I am not totally opposed to e-collars.


 
AGAIN, bark collars and IF's are NOT the tool that's under discussion here. Why you keep trying to blur the distinction (and those distinctions are very large) is very understandable. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I'm sorry but you're expressing an opinion here, NOT A FACT.


 




AgileGSD said:


> And you are also expressing an opinion.


 

The difference is that my experience is based on putting Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs over the course of over two decades. Your experience is based on seeing the results of something that was done and fabricating a cause and effect relationship. I think people ought to know this sort of thing when they make evaluations of differing opinions and allow those opinions to influence them. 




AgileGSD said:


> You aren;t gong to change my mind or my experiences.


 
I have no aspirations of doing either. Your mind is made up based on assumptions and prejudices. I'd never waste my time trying to change a closed mind. I'm merely letting people know the value of your thoughts and experiences. 




AgileGSD said:


> I won't attempt to change your's.


 
OK, lol. But you are obviously trying to influence the opinions of other readers of this thread. I'm just showing them the other side of your comments; the side that is rational, reasonable and logical. 




AgileGSD said:


> I do question why you seem to be so angry that anyone would have a differing viewpoint though. Can't you calmly and rationally discuss your opinions?


 
Ah the old Straw Man argument. You are merely making an accusation (that I'm angry) and then pretending that this is influencing my argument. This is an extremely clever debate technique, until that is, the reality is pointed out. Then it merely contributes to the absurdity of your position. 




AgileGSD said:


> Misuse or proper use is extremely subjective - an matter of opinion.


 
Until and unless one looks at the results. If the dog is phobic and/or becomes aggressive immediately after such training * and medical reasons have been ruled out, * then it's NOT subjective. It's NOT a matter of opinion. 




AgileGSD said:


> Really I have never felt I needed an e-collar for training my dogs.


 
Yet you keep using your "experience" as support for your statements. Truth is, per this statement, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in using an Ecollar. 




AgileGSD said:


> I can teach dogs most things in a pretty short time. Some advanced behaviors take a bit longer but I'm generally happy with the rate of progress.


 
This tells us absolutely nothing except that you are content with your methods. Others may be amazed with your rate and others may be extremely dissatisfied. 




AgileGSD said:


> I teach some pet training, some performance training and 4H and so far, I haven't felt a need to suggest e-collars for my students with the exception of bark collars. I'm happy with the methods I use and it sounds like you're happy with what you use. * I am always open to learning about different techniques though. * [Emphasis Added]


 

I think the last part of your statement is not accurate. After all you have your opinions and your experiences. LOL




AgileGSD said:


> I am curious. Would you suggest using an e-collar to 4H members (ages 8-19ish)? And if so, for all training or only certain things?


 
It depends on what they wanted to train, the dogs they were working with and their maturity level. 

Earlier I wrote,


> You can't use a clicker at very long distances (as you allude to) and you can't use either the clicker, voice or the vibration collar to deliver aversives. The Ecollar can be used for those and more.


 



AgileGSD said:


> That is actually where I was confused. It sounded like the e-collar was only being used as "positive reinforcement"


 
That was all that was under discussion at the moment. 




AgileGSD said:


> Instead of becoming defensive


 
AGAIN with accusations. LOL AGAIN it's a straw man argument. 




AgileGSD said:


> why not share how and why one would use an e-collar as a cue.


 
First, it's not the topic of this discussion. Second, I don't do it or teach it. Lol. 




AgileGSD said:


> I questioned how it's practical and that was all.


 
I'll disagree. You wrote, "I'm not sure why you'd need an Ecollar for this." That's quite a way past "questioning" it's practicality. Rather you question the wisdom of using it in this fashion at all. 




AgileGSD said:


> It's your defensive attitude that is making it appear to you that I am against e-collar use and unwilling to learn anything about it.


 
Until just now you've not asked any questions. Besides, it's off topic for this discussion. If you'd like to talk about this I suggest you start a new thread and ask your questions there. But after your accusations, your assumptions and your willingness to see cause and effect relationships where there is nothing but coincidence, I probably won't be participating. My perception is that your mind is closed to the reality, due to your experiences.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

For the record, if any trainer gave out my personal information to ANYONE I would be FURIOUS. I don't care WHO they are. Heads would roll. 

JKlastsky, great post as usual. You have a great way of explaining things and I love reading your posts. You usually sum up what I am thinking in a much clearer way!


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

:hugs:To Lou and Agile.....relax, come on over to the "pot smoking" forum we have going on and just cool off for a bit


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

Lou - I'm not interesting in going back and forth with you over if e-collars have a great potential for misuse or not. You appear to be getting extremely worked up (typing words in ALL CAPS, lots of LOLs and !'s) and it was not my intent to offend you so greatly. FWIW I certainly don't hide - I've used this SN for the past 10 or so years on many different boards and it is my email address as well. I'm pretty sure my website is in my profile, although it's sadly quite outdated. I mostly use the FB page to update these days. If it's not there:
Alerondogs.com and my youtube channel: YouTube - NPuccini's Channel

I do have one more question though:



LouCastle said:


> It depends on what they wanted to train, the dogs they were working with and their maturity level.


 Would supplying all 4H members with e-collars, regardless of age, experience and maturity be considered irresponsible? It isn't something I would have thought would ever come up but while judging 4H in IN this past summer, I came across a training advisor who was a big supporter of e-collar use. 



GSDElsa said:


> For the record, if any trainer gave out my personal information to ANYONE I would be FURIOUS. I don't care WHO they are. Heads would roll.


 No doubt!

JKlatsky - Thanks for the informative post on your use of the e-collar. The way you are using it sounds very much like the use of "motivational pops" with regular training collars. I'm not really for or against the use of e-collars. I think they can be useful in some cases, for some dgs and for some situations. But I think they can be inappropriate or unnecessary in other situations or for some dogs.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

I agree with AgileGSD that e-collars have greater potential for psychological harm than other tools.

For one reason, an e-collar does not depend on the owner's physical capabilities beyond pressing a button. A 2 year old can give the same strength of correction as a physically fit adult man with an e-collar. My idea of a strong correction with a prong collar is not going to be the same as the physically fit adult man because he's stronger than I am, and that makes him more capable to hurt a dog if he wanted to. With an e-collar, *everyone* capable of pressing a button is capable of misusing the tool to the same degree as everyone else.

The e-collar doesn't discriminate. Everyone is capable of giving the same strength of a correction. The wider range of people who are physically capable of misusing a tool, the more possible it is that the tool can be used for abuse. 

But the fact that the e-collar doesn't discriminate means that it can be used _properly_ by a wider range of people as well. The weak, the young, and anyone else who isn't physically capable of using other tools can use this one if they are knowledgeable about training and they are capable of pressing a button in a timely manner. 

I doubt that the trainers in AgileGSD's stories were using the collar properly, but I don't think it's impossible for a dog to respond poorly to even proper e-collar methods.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

GSDElsa said:


> For the record, if any trainer gave out my personal information to ANYONE I would be FURIOUS. I don't care WHO they are. Heads would roll.


 
Of course I'd have AgileGSD asking permission before giving out such information. If they gave it, would you have a problem with them being contacted?


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

AgileGSD said:


> Lou - I'm not interesting in going back and forth with you over if e-collars have a great potential for misuse or not.


 
Fine by me. You have nothing but your opinion (based on quite a lack of experience with the tool) for your feeling that they're more subject to misuse than other tools. I, with quite a bit more experience, think otherwise. The simple truth is that, as I've said, EVERY tool has the potential for misuse. No tool has more potential than another. 




AgileGSD said:


> You appear to be getting extremely worked up (typing words in ALL CAPS, lots of LOLs and !'s)


 
It's unfortunate that you're unwilling to take my advice and stop making assumptions about my emotional state. I use punctuation and syntax for emphasis. I use "lots of LOL's" because some things you say are so absurd that they DO make me laugh out loud! 




AgileGSD said:


> and it was not my intent to offend you so greatly.


 
You think that you offended me? ANOTHER assumption! Do you ever stop? 




AgileGSD said:


> I do have one more question though: Would supplying all 4H members with e-collars, regardless of age, experience and maturity be considered irresponsible?


 
Of course. Ask the same question about "the car keys" or "a tennis racket" and you'll get the same answer.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Syaoransbear said:


> I agree with AgileGSD that e-collars have greater potential for *psychological harm *than other tools. [Emphasis Added]


 
I'm pretty sure that this is NOT AgileGSD's statement. She HAS said that she thinks that Ecollars "have a greater potential *for misuse * than other tools." 

The simple truth is that ANY tool can be misused. They ALL have the potential. 




Syaoransbear said:


> For one reason, an e-collar does not depend on the owner's physical capabilities beyond pressing a button. A 2 year old can give the same strength of correction as a physically fit adult man with an e-collar.


 
When was the last time that you saw "a 2 year old" training with an Ecollar? lol




Syaoransbear said:


> My idea of a strong correction with a prong collar is not going to be the same as the physically fit adult man because he's stronger than I am, and that makes him more capable to hurt a dog if he wanted to.


 
Pain with a pinch collar is NOT cause by *pulling strongly *on the leash. It comes from hand speed. Hand speed is not a function of strength. I've seen some VERY strong people who are completely incapable of giving a decent correction with a pinch collar. It DOES NOT take strength to train with a pinch collar. 




Syaoransbear said:


> With an e-collar, everyone capable of pressing a button is capable of misusing the tool to the same degree as everyone else.


 
Anyone is capable of dragging their dog around with a pinch collar, even your "2 year old." Doing so is guaranteed to mean that the dog gets nagging corrections which constitutes misuse. That "2 year old" can also give the dog a hellacious jerk pull with a head halter if the dog takes off on a runner. Again ... misuse. Anyone can easily overfeed their dog if using treats, and many do. Just take a look at the average dog in the park. AGAIN, misuse. And none of those tools costs hundreds of dollars, making THEM far more subject to misuse than an Ecollar. 




Syaoransbear said:


> The e-collar doesn't discriminate. Everyone is capable of giving the same strength of a correction.


 
Interesting that you ignore the truth about this situation. There are other ways to misuse various tool than I've mentioned, but somehow you too, have a _"blind spot"_ to it. Not unusual. 




Syaoransbear said:


> The wider range of people who are physically capable of misusing a tool, the more possible it is that the tool can be used for abuse.


 
NONSENSE! There are far more head halter out there than Ecollars and to many dogs, merely putting it on them is misuse. 




Syaoransbear said:


> But the fact that the e-collar doesn't discriminate means that it can be used properly by a wider range of people as well. The weak, the young, and anyone else who isn't physically capable of using other tools can use this one if they are knowledgeable about training and they are capable of pressing a button in a timely manner.


 
Virtually every tool extant is a _"double edged sword."_ 



Syaoransbear said:


> I don't think it's impossible for a dog to respond poorly to even proper e-collar methods.




There's a double negative here and so I think you mean that even if the Ecollar is used properly it's possible for a dog to respond poorly. 

I've put Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs. Not one of them responded "poorly." Hundreds perhaps thousands of people have used my methods, many who have never trained a dog or used an Ecollar before. My website has dozens of letter from them. NOT ONE PERSON has ever reported "poor results." The exact opposite is the case. And human nature being what it is, if someone got "poor results" they'd have spoken of it somewhere. Please free to search the Net and see if you can find such comments from someone.


----------



## dog tracker (Dec 10, 2010)

Just wanted to put in my 2 cents here. We do use an e-collar on our GSD and have had great results with all types of training: obedience, agility and SAR. Use it with just enough power to get their attention . Its like having a 500 foot leash. My boy knows when it goes on the fun and games is about to begin and has no issues wearing it


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

LouCastle said:


> I'm pretty sure that this is NOT AgileGSD's statement. She HAS said that she thinks that Ecollars "have a greater potential *for misuse * than other tools."
> 
> The simple truth is that ANY tool can be misused. They ALL have the potential.


And I didn't say that no tool can be misused. I just think it's easier to misuse a shock collar because, honestly, if I'm going to correct a dog into having a mental break down, I'm going to get _tired_ from doing it with a prong collar. A prong collar is more physically demanding than a shock collar.




LouCastle said:


> When was the last time that you saw "a 2 year old" training with an Ecollar? lol


Never, but they could. Actually my boyfriend's niece(who is 3) got into my training closet and was pressing buttons on the remote. It wasn't turned on, and my dog didn't have the collar on him, but she could still give a correction as hard as anyone else.




LouCastle said:


> Pain with a pinch collar is NOT cause by *pulling strongly *on the leash. It comes from hand speed. Hand speed is not a function of strength. I've seen some VERY strong people who are completely incapable of giving a decent correction with a pinch collar. It DOES NOT take strength to train with a pinch collar.


It's a combination of both. You have to be quick, but you also have to be strong enough for the collar to actually get tighter around the neck. And a young child or someone who is physically handicapped can't always make a quick enough movement with their arm. Pressing a button in a timely matter is more about brain speed, since your finger doesn't have far to move when it's sitting on a button.




LouCastle said:


> Anyone is capable of dragging their dog around with a pinch collar, even your "2 year old." Doing so is guaranteed to mean that the dog gets nagging corrections which constitutes misuse. That "2 year old" can also give the dog a hellacious jerk pull with a head halter if the dog takes off on a runner. Again ... misuse. Anyone can easily overfeed their dog if using treats, and many do. Just take a look at the average dog in the park. AGAIN, misuse. And none of those tools costs hundreds of dollars, making THEM far more subject to misuse than an Ecollar.


Nagging is not likely to give a dog psychological issues. Perhaps maybe just a higher tolerance to pain. And, again, I've never said any other tool could not be misused. Just that the e-collar has a lot of potential to be misused. 

Saying an ecollar has more _potential_ for abuse than other collars doesn't mean that it is being _used_ for abuse more than other tools. Although when I worked in a petstore, there certainly were a lot of people who were buying poor quality e-collars.



LouCastle said:


> Interesting that you ignore the truth about this situation. There are other ways to misuse various tool than I've mentioned, but somehow you too, have a _"blind spot"_ to it. Not unusual.


What truth are you talking about? Why do you keep mentioning other tools can be misused? I never said that no tools can be misused, just that it's easier to misuse a shock collar. If there's a proper way to use something, there's always going to be an improper way to use it. And frankly, improperly using an e-collar is extremely easy.

Even if you look at the instructions manual for some e-collars, the method it instructs owners to use is one that you see as misuse. So not only are these collars more capable of being misused, some companies that make them are recommending techniques that you consider to be misuse. 



LouCastle said:


> NONSENSE! There are far more head halter out there than Ecollars and to many dogs, merely putting it on them is misuse.


I agree, I've seen some dogs shut down while wearing them. But generally once you take them off, the dog recovers quickly and has not sustained long-lasting psychological damage. I'm more concerned about head-collars being capable of causing long-lasting physical damage from having the neck twisted.



LouCastle said:


> There's a double negative here and so I think you mean that even if the Ecollar is used properly it's possible for a dog to respond poorly.
> 
> I've put Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs. Not one of them responded "poorly." Hundreds perhaps thousands of people have used my methods, many who have never trained a dog or used an Ecollar before. My website has dozens of letter from them. NOT ONE PERSON has ever reported "poor results." The exact opposite is the case. And human nature being what it is, if someone got "poor results" they'd have spoken of it somewhere. Please free to search the Net and see if you can find such comments from someone.


But who are your regular clients? Soft, fearful dogs that urinate when you so much as use your outdoor voice or dogs who yelp when the rheostat is only at 1, or police handlers who have hard dogs bred for working?

I'm not saying e-collars are a bad tool, I wouldn't use them and advocate them if I thought that. I just think it's naive to think that a tool that only requires you to press a button doesn't have great potential for misuse. This whole study was done while misusing the collar by people who should have been professionals.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

LouCastle said:


> I'm pretty sure that this is NOT AgileGSD's statement. She HAS said that she thinks that Ecollars "have a greater potential *for misuse * than other tools."


 My statement is both.



LouCastle said:


> Of course. Ask the same question about "the car keys" or "a tennis racket" and you'll get the same answer.


It seems then that you would agree that e-collars have a greater chance of being misused. FWIW I have no hesitation with giving any of our members, even the youngest treats, clickers, regular leashes, buckle or martingale collars or harnesses to use in training class. 



LouCastle said:


> Interesting that you ignore the truth about this situation. There are other ways to misuse various tool than I've mentioned, but somehow you too, have a _"blind spot"_ to it. Not unusual.


 Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they have a "blind spot". Syaoransbear uses an e-collar, yet agrees that there is a great potential for misuse and a chance that it is an inappropriate tool for some dogs, even with proper use. And that what you see as misuse of the tool, many others (including some e-collar manufacturers) see as proper use.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Why does every e-collar thread turn into a who can write better in the snow match. Not every sentence has to be argued about and people can have different opinions without being wrong. It's really hard to learn anything from these threads once it deteriorates to this point.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Yes, it is no longer very interesting to me that e- collars can be misused. I never figured it was otherwise. Yes, very typical of the exchanges.
I have seen it work just fine on a wide variety ofdogs and just finished working my soft rescue girl with it because it has the least fallout of any of the corrective devices I have here, even her flat collar.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

It explodes because people are generally only slightly more confident their religion is the only correct one, as they are about their dog training methods


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

hunterisgreat said:


> It explodes because people are generally only slightly more confident their religion is the only correct one, as they are about their dog training methods


yeah...know that. It was a rhetorical question.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Jax08 said:


> yeah...know that. It was a rhetorical question.


sorry.. didn't mean it as explain-the-obvious thing, but was hoping some that are guilty of it might read and self-reflect lol.


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

hunterisgreat said:


> It explodes because people are generally only slightly more confident their religion is the only correct one, as they are about their dog training methods


 
I don't think Lou Castle is "slightly" more confident.......I think he's highly confident, you do know that he's been doing this well before you were alive right?


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Syaoransbear said:


> And I didn't say that no tool can be misused. I just think it's easier to misuse a shock collar because, honestly, if I'm going to correct a dog into having a mental break down, I'm going to get tired from doing it with a prong collar. A prong collar is more physically demanding than a shock collar.


 
"Correct[ing] a dog into having a mental breakdown is not misuse, *it's abuse. * And abuse is in the trainer, not the tool used. If someone wants to abuse a dog they can use their boot or just pick up a stick and start beating. In any case driving a dog into a mental breakdown with a pinch collar would only take 15-20 minutes, plenty of time before you "got tired." AND there are several studies that show that merely pushing a button (if one wants to abuse a dog) is NOT as psychologically satisfying to the abuser as is more physical means, such as the boot or stick so there's even LESS likelihood of that happening 

Earlier I wrote,


> When was the last time that you saw "a 2 year old" training with an Ecollar? lol


 



Syaoransbear said:


> Never, but they could. Actually my boyfriend's niece(who is 3) got into my training closet and was pressing buttons on the remote. It wasn't turned on, and my dog didn't have the collar on him, but she could still give a correction as hard as anyone else.


 
Since we're talking about dog training here it would probably be better if we didn't drift off into the absurd. You might want to put a lock on the door of your training closet. There's probably some equipment in there that could harm a three−year−old. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Pain with a pinch collar is NOT caused by *pulling strongly *on the leash. It comes from hand speed. Hand speed is not a function of strength. I've seen some VERY strong people who are completely incapable of giving a decent correction with a pinch collar. It DOES NOT take strength to train with a pinch collar.


 




Syaoransbear said:


> It's a combination of both.


 
Strength is a very minor part of it. You have to be strong enough to move your hands quickly but just about anyone, unless they're injured, very aged, or handicapped, is capable of that. 




Syaoransbear said:


> You have to be quick, but you also have to be strong enough for the collar to actually get tighter around the neck.


 
Oh jeez. Talk about begging the question. It takes only a few pounds of pressure to make the collar "actually get tighter around the neck." I'm old, fat and arthritic. Yet I can use a pinch collar Hand speed is far more important than strength in using a pinch collar. I've seen thousands (yes, thousands) of VERY strong men who could not give a decent correction with a pinch collar because they thought, as you stated, that it was about strength. OTOH I've seen hundreds of slight women who were extremely capable of doing it because they knew that it was about hand speed. You can be strong enough to flip a dog completely over and not have it be a correction. 




Syaoransbear said:


> And a young child or someone who is physically handicapped can't always make a quick enough movement with their arm. Pressing a button in a timely matter is more about brain speed, since your finger doesn't have far to move when it's sitting on a button.


 
Here we are again, drifting off into the absurd. Better remove all the electrical outlets in your house because a child, even a physically handicapped one, might stick a knife into one of them. Please try to stay in the real world in these discussions. 




Syaoransbear said:


> Nagging is not likely to give a dog psychological issues.


 
Tell that to the many handlers I know and have seen who have been bitten by their own dogs for JUST that reason. 




Syaoransbear said:


> Perhaps maybe just a higher tolerance to pain. And, again, I've never said any other tool could not be misused. Just that the e-collar has a lot of potential to be misused.


 
Actually what you've said is this,


> e-collars have *greater potential * for psychological harm than other tools. [Emphasis Added]


 Please stop trying to move the goalposts. 




Syaoransbear said:


> Saying an ecollar has more potential for *abuse *than other collars doesn't mean that it is being used for *abuse *more than other tools. [Emphasis Added]


 
Now you're talking about an entirely different subject, abuse. The rest of us are talking about training ,and at the worst, misuse. AGAIN, abuse is in the trainer, not in the tool. 




Syaoransbear said:


> Although when I worked in a petstore, there certainly were a lot of people who were buying poor quality e-collars.


 
Since you don't tell us that you tried to dissuade these folks, it's reasonable to assume that you did nothing about this. Not an issue with the tool but your failing. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Interesting that you ignore the truth about this situation. There are other ways to misuse various tool than I've mentioned, but somehow you too, have a "blind spot" to it. Not unusual.


 




Syaoransbear said:


> I never said that no tools can be misused, just that it's easier to misuse a shock collar.


 
It's just your opinion that the Ecollar is more easily misused than other tools and I disagree. Until and unless you can provide us with something substantial to support your opinion there's no reason that anyone should accept it. Mine is different and it's based on over two decades of experience with the tool. 




Syaoransbear said:


> If there's a proper way to use something, there's always going to be an improper way to use it. And frankly, improperly using an e-collar is extremely easy.


 
Just as using a clicker, a leash, a head halter, or a harness improperly is "extremely easy." 




Syaoransbear said:


> Even if you look at the instructions manual for some e-collars, the method it instructs owners to use is one that you see as misuse. So not only are these collars more capable of being misused, some companies that make them are recommending techniques that you consider to be misuse.


 
Please show where I've said any such thing. 

Earlier I wrote,


> NONSENSE! There are far more head halter out there than Ecollars and to many dogs, merely putting it on them is misuse.


 




Syaoransbear said:


> I agree, I've seen some dogs shut down while wearing them. But generally once you take them off, the dog recovers quickly and has not sustained long-lasting psychological damage.


 
If a dog shuts down, I think he's suffered "long−lasting psychological damage. The fact that you don't recognize it, hardly means it's not there. 

You insinuate with this statement, that an Ecollar can cause "long lasting psychological damage." Please show us something to support this opinion. Especially in light of the fact that there has NEVER been a scientific study that supports this. *NEVER. * Even this study, which is a joke, does not come to that conclusion. 




Syaoransbear said:


> I'm more concerned about head-collars being capable of causing long-lasting physical damage from having the neck twisted.


 
Me too, although I've never seen any studies that documented this. It's simply impossible to do any physical damage with the current from an Ecollar. Interesting that you failed to mention this. It's another part of the "blind spot." 

Earlier I wrote,


> I've put Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs. Not one of them responded "poorly."


 




Syaoransbear said:


> But who are your regular clients? Soft, fearful dogs that urinate when you so much as use your outdoor voice or dogs who yelp when the rheostat is only at 1, or police handlers who have hard dogs bred for working?


 
My regular clients are either LE (law enforcement) or SAR (Search and Rescue) handlers. I also have a few private clients who are pet owners. But OFTEN I deal with just the dog that you describe. Those dogs respond EXCELLENTLY to the Ecollar. For one such story CLICK HERE This dog was so fearful that she'd bite someone if she walked from shadow to sunlight. She tried to bite me ON THE FACE because someone closed (not slammed) a car door and it made a "clicking" noise. 

The Ecollar is the PERFECT tool to use on these dogs because it builds their confidence in a way that NO OTHER TOOL can. This dog showed dramatic changes in just 25-30 minutes. 




Syaoransbear said:


> ... I just think it's naive to think that a tool that only requires you to press a button doesn't have great potential for misuse.


 
How misleading! Looooooooong before you can press the button and misuse the tool you have to go buy one. That either means shopping on the Net or physically going to a store. Then you have to spend quite a bit of money, sometimes hundreds of dollars for a quality unit. Then you have to at least read some instructions as to how to turn it on. 

* The head halter can inflict injury by doing NOTHING, not even pressing a button! * They're far cheaper than head collars and simply standing completely passively (your two−year−old example) while the dog takes a runner can inflict injury. Yet somehow I don't see you warning people about this over and over. There's that blind spot again. 




Syaoransbear said:


> This whole study was done while misusing the collar by people who should have been professionals.


 
Why do you think that they "should have been professionals?" They're simply dog owners who are training for a very difficult contest, the IPO. Have you ever trained successfully for anything with that degree of difficulty?


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Earlier I wrote, 


> I'm pretty sure that this is NOT AgileGSD's statement. She HAS said that she thinks that Ecollars "have a greater potential *for misuse *than other tools." [Emphasis Original]


 




AgileGSD said:


> My statement is both.


 
You may feel that way but so far, I don't think that you've said it. Either way, you're wrong. Lol. 




AgileGSD said:


> It seems then that you would agree that e-collars have a greater chance of being misused.


 
No, I think that there are other tools, head harnesses for example, that have a far greater potential for misuse. 




AgileGSD said:


> FWIW I have no hesitation with giving any of our members, even the youngest treats, clickers, regular leashes, buckle or martingale collars or harnesses to use in training class.


 
Then you simply fail to realize the potential for misuse. You seem to think that those tools are beyond misuse, that it's completely impossible for it to occur. HUGE blind spot. 




AgileGSD said:


> Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they have a "blind spot".


 
Of course not. That shows up in other ways. For example the fact that you give the tools you mention to "all 4H members with e-collars, regardless of age, experience and *maturity" * [Emphasis Mine] shows that you don't think that they can misuse those tools. I think that's one of two things. Either complete ignorance (or denial) of what "immature" (your word) children can do to dogs, or someone who's painted themselves into a corner and just won't admit it. I've seen kids of those ages hang dogs over a tree limb, admittedly abuse but you won't even admit that can occur. I've seen them jerking constantly on leashes attached to various kinds of collars. I once saw a supposedly mature adult who got frustrated with training, throw her clicker and just miss the dog's eye. 




AgileGSD said:


> Syaoransbear uses an e-collar, yet agrees that there is a great potential for misuse


 
There's a vast difference between "a great potential for misuse" and "a great*ER* potential for misuse." The first is absolute and is inherent in any tool from something that's as complicated as an Ecollar to something that's as simple as a leash. The second statement says that the risk of misuse is higher with an Ecollar than with other tools. I disagree. 




AgileGSD said:


> and a chance that it is an inappropriate tool for some dogs, even with proper use.


 
I've never come across a dog that an Ecollar "is an inappropriate tool" for. Please tell us what kind of dog you think this would be?


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Denali Girl said:


> I don't think Lou Castle is "slightly" more confident.......I think he's highly confident, you do know that he's been doing this well before you were alive right?


I wasnt referring to him (or anyone). Wasnt calling anyone slightly confident either. Was saying everyone in this world has a tendency to not be able to objectively look at a training method other than their own


I actually pay very close attention to Lou castles posts as I know there is much I can learn from him, and he doesn't speckle his posts with insults to people who don't agree which people tend to do, and is counter productive to getting your point across


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

LouCastle said:


> Then you simply fail to realize the potential for misuse. You seem to think that those tools are beyond misuse, that it's completely impossible for it to occur. HUGE blind spot.


 Not at all. But those tools are easier for children to use properly than an e-collar would be. They have a lesser risk of a child misusing them than an e-collar does. For me, I teach the members to have a working relationship with their dog and don't delve much into them using correction or force to get what they want. It works great 



LouCastle said:


> I've never come across a dog that an Ecollar "is an inappropriate tool" for. Please tell us what kind of dog you think this would be?


 Must be because you have a blind spot 



hunterisgreat said:


> I actually pay very close attention to Lou castles posts as I know there is much I can learn from him, and he doesn't speckle his posts with insults to people who don't agree which people tend to do, and is counter productive to getting your point across


 That doesn't appear to be the case with this thread at all.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I am wondering what type of dog also. I just trained my soft girl with it. She is so sensitive to correction that she can be a challenge to put the finishings of training on. The e-collar works better than my voice or any correction on any type of collar she might wear.

I found it applicable across a wider variety of dogs than most other tools.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

AgileGSD said:


> That doesn't appear to be the case with this thread at all.


That I follow what he says, that I can learn from him, or that he has insulted you?

I haven't read this particular thread from start to finish, but I catch some parts here and there.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

opcorn:

Still have no need or use for e-collars. 

I think that most studies though, are made by people wanting to prove something that they have already decided is true though.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

AgileGSD said:


> Not at all. But those tools are easier for children to use properly than an e-collar would be.


 
Again, this is just your opinion. Mine is that BOTH the theory of training using an Ecollar with modern methods and the actual use are far easier than with any of the tools you mention. 




AgileGSD said:


> They have a lesser risk of a child misusing them than an e-collar does.


 
Wrong again. To misuse an Ecollar requires one to press a button at the wrong time. Since with my methods the button press and the command are given at the same time, it's hard to mess it up. To misuse a clicker merely require poor timing which if far more critical than with even an Ecollar. Regular leashes can be misused by merely standing will and doing nothing, something that's quite common with novice handlers and will occur, no doubt, with children who don't know what they're doing as well. If a dog takes off on a runner and the person handling the leash does nothing, the dog will get a severe jerk on its neck. If it's wearing a buckle collar all of that force is concentrated on the front of the neck, rather than spread around the entire circumference. 




AgileGSD said:


> For me, I teach the members to have a working relationship with their dog and don't delve much into them using correction or force to get what they want. It works great


 
It does nothing towards training. One can have a GREAT "working relationship" with a dog and he still won't come when called. But perhaps you have some other definition of this term. BTW the Ecollar gives one a FANTASTIC "working relationship" with a dog at the same time that training is going on. I've worked many dogs that I thought were going to bite me. In fact, in the situation with Roma (linked to a few posts back) she tried to bite me on the face because a noise had occurred in our vicinity when I first met her. About 25 minutes later she climbed into my lap and was licking my face. If you haven't read that success story, you might consider doing so. It's quite enlightening about the power of an Ecollar used correctly, with a dog that nothing else had worked for. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I've never come across a dog that an Ecollar "is an inappropriate tool" for. Please tell us what kind of dog you think this would be?


 




AgileGSD said:


> Must be because you have a blind spot


 
ROFL. My how clever! But such an evasive response at this point just makes you look silly. Fact is (absent a very few medical conditions which would disqualify a dog from wearing any type of collar) there is no such thing as a dog that an Ecollar is an "inappropriate tool" for. There are only trainers who don't know enough about using the tool to put it on all dogs. Earlier you asked about using an Ecollar on _"Soft, fearful dogs that urinate when you so much as use your outdoor voice or dogs who yelp when the rheostat is only at 1"_ So I'll guess that you think that for such a dog, the Ecollar is inappropriate. I bet you were quite surprised when I told you that the Ecollar is "EXCELLENT" for such a dog. 

BTW no dog "yelp when the rheostat is only at 1" if you're using appropriate equipment. No dog can even feel that setting with the collars that I use and recommend. If you're getting such results I suggest that you junk whatever Ecollar you're using. 

Earlier hunterisgreat wrote,


> I actually pay very close attention to Lou castles posts as I know there is much I can learn from him, and he doesn't speckle his posts with insults to people who don't agree which people tend to do, and is counter productive to getting your point across.


 




AgileGSD said:


> That doesn't appear to be the case with this thread at all.


 
Thanks for the kind words hunterisgreat. And AgileGSD I challenge you to find anyplace that I've insulted you. In fact, several times you've tried to use a straw man argument with me. I find that HIGHLY insulting. You've also pretended that you know my emotional state when all you've done is made many assumptions based on my punctuation and capitalization. Again, very insulting.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Samba said:


> I am wondering what type of dog also. I just trained my soft girl with it. She is so sensitive to correction that she can be a challenge to put the finishings of training on. The e-collar works better than my voice or any correction on any type of collar she might wear. I found it applicable across a wider variety of dogs than most other tools.


 
And now we have Samba who ALSO wants to know "what type of dog" you find the Ecollar inappropriate for. Usually when two members of a forum have similar questions, others do as well. So AgilseGSD instead of evading, avoiding and being derisive, how about you tell us what type of dog you think the Ecollar is "inappropriate" for?


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

LouCastle said:


> Again, this is just your opinion. Mine is that BOTH the theory of training using an Ecollar with modern methods and the actual use are far easier than with any of the tools you mention.


 If that is so, why would you not suggest them for all children involved 4H dog training? Why would the use of one require a certain maturity? 




LouCastle said:


> It does nothing towards training. One can have a GREAT "working relationship" with a dog and he still won't come when called. But perhaps you have some other definition of this term. BTW the Ecollar gives one a FANTASTIC "working relationship" with a dog at the same time that training is going on. I've worked many dogs that I thought were going to bite me. In fact, in the situation with Roma (linked to a few posts back) she tried to bite me on the face because a noise had occurred in our vicinity when I first met her. About 25 minutes later she climbed into my lap and was licking my face. If you haven't read that success story, you might consider doing so. It's quite enlightening about the power of an Ecollar used correctly, with a dog that nothing else had worked for.


 I don't doubt that people find e-collars useful for things. I have personally found them useful to stop unwanted barking, something I have gotten a lot of flack for suggesting on this forum. I don't need an e-collar to have a good working relationship with my dog. 



LouCastle said:


> Earlier you asked about using an Ecollar on _"Soft, fearful dogs that urinate when you so much as use your outdoor voice or dogs who yelp when the rheostat is only at 1"_


 Actually I didn't.

We have already concluded that they are inappropriate for dogs who are owned by immature children, quick tempered owners and young puppies. I'd be hesitant to use one on a dog who is highly touch sensitive, something I have seen with Belgians more so than GSDs. And with dogs who shut down easily. I have seen they aren't always appropriate for aggressive dogs. I know they can be useful for giving corrections to handler soft dogs but thought that your method was that correcting with an e-collar was "improper use". You did say that you use the e-collar at the same time as giving a command. I think I asked how/why one would use an e-collar like that, way back in this thread but you gave your standard "blind spot" reply.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

AgileGSD said:


> If that is so, why would you not suggest them for all children involved 4H dog training? Why would the use of one require a certain maturity?


 

Because immature children are often stupid and cruel. I'd not give them a tennis racket, an Ecollar or a dog, even one on a leash. But this just seems like common sense to me. 




AgileGSD said:


> I don't doubt that people find e-collars useful for things. I have personally found them useful to stop unwanted barking, something I have gotten a lot of flack for suggesting on this forum.


 
Yamean people who know little about the tool that you've chosen to use have told you that you're doing it wrong? Gee, that sounds familiar! I wonder where I've heard that before? 




AgileGSD said:


> I don't need an e-collar to have a good working relationship with my dog.


 

No one does but it makes it very easy to BOTH train and developed a GREAT working relationship, especially with dogs with issues. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Earlier you asked about using an Ecollar on "Soft, fearful dogs that urinate when you so much as use your outdoor voice or dogs who yelp when the rheostat is only at 1"


 




AgileGSD said:


> Actually I didn't.


 
You're right. Another poster did and I attributed it improperly to you. Apologies. 




AgileGSD said:


> We have already concluded that they are inappropriate for dogs who are owned by immature children


 
ROFL. No, we haven't. We HAVE concluded that DOGS are inappropriate for immature children. They shouldn't own them no matter what tool they choose to train with. 




AgileGSD said:


> quick tempered owners and young puppies.


 
Again, we have not determined the first and it's widely acknowledged that Ecollars are best not used on puppies under six months, although I've gone as young as 10 weeks and had extremely good results. 

But again you beg the question by TWICE talking about unsuitable OWNERS, not unsuitable dogs. 




AgileGSD said:


> I'd be hesitant to use one on a dog who is highly touch sensitive,


 
Given your knowledge about use of the tool, you should "be hesitant to use one" on ANY dog. But those of us who know how, or those who have made the slight effort require to educate themselves (as is required with ANY tool) should not be hesitant at all. I've used them on such dogs many times. In the over 3,000 dogs I've worked with, not one of them was "touch sensitive" to the Ecollar stim. 




AgileGSD said:


> And with dogs who shut down easily.


 
They're excellent for such dogs because the stim seems to come from the environment rather than from the owner. 




AgileGSD said:


> I have seen they aren't always appropriate for aggressive dogs.


 

Again you're wrong and this time it's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. Ecollars should not be used _"to correct"_ aggression. That has a specific and limited meaning. Let me know if you're not 100% clear on what that means. The Ecollar is AN EXCELLENT tool to use to train those dogs, especially if that aggression is directed towards the handlers or other dogs. My Crittering protocol has been used by many to stop dog−to−dog aggression. It's not failed once when the owners did their homework. Because the stim seems to come from the environment and is caused by the dog's actions, NOT anything that comes from the handler there's no chance for conflict with handler−aggressive dogs. 




AgileGSD said:


> I know they can be useful for giving corrections to handler soft dogs but thought that your method was that correcting with an e-collar was "improper use".


 
Sorry I don't understand what you mean here. I thought we were discussing dogs that you thought Ecollars were inappropriate for. When have I said that "correcting with an Ecollar was 'improper use?' " 




AgileGSD said:


> You did say that you use the e-collar at the same time as giving a command. I think I asked how/why one would use an e-collar like that, way back in this thread but you gave your standard "blind spot" reply.


 
In post #71 I wrote this, _"Since with my methods the button press and the command are given at the same time, it's hard to mess it up."_ I’m pretty sure that I've not mentioned it anywhere else in this discussion. That was only two posts back and only another post of mine came between that post and this one of yours. I don't think that you asked "how/why one would use an Ecollar like that" anywhere in this post, your first opportunity to do so since I made the comment. 

Since you seem to think that I replied with another "blind spot" comment, please point that out. I don't think you ever asked. 

I suggest that you take a look at one of my protocols (if you haven't read at least one of them I'm amazed that you're so deep into this discussion) and then your question will be answered. CLICK HERE for the one on the recall.


----------



## xenos56 (Jan 30, 2011)

I think it goes against training on some level. If we punish a dog, they see it as attention, whether positive or negative. So a shock could very well halt training by giving the dog some form of attention. If that makes sense. People have recommended it for our GSD when he whined (literally 7-8 hours a day), but we patiently waited it out - for almost a year. Not sure how he would have reacted to being shocked, buzzed or beeped. Patient training is better imo.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

MaggieRoseLee;
I love them. I'll always use them. BUT before I ever put the collar on my dog I read up on them said:


> :thumbup:
> 
> Thanks to the e-collar Benny and I cam enjoy off leash hikes and beaches. He has a very good recall and I seldom have to even give a stim. I find myself praising him more than correcting these days. Like Maggie and other have said one must take the time to learn how to use it properly. It is just a tool and like any tool can be misused. I get very upset at people who see who well behaved Benny is and ask to borrow that "shock collar" for the weekend to teach their dog to behave.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

xenos56 said:


> I think it goes against training on some level.


 
You might want to do some reading on learning theory. Reinforce what you want repeated and punish what you don't want repeated. Extinction works unless it's for something that is self−rewarding. The Ecollar allows for both reinforcement and punishment. Few other tools do. 

Mind telling us how a tool used in training "goes against training?" 




xenos56 said:


> If we punish a dog, they see it as attention, whether positive or negative. So a shock could very well halt training by giving the dog some form of attention. If that makes sense.


 
Not much. Any attention is overridden by the punishment of the behavior. 




xenos56 said:


> People have recommended it for our GSD when he whined (literally 7-8 hours a day), but we patiently waited it out - for almost a year. Not sure how he would have reacted to being shocked, buzzed or beeped.


 

I'd bet that you rewarded his whining with attention whether you thought you were doing so or not. It's all but impossible to completely ignore this from a dog. Did you investigate potential medical causes for his whining or did you just pretend to ignore it? 




xenos56 said:


> Patient training is better imo.


 
For some things, like this whining, if you're willing to put up with it, it really makes no difference how long it takes to stop (or even if it never stops). Would you wait for a year if he consistently rushed the door, got out, failed to recall and you lived on a busy street? How about if he was aggressive towards your children or other pets?


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

I also like the fact that depending on what you are doing with the e-collar, a lot of times the dog thinks the corrections are environmental.....you can't get that with any other collar. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Denali Girl said:


> I also like the fact that depending on what you are doing with the e-collar, a lot of times the dog thinks the corrections are environmental.....you can't get that with any other collar. Just my 2 cents.



I'm counting on that for my reactive girl. It's taking a while to 'load' the collar with the vibration as a marker but once that's done we can move onto the next step. I highly recommend finding a good trainer experienced with e-collars so you get the full benefit from it and use it correctly.


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

Jax08 said:


> I'm counting on that for my reactive girl. It's taking a while to 'load' the collar with the vibration as a marker but once that's done we can move onto the next step. I highly recommend finding a good trainer experienced with e-collars so you get the full benefit from it and use it correctly.


 
Jax, personally, I love them and have been using them for a long time. I just got mine back because the batteries were 12 years old and needed to be replaced. I have the superdog 200? series. It has the vibrate, vib/stim and stim settings. I love it, I call it the 1/4 mile long line. Good luck with your training.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I'm excited that there is a solution in the horizon for her and I have a trainer to help me. I have a dogtra (can't remember the model). 

I think people need to get past the "frying your dog" mentality and realize that the stim used appropriately is not more uncomfortable than a prong or a choke collar and that the e-collar is doing LESS damage to their necks and trachea than the other correction collars. When used improperly those collars can crush the trachea, puncture the neck, and neck their spine out of alignment at their neck. 

*ALL collars can cause damage when used inappropriately. It is not the fault of the collar...it is the fault of the person.*


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

Plus I would like to lobby to change the name from shock to stim, there is no shock involved. I like to use the analogy "it's like sticking your tongue on a 9 volt battery"......am I the only one who has done that? lol I can hold the collar on my fingers and feel the tingle...far less pain than a prong. I'm not against prongs or any training method and I will use tham all in the right setting.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

It is the least "invasive" for my soft girl. Less personal also. Really like it for my dogs who need some proofing but are super sensitive to correction.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Samba said:


> It is the least "invasive" for my soft girl. Less personal also. Really like it for my dogs who need some proofing but are super sensitive to correction.


I've never owned an ecollar (not against it, just haven't been compelled to fork over the cash for one yet). My female is soft & sensitive too. I might try an ecollar for her in the future


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

I have a question that I'm sure someone could answer
*Which model would you recommend for me (need a 2 dog set). Its not that money is no object, but I expect to spend a pretty penny and don't have an issue paying alot for the right tool now than risk needing to re-buy down the road*


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Look at the Dogtra's. You'll probably need 3/4" prongs.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Jax08 said:


> Look at the Dogtra's. You'll probably need 3/4" prongs.


Any particular model or things to consider? I live near the sea, so I'd highly prefer 316 stainless hardware (probably not available) but 304 would be acceptable. Its gotta be able to deal with salt in the air.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

It depends on the range you want and how much money you want to spend. Dogtra service reps are very helpful you want to talk to one. I have a 200NCP and wanted longer prongs, which someone told me was not possible (I think someone on here). Dogtra sent out the 3/4" immediately and the rep was very nice and helpful.


----------



## liv (Sep 1, 2010)

I have the dogtra 1900 and it works great for my girl - I got the 1/2 mi range because we mostly use it in the woods, which decreases the range. The trouble with their 2 dog system (and I don't know if other brands are different or not) is that there is only one stim setting - so either both dogs get the same level of stim or you have to adjust the rheostat with each stim, which I don't see working well. My girl is at a 3-8 out of 127, and I haven't started my new male on one yet, but I'm not liking the chances of him working at exactly the same level. I am planning on buying another single dog unit and just carrying two remotes (and covering one in orange tape or something!)

ETA - I do love the adjustability of the Dogtra though - my girl works on such a low level that I can't even feel her high end, so fine tweaks are very important to me!


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Jax08 said:


> It depends on the range you want and how much money you want to spend. Dogtra service reps are very helpful you want to talk to one. I have a 200NCP and wanted longer prongs, which someone told me was not possible (I think someone on here). Dogtra sent out the 3/4" immediately and the rep was very nice and helpful.


None of dogtra's collars are out of the price range I'm willing to spend. I had already more or less decided on dogtra as they seem to be the standard people go to.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

liv said:


> I have the dogtra 1900 and it works great for my girl - I got the 1/2 mi range because we mostly use it in the woods, which decreases the range. The trouble with their 2 dog system (and I don't know if other brands are different or not) is that there is only one stim setting - so either both dogs get the same level of stim or you have to adjust the rheostat with each stim, which I don't see working well. My girl is at a 3-8 out of 127, and I haven't started my new male on one yet, but I'm not liking the chances of him working at exactly the same level. I am planning on buying another single dog unit and just carrying two remotes (and covering one in orange tape or something!)
> 
> ETA - I do love the adjustability of the Dogtra though - my girl works on such a low level that I can't even feel her high end, so fine tweaks are very important to me!


See thats the sort of stuff I need to have pointed out to me. So none of the 2 dog units can have independent settings? I KNOW for a fact my male is gonna need a much higher stim than my female. Its that way with all other training devices so I invision this being the same... and an accidental hard stim on my female will be pretty counter productive, and if I have to adjust the setting between stim's, I'm def gonna miss the timing and eventually will screw up and deliver way too much to the female


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

You need two separate collars/remotes for what you want to do.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Jason L said:


> You need two separate collars/remotes for what you want to do.


That is slightly unfortunate and annoying. Seems like a pretty simple thing for them to fix. Is there a reason they don't do that?


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

I have no idea. Maybe to sell you more collars? For training, you obviously just need one since you will be working one dog at a time (Tri-tronics have collars that you can match up to three different receivers - color coded red, blue, black - so you can work three dogs with one remote ... but obviously one dog at a time). Now if you are just out walking and have them both on ecollar, then it gets complicated and I actually think in that case, it would be easier to have two remotes (instead of fumbling around switching back and forth between the different receivers on one remote).


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

EZT Plus

Hunter check these out as well, I have had mine for many years and the company still stands behind their products, excellent customer service


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Jason L said:


> I have no idea. Maybe to sell you more collars? For training, you obviously just need one since you will be working one dog at a time (Tri-tronics have collars that you can match up to three different receivers - color coded red, blue, black - so you can work three dogs with one remote ... but obviously one dog at a time). Now if you are just out walking and have them both on ecollar, then it gets complicated and I actually think in that case, it would be easier to have two remotes (instead of fumbling around switching back and forth between the different receivers on one remote).


Yeah I guess in the case that I needed to stim both dogs right now, I couldn't do that with one remote


----------



## Denali Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

Oh and when you get one.......do not cut the excess off the collar, the antenna is in there, yes this POLOCK did that with the first model I got.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

Denali Girl said:


> Oh and when you get one.......do not cut the excess off the collar, the antenna is in there, yes this POLOCK did that with the first model I got.


I'd have done that lol


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Good news! They stopped threading the antennae through the collar strap quite some time ago. Now you can cut the collar strap to whatever length you like. All the antennae are internal now.


----------



## AthenaPrkr (Aug 14, 2021)

Syaoransbear said:


> These scientists certainly had an agenda when they made this study. Of course dogs are going to show fear behaviour when you are shocking them so much they give 'barking screams'. They could have at least had the shock collar intensity the same as a pinch or choke correction. I'm sure if they had a trainer that was really ripping at the dog with a prong collar, it would show the same signs of pain and fear as the dogs wearing shock collars.
> 
> I use a shock collar, and he's never shown any signs of fear or signs of not being able to recover from a correction because I don't abuse the tool by using ridiculously high settings. The thing that bothers him the most and takes him time to recover from is actually the _vibration feature_, which is clearly not painful.


My dog walks into his happily and willingly because it means he gets to go out. I think ONCE I had the dial too high accidentally, but this should never hurt.


----------

