# Last Resort Question



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

As I have read through posts on this board I continually see the term "last resort" used, particularly when speaking about an e-collar or pinch. An example would be "I would only use an e-collar as a last resort". So my question is this: Why not immediately use the proper tool that will produce the desired results? Why fool around with tools and techniques that are ineffective or improper for the circumstance? 
I look at it like this: If I want to put a nail in a board I immediatly use my hammer. I do not try several other tools before getting the hammer. Likewise, a hammer is not the proper tool for everything. If I wanted to tighten a bolt I would pick up my wrench and leave the hammer in the tool box.


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

Because if the positive approach works, why stress your dog or damage your relationship with your dog by using an extreme method that is unnecessary? That's why.

By the way - dogs are not inanimate objects like boards and hammers. They have individual personalities just like humans do.

A better comparison would be medications - penicillin doesn't work, you try a different antibiotic.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgWhy fool around with tools and techniques that are ineffective or improper for the circumstance?


I'll bite, but I can't properly answer that question because I reject your basic premise - who is to say that the tools they're using are ineffective or improper for the circumstance? If they're working, obviously they're neither. Look at it this way - I don't have high blood pressure, so I don't take blood pressure meds. I might develop that condition some day, and in that case I'll get a prescription and start taking them. But for now, I don't need them, so I don't use them. That's the way I feel about some training methods - if I can't get the desired results with the methods I'm comfortable and familiar with then I'll try other methods. 

Generally, I subscribe to LIMA: least invasive, minimally aversive. I show the dog what I want and I reward them for doing it. I use corrections as necessary, but I don't believe showing a dog what I DON'T want is nearly as effective as showing them what I DO want, so I generally only use verbal corrections (as a way to impart information to the dog) until I'm sure that the dog fully understands and has generalized the command. If the situation warrants it, I'll use aversives, but I prefer not to unless absolutely necessary. 

I do most of my at home training off leash, so I'm not relying on training collars to keep the dog with me and engaged in the process. Physical corrections are impossible if there's nothing attaching the dog to me. It forces me to find ways to motivate my dogs to love learning and training and to enjoy working with me because there's nothing to keep them from wandering off. This is just how I choose to train, and it works for me. If it didn't, I'd try something else.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

dd,

I agree 100% I am not advocating using inappropriate tools or techniques, actually I am advocating using the proper tools and techniques first.

The medicine analogy is also good, and the way you describe it is exactly what I am saying. If you have an infection you use an antibiotic, if the first ANTIBIOTIC does not work then you try a different ANTIBIOTIC. You do not start off taking an inappropriate class of medication before moving onto the appropiate class of medication.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Cass,

If the tool or technique works then it is obviously the proper choice for the circumstance. So you are not at all in disagreement with me. 

I also agree with you about using the least amount of pressure necessary to be effective and give the desired result. 

I think you agree with me?


----------



## Raziel (Sep 29, 2009)

Positive training mostly works with my dog.
There are 1 or 2 behaviors I would like to get rid of.
But I wounldnt use an ecollar unless ALL of my methods failed & my dog was out of control.
I dont know why.

I would not make him wear one for 1 mistake.
Good question though.


----------



## Kruzayn (Jun 9, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Zahnburgdd,
> 
> I agree 100% I am not advocating using inappropriate tools or techniques, actually I am advocating using the proper tools and techniques first.
> 
> The medicine analogy is also good, and the way you describe it is exactly what I am saying. If you have an infection you use an antibiotic, if the first ANTIBIOTIC does not work then you try a different ANTIBIOTIC. You do not start off taking an inappropriate class of medication before moving onto the appropiate class of medication.


Similarly but using the blood pressure example: first they try to treat with proper diet and exercise. If that doesn't do the trick or isn't effective enough then they step it up to the next level (drugs). 

In some people diet and exercise are enough, and the drugs would have been excessive. In some people, the drugs are the only thing that work; but in most cases they start with the least invasive method first in hopes of not needing the more drastic measures


----------



## Strana1 (Feb 9, 2008)

I agree that the correct tool for the job saves a lot of time and effort, but the issue here is not to use the screw driver or the hammer for the nail, but which hammer to use: a claw hammer, a sledge hammer, a tack hammer, or a nail gun. They all put the nail in the board. 

I believe that the training system that works best for the individual dog is the best system for THAT dog. There are many factors that go into what is the best system; the temperament of the dog, the experience of the owner/handler, the task that is being accomplished. The problem (and subsequent heated discussions) lies in what everyone thinks is the "Right" way to train and that there is only one right way. This is a quote from an article my trainer wrote:


> Quote:I personally don't care how someone trains a dog, provided they meet the following criteria:
> 
> 1. They do no harm to the dog.
> 2. They are easy for the owner to understand and provide techniques that are easy to emulate.
> ...


 (here's the link to the rest of the article on "False Positives" http://www.fortunatek9.com/Articles/False_Positives_Julia_V_McDonough.pdf


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Kru,

I like your example and this is where we start to see what I am talking about. I will use your analogy so bear with it.

If you have highblood pressure and you go see your Doc does he tell you "stand on your head three times a day"? I hope not! So that doesn't work so you go back to the Doc and he says "ok, try watching more tv"? No! He already has an idea of what will be effective. Sure he starts with diet/exercise and then goes to drugs if that is not enough. But he knows that diet/exercise has a good possibility of working.
I realize the analogy is not perfect, but my point is this...shouldn't you already have an idea about what tools or techniques will be successful and immediatly start using that? It should already be close to working, you may have to add a little or take away a little or tweak your technique a little, but not randomly try things or use a "checklist" approach which it sounds like many people do.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: ddA better comparison would be medications - penicillin doesn't work, you try a different antibiotic.


But would you want to use regular penicillin or one of the 'super antibiotics' if you had a life threattening infection? i.e. the flesh eating staph? Guess wrong and maybe you die?

How about if you had a regular small infection?

That would be a better comparison, I think.


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

> Quote: As I have read through posts on this board I continually see the term "last resort" used, particularly when speaking about an e-collar or pinch.


I think a lot of people see them as being inhumane or cruel.. We get people in class saying that all the time about the prong (and the e-collar).. I could never use that on my... but once their taught how to use it properly, get to feel it on themselves and see the results.. they quickly change their minds..

To me, dog training is about being open minded.. and not afraid to try new methods, techniques or tools.. How else do you better yourself as a trainer..


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: Zahnburg I look at it like this: If I want to put a nail in a board I immediatly use my hammer. I do not try several other tools before getting the hammer.


If I want to dig a hole in my backyard do I NEED to start with this:











When this would work just as well:











Same TYPE of tool but one is major overkill.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Lauri,

Exactly correct, but it goes the other way too. If you want to put a swimming pool in your back yard are you going to the grab a shovel first, and when that proves ineffective fire up the excavater?


----------



## DogGone (Nov 28, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: ddBecause if the positive approach works, why stress your dog or damage your relationship with your dog by using an extreme method that is unnecessary? That's why….
> 
> A better comparison would be medications - penicillin doesn't work, you try a different antibiotic.


The so-called positive approach is not always positive and it doesn’t always work, nor is it always the most effective method.

My neighbor chose to only use so-called “positive” politically correct methods; as a result her dog was very poorly disciplined and very poorly socialized. The dog got away and would not respond to commands and it got run over. Not only did the dog die; but it did several hundreds of dollars worth of damage to a car and injured the driver because the driver tried to swerve to miss the dog.

I think it’s best to try to use the most appropriate tool and method for the job depending on all the conditions and the job. Not all jobs and conditions are the same.

How would you feel if you were going in for major surgery and you are given aromatherapy instead of anesthesia?

How would you feel if you found out someone molesting your child every night and you call 911 and instead of the police coming they send a moderator that tells you should compromise and negotiate with the molester. A compromise would be that your child would only be molested every other night. Would you consider that acceptable?

If you were drafted into the army and you had to fight trench warfare against an enemy that is using guns; would you feel it appropriate if you were only issued and allowed to carry a Swiss Army knife?

If you’re going bear hunting do you be politically correct and use so-called safer rimfire 22, or to use a high caliber rifle? The rimfire 22 is likely to cruelly hurt the bear and make it suffer and possibly die slowly; meanwhile you’re going to have an angry handicapped bear on the loose that might seek revenge on humans and might start praying on humans and or livestock. I think it’s best to use a high caliber rifle that’s more likely to make a humane, safe, quick kill.

=====

To me all of these are tools, they are all different and I select them depending on the conditions and the task at hand. I sometimes even use more than one for redundancy and/or backup. EI sometimes I use a conventional leash; however because of pain and paralysis and because sometimes I screw up; sometimes the leash and dog gets away from me; so I often use the E-collar as backup. 

I have dog treats.
I have a clicker.
I have a whistle.
I have a fenced in yard.
I have short leashes.
I have retractable leashes.
I have long leashes.
I have a breakaway fabric collars.
I have choker collars.
I have spiked choker collars.
I have a halter.
I have a gentle leader.
I have an E-collar with a choice of both tone and electrical stimulation.

They’re also certain combinations that can be deadly; using a long leash in combination with a halter or gentle leader can be fatal, because the longer leash can give a dog a run then when it gets to the end of the leash it yanks the head to the side which can break the neck.

Collars; especially spiked collars can be bad in dog parks because they can lead to injuries when the dogs are wrestling.

Choker collars typically don’t work well in combination with E-collars because metal choker collars can short out the terminals on the E-collars. 

Retractable leashes and long leashes are not legal in some places.

Etc…

===

Even your penicillin analogy shows your shortsightedness.

What if you’re allergic to penicillin?

What if you’re taking medication that may interact with penicillin?

What if your illness is a virus, penicillin resistant bacteria, or some other illness that doesn’t respond to penicillin? Do you really want to waste time and money when you could be dying? Even if you’re not dying do you want to casually and recklessly use antibiotics inappropriately thereby contributing to the proliferation of anti-biotic resistant bacteria?

It’s best to use the most appropriate tool and method for the job depending on the job and the conditions .


----------



## DogGone (Nov 28, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgLauri,
> Exactly correct, ..... If you want to put a swimming pool in your back yard are you going to the grab a shovel first, and when that proves ineffective fire up the excavater?


 I think that was her point. Don’t you think her point is not to mandate a default. Instead people should use intelligence and choose tools and methodology that is most appropriate for the task at hand and the conditions.

(hypothetical scenario) Why would you use a shovel or an excavator if it’s only an aboveground baby/doggy pool that no digging is necessary or desirable?


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

DogGone~ Nice post!!


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: DogGone
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: ZahnburgLauri,
> ...


That is my point as well! If the pinch collar or e-collar is the appropriate tool for a given circumstance then why would you only use it last? This is what I do not understand.


----------



## DogGone (Nov 28, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: Zahnburg
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: DogGone
> ...


My fault. My apologies. I misread her post. I agree your point was more valid. We are trying to make the same endpoint. I misunderstood both of your positions.


----------



## jake (Sep 11, 2004)

is it really set in stone that anyone can say with absolute certainly blah blah (ramp up --ramp down--)maybe pet vs competition discussions need to be labeled as Pet (pet but think I could learn from competition owners) vs Competition (hate to say it but competition owners have very little time or patience for pet owners)Hard in this site to be a crossover poster.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

I don't believe that it makes any difference what the dog is being trained for. I have trained many dogs as "pets". I still use the appropriate tool for the appropraite circumstance and don't look at any tool as a "last resort". If it is the most effective tool then that is what I use first. 

However, I am not sure that I really understand what you are saying.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: DogGoneThe so-called positive approach is not always positive and it doesn’t always work, nor is it always the most effective method.


WHAT about positive reinforcement has anything whatsoever to do with political correctness?







I'm sick to death of that term bandied about constantly, almost always referring to something negative. Motivational training is based in learning science, it has nothing to do with politics nor about "correctness".


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgCass,
> 
> If the tool or technique works then it is obviously the proper choice for the circumstance. So you are not at all in disagreement with me.


Sure, if you're just talking about using the best choice for the job - which isn't quite so simple, since what you think is best may not be what I think is best, and someone else might disagree with both of us. But I thought this discussion was specifically about using e-collars or prongs, not motivational methods using food/toys. You said:



> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgAs I have read through posts on this board I continually see the term "last resort" used, particularly when speaking about an e-collar or pinch. An example would be "I would only use an e-collar as a last resort". So my question is this: Why not immediately use the proper tool that will produce the desired results?


That implies to me that you think e-collars are the right tool and anyone who doesn't want to use one is somehow mucking about with some inadequate training method when they should just use an e-collar. That's the premise that I reject.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Cass,

If you don't want to use an e-collar, that is fine, but then do not say that you would use one "as a last resort". If you have other tools in your tool box that can effectively accomplish your goal that is great. However, my point is if you are willing to use an e-collar (or whatever) as a "last resort", then why not use it first, if that is what the best tool is in that specific circumstance? 
I will also add that I, personally, use many tools to work my dogs. I use a clicker, I use food, I use a ball, I use a pinch, I use an e-collar, I use a nylon choker, I use my hands, feet, and voice, and I use some additional tools as well. I choose which one or which combination of tools will most effectively accomplish what needs to be done. I do not, however, try to use a food and a clicker when I know I need a different tool. This is my point. Why wait for "last" if that is the best tool for that circumstance?


----------



## middleofnowhere (Dec 20, 2000)

Zahnburg - the trouble with this argument of yours is that you are arguing from a false premise (e collar or prong collar - is the best tool for a certain circumstance without trying anything less aversive first) Therefore you can make no points because arguing from a false premise isn't sound logic. Philosophy 201.

Further, it seems to me you are not listening to other people but insisting that everything substantiates your "point." You haven't got a point. This argument is invalid so please stop repeating it. Find another approach.

If you think I am annoyed with your "hammer", you are correct.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Hi Middle,

Now I understand



> Originally Posted By: middleofnowhereZahnburg - the trouble with this argument of yours is that you are arguing from a false premise (e collar or prong collar - is the best tool for a certain circumstance without trying anything less aversive first)


Perhaps it would be a false premise if you did not ALREADY KNOW what the proper tool is. If you already know certain things will not work, then you can jump directly to what you know will work.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Also, you don't have to edit your post to be polite with me. I know I am not the most polite person around.


----------



## jake (Sep 11, 2004)

How would you train a dog as a pet vs training a dog for competition?Is a competion dog different from a pet dog in the degree of absolute obedience necessary?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

There is a huge post on this already in training, but I will weigh in breifly:

I do not use training collars, gadgets, clickers, remotes, jars of pennies, harnesses or haltis. I only use treats when first training the pup or dog to new things, and then not all the time.

I cannot use these things in the ring, I do not want to rely on them, I do not want to have to wean off of them. I have no use for them.

When my dog does something good or bad, I do not want to be digging in my pocket for a clicker or a can of pennies, I do not want to be fumbling for a remote. I want one thing in my hands, the lead. 

98% of the time, my dogs are running naked. I do not want them kenneled or crated with any type of collar on, so the idea that when I let them out, I fit any type of training collar on them so I can adminster corrections, just does not work for me. 

I want for them to listen to me 100% of the time without any additional props. I can get that by training them using my voice only for praise/rewards, and for corrections. Until they are 100% reliable, we have an umbilical cord for when I take them off my property. That is in the form of a collar and tags for identification, and a martingale and lead. 

I suppose the rest of the population that has no problem walking and chewing gum can manage a clicker or remote to provide proper signals to their dogs, or a prong collar for corrections, reminders, insurance. 

My way works for me.


----------



## aubie (Dec 22, 2008)

I think you also have to look at the comfort level of the person using the tool. If they aren't comfortable with an e-collar or pinch that will show up in their "vibe" to the dog. 

A dog needs you to be confident and, I hate to sound like Ceasar, but feed off positive energy. If you're not comfortable, your dog will sense it and possibly not take the the training as well.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: Zahnburg If you don't want to use an e-collar, that is fine, but then do not say that you would use one "as a last resort". If you have other tools in your tool box that can effectively accomplish your goal that is great. However, my point is if you are willing to use an e-collar (or whatever) as a "last resort", then why not use it first, if that is what the best tool is in that specific circumstance?


*sigh* Because it's only the best tool for that specific circumstance if my usual training techniques aren't working, so for me it's NOT the best tool until proven otherwise. I WOULD use one as a last resort, if my usual training techniques weren't working, so it's totally accurate to say I would use it if I needed it. (I never said I would use it as a "last resort", so I won't word it that way here.) The only way I'd know if it were the best tool is to try my usual methods and discover that they were not working as well as I'd have liked for that particular dog, and at that point I would consider other methods. That has so far not happened.

It's really not that complicated. I've never used one, so of course it's not the first thing I'd jump to if my usual training techniques have been working well for me for 23 years! It would involve buying a piece of equipment I don't currently own, and finding a competent trainer to assist me. Why would I do that if I don't need to?


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgI do not, however, try to use a food and a clicker when I know I need a different tool. This is my point. Why wait for "last" if that is the best tool for that circumstance?


Well, DUH!!! Why would anyone use one tool if they KNEW another tool would be better? The question doesn't even make sense. The difference lies in what tool/s each person is comfortable using.


----------



## jake (Sep 11, 2004)

I just have to say your response of 'a dog running naked' should give a whole lot of people something to think about (can I give it a 5 thumbs up)Should be the GSD thought of the year.THANKS


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Thank You Cass! You just answered my Question! So the reason people say that they would use something as "a last resort" is because of one of two reasons:

1. They do not KNOW what tool or technique is proper in a given circumstance thus they follow an escelation of force technique starting with the least amount of force and ending with the most force

OR

2. They do not know how to use or are not comfortable using a certain tool or technique.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgThank You Cass! You just answered my Question! So the reason people say that they would use something as "a last resort" is because of one of two reasons:
> 
> 1. They do not KNOW what tool or technique is proper in a given circumstance thus they follow an escelation of force technique starting with the least amount of force and ending with the most force


Not exactly, no. I don't subscribe to an "escalation of force". I use the training techniques I am comfortable and familiar with, as I previously stated, that have always worked well for me. So I do KNOW those those techniques work for that circumstance, or have at least worked for previous dogs. I "escalate" only if and when more force is necessary because those techniques are not working as well as I would like for a particular dog. More force has so far not been necessary for me, so I have not needed to go there. I do have a prong collar for Keefer, but I do not own an e-collar. As I also stated previously, I prefer not to rely on a training collar of any kind to control my dogs. That's my personal choice, and it is neither better nor worse than your, or anyone else's choices. 



> Quote:OR
> 
> 2. They do not know how to use or are not comfortable using a certain tool or technique.


Yes, partially. Speaking for myself only, of course. If I needed to get comfortable and proficient in using other tools or techniques, I would do so at that time.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I use totally different tools and methods depending on what dog I'm training and what I'm trying to train. Also it's more than just what skill, what the end product is. The method used can be as much part of the training as trying to train a new skill. Sometimes I need my dog to learn how to work under pressure so I might train a skill using negative reinforcement. Sometimes I want my dog to look more "up" and flashy so I might use a positive motivator that brings more drive, like a ball. Sometimes I need to work on teaching something brand new so I will start with food because the ball brings too much drive. Sometimes we are not communicating well or I am getting too frustrated and its transfering to the dog so I may consider an e-collar instead.

So, I guess I'm more in agreement with Art. I rarely change methods while trying to train a skill and if I do, I should have used the one I ended up with in the first place. I don't subscribe to "escalation of force". Sometimes no force is needed; other times I bring more force right off the bat.

If I am not comfortable with using a method, I won't use it _at all_. If I use a prong collar for one thing and a ball for another, it's not that the first thing "escalated" to the prong collar, it's that this tool makes the most sense for that skill.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Quote from Cass:

"I use the training techniques I am comfortable and familiar with, as I previously stated, that have always worked well for me. So I do KNOW those those techniques work for that circumstance, or have at least worked for previous dogs. I "escalate" only if and when more force is necessary because those techniques are not working as well as I would like for a particular dog. More force has so far not been necessary for me, so I have not needed to go there."

From reading your statement I would say that you DO KNOW what tool or technique works for you in a particular circumstance. 

However, in your hypothetical situation where your usual methods are not working THEN you would follow an escalation of force because at that point you do NOT KNOW what is proper for that dog because you have never experienced that before. Correct?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: ttalldogHow would you train a dog as a pet vs training a dog for competition?Is a competion dog different from a pet dog in the degree of absolute obedience necessary?


My competition dogs require a second skill set as pets, because all my dogs are pets, but some are also competition dogs. Sometimes the skills I require to be a good pet and have freedom indoors with me is actually more difficult than the competition skills. If I had worked harder I could have done the BH with Nikon this month, but indoors as a pet he is still crated when I leave unless it's an hour or less. He is still restricted to certain areas of the house. He's actually more mature in his competition training than he acts as my pet. The competition dog requires more absolute obedience, but in more specific contexts. As pets my dogs have to maintain a certain level of behavior ALL of the time.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Thanks Lies,

That is exactly what I was trying to get at.

I was refering to your first post, but the second is also very good.


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

My philosophy of training is to do as little harm as possible, and to me that means using as little pain or discomfort as possible. Some methods that add in a level of pain/discomfort would be avoided unless or until the dog showed it was a necessary addition to the training. Flexibility is a good thing in dog training, and knowing when to push or when to pull back allows a dog to develop their own personality instead of simply becoming robotic in following commands because they want to avoid the consequences.

I do the primary part of my training using as much positive reinforcement as I can - sprinkled with negative reinforcement, negative punishment and even positive punishment as needed for the particular dog's personality and style of learning. Most of the dogs I train do very well with minimal corrections, and can be trained to a relatively high level of obedience - pet OR competition - with a consistent schedule of positive reinforcements that build both habit and muscle memory in the dog, leading to an almost automatic response to a command. I actually use LESS correction for competition training than I do for day-to-day training. Competition is in a controlled atmosphere most of the time. Day-to-day living can often add in extra surprises.

Now, if I find - during the course of working with a dog using the methods that I know provide consistent, kind, understandable training to the dog - that the dog needs more consequences in their training so that they are more convinced to follow commands even under a higher level of distractions, I have the option to increase the negative reinforcement, positive punishment and/or negative punishment segments of training. And for that dog, it's easy to bring those aspects into the training program and provide that little extra the dog needs. 

There's no need to provide that extra for the dogs who don't need it, so why would I start a training program using methods that provide additional corrections that weren't needed? I choose to use the least amount of pain/discomfort to my animals in training, and I truly can't understand anyone who thinks that training with corrections from the beginning - and basing much of their training on corrections - is a better method. What kind of person CHOOSES discomfort first? 

Personally I believe that my dogs - and the dogs of those who have come to my classes and private lessons - don't deserve automatic pain/discomfort in their day-to-day training. I think that those out there who are doing a great job training with lots of positive reinforcement and limited amounts (only as needed) of the other quadrants are to be admired and enjoyed as trainers. 

By the way, I started out as a force-trainer. I can take a dog and using corrective collars and force methods, have it heeling and working in novice behaviors and titled within a relatively short time. Yep, it can be done and if racking up titles or trying to impress people with "speed training" were more important to me than the dogs themselves I might very well still be doing that type of training. My force-trained dogs were very impressive in their control and response to commands. They didn't question me (of course not - questioning my commands meant being corrected). I had hundreds of people praising how wonderfully obedient my dogs were. I never doubted that I had a perfect relationship with my dogs.

And then I found training methods based primarily on positive reinforcement, took the time to properly learn the concepts and WOW - there is NO DOUBT that training a dog through primarily positive reinforcement works WELL, is EFFECTIVE and builds a STRONGER and more TRUSTING bond than correction-based training. When a dog trusts that they will be trained through love, kindness and understanding instead of pain/discomfort, there - logically - has to be a difference in their bonding to the human part of the team. 

But, again, those who train using compulsion/correction as the main-stay of their philosophy will never accept that or probably ever even feel the difference because they're not willing to make a true try for the other methods. And they will forever miss out on something amazing.

Those who don't believe in the type of training I use will come on and mock the training as "emotional" and say that the only reason someone promotes the better bonding is to try to "emotionally blackmail" those who aren't training the same. That's THEIR means of emotional blackmail and I remember it well from the old days when I trained. I was told "you can't be a wimp if you want to train well" and "you have to be willing to give a REAL correction" .. basically saying that you're weak and emotional if you don't train with the methods they were promoting. I find that training using primarily positive reinforcement takes more strength, more will and more concern for the dog than force-training methods do. You have to understand more about dog behavior, and be willing to change as needed to adapt to each dog's personality. I find it fascinating and can honestly say that walking away from the corrective collars and corrections has made me into a MUCH better trainer, one that puts the understanding of canine behavior above the idea that compliance is more important than anything else. 

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

My biggest training tool is my brain. I was taught this by a Rottweiler guy when I took my "most would PTS" GSD-Chow (possibly Rottweiler) mix for an eval after he (the dog not the guy) went after a kid who touched his frisbee. He (the dog again) lived to 16 without biting anyone and getting a CGC at 11, and who, had I known about other dog sports, would have excelled in anything. He did take an agility class when he was 12 and was awesome. 

I have stuck with the Chow mix as a "breed" choice because they require that you train a cat in a dog body, and it is a challenge. It is fun. And the tool you need most is your brain, because they (generalizing) don't respond to force or corrections. 

I know when I max that out because then I get stupid with my dogs. I go for a shortcut something or other that teaches them how to comply* but not how to learn. My dogs act like nutters in the house, but when we go out in public they show that they have learned what I expect - because they can use their brains too. 

Good discussion topic!

*Forgot-there are times I do want them to just comply, do it because I said so, and they understand by tone and posture what those are-safety issues like leave it, drop it, stop, drop...


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

> Originally Posted By: JeanKBBMMMAANMy biggest training tool is my brain.












How I train and the tools I use depend on the dog I am handling at the time. I have trained dogs "naked" (them, not me







), with a choker, pinch, flat collar, e-collar, food, clicker, and toys. All of my dogs are pets first that I also train for competition. 

When working with the teams in my club I try to help them find and use the most appropriate tool for their dog. These dogs, except one, are pets first and competition dogs second. I have found over the years that pets and their owners are the ones that need the most help and many need it NOW. The skill of teaching is to find the tools and methods that these people WILL use that will help their dogs NOW. 

BTW, motivational training does not mean purely positive even if that is what people seem to mean when they use that term. Anything that gets a dog or human to perform the behavior being asked is still motivation whether positive or negative


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

I agree with Middle that your premise is wrong, and I love Jean's post. The problem is you can't "know" what is the right tool immediately, unless you know how your dog will respond to every little thing in every different circumstance. That's why most of us try different things at different times.

I would also say that good trainers are like good teachers - they make learning fun - something that trainees WANT to do rather than something they are COMPELLED to do.

I would add that in many instances, the "problem" isn't the dog's learning capability but the handler - it's the handler who is failing to communicate properly his request to the dog. The most ideal trraining situation is a partnership between the two. Compulsion training undermines that concept from the start.


----------



## DogGone (Nov 28, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: DogGoneThe so-called positive approach is not always positive and it doesn’t always work, nor is it always the most effective method.
> ...


I would rather do what is actually correct than do what is “politically correct”. Political correctness is a form of mob mentality where people blindly go by popularity and rhetoric rather than actually using their brains to think for themselves to come to a deeper more realistic understanding.

When I was growing up if you got burned the politically correct home remedy was to put butter on the burn. The political correct home remedy was based on an urban legend that was largely contrary to science. In reality putting butter on a burn often makes a burn worse.

When I was growing up if someone got hysterical; the politically correct response would be to slap the person in the face. While temporarily this often resolves the problem; sometimes it dangerously escalates the situation and often it causes long-term harm.

What some of you fail to realize is the way that I use my E-collar typically is a positive form of reinforcement.

To my dog an E-collar gives her freedom that she would not otherwise have. If I did not have an E-collar I would have to keep her on a leash or behind a fence all the time. Many of you think you're being noble by advocating against E-collars; but what you fail to realize is that you're condemning dogs loss of freedom, in some cases you are jeopardizing dogs health and in some cases sending them to be euthanized.

I often use the E-collar as a reward. If my dog is being hard to manage; she has to stay behind the fence or on a leash; if she behaves then she gets the reward of the relative freedom of being walked with an E-collar. The way I use an E-collar largely is a real positive reinforcement; regretfully many of you seem to can't get that through your heads because of your ignorance and prejudice.

Some of you seem to be under the impression that when many of us say we are using the E-collar daily but that means that we are constantly (or frequently using shock or tone). Many of us “use” the E-collar like “using” a seatbelt. When many of us say we are using it, it means in the context of putting it on and having it in place as a safety feature (and in my case; a reasonable attempt to comply with the law). To say using a seatbelt doesn't necessarily mean that you're in a crash; similarly when I say I use an E-collar doesn't necessarily mean that we are constantly or frequently using it to give the dog commands and/or discipline the dog.

"Political correctness" is having the semblance of intelligence and doing what is right; however I prefer to look beyond the rhetoric and try to use my own free thought to try to seek a deeper intelligence to try to do what is actually correct rather than just keeping up appearances. I would rather try to keep my freedom. I like to be able to make my own decisions and to think for myself rather than to be blindly in lockstep with what is popular.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgLauri,
> 
> Exactly correct, but it goes the other way too. If you want to put a swimming pool in your back yard are you going to the grab a shovel first, and when that proves ineffective fire up the excavater?


The excavator - but only if I know IN ADVANCE that I want a hole that big.

Let's try a different analogy.

I want to plant a tree in my back yard. I've picked the spot. I go grab my handy shovel and start digging.

Right away I realize the ground is ALOT harder than I was expecting. So I go borrow the neighbors pick ax and start swinging away.

After a few minutes of that I realize that I'm still not getting anywhere. A friend has a mini-backhoe so we try that. That gets us a little further down but still not deep enough.

Finally I have to hire the excavator to get the job done.

Now why would I have started out hiring the excavator when I might have been able to use just the shovel?

You do NOT know when you first start out what it is going to take to train a dog.

I also have to decide if it's really THAT important to me to have a tree in my backyard.


----------



## DogGone (Nov 28, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: aubieI think you also have to look at the comfort level of the person using the tool. If they aren't comfortable with an e-collar or pinch that will show up in their "vibe" to the dog.
> 
> A dog needs you to be confident and, I hate to sound like Ceasar, but feed off positive energy. If you're not comfortable, your dog will sense it and possibly not take the the training as well.


Some of us are more comfortable using the e-collar. Some of us feel it's best to try to use intelligence to try to decide which tool is best for the job, and the conditions. Not all of us may have the same job, conditions, same knowledge, and we may not all be comfortable with the same tools.

In the past month I've only used the electronic stimulation once. That's when I was stopped in traffic my dog was in the back of my pickup truck *untethered. While we were stopped one of the drivers got out of their car behind me apparently to give directions to someone else that was asking. My dog was suspicious and went into a combination of guard dog mode and greeting mode. She put her feet up on the tailgate. I tried to give her tone and yell at her too hush and to get down but she was making too much noise to hear me. Afraid that she might jump out and that her barking was disrupting things I gave her a mild shock.

A couple nights ago I was in the park woods after dark. My dog spotted something and headed off in the direction of what she spotted, I let her go a little bit because I was interested in what she saw. I saw the silhouette of what appeared to be several deer. I gave the dog one tone on the remote as a signal to “knock it off” for her to stop and/or to recall her. I did not want her to harass wildlife, I did not want her to endanger the wildlife and I didn't want her to be endangered by wildlife. I then got a better view of what she had a lock on. It turned out that it was a pack of coyotes. The coyotes had their tails up in the air and were prancing on a tangent; this suggests that they were sizing up my dog, possibly to make friends and play; possibly to chase her off or kill her as competition, or possibly to kill her for food. I verbally told my dog “okay” that was a signal to her that she could use her own judgment on how to handle the situation. She chose to give some friendly but territorial bluff charges that were a combination can we be friends but if need be I'll stand my ground. The coyotes evidently didn't know I was there; when I spoke out thereby revealing myself they withdrew.

The e-collar allowed me and my dog to have much more freedom and choice in that situation than we otherwise would have. Without the e-collar I wouldn't have been able to identify the coyotes. Without a leash my dog would have been more likely to have gotten attacked. With a conventional leash my dog would've probably hurt my back. The experience did raise an eyebrow but it was a pleasant one; without an e-collar it would've probably been an unpleasant experience.

*(so she could get out if I was in a wreck or if there was a an attempted carjacking. When I was a kid there was race riots, my mom was taking my sister to college when a thug came up and demanded that my mother get out of the car. That woke up a sleeping GSD that was not in view of the thug, the GSD jumped up into view and gave the thug the what for. The thug immediately fled. I have little doubt that the GSD saved us from being a victim of some sort of crime)


----------



## DogGone (Nov 28, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The Gang
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: ZahnburgLauri,
> ...


 I think your analogy is good for showing why it is good to have a wide selection of tools available to us. I think your analogy is also important for demonstrating that not all jobs and not all conditions are are the same.

While you may not always know what's all in a job before you tackle it. That's often why engineering and surveying can be important. It would be a good idea to measure the tree and the size of the root ball and to survey (do reconnaissance) on the yard. Take soil samples. Take measurements make sure there is room and a pathway and the terrain can handle the equipment, etc... research can also be an an important part of the process; call the phone, gas and electric Co. to make sure that there is no utilities in the area you plan to dig. While this won't totally eliminate wildcards; it can make the job be faster, cheaper, safer and more effective.

The scenario you mentioned seems to assume someone that has a lot of free time like a retiree or a kid. For some of us that are limited with time and money it is best to try to evaluate and manage the job to try to keep the time and costs reasonable; rather than go at it by trial and error.

I have also found that it is best to slightly overestimate the amount of materials, costs, labor and tools that it's going to be necessary for a job; otherwise I find myself caught wasting time, fuel and money in traffic running back and forth to get the materials and tools to complete the job.

===

Similarly with dogs the more tools and options you have available to you and the more thought and research that you do the more likely you are to make a good decision. Though it may be something that not all of us have the luxury to pursue all those options.

Some of us do rescues or have dogs thrust on us from relatives or friends that get sick or die. So if we choose to screen out animals it's a good chance it results in euthanasia or worse. Often there is not much chance to evaluate the dogs before a choice is made.

Another thing you learn about doing rescues is that there is a wide variety of dogs and people; it's important to try to match up the right type of dog to the right type of person.

Similarly with training aids its best to choose what aids you are using depending on the dog, the trainer and the task at hand. Having the wrong tool for the job can be disastrous. A good tool in the wrong hands can also be disastrous. You can't legislate and mandate common sense.


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

> Quote:You do NOT know when you first start out what it is going to take to train a dog.


I think some people do know.. 

They like to use a "certain tool" for a particular exercise or command their teaching and they know which one will get them the best results..


----------



## DogGone (Nov 28, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: G-burg
> 
> 
> > Quote:You do NOT know when you first start out what it is going to take to train a dog.
> ...


There's some truth to what you both say. Some people's experience, knowledge and luck give them a better chance at having the tools of their first choice working properly. However as Lauri and the gang pointed out there is always unknown factors that may interrupt a good plan.

Now this may not be as extreme as combat. In the military there is a saying something like; no matter how well planned an engagement is with an enemy; it never goes off exactly as planned.

No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength (no plan survives contact with the enemy). and Strategy is a system of expedients.

In the military like life it's best to have contingency plans and adequate tools and resources to adapt situations that were not first predicted.

I wear a seatbelt not because I'm planning to crash; I wear the seatbelt in case the unexpected happens.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

I appreciate everyone's responses. My intention was not to single out any particular tool or method as "better" than another since this is obviously not accurate. There are many avenues to successful training. What I was trying to get at is what G-burg said above and Lauri alluded to several post before that. 
If a person KNOWS what tool is best in a certain circumstance why would they not use it first? 
Lauri answers this quite well: Most people do NOT KNOW in ADVANCE which tool is most effective, so they start low and move upwards (with regards to pressure). 
Going back to the hammer/nail analogy (just because Middle does not like it), I suppose if someone did not already KNOW the hammer was the proper tool they may want to try a few other things first. Some of those other tools may work too, maybe as well as a hammer.


----------



## jake (Sep 11, 2004)

agree good topic.My major training objective was to have a reliable house dog.Was it easy NO.Used tethering,hand feeding (not yours unless I GIVE it to you)and estabished reliable routine (if I go out -I will come back).He is now after lots of work a totally good inside dog-no counter surfing,left uncrated for up to 9 hrs,sleeps in his bed NOT mine.He is mostly reliable in fenced yard still working on it.
Whether I could progress to competition training ?Darn maybe but SURE took a lot of work to make him house safe/mostly yard safe.


----------



## GSDSunshine (Sep 7, 2009)

Here is my question. You have dogs in the past that were able to learn in a particular manner. It has always given you great results. Then, you get puppy X, and Puppy X doesn't learn well from the way of teaching. So you try another tool; one that seems to work better for the particular dog. Why would you assume that the tool that worked great for Puppy X works great for all others? Suppose a new Dog comes in and needs to learn the same skill. Would you go for your new tool that happened to work for the one situation in the past, or one that has worked for you consistently in the past?

With the tree idea. If I wanted to plant a row of trees. And I was able to use a shovel to plant 8 of them. Then on the 9th one, A shovel doesn't work. So I have to try something new, like a backhoe. The backhoe works for this tree. As I move on down the line would I continue to use the backhoe or the Shovel?

Something always has a downside however. So remember that a backhoe would ruin my lawn to get to my trees, and I might get a blister from all my shoveling.

Hope I was able to explain correctly and made sense.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Hi Sunshine, excellent questions! I am not suggesting that one method or tool is the right one for every dog in a particular circumstance. I am also not suggesting that you can always know right away exactly what is necessary. I am suggesting that a certain tool should not be held for last by default. Ie "The last resort". 

To use your tree planting analogy...so you are on tree 9 and you run into a giant rock so you know the shovel won't work. You examine the rock and see that it is very large and solid. Should you try the pickax, then the mini-backhoe first even though you know they will not be sufficient either? OR do you skip directly to your "last resort tool" (the big excavater)? So then you get to tree 10 and you see there are no rocks and the soil is loose, would you still use the excavater? No, because now you can use the shovel again. 
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding me. I do not have any problem with any method or tool so long as it is effective. What I am questioning is the notion of using something ONLY for last, why not use that "last resort" tool as soon as you realize it is the proper tool, instead of trying other tools that may or may not work.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgWhat I am questioning is the notion of using something ONLY for last, why not use that "last resort" tool *as soon as you realize it is the proper tool*, instead of trying other tools that may or may not work.


The bolding is mine because it answers your question.

You do not know until you GET to that point that you need the "last resort" tool.

Case in point. I've been having a problem with Mauser and other dogs. He's been developing increasing on leash aggression ever since he got in a tussle with another GSD at training. Another member was throwing a ball for their dog, I had Mauser on leash, he bolted and stripped the leash from my hand and went for the ball. Other dog took offense at M going after HIS ball and went after him. M tried to back down but other dog kept coming so M gave some back. Now, when he meets other dogs while he is on leash he shows aggression (bite first, ask questions later).

So, I had been working a little with him but wasn't getting results fast enough (for my liking







) so I decided to use a prong on him. Had to run to the petstore so I thought that would be a perfect test.

Let's just say I figured out within two leash corrections on the prong that it was NOT the right tool. A couple more leash corrections and I would have said the possibility of Mauser turning and taking out his frustration on me was NOT low.









You need to KNOW your dog and the situation in order to KNOW what type of tool to start with.

I have no qualms using a electric collar. In fact, I KNOW it's the only tool that will fix my Corgi mix Winnie's barking issue and Sasha's car and people chasing issues (I talked about those in the e-collar thread). But I also KNOW that food will work for almost everything else I want to teach Sasha.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Quote from Lauri:

"You need to KNOW your dog and the situation in order to KNOW what type of tool to start with."

Exactly! So why not just start with that tool, instead of that tool being a "last resort"?


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Quote from Lauri:

"You do not know until you GET to that point that you need the "last resort" tool"

Why can you not arrive at this conclusion early on? Why must something be used only after exhausting every possibility, if you know earlier that it will work effectively?


----------



## middleofnowhere (Dec 20, 2000)

because they are sucky tools and I prefer not to have that sort of relationship with my dog if I can avoid it.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

What are sucky tools? I am not promoting any tool or method. If I said that I would only use a clicker as a last resort, how much sense would that make to you?


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Here is my childish and simplistic take on the question.

I think that when people think of prongs, or e-collars, or other pieces of equipment as something to be used as a _last resort_ training tool, there are two things that have influenced their views and opinions:

1) the social or cultural stigma attached to collars or methods that may seem as extreme and forceful. Social pressures and cultural values are attached to the use of these training methods beyond the actual methodology or application of the training method. So one reason people may see very valid training tools (like a prong collar, for example) as a tool of last resort, is because our _society_ has loaded the prong collar with the burden of negative association.

2) No direct experience or understanding of how the training tool can be of use and assistance in enhancing our ability to _communicate_ with our dogs during training sessions. So due to lack of understand or experience, the emotional values stated above prevail. 

I am a prime example to illustrate the mental state and thought process that leads intelligent, insightful, logical people with a lot of dog-training talent







into making erroneous assumption about the use of prongs based on the above reasons:

I struggled with my shelter rescue for a year, wanting to give her "a chance" with positive training to keep her from constantly pulling on leash. I felt a prong was an instrument of last resort, as I felt that using one would be unfair to her, since I should try other methods first. The only reason I felt this way was because of societal values on the prong collar - I had no previous experience wiht a prong to be able to personally make a value judgement, so adopted the socially prevailing value as my own. 

After a year, I "caved" in and tried a prong on her. I was a convert! I could have saved myself a full year of aggravation and progressed with her leash-training much faster thanks to a training tool that gave clear and precise communications to my dog, letting her know what was okay, and what was not okay. 

Now that I have personal experience with the prong collar, and have rejected the societal values attached to it, I will in the future be able to make better decisions as to which collar is more appropriate for different dogs and situations. I will be able to better decide if using a prong collar will be the right tool to accomplish what I would like to accomplish, or if another type of collar (flat? martingale? e-collar?) would be better suited for the situation. So it is no longer a tool of "last resort", but a specific tool that I can use for specific situations.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Excellent post Castle.


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

I consider any tool/action that provides pain/discomfort as a "last resort" (or at least not a "first resort") because I'm a kind, caring person who chooses to give my dogs - as well as others that I love - the least amount of pain/discomfort that I can. Now, occasionally, there's a blunt truth that needs to be offered that is more uncomfortable and sometimes painful. The rest of the time I prefer to provide my dogs with the least amount of pain/discomfort I can. And since I can do the majority of my training with hardly ANY correction, why use it? Why not keep things as non-painful as possible?

I just don't see anything wrong in that philosophy. I DO think there's something wrong with those who choose to use pain/discomfort as a primary tool in their interactions during training or anything else involving animals (or people, for that matter). If I can successfully teach a behavior using positive reinforcement, why teach it using a prong collar or shock collar or any other technique that relies on pain/discomfort?

I think that nearly everyone on here who promotes positive reinforcement agrees that there are times when corrections may be needed, and that it's not a bad thing to use the occasional appropriate correction especially for life-threatening behaviors. We just choose to use positive reinforcement as our primary method of training, instead of using punishment as a primary tool. Both can work. And again it goes back to that basic question - why use correction if reward will work?

I believe it all comes down to a person's basic nature. Plain and simple.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Good post Melanie.

Castle, I do not use the props because I do not want to be bothered with them, especially since I cannot use them in the ring. I would rather teach my dog using my voice primarily , and then wean them off of that. I do not want to have to wean my do off a correction collar.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

I'm glad that your methods work for your dogs, Sue.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgCass,
> 
> If you don't want to use an e-collar, that is fine, but then do not say that you would use one "as a last resort". If you have other tools in your tool box that can effectively accomplish your goal that is great. However, my point is if you are willing to use an e-collar (or whatever) as a "last resort", then why not use it first, if that is what the best tool is in that specific circumstance?


I haven't read the whole thread, but I don't think the toolbox analogy works in this case because you generally KNOW the job that you are going to be doing and what it requires before you start. 

I don't think you do when training a dog. Someone starts out thinking that positive training will work. Well, turns out that at 8 months old, the dog gets a butt head phase and won't grow out of it and is no longer responding to the positive approach...then they have to move onto something else.

Conversely, that "last resort" tools that you are describing...not all dogs do well with them. Stick an ecollar to train right off the bat on an abused, skittish, non confident dog and you are asking for disaster. Also, some dogs may loose their motivation and zest for training with some techniques. 

It all is based on the individual dog's personality, in my opinion. What works on one dog may not work on another. Starting the "last resort" techinques in some instances might ruin a dog-- either make them more skittish or just lose the desire to really want to please you. And other's might be the trick to focus and work ethic. 

You just don't always know UNTIL you start training what should be a last resort and what should be started out with. 

A key to this debate is also being able to use the "tool" correctly. Not everyone can use a prong or an e-collar correctly. If the handler can't comfortably use the tool, then they shouldn't.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Quote from Elsa:

"Conversely, that "last resort" tools that you are describing...not all dogs do well with them. Stick an ecollar to train right off the bat on an abused, skittish, non confident dog and you are asking for disaster. Also, some dogs may loose their motivation and zest for training with some techniques."

I am not describing a "last resort" tool. I am describing the "proper" tool. If an e-collar is not the proper tool in a circumstance, then it should not be used.

Quote from Elsa:

"I don't think the toolbox analogy works in this case because you generally KNOW the job that you are going to be doing and what it requires before you start. I don't think you do when training a dog."

Perhaps YOU do not know. However, I would contend that, just like a skilled carpenter knows what tool he needs, so does a skilled trainer. 

Quote from Elsa:

"A key to this debate is also being able to use the "tool" correctly. Not everyone can use a prong or an e-collar correctly. If the handler can't comfortably use the tool, then they shouldn't."

Absolutley correct. However if they do not know how to use something then they should not try to use it out of desperation...as a "last resort". Just like you should not use a hammer, as a "last resort" to beat a TV set just because you don't know the proper way to fix it.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

Training is not black and white - there are MANY shades of grey and what works for one dog may not work for another.

Going back to your hammer and nail analogy, I could use a sledge hammer to get the nail down into the wood - and quickly.

But I might damage the wood and if it's a very nice mahogany I would be better off trying the hammer that has the LEAST amount of potential damage possibility.


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

I thought dog training was black and white? Or at least that's what I've been told all these years!


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Again Lauri you are missing the point! You should already know that the sledge hammer is not appropriate for the fine mahogany. 

Also, as G-burg says, training MUST be black and white for the dog! Dogs do not understand "shades of grey".


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: Zahnburg...why not use that "last resort" tool as soon as you realize it is the proper tool...


Again, this question doesn't make sense - I don't see where anyone has suggested doing otherwise.







Quite the opposite in fact, everyone is saying that once they DO realize something else is a more appropriate tool, they would use it at that time. The only real differences in opinion that I'm seeing here is in what tools people think ARE the "proper" ones. 



> Originally Posted By: GSDElsaA key to this debate is also being able to use the "tool" correctly. Not everyone can use a prong or an e-collar correctly. If the handler can't comfortably use the tool, then they shouldn't.


I totally agree with that.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

I don't think the question is what tools are considered as the "last resort" and what situatiations would call for a "last resort" tool, but rather, why do people categorize certain tools as "last resort" tools? Where did that "last resort" mindset come from? 

In many of the analogies offered up, the situations presented call for specific tools to do specific jobs, taking all possible variables into effect. Neither the backhoe nor the sledgehammer are "last resort" tools, they are just tools used for certain specific jobs. 

So the discussion would be, why would people categorize the backhoe as a "last resort" tool to dig out a swimming pool? 

Could be pride: "I can do this by hand! Backhoes are for weak, lazy people!"

Or Cultural bias: "Backhoes are polluters: I want to be seen as an environmentally responsible person"

Or a number of other reasons. The discussion is about * perception*, not about training methods per se.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgAgain Lauri you are missing the point! You should already know that the sledge hammer is not appropriate for the fine mahogany.
> 
> Also, as G-burg says, training MUST be black and white for the dog! Dogs do not understand "shades of grey".


Lauri seems to understand the point quite well. I think you are missing hers. 

While dogs do not understand shades of grey I don't see how training can be black and white. If that were true then all dogs would require the same training tools.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Quote from Cass,

"Quite the opposite in fact, everyone is saying that once they DO realize something else is a more appropriate tool, they would use it at that time" 

That is not the impression that is given when somebody talks about "only using [a certain tool] as a last resort". To me there is no "last resort" I use whatever tool I think is needed as soon as I think it is needed. If I think I should use a clicker, then I use a clicker, if I think I need an e-collar then I use an e-collar. I do not use other tools first.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Exactly Castle!! I think that this is causing some difficulties in people's minds.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Jax,

Training MUST be black and white to the dog. What tools you use to distiguesh black from white to the dog is really irrellevant to this conversation.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

I thought last resort meant...or I put the dog to sleep?

There is hard wood, soft wood...all requiring different techniques. 

There are carpenters, who do the job like craftsmen, then people like me, who end up with nails sticking out of the side of the board. 

So I don't want someone like me with the nails sticking out, using something that can do harm, on any dog. And it often takes a craftsman to help to learn how to do things well. And if I don't have one that I would trust, I would rather do something LIMA-ish. Because my dogs mean so much to me that I would rather be frustrated trying to figure something out, than to screw them up. 

I did that for a couple of years with my first dog and wish I could take those years, before I met a crafstman who showed me that as long as I am thinking I can get my dogs to do what I would like them to do. 

This is making me dizzy.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgHowever if they do not know how to use something then they should not try to use it out of desperation...


I don't see anyone suggesting that either. Just because a particular tool isn't the first thing I'd try that doesn't mean I wouldn't learn how to properly use it if I did decide I needed it. As I said before I don't own an e-collar. I've never used one, and none of the trainers I've worked with use them either. So if I had a particular circumstance where I felt that's what I really needed for a particular dog, I'd have to buy the tool, I'd do a lot of reading about it first to make sure that I understood the concepts before I even thought about putting it on my dog, and then I would look for a competent trainer to assist me - a big time and money commitment, probably several hundred dollars. For me, that's a pretty big deterrent, UNLESS I truly thought I couldn't accomplish that goal without it. If I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it properly, because that's how I am about everything.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgThat is not the impression that is given when somebody talks about "only using [a certain tool] as a last resort". To me there is no "last resort" I use whatever tool I think is needed as soon as I think it is needed. If I think I should use a clicker, then I use a clicker, if I think I need an e-collar then I use an e-collar. I do not use other tools first.


Well then, I think you're completely misreading what everyone is saying.







I also use whatever tool I think is needed as soon as I think it's needed. I don't know how to make it any more clear.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Well Cass then it does not apply to YOU. The question was directed to folks who view a tool as something to only be used as a last resort. Which is a mindset that I have come across often when reading some posts, particularly one involving e-collars.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Cass, 

before you type again....Go back and read Castles last post.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Here is castle's post, perhaps you should read it twice, perhaps even thrice.

Quote from Castle:


"I don't think the question is what tools are considered as the "last resort" and what situatiations would call for a "last resort" tool, but rather, why do people categorize certain tools as "last resort" tools? Where did that "last resort" mindset come from? 

In many of the analogies offered up, the situations presented call for specific tools to do specific jobs, taking all possible variables into effect. Neither the backhoe nor the sledgehammer are "last resort" tools, they are just tools used for certain specific jobs. 

So the discussion would be, why would people categorize the backhoe as a "last resort" tool to dig out a swimming pool? 

Could be pride: "I can do this by hand! Backhoes are for weak, lazy people!"

Or Cultural bias: "Backhoes are polluters: I want to be seen as an environmentally responsible person"

Or a number of other reasons. The discussion is about perception, not about training methods per se."


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

I read it, and while she makes an excellent point about perceptions of different training tools, I still don't think that's the issue here. In reading this and other similar threads, I don't recall anyone ever saying they WOULDN'T use a particular tool as soon as they realized they needed it, just that they wouldn't use it until they DID realize that. 

Your idea of what the "best tool" is for a particular job may be different from mine, and someone else may disagree with both of us.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Cass that doesn't make any sense. Does a person need to try "everything else" before realizing that a certain tool is required?

And again, what tool is "best" is not the topic, and has no bearing on the discussion.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgJax,
> 
> Training MUST be black and white to the dog. What tools you use to distiguesh black from white to the dog is really irrellevant to this conversation.


Did you read my post? I did not say training did not have to be black and white. 

Since I don't have anything relevant to the conversation I guess I'll just go back to knitting and let the "expert" have at it.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

We're talking in circles. I never said a person has to try "everything else" before realizing that a certain tool is required. But your question about why someone wouldn't use a particular tool if they thought it was the best tool doesn't make sense because nobody is saying they'd do that. Has anyone really said something like "I know an e-collar would be the best tool but I'm going to try everything else first and only use that as a last resort, out of desperation"? Maybe they did, I don't read every single post in every single thread on the board, but I'm not seeing it here in this thread, yet it seems like that's what you're reading into some posts. Maybe it's just semantics? Maybe what you mean when you say "last resort" isn't the same thing that someone else means when they say that? 

I do think that most people will try what they know before trying what they don't know. Why wouldn't they? If I need to learn new skills (for whatever, not just dog training), I will, but like most people, I'm way too busy to do that if I don't need to, and I'm certainly not going to spend the money either, if that's what it involves. 

My point about what tool is "best" is that *I* think that's the only real disagreement here, not whether someone would use the tool they deemed best for the job or not, but what that "best" tool might be, for THEM. This thread was not started to discuss the perception of various training tools, so while I think it's an interesting question, I don't believe it's relevant to this topic. Your question was: "Why not immediately use the proper tool that will produce the desired results?" And the simple answer is that people DO, based on their experience, knowledge, and skill with a particular set of tools.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Zahnburg The question was directed to folks who view a tool as something to only be used as a last resort. Which is a mindset that I have come across often when reading some posts, particularly one involving e-collars.


Exactly - and a lot of people are expending a great deal of energy defending their choices and why it works for them (great!), while still being open to trying different methods if they find that they are not getting the results required. But why is going from what one has always used to something else a "last resort"? 

What if the discussion was about clicker training as the last resort? All those tool analogies of going from a mild hand-tool to extra-large power tools does not apply, because we aren't talking about going from something mild and positive to going to something heavy-handed and negative - but that is how people often see methods that are not what they are naturally attracted to. 

What if this was on the Leerburg forum, and a bunch of old-school, heavy handed trainers all considered the clicker as a "last-resort" tool to train an untrainable dog? Maybe if they had started with the clicker, they would have been able to achieve their training goals in record time, even though they have ALWAYS had success with their old methods, but not with this particular dog. But to their mind-set, the clicker is a last resort tool. ( I know one World Level competitor who recently tried a clicker to help with a club dog that was having problems. He laughed at himself, saying "I always thought it was too "gay" - but it worked, and he was open to trying something new and different). 

So if, for example, the clicker was considered the "last resort" tool, then what mindset and societal pressures would have contributed to that belief, and how can people move past their "last resort" mindset and stop putting value judgements on different training tools. 

This discussion shouldn't be about what particular training method we believe in, and what works for us, but about how societal pressures influences our thinking.


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

Lucia!!!

THANK YOU!!!


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Cass,

We are talking in circles. I think we fundementally agree on this. I will lay out very plainly what I meant in my question. If a person views a certain tool (an e-collar for example) as a "last resort" (Ie. the last thing they would try), needs to use an e-collar for a certain training exercise, then why did they not use the e-collar first? Your answer is basically that this person does not know that this is the proper tool (Ie. the one that results in success) until they have exhausted everything they are comfortable with, and I agree 100% with your answer.
And I think Castle's answers fill in the rest of the story. Even though a person might know that a certain tool is required, they do not use it at first because they have some emotional reason not to.

So the question really is (at least partly) about perception.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Castle,

Another EXCELLENT post!


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgIf a person views a certain tool (an e-collar for example) as a "last resort" (Ie. the last thing they would try), *needs to use an e-collar for a certain training exercise*, then why did they not use the e-collar first?


I don't know why anyone wouldn't use a tool they NEEDED as a first rather than a last resort. But the real question is whether or not they DO need it, or whether or not they KNOW they need it. Because certainly, if they did need it, and they knew they did, it doesn't make sense not to, I am in complete agreement with you on that. But is anyone actually saying that's what they'd do? If not, this whole topic is moot because we're all saying the same thing and there's nobody arguing the other side.



> Quote:Even though a person might know that a certain tool is required, they do not use it at first because they have some emotional reason not to.
> 
> So the question really is (at least partly) about perception.


If this is what you were really getting at - why people would choose to use or not use a particular tool, (any tool), and under what circumstances, then I think your original post was poorly worded. Your question was asked using prongs and e-collars as a specific example, and I (and most everyone else) was trying to answer your question within that particular context. Also implicit was the notion that these more forceful techniques were the "best", "proper" tools (words you continued to use over and over again throughout this discussion) to produce the desired results. Many of us object to that implication, because depending on the dog, depending on the circumstances, depending on the skill and experience of the handler, they may or may not be the best, or proper, tools for the job. 

Make it a more general question including all training techniques and tools, not just more forceful ones, and remove any judgement about which are superior and which are "ineffective or improper for the circumstance", and you might have had the discussion you intended to stimulate.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Cass,

I am sorry if you misunderstood the original question, but more than a few understood exactly what I was saying. I never said any particular tool or technique is superior to another. I also repeatedly stated that the discussion is not about any specific tool or technique. I did use the term "proper tool" often with the meaning that the "proper tool" is the one that delivers the results that you want. The reason that I used a prong and e-collar as examples is this is the context where this term "last resort" is most often used in people's posts. I also suspect that there is a difference in how I view training and how others view training and that this caused some misunderstanding. 

Quote from Cass:

"I don't know why anyone wouldn't use a tool they NEEDED as a first rather than a last resort."

I didn't know either, that is why I asked. And yes, to me, that is exactly what someone is saying when they say "I would only use [certain tool] as a last resort". But again I think it comes back to many folks did not know they needed to use that particular tool until they tried everything else unsuccessfully. Or they have some emotional reason not to use it.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Actually, knowing what I do now, if I had a dog that I deemed dangerous (or dangerously untrainable), my last resort before PTS (or in liu of a serious accident), would be NILIF. 

The NILIF people would say, why not start NILIF before there is a problem and just use it as a way of life. And this probably works for them just fine. 

I guess until you have a serious issue, the idea of changing your methods doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe I would have a lot better results with my group if I raised them up like a drill seargeant. Maybe not. Some people can lead naturally, the rest of us have to work at it, and some need extensive therapy to get it right. To me, NILIF is something that I will research and put into action if I ever have a situation where managing a dog becomes difficult. 

If it comes down to putting a dog down or using a training collar. I think using the collar without modifying the behavior that has nothing to do with a collar is only going half way.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: ddBecause if the positive approach works, why stress your dog or damage your relationship with your dog by using an extreme method that is unnecessary? That's why.


I've always wondered why people think that _"the positive approach"_ (whatever that means) does not "stress [the] dog but the other tools mentioned, the Ecollar and the pinch do? 

I think that there's stress in any training method, no matter what tool is used.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Angel RPositive training mostly works with my dog.
> There are 1 or 2 behaviors I would like to get rid of.
> But I wounldnt use an ecollar unless ALL of my methods failed & my dog was out of control.
> *I dont know why. * [Emphasis added]


Interesting. 



> Originally Posted By: Angel RI would not make him wear one for 1 mistake.


One mistake generally leads to another and another and …


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: G-burg
> I think a lot of people see them as being inhumane or cruel.. We get people in class saying that all the time about the prong (and the e-collar).. I could never use that on my... but once their taught how to use it properly, get to feel it on themselves and see the results.. they quickly change their minds..
> 
> To me, dog training is about being open minded.. and not afraid to try new methods, techniques or tools.. How else do you better yourself as a trainer..


Very insightful. I agree with your first sentence very much. But I find it odd that people who feel this way will read a post from someone who says that the Ecollar is very gentle and instead of doing some research, they immediately get their back up and think they already know all about the tool. Just recently I was in a discussion with someone who said that their mind was closed on the topic. I hope that I never get that way. I want to keep on learning as much as I can about all sorts of things.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom
> WHAT about positive reinforcement has anything whatsoever to do with political correctness?


My perception is that people who use them think they are on some sort of moral high ground because of the methods that they use. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomI'm sick to death of that term bandied about constantly, almost always referring to something negative.


I think that an excess of political correctness is horrible. In the right doses it's fine. Using the "N word" is just not acceptable these days but saying that you don't like something that the President did is not racist. Yet some carry it to that extreme. Zero tolerance policies that have children expelled for bringing a plastic knife to school so they can cut up their apple is another extreme. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomMotivational training is based in learning science, it has nothing to do with politics nor about "correctness".


Why do people make this statement about _"motivational training?"_ *All *training that gives results is _"based in learning science."_ 

Nothing has changed about how animals learn, since we've been on the planet. Reinforce what you want to be repeated, punish what you don't want to be repeated.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: middleofnowhereZahnburg - the trouble with this argument of yours is that you are arguing from a false premise (e collar or prong collar - is the best tool for a certain circumstance without trying anything less aversive first) Therefore you can make no points because arguing from a false premise isn't sound logic. Philosophy 201.


Your false premise is that for every dog there's something that's less aversive than an Ecollar. And wouldn't that be _Logic 101? _ lol


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: ttalldogHow would you train a dog as a pet vs training a dog for competition?Is a competion dog different from a pet dog in the degree of absolute obedience necessary?


Good question. I don't think that there is a significant difference as to the recall and the sit, down or some other stationary behavior. These commands keep the dog safe. For a pet, anything else is a bonus but every dog should be able to perform at least those movements when at a distance from the owner and no matter what distractions are in play.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: selzer
> I do not use training collars, gadgets, clickers, remotes, jars of pennies, harnesses or haltis. I only use treats when first training the pup or dog to new things, and then not all the time.
> 
> I cannot use these things in the ring, I do not want to rely on them, I do not want to have to wean off of them. I have no use for them.


I know lots of very serious OB competitors with very high titles who use all of those things and more. They also know how to wean their dogs off them. 



> Originally Posted By: selzerWhen my dog does something good or bad, I do not want to be digging in my pocket for a clicker or a can of pennies, I do not want to be fumbling for a remote. * I want one thing in my hands, the lead. * [Emphasis added]


You told us that you don't use _"collars, gadgets, clickers, remotes, jars of pennies, harnesses or haltis."_ What's the lead attached to? 



> Originally Posted By: selzer
> I want for them to listen to me 100% of the time without any additional props. I can get that by training them using my voice only for praise/rewards, and for corrections. Until they are 100% reliable, we have an umbilical cord for when I take them off my property. That is in the form of a collar and tags for identification, and a martingale and lead.


Are you claiming that at some point in your training you get 100% compliance from your dogs? If so, I'll challenge that statement. NO ONE, no matter what tool they use, gets 100% compliance 100% of the time.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestMy philosophy of training is to do as little harm as possible, and to me that means using as little pain or discomfort as possible. Some methods that add in a level of pain/discomfort would be avoided unless or until the dog showed it was a necessary addition to the training.


You've made an assumption that the methods you favor inflict less _"pain or discomfort"_ than the methods that you reject. That may or may not be true. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Flexibility is a good thing in dog training, and knowing when to push or when to pull back allows a dog to develop their own personality instead of simply becoming robotic in following commands because they want to avoid the consequences.


Neither of the alternate tools mentioned so far in this discussion, the pinch collar nor the Ecollar make a dog _"robotic"_ if used properly. MANY dogs at the highest levels of such things as the biting sports like SchH, Ring, KNPV, the OB sports like AKC OB or gun dog trials have had both of those tools used on them at some point in their training. If they were _"robotic"_ they'd not be winning those competitions. 

The problem is one that's repeated over and over and over in these discussions. You folks ONLY refer to other methods than your own, as when they're either misused, used improperly or sometimes even abused! But you only discuss your own tools as when they're used properly. Such a tactic is sure to draw adverse comments. 


> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I choose to use the least amount of pain/discomfort to my animals in training,


Same assumption again. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest and I truly can't understand anyone who thinks that training with corrections from the beginning - and basing much of their training on corrections - is a better method. What kind of person CHOOSES discomfort first?


Here's a different assumption. That your methods DON'T inflict _ "discomfort."_ But it's still an assumption and one that I disagree with. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Personally I believe that my dogs - and the dogs of those who have come to my classes and private lessons - don't deserve automatic pain/discomfort in their day-to-day training.


You've told us that you use negative reinforcement (-R) and positive punishment (+P). BOTH of those inflict _"pain/discomfort"_ to the dogs. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I think that those out there who are doing a great job training with lots of positive reinforcement and limited amounts (only as needed) of the other quadrants are to be admired and enjoyed as trainers.


_"I think that those out there who are doing a great job training … are to be admired and enjoyed as trainers."_ NO MATTER WHAT TOOLS OR METHODS THEY CHOOSE as long as their results are achieved humanely. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest My force-trained dogs were very impressive in their control and response to commands. They didn't question me (of course not - questioning my commands meant being corrected).


There's a reason that it's called *obedience. *It's because it's not supposed to be _"questioned,"_ When I call my dog away from a busy street that he's running towards, there's no room for _"questioning."_ OBEDIENCE is what's needed. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And then I found training methods based primarily on positive reinforcement, took the time to properly learn the concepts and WOW - there is NO DOUBT that training a dog through primarily positive reinforcement works WELL, is EFFECTIVE and builds a STRONGER and more TRUSTING bond than correction-based training.


No matter how good your results as to the OB were, if you had a poor relationship with your dogs you weren't doing it right. 

Most police dogs in the world are trained using pinch and Ecollars. After they get some experience they know that they're being sent into danger yet they do it every night. You don't get a much stronger or trusting bond than that. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest When a dog trusts that they will be trained through love, kindness and understanding instead of pain/discomfort


There's that assumption again. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest But, again, those who train using compulsion/correction as the main-stay of their philosophy will never accept that or probably ever even feel the difference because they're not willing to make a true try for the other methods.


A new assumption. Just another opinion. Mine is different. I use the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) when they're appropriate. But I know that they're often not appropriate and I know that they're not appropriate for everything and not for every dog. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And they will forever miss out on something amazing.


I wonder does this ever stop. Don't you ever tire of telling us how much better you are than the rest of us who use other methods? Any idea how rude this comes across?


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: ddI agree with Middle that your premise is wrong, and I love Jean's post. The problem is you can't "know" what is the right tool immediately, unless you know how your dog will respond to every little thing in every different circumstance. That's why most of us try different things at different times.


I think that this is something that experienced trainers know or at least should know. 



> Originally Posted By: dd The most ideal trraining situation is a partnership between the two. Compulsion training undermines that concept from the start.


I disagree. Only when the training is done improperly is this the result. In fact an Ecollar used as I advocate, will build a relationship faster than any other tool/method. I've worked dogs that wanted to bite me, one on the face, with the Ecollar. About 25 minutes later the face–biter climbed into my lap and was licking my face.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The Gang
> You do NOT know when you first start out what it is going to take to train a dog.


I think that good trainers DO know this. Not to a certainty but certainly to a fairly high degree.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Zahnburg
> What I am questioning is the notion of using something ONLY for last, why not use that "last resort" tool as soon as you realize it is the proper tool, instead of trying other tools that may or may not work.


There are some people who would NEVER use an Ecollar. Before they'd use one they'd kill the dog. Anyone here in that boat?


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The Gang
> Case in point. I've been having a problem with Mauser and other dogs. …
> Let's just say I figured out within two leash corrections on the prong that it was NOT the right tool. A couple more leash corrections and I would have said the possibility of Mauser turning and taking out his frustration on me was NOT low


So what have you decided to do?


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: CastlemaidHere is my childish and simplistic take on the question.


Nope. Adult and complex. 


> Originally Posted By: Castlemaid I struggled with my shelter rescue for a year, wanting to give her "a chance" with positive training to keep her from constantly pulling on leash. I felt a prong was an instrument of last resort, as I felt that using one would be unfair to her, since I should try other methods first. The only reason I felt this way was because of societal values on the prong collar - I had no previous experience wiht a prong to be able to personally make a value judgement, so adopted the socially prevailing value as my own.
> 
> After a year, I "caved" in and tried a prong on her. I was a convert! I could have saved myself a full year of aggravation and progressed with her leash-training much faster thanks to a training tool that gave clear and precise communications to my dog, letting her know what was okay, and what was not okay.
> 
> Now that I have personal experience with the prong collar, and have rejected the societal values attached to it, I will in the future be able to make better decisions as to which collar is more appropriate for different dogs and situations. I will be able to better decide if using a prong collar will be the right tool to accomplish what I would like to accomplish, or if another type of collar (flat? martingale? e-collar?) would be better suited for the situation. So it is no longer a tool of "last resort", but a specific tool that I can use for specific situations.


I'd not wish your situation on anyone, but it happens frequently. The difference is that you made the decision to try something new and quite a few here have said that they never would!


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestI consider any tool/action that provides pain/discomfort as a "last resort" (or at least not a "first resort") because I'm a kind, caring person who chooses to give my dogs - as well as others that I love - the least amount of pain/discomfort that I can.


There's that assumption again. I think that your methods give just as much pain/discomfort as mine, perhaps more. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And since I can do the majority of my training with hardly ANY correction, why use it? Why not keep things as non-painful as possible?


As this a new assumption or an old one masquerading as a new one? This time it's that only corrections bring pain/discomfort and we know that this is not true. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I just don't see anything wrong in that philosophy.


It's based on a false premise that only methods other than yours, bring pain/discomfort. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I DO think there's something wrong with those who choose to use pain/discomfort as a primary tool


I think that there's just as much, if not more pain/discomfort in your methods as in mine. Interestingly I don't feel a need, as you do rather consistently to tell you that _"there's something wrong with [you]"_ 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestIf I can successfully teach a behavior using positive reinforcement, why teach it using a prong collar or shock collar or any other technique that relies on pain/discomfort?


Of course we know that it's IMPOSSIBLE to train using ONLY _"positive reinforcement."_ Why do people keep saying things like this. It's highly misleading. Is that the answer to my question? Is it clever marketing? 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest We just choose to use positive reinforcement as our primary method of training, instead of using punishment as a primary tool.


For every button press of the Ecollar there's a button release. The button press is +P. the button release is –R. That's a 1:1 relationship. Since most people occasionally praise their dog, that makes your statement that Ecollar training is primarily punishment, wrong. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Both can work. And again it goes back to that basic question - why use correction if reward will work?


Neither correction nor reward work in a vacuum. It's impossible to use one without the other. Pretending that it can be done is misleading and I think is just more marketing.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: GSDElsa
> Stick an ecollar to train right off the bat on an abused, skittish, non confident dog and you are asking for disaster.


Gonna have to disagree. I work with such dogs occasionally. About the first thing I do is to put an Ecollar on them and go to work. Roma was just such a dog. Her owner have had used the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) for about two years before I came along, with little success. Click here to read the details. 



> Originally Posted By: GSDElsa Starting the "last resort" techinques in some instances might ruin a dog-- either make them more skittish or just lose the desire to really want to please you.


Never had an Ecollar do any of these things. ANY tool can have these effects if used improperly. 



> Originally Posted By: GSDElsa You just don't always know UNTIL you start training what should be a last resort and what should be started out with.


I think that a trainer should know this. 


> Originally Posted By: GSDElsa A key to this debate is also being able to use the "tool" correctly. Not everyone can use a prong or an e-collar correctly. If the handler can't comfortably use the tool, then they shouldn't.


We've heard from a few who have told us that they know of people who can't use the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) correctly. This is not limited to the pinch or the Ecollar as some would have us believe.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The GangTraining is not black and white - there are MANY shades of grey and what works for one dog may not work for another.


Reinforce what you want repeated. Punish what you don't want repeated. That's black and white. The shades of gray come in the manner of the reinforcement and the punishment. 



> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The GangBut I might damage the wood and if it's a very nice mahogany I would be better off trying the hammer that has the LEAST amount of potential damage possibility.


Your analogy falls apart with your assumption that the pinch and the Ecollar are "more damaging" than other methods. That may be your opinion or even your experience. But it's foolish to think that's the only way it can be.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom
> In reading this and other similar threads, I don't recall anyone ever saying they WOULDN'T use a particular tool as soon as they realized they needed it, just that they wouldn't use it until they DID realize that.


We've had a few who have said that they'd "never" use an Ecollar.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: selzerActually, knowing what I do now, if I had a dog that I deemed dangerous (or dangerously untrainable), my last resort before PTS (or in liu of a serious accident), would be NILIF.


It appears that selzer is one of those who would rather kill a dog than use an Ecollar. Perhaps I read this into the statement however. Selzer, can you clarify please?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Lou, in my previous post, you took one of the quotes out of context, in the first quote it says, "training collars, ... gadgets, etc."

In the later quote you cut out the "training." I do not use training collars. I only put collars on my dogs when I take them out of my house or back yard to put them in my car to take them somewhere.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

For this post, I will say that if I have a dog with a serious problem that I felt I could not manage, I would research and try Nothing in Life is Free. In such a circumstance, the dog would need a different method of leadership, not a prong or shock collar. 

To go farther. If you cannot take your dog out in public safely because it is seriously dog aggressive, and you can get some positive results with an e-collar, Shock on. I wouldn't, I can manage a dog aggressive dog. I could keep them at home, and put a muzzle on to go to the vet. I do not need to euth a dog for such a thing. 

Serious aggression toward humans is a different story. If I had a dog with such an issue, than a complete check up with bloodwork, an animal behaviorist, and a change in leadership would be the way I would go. No, I do not see an e-collar as anything I would be planning on trying for such a situation. And yes, I would PTS if I felt that I could not manage such a dog in safety for myself or for other people. A dog that far gone, is simply not right. It is not good for the dog, the victim(s), the owner, or the breed to keep a dog that you cannot manage safely. I am thinking about dogs that attack out of the blue without any warning whatsoever, have aggression toward their owners, etc. I would expect that the animal most likely has something wrong physically causing it to be unpredictably aggressive.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

And lastly, yeah I get 100% compliance from my dogs. 

What do I ask them to do? Go into their crate or kennel, get into my car, come, sit, down, heel, jump, quiet. 

I suppose the most difficult is the Quiet. When I knock on the window to get their attention (I will be outside with one or two, the others are crated inside on the other side of the window and the puppies are in and out), and then I say "Quiet." They all shut up, even the puppies. But then the puppies start and the others will start. 

The thing is though, that I do not give commands in situations where the dog is unlikely to comply. If two dogs are fighting, I am not out there saying, "Arwen, Come." Sorry, that is rediculous. When any of them are in the field alone and I say Come, they are there right there in front of me. 

Do they sit perfectly in front of me? No. But I am happy with the come. Yes I can then give them a second command, Sit, down, or kennel. 

I can open my dog's mouthes and take a pig's ear out of it. I can tell them "leave it" when sniffing at a pile of poop, and they will leave it every single time (and some of them actually will go for poo.) I can call my dog from sniffing the bitch in heat through the kennel gate and he will come. That is compliance. It is every time. If my bitch in heat is hanging in front of his kennel getting a massage, I can call her and she will come. Every time. 

I do not ask ten dogs to down at the same time. I work with them individually. Tell them what I want, and praise them for doing what I want. They do do what I want without collars, without training collars, without gadgets, or switches, or anything besides my telling them.

Off lead in the biggest dog show in this area, Babsy got 97 points out of 100, not because she screwed up, but because I started to screw up and chose to redo a station. (A redo will knock 3 points off.) She was never out of position; never slow to sit, stand or down; never failed to perform the proper sign; never sniffed (he was marking off EVERY time a dog sniffed the ground). I would say that this is 100% compliance through distractions. 

Not everyone is going to go out there, and wait for the dog to finish sniffing, find a place to urinate, urinate, sniff more and find a place to defacate, defacate, and check the perimeter and be pretty much ready to come in before calling them. But for me, it does not take all that long, and I get to praise them for coming when they do. Then when the day comes where I NEED them to come when I call them right NOW, they do hands down, 100% of the time. 

So I suppose maybe you and I are looking at 100% compliance as different things. 

If I can get my idea of 100% compliance out of my dogs, my way, then why would I want to consider using a device that I would have to wear on my dogs, learn how to use, fiddlefart around with at the correct time, etc.? 

If you are using the lowest sim level and it is simply getting the dog's attention, why not just click with your tounge? If it is not providing a clear correction using pain or an unpleasant consequence, than why is it even necessary? I have demonstrated by my score in Rally that I can get the result using no correction that compels a dog to do what I want through negative reinforcement.


----------



## Keisha (Aug 1, 2008)

Wow, very interesting thread. Lou, I would be interested to know (as someone who uses the "kinder, gentler methods") where pain would be caused? You say that you disagree with the idea that no pain is caused in those methods. I'm not being a smart aleck, I really want to know why you think that, lol. Because as far as I can tell I've caused my dog zero pain. Discomfort? Eh, I suppose. If you count discomfort as not getting what you want just cause you want it right then, discomfort. But then, we ALL have to deal with that


----------



## SuzyE (Apr 22, 2005)

good grief are we back to this again? (yawn)
again to put a prong collar and e collar as the same is ridiculous.
the best thing you have to train with is YOUR VOICE! I ran into a guy a couple days ago who was having a real hard time with his pup. I told him "he knows your not serious but when you have had enough you will get serious and the dog will know!" ran into him yesterday and he said the dog has been a lot better since he "put his foot down!" lol look, I'm not proud of it but my GSD is more than capable of maiming someone.As headstrong as she is when I get a certain tone in my voice my dog knows that big mama has spoken-period. Dominate dogs like to test test test you. I have so many clients whose dogs are great for me and pee all over thier owners cuz I get them around the corner and say "enough you lil' 
$%^&!"


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

well before this thread gets locked out too I would like to ask a couple of questions...

1) Why does everyone have to train exactly alike, i.e. only with a clicker or voice, or else it is a horrible abusive way?
2) Why can't we get the information about e-collars in order to make our own informed decisions without someone telling us we should own hamsters and then the tread being locked?

Is there a board policy about e-collar discussions? Instead of bashing e-collars give us another option that worked for you. Tell me how a prong collar offers less discomfort than an e-collar with specific examples. Have you tried it on yourself to test that theory? Tell me what you do with a dog that is reactive to a prong collar. Will calling him an obscenity stop that nonsense?

And if I'm sounding sarcastic and rude it's probably because I am being so. It's really discouraging to not be able to get information on training methods without the thread being shut down because of a couple of people that don't like e-collars and what good is germanshepherds.com if we can't get the information we need to make an informed decision to help our dogs...


----------



## middleofnowhere (Dec 20, 2000)

When I drink the new improved Kool Aid I become a lot like a person who has stopped smoking. I like to think that I can still learn - when I learn to leave methods behind - I like to share my new found insight to others however unappreciative they are. [I suspect that a lot of people here share that proclivity...annoying as it may be.] 

If we could agree to disagree and move on it would be one thing but I found a lot of condescension, patronizing and equally annoying attitudes expressed in the early (perhaps initial - I'm not going back to check) posts. When this attitude shows up, it sets some of us more on edge than usual.

So far as the use of a prong or ecollar goes, I find advocating it over this forum a bad idea. If you want to use an aversive like this, shop around for people you know and trust to talk to IN PERSON about how to use it properly whether it is suitable for your situation, how they see it and then decide whether or not to use it.

We're an opinionated bunch with strong opinions. We range from kind and considerate to brisk and outspoken, sometimes rude and malicious. 

We're on the internet. We don't see one another face to face. Often we forget to turn our backs and walk away saying "What a jerk to ourselves" and instead say "what a jerk" in a follow up post. 

There are better ways to get more complete information on training methods, better ways to have your dog evaluate than posting on a website forum. I think it is a good thing to remember this. There are also better ways to get your dog diagnosed than on the health forums here.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Middle...you are absolutely right. And I"m guilty of all of that. I heard of a trainer not far from here. Now if the rescue will pay for him...

I don't want the e-collar, prong, or any training method advocated over another. I would like to hear from others on the methods they used rather than hear how bad another method without any reasoning behind it.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Middle, exactly. 

Jax-maybe start a new thread about that. I will gladly post there.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: selzerLou, in my previous post, you took one of the quotes out of context, in the first quote it says, "training collars, ... gadgets, etc."
> 
> In the later quote you cut out the "training." I do not use training collars. I only put collars on my dogs when I take them out of my house or back yard to put them in my car to take them somewhere.


I DID NOT take one of your quotes out of context. I quoted the entire paragraph that contained the comment about _"training collars, … gadgets"_ AND I quoted the full paragraph that followed it. My quotation was post # 1299833 if you'd like to look again. 

I removed your first paragraph that had nothing to do with this discussion and your comment about _"98% of the time, my dogs are running naked. …"_ 

Nothing was quoted out of context. If you maintain that I removed something feel free to refer me to your original statements by post number or a link.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: selzerFor this post, I will say that if I have a dog with a serious problem that I felt I could not manage, I would research and try Nothing in Life is Free. In such a circumstance, the dog would need a different method of leadership, not a prong or shock collar.


I asked for clarifications when you wrote that for you, the "Last Resort" was NILIF. 

In this given situation you've tried all your methods for "establishing leadership" and they've not worked. Now you've tried NILIF and it's also not worked. Do you kill the dog or do you try an Ecollar? 



> Originally Posted By: selzer To go farther. If you cannot take your dog out in public safely because it is seriously dog aggressive, and you can get some positive results with an e-collar, Shock on. I wouldn't, I can manage a dog aggressive dog. I could keep them at home, and put a muzzle on to go to the vet. I do not need to euth a dog for such a thing.


So your answer in that situation is to have the dog wear a muzzle for the rest of his life when he's around other dogs? I find that unbelievably cruel and abusive! 



> Originally Posted By: selzer Serious aggression toward humans is a different story. If I had a dog with such an issue, than a complete check up with bloodwork, an animal behaviorist, and a change in leadership would be the way I would go. No, I do not see an e-collar as anything I would be planning on trying for such a situation. *And yes, I would PTS if I felt that I could not manage such a dog in safety for myself or for other people. *
> 
> Thank God that you were not the trainer called in for Roma or Simon or the scores of other dogs that I've successfully treated for aggression towards humans with an Ecollar. ALL of those dogs had the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) used on them and they failed to provide a fix.
> 
> ...


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: selzerAnd lastly, yeah I get 100% compliance from my dogs.


Selzer many of your dogs have OB degrees. Please direct us to their score sheets online showing nothing but perfect scores. 

NO ONE, NO WHERE gets 100% compliance from their dogs. Anyone who thinks they do is either not clear on what 100% compliance means (your dog will obey every command the first time it's given, no matter how far away you are [given that he can hear them] and no matter what distractions are present) or they're fooling themselves or they're lying. 

But since you maintain that you dog _"get 100% compliance from [your] dogs"_ I'll give you the opportunity to prove it, to collect $1,000 and to shut me up forever on this forum. I've got an challenge that's been on my website for years. It's been published on many forums and email lists. No one has ever attempted it because they know that no dog can pass it. Yet you claim that your dogs can. For you I will double the money that's offered there and if you win I will leave this forum, never to return! 

CLICK HERE for the details. 



> Originally Posted By: selzerWhat do I ask them to do? Go into their crate or kennel, get into my car, come, sit, down, heel, jump, quiet.


In your signature line there are numerous dogs listed that have OB titles after their name. You "ask them" to do more things than you've just detailed. 



> Originally Posted By: selzerThe thing is though, that I do not give commands in situations where the dog is unlikely to comply.


ROFL MAO. Reminiscent of the person who says that they're on a diet except when they see cake. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer If two dogs are fighting, I am not out there saying, "Arwen, Come." Sorry, that is rediculous.


Is it? I've called dogs away from fights with voice commands MANY times. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer I can open my dog's mouthes and take a pig's ear out of it.


Me too, but this has nothing to do with compliance with commands. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer I can tell them "leave it" when sniffing at a pile of poop, and they will leave it every single time (and some of them actually will go for poo.) I can call my dog from sniffing the bitch in heat through the kennel gate and he will come.


Me too. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer I do not ask ten dogs to down at the same time.


Why not? But I've given commands to seven dogs that I've trained _"at the same time" quite frequently. Sometimes after they're all down, I've called the names of several of them and given commands that only the named dogs obey. BTW I NEVER *ask * a dog to perform an OB command. Some things are permissible but OB commands are not. There's a reason it's called an OB [/b]command[/b] and not a request. 

I know several trainers who work with multiple dogs at once. They have no issues in giving them all commands "at the same time" and getting compliance. 

But this is really immaterial. 




Originally Posted By: selzer I work with them individually. Tell them what I want, and praise them for doing what I want. They do do what I want without collars, without training collars, without gadgets, or switches, or anything besides my telling them.

Click to expand...

I'm very excited about you winning the award for showing me this. I'm looking forward to paying you for additional training so I can learn your methods. 




Originally Posted By: selzer Off lead in the biggest dog show in this area, Babsy got 97 points out of 100, not because she screwed up, but because I started to screw up and chose to redo a station. (A redo will knock 3 points off.) She was never out of position; never slow to sit, stand or down; never failed to perform the proper sign; never sniffed (he was marking off EVERY time a dog sniffed the ground). I would say that this is 100% compliance through distractions.

Click to expand...

Then collecting the award should be very easy for you. 




Originally Posted By: selzer So I suppose maybe you and I are looking at 100% compliance as different things.

Click to expand...

Yes, we are. When your dogs are distracted you're afraid to give commands for fear that they won't obey. And so you just avoid the reality of dog training. The point of training is so that the dog will obey IN THE FACE OF DISTRACTIONS. A five year old can get a dog to sit by luring with a treat in the kitchen when no distractions are present, but that's not what we're discussing. 

People whose dogs is running towards a busy street, chasing a cat do not have the luxury of waiting until they know the dog will comply to give a recall command. They need compliance NOW. 

I'm sorry but your version of 100% compliance, giving commands ONLY when you know your dogs will comply, is absurd. 




Originally Posted By: selzer If I can get my idea of 100% compliance out of my dogs, my way, then why would I want to consider using a device that I would have to wear on my dogs, learn how to use, fiddlefart around with at the correct time, etc.?

Click to expand...

Because your idea of 100% compliance is bizarre It would be sad if it wasn't real. 




Originally Posted By: selzer If you are using the lowest sim level and it is simply getting the dog's attention, why not just click with your tounge?

Click to expand...

Because a tongue click is not aversive? I find it amazing that you even ask this question! 




Originally Posted By: selzer I have demonstrated by my score in Rally that I can get the result using no correction that compels a dog to do what I want through negative reinforcement.

Click to expand...

Rally is your standard of obedience? REALLY! ROF







_


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Not_Just_A_Dog
> Lou, I would be interested to know (as someone who uses the "kinder, gentler methods") where pain would be caused?


The phrase I've used is _"pain or discomfort"_ or _"pain/discomfort."_ When you withhold a treat (this includes toys, praise, etc.) from a dog that causes him discomfort. How much depends on the dog and how badly he wants it. Many people will withhold food from a dog to get him more interested in the treats. That discomfort may go on for days. I know of one trainer who, when asked how long it was OK to not feed their dog to get them to show interest in treats, replied, "As long as it takes." 

Many people use extinction and negative reinforcement (-R), ignoring an undesired behavior until it stops,. These cause just as much discomfort as punishment. 



> Originally Posted By: Not_Just_A_DogYou say that you disagree with the idea that no *pain *is caused in those methods. [Emphasis added]


Please don't misquote me. That IS NOT my statement. 



> Originally Posted By: Not_Just_A_Dog I'm not being a smart aleck, I really want to know why you think that, lol.


Because it's a fact. 



> Originally Posted By: Not_Just_A_Dog Because as far as I can tell I've caused my dog zero pain. *Discomfort? Eh, I suppose. * [Emphasis added]


Thank you. Pain and discomfort are just part of a continuum. It can be extreme, _touching a red hot pot _or it can be minor, _It's chilly I think I need a sweater. _ 



> Originally Posted By: Not_Just_A_Dog If you count discomfort as not getting what you want just cause you want it right then, discomfort. But then, we ALL have to deal with that


Yes, I know. that's what I've said repeatedly. Thanks for making my point.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Jax08well before this thread gets locked out too I would like to ask a couple of questions...
> 
> 1) Why does everyone have to train exactly alike, i.e. only with a clicker or voice, or else it is a horrible abusive way?
> * 2) Why can't we get the information about e-collars in order to make our own informed decisions without someone telling us we should own hamsters and then the tread being locked? *


Because the agenda of those who use only the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) won't allow it. This form of training sometimes, with some people, assumes the characteristics of a religion. And like missionaries in the new world, they feel they have to convert everyone. 



> Originally Posted By: Jax08And if I'm sounding sarcastic and rude it's probably because I am being so. It's really discouraging to not be able to get information on training methods without the thread being shut down because of a couple of people that don't like e-collars and what good is germanshepherds.com if we can't get the information we need to make an informed decision to help our dogs...


Great point. part of the agenda of the antis is to first give their side of the argument repeatedly. Nothing wrong with that. But they repeat the myths, misconceptions, outright lies and pseudo scientific studies over and over. When that fails, they turn to personal attacks of one sort or another. sometimes it takes the form of obvious name calling, sometimes Straw Man arguments and sometimes they question the credentials and veracity of those they oppose. This last bit is part of their method, dilution. They spend so much time (and space) in this that people looking for information just give up trying to find it. They have to read through pages and pages of nonsense to get to "the meat" of the discussion. When that fails, the antis get downright rude and the thread is locked. THEY'VE WON! They've stopped the spread of information about the Ecollar. 

On one forum that I'm on, the owner created two parallel forums. One for Pro Ecollar discussion and one for Anti Ecollar discussions. I'm the moderator for the Pro section and there's another mod for the Anti section. People are not permitted to make anti Ecollar comments in the pro section and vice versa. It's worked out quite well. Perhaps the moderators are interested in doing something similar here. I volunteer to moderate the Pro section!


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: LouCastle
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: selzerAnd lastly, yeah I get 100% compliance from my dogs.
> ...


_

The part I bolded. 

That's not really necessary is it?

I mean...you want people to do...whatever...we all have motivations behind our post of wanting people to do whatever...so ridicule is probably not the way to do that. 

I think these threads are essentially unreadable, so whatever anyone is trying to impart is lost on me. That stinks._


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

I really feel like everyone is talking in circles and saying basically the same thing. I felt like Castlemaid was saying the same thing as a lot of other posters, just in a different way....and she was getting a "great post!" from people who weren't getting what other people were saying?

However one point I want to make to the people who are saying the trainer know right away when they start training the dog...

OK. A TRAINER knows. I was under the impression when this thread started that we were talking about your average dog owner. Obviously, if you regularily train dogs or a person is paying someone a lot of money to train their dog...well YES I would expect the person to be able to realize what might be the most appropriate method for that dog.

But the average owner? No, not at all. 

And I also think different tools for different things with the same dog are sometimes needed. Elsa is super willing and has great focus...except with heel work. It's just our weak point. She never needs a prong for ANYTHING else. But, she gets it put on when we are out and about working on her walking skills.

My mother has a great therapy dog. But when he's out walking off-leash in open space sometimes the running rabbits and quail are a bit too much temptation. So, for that particular activity she e-collar trained him. But that's the only time he wears it.

Sure, you could (and a lot of people would argue) that I should be able to work on heel work without the prong, and my mom should have enough control that her boy doesn't dart after a jack rabbit. But, for those particular activities, those tools work the best. But I would never consider putting a prong on Elsa when practicing down stays or recalls because I can accomplish the task perfectly without using it. A tennis ball or cheese niblet reward works wonderfully, so why use a differnt tool?

And sorry Lou...the first thing you do is put an ecollar on a non-confient, skittish dog? If you honestly do that off the bat with all dogs, I'd seriously question you! Not all dogs need an e-collar. Just like not all dogs need a prong. Just like not all dogs need soley positive reinforcement. If you can't alter your training methods for each dog and each activity...I'd take a huge NEXT.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

I agree with Jean. I find your posts, Lou, very informative even if annoying to read, but ridiculing other posters is NOT the way to educate.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Thank you Elsa! 

Quote:

"OK. A TRAINER knows. I was under the impression when this thread started that we were talking about your average dog owner. Obviously, if you regularily train dogs or a person is paying someone a lot of money to train their dog...well YES I would expect the person to be able to realize what might be the most appropriate method for that dog....But the average owner? No, not at all."

This is part of the answer to the question! The answer is that a person does not know what the proper tool is in a given circumstance. 

Quote:

"I also think different tools for different things with the same dog are sometimes needed."

I agree 100%. My original question was simply asking if you need a certain tool for a certain exercise why not just use that tool instead of using it only as a last resort? You answered this. A lot of people do not know that they need a certain tool for a certain exercise without trying other things first.

Good post Elsa.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> Quote: *Rally is your standard of obedience? REALLY! ROF :rofl:*





> Originally Posted By: JeanKBBMMMAAN
> The part I bolded.
> 
> That's not really necessary is it?


Not really. But it gets frustrating dealing with people who say things like they have 100% obedience only to find out that they give commands ONLY when they know that they'll be obeyed. That's an absurd statement to people who are looking to be able to control their dogs when they go for walks or to the dog park. 

And when selzer added that the evidence was a Rally score it really put the frosting on the cake. Rally was devised by the AKC because the numbers of people competing in Ob were dropping. Some thought because it was too hard. And so they created a sport that was not so hard. I've seen people literally dragging their dogs thorugh the heeling pattern with a tight leash and get a qualifying score. I've seen people constantly babbling to their dog and "air feeding" to get them to obey. I don't think that's a level of OB to aspire to. I have nothing against those who have great fun doing it. But it's NOT a very high standard. 



> Originally Posted By: JeanKBBMMMAANI think these threads are essentially unreadable, so whatever anyone is trying to impart is lost on me. That stinks.


I agree that it stinks. Anyone else for separate subforums, one for Pro and one for anti Ecollar discussions?


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: GSDElsa
> However one point I want to make to the people who are saying the trainer know right away when they start training the dog...
> 
> OK. A TRAINER knows. I was under the impression when this thread started that we were talking about your average dog owner. Obviously, if you regularily train dogs or a person is paying someone a lot of money to train their dog...well YES I would expect the person to be able to realize what might be the most appropriate method for that dog.
> ...


My original statement on this was, _"I think that this is something that experienced trainers know or at least should know."_ 

At that time the discussion was between trainers. I agree that the average pet owner (whatever that means) will not know. Many of them will have trouble even knowing if their techniques are giving good results until they try to apply them in the face of distractions only to discover that they have not. That's another reason I advocate using the Ecollar. Once the basic work is done and the owner takes the dog into distracting situations he still has the ability to correct the dog if he disobeys when off leash, the true test of the quality of the training. The Ecollar is the ONLY tool that allows this. 


> Originally Posted By: GSDElsa I would never consider putting a prong on Elsa when practicing down stays or recalls because I can accomplish the task perfectly without using it. A tennis ball or cheese niblet reward works wonderfully, so why use a differnt tool?


I have no objection to people using whatever tool they like as long as it gives good results. I do have a couple of objections. One is to people who try to make anyone who eve n thinks of using an Ecollar that they're being cruel or abusive towards their dogs. Another is people who keep repeating myths and misconceptions over and over again, when they've had holes shot in them each time before. Another is people who try to disrupt these discussions with rudeness and personal attacks. 



> Originally Posted By: GSDElsa And sorry Lou...the first thing you do is put an ecollar on a non-confient, skittish dog? If you honestly do that off the bat with all dogs, I'd seriously question you!


You're free to question all you like. I've proven repeatedly that such a temperament or behavior is not a reason not to use an Ecollar. Perhaps it is as you're familiar with the tool but it's not the case with the tool as I use and teach it. 

Teaching a fearful dog to recall and sit with an Ecollar builds his confidence in most situations. I'm going to guess that you've not read the article I've linked to repeatedly about Roma. If you had, you'd understand. 



> Originally Posted By: GSDElsa Not all dogs need an e-collar. Just like not all dogs need a prong.


No dog _"needs"_ either of these tools. But they are here and there's no reason not to use them. 



> Originally Posted By: GSDElsa Just like not all dogs need soley positive reinforcement. If you can't alter your training methods for each dog and each activity...I'd take a huge NEXT.


Dog training is not rocket science. It's the same as with every species on the planet. Reinforce what you want repeated. Punish what you don't want repeated. The Ecollar allows for "the alteration" you refer to because the stim level is adjustable. 

I'm sure that somewhere out there is a dog that the Ecollar won't work on or that isn't suited for it. I've just never come across him. And every time when someone brought me a dog to work with that they thought was "that dog" I proved them wrong. 

When I first worked Roma it was before quite a hostile (to the Ecollar) crowd. Only one person in that group (20-30 people I think) used an Ecollar. The rest were opposed to them except Roma's owner who was at the end of her rope. I'm quite sure that they were hoping that I'd fail so they could put the nail into the coffin. Instead I succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Soon, everyone in that group had move to the Ecollar for most of their work with one exception. Can you guess which one of the group did not have a reliable recall?


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: lhczthI agree with Jean. I find your posts, Lou, very informative even if annoying to read, but ridiculing other posters is NOT the way to educate.


My intent was not to ridicule. If anyone took it that way I sincerely apologize. 

My point was that we were discussing _"100% compliance with commands."_ That means that the dog will obey any command without repetition, no matter what the distance is from the handler and no matter what distractions are present. Rally is hardly _the posterboy _for that level of OB.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Your intent Lou, is to ridicule. I AM an average dog owner, not a trainer. We ARE talking about life skills about the home. 

An e-collar would not work for me, because I would not be able to use it while the dogs are crated or kenneled, and frankly, that is the only time when it would be necessary. 

My dogs do everything an average owner would need for their dogs to do the very first time I ask them, every single time, whether there are distractions or not. This is because I give them positive reinforcement when they obey commands when there are not distractions. 

I can take my dogs anywhere and do anything with them. 

You are right that Rally is easy, I can get a qualifying score with any dog pretty easily. But the dogs do need to be in close quarters with other dogs and people and they do need to be trained. 

You have seen Rally where they dragged the dog through the whole coarse and qualified. In anything that has judges, there are good and bad judges. I will not tell you how many nice dogs were NQ'd at the classic. NQ'd for tight leash or not paying attention, etc. One poor kid was NQ'd two days in a row, the first day for pushing his Bermese Mountain dog into position -- not allowed to do that. The next day for pulling him around for a finish with the lead. NQ. 

What is pretty cool is the lady I was with is working toward being a judge in obedience and has obedience titles. She is a dog trainer, and works specifically with aggressive dogs that other trainers refer to her. This was her first trip through rally. Also, her first time she has never placed with a dog. She said obedience is easy. You go forward, make turn, go fast, go normal, about turn, and the pattern is pretty much always the same. The stand for exam and sits and downs are where people lose it. 

I have a CD on Arwen. Yes, I got three blue ribbons for her three legs. Frankly, I did not find it fun. I had nice judges and it was good to win, but it is stiff and unrewarding. I like to have fun with my dogs. 

I think that leading your dog around a rally ring like you have a treat in you hand is pretty sad. I do not do that. Partly because I do not depend on treats in training. But using you voice, talking to the dog and praising the dog is encouraged in rally. You have to be careful though because too much praise can get your dog too excited, etc. 

I could not possibly have qualified pulling Babs through on a lead because we were off lead. The dogs have to do a lot of different patterns and jumps. If you have good heeling skills, your dog will get a good score. But it really is not a cake walk. 

I do not know anywhere on line where they show your scores. I did not think that was available. When I look at title progression on the AKC site it simply tells the number of qualifying scores, no placements or number scores. 

Since May of 2007, I have put eleven titles on 9 dogs, placing 19 out of 33 qualifying scores. I am a newbie to obedience and rally. But the dogs and I enjoy it. It is my thing. You have not done it but you can dismiss it and laugh at people who do it. 

I will say one thing about it. A dog that can do well in the Rally ring, will also be a good companion dog, able to be taken out in public and will not have the many problems that you see discussed on this e-collar thread. 

My point is that I can get the level of behavior I want, expect, need without using negative reinforcement. 

Your premise is that we who advocate positive reinforcement or "kinder and gentler methods" are attacking you and those of you who use shock collars. I am just saying that I feel it is unnecessary, and cannot think of any situation where I would find it warranted.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

This is going WAY off topic. If you will please remember the original questions:

"Why not immediately use the proper tool that will produce the desired results? Why fool around with tools and techniques that are ineffective or improper for the circumstance?"

I believe this has been answered. The answers are:

*The trainer does not know what the proper tool or method is for that situation

OR

* The trainer does not know how to use certain tools or methods

OR

*The trainer has some emotional reason not to use certain tools or methods

If you have another answer to the questions I would love to hear it.

This was never intended to be a debate about specific tools or methods.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Art, you should know that any discussion involving training will end up in a debate. As the saying goes, "the only thing two dog trainers can agree about is what the third dog trainer is doing wrong".


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Very true Lisa.


----------



## Kayla's Dad (Jul 2, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgThis is going WAY off topic. If you will please remember the original questions:


Not really. This topic has too many variables for a definitive answer so these kind of threads can usually can be informative, interesting entertainment and eventually boring just for the reasons GSD Elsa mentioned – they eventually get into circles with people going at one another.

The underlying issue is that every component of successfully training/teaching a dog/owner is variable-there are no absolutes, though folks may try to lead others to think so. And when a person determines that one method or another works for them most/all the time, it becomes the way they approach training, in some instances, in disregard of other methods. 

If you think of training as a mathematical formula, the basic parts are:
A: Owner/handler/trainer
B: Dog (Personality, drives, reactions,…..)
C: Training method(s)/techniques/tools
D: Environment – (no distractions/distractions at varying levels/ weather, etc)

You end up with a result "S"
S: Level of success/meeting of set goals

A*B*C*D= S

The issue is that every piece of that formula is a variable-at least when one starts out. Not a single one is an absolute, even A at first. The underlying route to success is in finding the right variables that work with the particular dog(s) you’re training at any given time. Getting the successful result with your training means finding the right variables for each of those parts. 

And agreeing on what those variables are to succeed with any dog? Well, that is why this and other threads can go round and round.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I agree, but my formula would be a little different

A is the human element personality
B is the desired result factor
C is the method of training
D is the dog's character, aptitude, drive, etc.
E is the time spent training per session (minutes)
F is the time period of training (weeks)

S being the level of succes.

S = (D*[(A*C)^B])^(E/F)

LOL!!!!


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: selzerYour intent Lou, is to ridicule.


Selzer I've just apologized when someone misunderstood my meaning behind something I wrote. You're not required to accept my apology but while you're entitled to think anything that you like, you're wrong. You have no idea of my intent, you're just making an assumption. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer I AM an average dog owner, not a trainer.


A glance at your signature line would show you something different. Average dog owners (whatever that means) don't have even the most basic of AKC OB titles. They don't compete in any venue. But now you're playing semantic games. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer We ARE talking about life skills about the home.


In general that's true but your position on 100% compliance is absurd. AND you are the one who brought competition into the discussion. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer An e-collar would not work for me, because I would not be able to use it while the dogs are crated or kenneled, and frankly, that is the only time when it would be necessary.


Why would you _"not be able to use it while the dogs are crated or kenneled?"_ and why is _"that the only time when it would be necessary."_ In any case, I frankly don't give a hoot what tools you (or anyone) use but these statements make no sense. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer My dogs do everything an average owner would need for their dogs to do the very first time I ask them, every single time, whether there are distractions or not.


You've just told us that you don't give commands when you don't think they'll obey. The average owner needs compliance whether they think their dog would obey or not, and to be honest, so do you. In fact, that may be the time that compliance IS NEEDED MOST! You were quite clear that if they were in a fight and you told them to come, they would not. I'd think that would be one of those times! Another would be the ubiquitous "running towards a busy street, chasing a cat." 



> Originally Posted By: selzer This is because I give them positive reinforcement when they obey commands when there are not distractions.


Then you should have no trouble winning my award. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer You have seen Rally where they dragged the dog through the whole coarse and qualified. In anything that has judges, there are good and bad judges.


You are the one who wrote _"I have demonstrated by my score in Rally that I can get the result using no correction … "_ how do you know that you didn't get several of the bad ones? You are the one who brought up rally to show us the quality of your training, not me. Now you're talking about _"bad judges."_ 



> Originally Posted By: selzer I think that leading your dog around a rally ring like you have a treat in you hand is pretty sad. I do not do that. Partly because I do not depend on treats in training. But using you voice, talking to the dog and praising the dog is encouraged in rally.


Using your voice is no better than using treats or a toy. You just happened to have drawn a line that says treats = bad, voice = good. It's just a value judgment. The fact that Rally was created for people like you is great. But it's no measure of quality OB. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer But it really is not a cake walk.


 You're the one who just wrote that it was _"easy."_



> Originally Posted By: selzer Since May of 2007, I have put eleven titles on 9 dogs, placing 19 out of 33 qualifying scores. I am a newbie to obedience and rally. But the dogs and I enjoy it. It is my thing.


That's great. You're the one who made the silly statement that your rally scores demonstrated your competence in OB. I merely pointed out that it does not demonstrate what you think it does. It allows for all sorts of noncompliance, repeated commands, babbling at the dog and more. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer You have not done it but you can dismiss it and laugh at people who do it.


I've neither dismissed it nor laughed at anyone who does it. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer I will say one thing about it. A dog that can do well in the Rally ring, will also be a good companion dog, able to be taken out in public and will not have the many problems that you see discussed on this e-collar thread.


The same problem that may occur in the AKC OB ring, where a dog works well in it but not out of it, can occur in Rally. It MAY work as you say but it's not always the case. And I don't think that a dog that needs constant babbling to stay focused on the handler and perform is a _"good companion."_ 



> Originally Posted By: selzer My point is that I can get the level of behavior I want, expect, need without using negative reinforcement.


Yes and? What do you think this shows? You probably use extinction and that can be just as aversive as punishment, which I'd bet you do use. If you disagree, tell us in detail how you teach a dog to sit and I'll show you where it is. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer Your premise is that we who advocate positive reinforcement or "kinder and gentler methods" are attacking you and those of you who use shock collars. I am just saying that I feel it is unnecessary, and cannot think of any situation where I would find it warranted.


I've never said anything of the kind. It's obvious that SOME who _"advocate"_ the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) DO attack others. I've not mentioned anyone specifically. 

But yaknow what? SOMEHOW I missed you accepting my challenge! I'm shocked. Here you are telling us repeatedly that you get 100% compliance and then you pass up the opportunity to win yourself $2,000! How can that be. Could it be that actually proving it is impossible for you? Easy to make that claim isn't it.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

If you go on a thread about puppy mills, spay/neuter, or chaining dogs, and suggest that people have an emotional reason for wanting to stop unethical breeding practices, spay/neuter the entire universe of dogdom, or want to outlaw chaining dogs, than a lot of people would be very insulted.

I used postive reinforcement with all of my dogs because it works for me. It has nothing to do with emotions. I find that the dogs that I have had respond better to positive reinforcement over the long run. 

So, in fact, by starting with positive reinforcement, I AM starting with the proper tool from the get go. 

I think that people who fail with positive reinforcement may also have a leadership problem. Because it is touted as "kinder/gentler" it will cater to people who may also let the dog get the upper hand and will not be consistant in their leadership style. So it is not surprising that Lou's one person who would not put a shock collar on their dog did not get the perfect recall. 

The problem with any training technique is generally timing and consistancy. You have this whether you click, or praise, or shock or use other training collars. You need to get the timing right. You have to pay attention to your dogs. The props are really not the problem, the problem is the human weilding the prop. 

Unless there is something seriously wrong with the dog, an individual who has a good consistant leadership style applied from the beginning, and has good timing, can get good results with positive reinforcement, or any other method. 

The problem is that not all dog/handler teams function because the dog's learning style and the handler's timing/leadership abilities do not match. The handler switches weapons and gets compliance, but this same dog might have done just as well with a different handler using the original method. 

I think the human factor is much more important than we give it credit for. But when someone says it would only respond to a shock collar, they will take such a comment as an attack. 

Lastly, the idea that Lou's group of dog people ALL switched to a shock -- all but one, and had the results they were looking for kind of bothers me. It reinforces what I am saying about being able to train the dog with any tool, but what trainer suggests and e-collar for every dog??? Will it work? If the timing and consistancy is good, yes. Is it necessary? I will never believe it to be so.


----------



## StGeorgeK9 (Jan 5, 2008)

For me, the "last resort" is the training method that is searched out because all of the known methods have been tried and have not suceeded. Why would you even seek a new method unless you have tried everything you know how to do? Once you have tried a new method with success, the new method no longer is one of last resort, but becomes the proper tool for a specific situation. That does not mean it would be always used, but it would be used with a dog, with a similar issue, with similar drives. Be it proofing recall, working with shy or fearful dogs, resource guarding, or basic obedience. I use many different tools for all these different situations. But had I not had an issue addressing one of these issues in the first place, I would not have looked for a different way. I think one one things of "last resort" there is always an emotion attached to it. An aversion to the tool .... when this happens, I believe strongly that information and education are very important to ensure the person can use such a tool properly and be comfortable that they are doing the best they can for the dog.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Lou, I did not bother to follow the link to your challenge. 

I did not challenge you and am not going to look at your challenge. That is your game. Never play another person's game because you will lose. 

Because this is really incredibly irritating, your condesention and attacking every line I write I am going now to figure out how to put the ignore button on your posts so I can just not bother with them. 

Have fun beating up other people, and PM me if you are ever doing rally in NE Ohio so I can go and watch.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Betsy,

That is a fantastic post! Thank you so much for chiming in.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Quote from Selzer:

"So, in fact, by starting with positive reinforcement, I AM starting with the proper tool from the get go."

Well that is great. So you are using the proper tool for the circumstance. 
I don't know why you are trying so hard to turn this conversation into a debate about what training methods are "best" or why you train a certain way. That has nothing to do with the questions that were asked.


----------



## StGeorgeK9 (Jan 5, 2008)

Thanks, there is one other thing I might add, if you have tried something you thought was as a "last resort" and it failed.........it is no longer last resort, it is doubtful it would be used again. Such a tool most likely would no longer be kept in a persons "tool box" of training, they would be less willing to give it another try, unless they later realized they had used the tool incorrectly.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: selzer I think that people who fail with positive reinforcement may also have a leadership problem. Because it is touted as "kinder/gentler" it will cater to people who may also let the dog get the upper hand and will not be consistant in their leadership style. So it is not surprising that Lou's one person who would not put a shock collar on their dog did not get the perfect recall.


It was not that she did not get the perfect recall, she had a very unreliable recall anytime the dog was not in the mood. He might be sniffing something interesting or simply laying comfortably in the sun. If he didn't feel like recalling, he didn't. 

The lack of leadership issue is hardly confined to those who use the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig). It's possible with those who use any tool. But it matters not whether a person has leadership qualities or not. They still need their dog to obey. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer Unless there is something seriously wrong with the dog, an individual who has a good consistant leadership style applied from the beginning, and has good timing, can get good results with positive reinforcement, or any other method.


I'll disagree. Some dogs will not respond just because someone has good leadership qualities. They have their own agenda and are driven to satisfy it. This is insulting to people who are using the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) and are not succeeding. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer Lastly, the idea that Lou's group of dog people ALL switched to a shock -- all but one, and had the results they were looking for kind of bothers me. It reinforces what I am saying about being able to train the dog with any tool


I think that, rather than reinforce what you say about leadership, it show how wrong you are. They were unable to get satisfactory results with the tools they had been using. Like many in SAR they'd been told that an Ecollar would "ruin" their dogs. Instead they had first hand knowledge that NOT ONLY WAS THAT BS but that it could be used on the most fear aggressive dogs that they'd ever seen. 

Based on your theory that because they didn't get good results because they lacked leadership abilities and qualities. It follows that they should not have been able to get good results NO MATTER what tool they tried! Yet they ALL got satisfactory results with the Ecollar. Do you suppose that the leadership came in the box with the Ecollar? lol.



> Originally Posted By: selzerbut what trainer suggests and e-collar for every dog???


I do among many. Yasee those of us with lots of experience with the tool know that it can be used on the hardest AND the softest of dogs. The confident AND the fearful. The dominant AND the submissive. The sharp AND the shy. The playful AND the serious. Have I left any out? If so, feel free to include them too, because the tool will give great success with them as well. 

Those who only know what they've heard or the nonsense that others spew (usually folks with little or no first hand experience as the tool is used with modern methods) THINK that they know something else. But they've been proven wrong repeatedly. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer Will it work? If the timing and consistancy is good, yes.


Timing is more critical with the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig). Consistency is required for good results, no matter what method is used. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer Is it necessary? I will never believe it to be so.


If you can get reliability with other methods, that's great. I've already given my definition of this as _the dog will obey a single command, no matter the distance or the distractions present. _ But I think that the fact that you haven't taken the opportunity to be $2,000 richer, tells us something about the quality of your work. I'd NEVER make the statement that I have 100% compliance. I know that I don't and I've never seen anyone else who did either. 

I think that if you tell them people that the reason that they can't get good performance from their method, no matter what it is that it's due to their "lack of leadership" they'll be highly insulted, and rightfully so.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: selzerLou, I did not bother to follow the link to your challenge.


I'm not surprised. Anytime someone has made the absurd statement that they get 100% compliance from their dogs and I offer my challenge, they ALWAYS back down. It's been available for several years now and NOT ONE PERSON has ever even _tried _to collect. They know the truth. When they get in front of a camera and distractions are applied their dog WILL FAIL. No one, I don't care how good their training, has 100% compliance 100% of the time. You included. You've just made up a weird definition of the term to suit your situation. 



> Originally Posted By: selzerI did not challenge you


I'm not the one who made the preposterous statement that my training gave 100% compliance. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer and am not going to look at your challenge.


I'm not the slightest bit surprised. You’ve already told us that your mind is closed and this is just more evidence of it. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer Because this is really incredibly irritating, your condesention and attacking every line I write I am going now to figure out how to put the ignore button on your posts so I can just not bother with them.


I will continue to respond to your statements when I disagree with them. If you don't want to respond, that's fine by me. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer Have fun beating up other people,


NO one is getting beaten up except as they try to fool the readers into thinking that their methods are so good that they have 100% compliance. That's about the most absurd thing anyone can say about their training. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer and PM me if you are ever doing rally in NE Ohio so I can go and watch.


Not likely. If I was to compete in some sport it certainly would not be Rally. And based on your admitted closed–mindedness, I'd not want to spend any time in your presence. I prefer people with open minds who are interested in learning new things. 

I've noticed and I'm sure that so have many readers, that you've declined my invitation to show you where the punishment is in your training. This is not unusual among people who say that they don't use aversive or punishment in their training. They don't want to know the truth about what they do.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Zahnburg, I believe you were looking for a debate from the beginning, but whatever. 

I have never really considered a training method any type of last resort. I have never said that I would use a shock or a prong as a last resort. I think that when something does not work, you try something else, if that doesn't work you try something else. 

Only when you have a dangerous, aggressive dog might you consider something as your last resort. I think at that point it is not training but leadership and management that would be what you would need as a last resort before PTS. 

I mean, if you simply cannot get your dog to stand for an exam (obedience), you may try a number of different techniques to do it. And then you may decide that you really do not need to get an obedience title on this dog. But you would never subject a dog to something you think is cruel in order to get an obedience title. At least not if you have any sort of ethics. 

For years it was the ear pinch thing people were doing in obedience. I am not even sure why they were doing it, but it was definitely contraversial. It worked, because a lot of people swore by it. However, would you pinch your dog's ear to get a stupid title??? I think not -- at least I would not.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: selzer
> I have never really considered a training method any type of last resort. I have never said that I would use a shock or a prong as a last resort. I think that when something does not work, you try something else, if that doesn't work you try something else.


If what you're trying doesn't work, at some point you run out of things to try. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer Only when you have a dangerous, aggressive dog might you consider something as your last resort.


I don't think that the average pet owner (whatever that means) agrees with you. I think that if he can't get a dog to stop chewing up his expensive furniture that dog is either going back to the pound, the breeder or wherever else he may have come from. Some may put the dog to sleep for this. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer I think at that point it is not training but leadership and management that would be what you would need as a last resort before PTS.


Just because an owner is or IS NOT a leader doesn’t stop a dog from chewing up the furniture. This has nothing to do with training that I can see. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer I mean, if you simply cannot get your dog to stand for an exam (obedience), you may try a number of different techniques to do it. And then you may decide that you really do not need to get an obedience title on this dog.


I don't think we're talking about this sort of thing here. I think we're talking about basic OB and life issues. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer But you would never subject a dog to something you think is cruel in order to get an obedience title. At least not if you have any sort of ethics.


Cruelty has different meanings to different people. To a court, cruelty is a specific intent crime. One has to INTEND to be cruel to the dog to be guilty of this. If the end is to have a trained dog, there's lots of leeway as to what is acceptable. 

Just because you think something is cruel does not mean that everyone will agree with you. At the extreme we'll all agree but until we get there, opinions will vary. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer For years it was the ear pinch thing people were doing in obedience.


Many still are. 



> Originally Posted By: selzer I am not even sure why they were doing it, but it was definitely contraversial. It worked, because a lot of people swore by it. However, would you pinch your dog's ear to get a stupid title??? I think not -- at least I would not.


Mostly it's done to ensure compliance in the retrieve. Nowadays many competitors who are getting HIT's do it.


----------



## SuzyE (Apr 22, 2005)

holy mackeral that gets old...the best book I have ever read on dogs is Jan Fennels' The Dog Listener. great ideas and subtle ways to get thru to your dog. Everything she suggests worked wonders with Paige. I consider the prong collar something to use to walk and that's it because I think it is better on the neck than a choke chain. My dogs just aren't trained to walk by my side and they never will be.When I think of "tools" I think only of what to use when walking, not training. as far as Paige's training it had nothing to do with equipment at all, she could have had a buckle collar on.
The reason I will never concur with the e collar is because my dog was probably the worst case scenario-I mean DANGEROUS and after 6 weeks with the right trainers she was in control. If I ( a former novice dog owner) can get a totally out of control/VICIOUS GSD to act right enough to never bite anyone then I can assure you that 99% of dogs can be trained. Hats off to my trainers that didn't blink an eye when paige clearly wanted to kill them...that was the new beginning of our life.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: SuzyEWhen I think of "tools" I think only of what to use when walking, not training.


I bet the trainers you consulted thought of what tools to use for walking and training. 



> Originally Posted By: SuzyEas far as Paige's training it had nothing to do with equipment at all, she could have had a buckle collar on.


A buckle collar is _"equipment."_ 



> Originally Posted By: SuzyEThe reason *I will never concur with the e collar *is because my dog was probably the worst case scenario-I mean DANGEROUS and after 6 weeks with the right trainers she was in control. If I ( a former novice dog owner) can get a totally out of control/VICIOUS GSD to act right enough to never bite anyone then I can assure you that *99% of dogs can be trained. * [Emphasis added]


Happy to hear that your tools worked for you. By your own admission they won't work for all problem dogs. Since you _"will never concur with the Ecollar"_ I guess you'll kill that 1% that your tools/methods don't work with. Is that correct?


----------



## SuzyE (Apr 22, 2005)

you assume the e collar would work on the 1%, I don't. there are a small percentage of dogs that probably cannot be housepets.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

I've only put Ecollars on about 3,000 dogs but I've never come across one that _"cannot be [a] housepet."_ Are your methods not sufficient to train all dogs with?


----------



## Amaruq (Aug 29, 2001)

Perhaps you two should agree to disagree, get over it and move on?


----------



## TxRider (Apr 15, 2009)

> Originally Posted By: ZahnburgAs I have read through posts on this board I continually see the term "last resort" used, particularly when speaking about an e-collar or pinch. An example would be "I would only use an e-collar as a last resort". So my question is this: Why not immediately use the proper tool that will produce the desired results? Why fool around with tools and techniques that are ineffective or improper for the circumstance?
> I look at it like this: If I want to put a nail in a board I immediatly use my hammer. I do not try several other tools before getting the hammer. Likewise, a hammer is not the proper tool for everything. If I wanted to tighten a bolt I would pick up my wrench and leave the hammer in the tool box.


I look at it this way.

Training a dog is mostly communication. How do you communicate to another species what behavior you want? What behavior you don't want? 

And how do you communicate this in a way they understand not only what you want, but how important each of the behaviors are to you?

How do you relate a concept that is totally foreign to that other species, in a way it can grasp the concept. A species with a similar mammalian brain, but very different cognizant abilities?

There are many many ways to do so.

You tightening a bolt is closest. As a mechanic here is how I see bolts.

I could use a wrench, open end, closed end, or adjustable. I could use a socket on a 1/4" ratchet, or a socket in a 3/8" ratchet, or a socket on a 1/2" drive ratchet, or a socket on a 3/4 inch ratchet.

Or I could use a straight breaker bar.

For some really rusty bolts I might need some penetrating oil first, for some I might need to heat them with a torch, for some only a chisel will do.

Having been rebuilding a 1953 truck from the ground up over the last year, I have used all of the methods I mention and more recently.

Because each bolt is different, and it's a judgment call because using the wrong tool among those I listed, say grabbing a wrench and just leaning into it with a lot of force can snap off a bolt inside a hole, and leave you stuck with a thousand dollar repair because you forced the wrong tool for that specific situation, or used the wrong approach.

Leaving you with the last resort, removing a part, using a drill and a broken bolt extractor or drilling the hole out and tapping new threads.

A mechanics toolbox usually has at least 7-8 different tools for removing each size bolt, and several tools that make variation on those like extensions and universal joints to get at hard to reach places. The choice depends on the bolt, it's location, the metal it's made of, it's condition etc. etc.

I can communicate with a dog through a prong, or e-collar, but I can also communicate through voice command, through tone of voice, through body language, through movement, through touch praise, through food, through physical punishment etc. etc.

It's all in how I think I can communicate to the individual dog.


----------

