# ANOTHER Ecollar Discussion!



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

This conversation was started in another thread called *"Sit Means Sit Training." * It can be found HERE.  

As often happens the anti Ecollar folks took that thread completely off topic and a moderator requested that the _general _Ecollar discussion be taken elsewhere. Acceding to that wise request, I've taken it here.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestLou, I think everyone is probably aware that you have a vested interest in promoting e-collars.


I gave Ecollars the same support for years before I became an Ecollar dealer. You know, or should know this. I've said it several times before. Yet it doesn’t stop you from AGAIN committing this personal attack. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest and it's important for you to push it so that it succeeds (in whatever way success works for you - maybe only by reputation if not financially).


My reputation is based on my problem solving ability. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Most of the rest of us do NOT have a vested interest in what we promote


You just wrote that "it's important for [me] to push [the Ecollar] so that it succeeds (in whatever way success works for you – *maybe only by reputation if not financially)." *YOUR reputation is based on YOUR methods. You have more of a vested interest than I do. LOL. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestWe don't sell training items or get paid for training advice (at least not at this time).


Sorry Melanie you don't get to have it both ways. Either your reputation is important or it's not. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestAll we can do is continue to promote non-aversive training for dogs as much as possible, saving the aversives for later.


There's ABSOLUTELY no reason to "save the aversives for later." *And in fact you don't. You use aversives EVERYWHERE in your training, you just won't admit it. *Tell you what, tell us in detail how you teach a sit and I'll show you where the aversives are in your work. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And I think that when you tell us that you've used shock collars on 3000 dogs, you say it with pride.


Yep. Sure do. That's 3,000 owners of police dogs, SAR dogs and pets who no longer have problems with such things as cat chasing, failing to recall, or disobeying when at a distance. That's 3,000 dogs who are safer because they can easily be controlled when they're headed towards danger. There's no way to count the criminals that the police dogs have found or the lost children or Alzheimer's patients that have been found by the SAR dogs who no longer chase cats or other animals. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I see it as appalling and sad.


I see your pushing of the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" as sad and appalling. People get great results when their dogs are young or when no distractions are present. But as those puppies get older or distractions come up, especially if they're unexpected, the training falls apart. We see complaints of this regularly on these forums. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> I just can't imagine strapping an e-collar on a new dog twice a week and thinking "yeah, this is great!".


I can and do! So do many others who know how to use an Ecollar properly. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Negative reinforcement: removing something when the dog responds "correctly", creating the desire in the dog to try to respond correctly in the future. For example, *you can press down a stim button on a shock collar * and then let it go when the dog sits. The dog learns to sit to avoid the stimulation. [Emphasis added]


If you're going to try and educate the readers please don't give them WRONG information. The pressing down of the button on an Ecollar is POSITIVE PUNISHMENT *NOT *negative reinforcement. *ONLY *RELEASING the button in this situation is the negative reinforcement. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Anyway I look at it, regardless of the amount of stimulation you use, shock collar training is an aversive.


You're quite wrong. When the button is released, that's a reinforcement. In any case, pretending that you don't use aversives is misleading. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Since basic behaviors can be shaped and trained quite quickly and nicely without the use of aversives


Sorry, but you're wrong. They can't. It's impossible to train a dog and NOT use punishment. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest applying aversives later to proof if necessary, I see no need to use a shock collar for basic training. That's my belief, and how I've trained *successfully* for many years.


The truth is that there's no good reason not to use aversives as soon as they will have a training effect. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest As far as examples of well-trained, "positive-first" dogs, there are an abundance of them out there. Some are doing quite well in higher levels of obedience, agility, even schutzhund.


If your methods were as good as you'd like us to believe people using them would be DOMINATING ALL phases of ALL competition. But they're not. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I've talked to a lot of these people on a training list I am subscribed to and it's quite impressive hearing how they train most of the behaviors with a minimum of corrections. And their dogs have enthusiasm to die for!


HERE'S  a video of an Ecollar trained dog with "enthusiasm to die for." 

BTW can someone please point out the "robotic performance" a couple of posters have referred to? 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Our training facility is a "positive first" training facility and we have helped people train their pets and their competition dogs successfully for some 20 years now. And when I used to teach using aversives as a base for training, it wasn't uncommon to have a 50% drop-out rate in classes.


I have a ZERO drop out rate with all of my clients. Perhaps there was something wrong with the way that you were teaching people to train their dogs. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Then I switched to teaching with positive reinforcement and my classes started having a 100% completion rate, with NO drop-outs. MORE people were willing to stick with the positive training than were willing to stick with the aversive training.


ALMOST ALL of my private clients come from classes like yours. I give a money back guarantee if people, for ANY reason aren't satisfied. I've never had anyone ask. I wonder, did you offer such a guarantee?


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: dogmama Years ago, I showed in Gaines. As a newbie, I watched the training rings constantly. There were crammed together in one area of the building. It was mayhem with dogs and handlers in close quarters. Toys were flying and food was in abundance. Not one e-collar. And without exception, these dogs were completely focused on their handlers & ignoring distractions and having FUN.


Somehow I've missed the relevance of this. What you describe is "mayhem." Google definitions shows these meanings (in this context) _HAVOC: violent and needless disturbance; a general physical disturbance; a crowd tussle or fight; a STATE OF DISORDER; CHAOS. _ Do you think this is preferable to having control? 

But since you're here and placing emphasis on having FUN … HERE'S  ANOTHER dog having plenty of FUN, trained with an Ecollar. 

And HERE'S a dog being trained with the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" who's *NOT *having much FUN. Just look at how much attention the dog is paying to the _professional trainer! _ Just look at how much FUN the dog is having! 

It's not, as some would pretend, "all wonder and light."


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: lish91883Lou I love reading your posts. Your very diplomatic.


Thanks for the kind words. 



> Originally Posted By: lish91883I find it very hard not to tell certian know it all's which bridge to jump off of.


You ain't the only one, especially when these folks make the same old REDUNDANT arguments we've heard time and time again. 



> Originally Posted By: lish91883 As for that "vested interest" guess I have one too since I'm an E-collar trainer in NJ. LOL


It's just an example of these people grasping at straws. Their arguments hold no water so they go for a personal attack. 



> Originally Posted By: lish91883 On a serious note, used the right way an E-collar is an extremely gentle method.


Yep. Most of these folks have no idea of how gentle it can be. They imagine "shocking" a dog for misbehavior and if that's all that's done it's a very outmoded use of the tool.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: dogmama
> Years ago, I showed in Gaines. As a newbie, I watched the training rings constantly. There were crammed together in one area of the building. It was mayhem with dogs and handlers in close quarters. Toys were flying and food was in abundance. Not one e-collar. And without exception, these dogs were completely focused on their handlers & ignoring distractions and having FUN.





> Originally Posted By: lish91883But that doesn't mean one wasn't used to train them. I don't thinkg E-collars, prongs, ect aren't allowed to be used in any AKC event.





> Originally Posted By: dogmamaI'd bet my last dog biscuit that those dogs never saw an e-collar. This was 20 years ago. People who trained using compulsion used the Koehler method.


You're probably right. Twenty years ago the only people using Ecollars were bird and gun dog folks, police dog trainers and those who trained the biting sports. But I still question the relevance of your statements. 

Twenty years ago people didn't have computers in their homes. Do you think we should go backwards?


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> Quote: One *DE*activates the Ecollar to reward the dog. And, of course, any other form of rewards that the dogs likes can be used.





> Originally Posted By: lawhite ok, are you telling me you keep a dog in "discomfort" until it does what you want it to do?
> 
> I am just not sure i am understanding this statement


And you probably won't unless you read one of my articles on teaching with the Ecollar. I'd suggest THIS ONE


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: dogmamaI didn't say it was better. It sucked. But it was what people did.


That makes it OK? I'm still missing the significance of your comments. 



> Originally Posted By: dogmama "Cookie trainers" were scorned by Koehler advocates.


With good reason. 



> Originally Posted By: dogmama I had people tell me that when I didn't take the cookie into the ring I would flunk. Ha - fooled them!! My flunks were due to over exuberance - like when my dog retreived the glove from the adjacent ring.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd not call that a "failure due to over exuberance." I'd call it a failure of control.


----------



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

Ok, Lou. I'll bite. I went and read the article you linked - the Recall article. May I quote some of it here?


----------



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

Another e-collar discussion. Yay.


----------



## Smith3 (May 12, 2008)

Personally, I don't like ecollar training at the moment and don't find it of use to me. But, if someone finds it useful and what they want, more power to them.

You might win more people over by overviewing the benefits of ecollars, training theory, ect - you come off as harsh to those who don't find it beneficial (and to be fair, some of those people are coming off as harsh, but you don't win over those of us on the fence).


----------



## sungmina (Jul 28, 2008)

TBH I find Lou to be concise and effective in his argument... without letting personal emotions show.

I do feel that Ecollars can be effective, though I have never used one, my shepherd is still a puppy. I think like Lou mentions that there are right and wrong ways to use an Ecollar.

One situation I can see an Ecollar being useful is on a recall... particularly one that is used to save a dog from potential harm, such as a busy road.


----------



## gsdlove212 (Feb 3, 2006)

Ok this might sound really dumb, but here goes nothing. I am not a "trainer", but I do have dogs that I have taught what is ok and what is not ok. I am also a mother. So, I am wondering....to all of the people who promote only positive training with no corrections of any kind, how do you teach that something is wrong? A verbal no is still a correction is it not? As a parent, I use several different forms of punishment when a kiddo does something that they have been taught is wrong....from time outs, to grounding, and even occasionally when the situation warrents a gold old fashioned, non abusive spanking on the butt. Of course they get lots of praise and reward when they do the right thing. My children are happy and loved, and they know that they are loved. Does that mean that because I have used a "compulsion" method that I have abused my children? I do not believe so. In fact, I believe that far too many children these days when old enough to be doing stuff off on their own make some really horrible decisions, life altering ones. Is it not better for kids to realize that there are consequences for their actions. Ok, Ok I know you guys are thinking what the heck does this have to do with the topic at hand. Well, I am jsut trying to understand how using only positive reinforcement with no punishment can really work. Understandably there are many forms of what is considered punishment (to a dog, lack of attention is a punishment, time outs, no treat and no praise, verbal correction, e-collar correction, and I am sure many more). So perhaps that even these positive methods do use some form of correction/punishment and I am sure that people who use an e-collar (correctly) also give love and positives. So I really do not understand the big fuss. I have not ever used an e-collar (I have never been taught how to use one correctly, and I have not had a need for it yet) but that doesn't mean that if I saw a need for it that I wouldn't use it to ensure that what needed to be taught is taught (for me, it would greatly depend on the situation...and since this is hypothetical for me right now...its hard to say if I would choose or not). Back to raisig kids.....I have seen alot of parents that say I have never or would never spank my child ( to each his own), some of them though do yell and scream their frustrations out at their kids....I can only speculate how much more damaging this can be to a child. Personally I would rather use other forms of punishment. I think that THIS is really what this discussion boils down to. Different people have different ideas of what is acceptable. Just as spanking (done correctly) to a child is not abuse, neither do I believe that the use of an e-collar (done correctly) is abuse to a dog. Can an e-collar be used in an abusive manner...you betcha...but so can one's own voice and tone. Just my two cents for what its worth. Oh and btw, I do not "spank" my dogs, I jsut want to make sure that is clear.


----------



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

> Quote:So, I am wondering....to all of the people who promote only positive training with no corrections of any kind, how do you teach that something is wrong?


I don't think anyone here belives that you can live with a dog and not use SOME type of correction in the course of their life.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

GSDLove212,
Take teaching something like the dumbell retrieve for example. 

Ecollar training (as I have seen it) would involve applying electrical stimulation to the dog until he takes the dumbbell in his mouth, then turning the stim off. I have seen this done at varying levels, from the dog being just obviously annoyed, to screaming. The dog learns VERY quickly that having the dumbbell in his mouth is a GREAT thing, as it turns the electric off. Often this dog will leap forward and do anything to GET THAT DUMBBELL! Looks very motivated, and he is motivated. To avoid the stim.

Positive trainer may shape the behavior. First associate the click with a treat, then click/treat when mouths dumbbell, then click/treat when picks up dumbbell, then when holds for a moment, then longer, etc. You can train the entire thing motivationally. In my experience, you do need corrections after the dog KNOWS the commands to proof them.

When I rode horses, some horses learned to "blow-up" by holding their breath when the girth was tightened. They let the air out, girth was nice and loose. You could deal with it in 2 ways... knee the horse in the gut-causing explosion of air and tighten girth. Or just walk him forward a few steps and then tighten the girth. Both are effective. The second way just takes a few more steps.


----------



## aubie (Dec 22, 2008)

I'm calling false advertising--I thought this was supposed to be a "discussion" not a quote-filled







fest! Geez!


----------



## Dohhhhh (May 1, 2006)

HI LOU!







Happy New Year....fancy seeing you here in an e-collar debate







Glad you are. I too enjoy reading your posts and diplomatic replies.


----------



## MTAussie (Dec 9, 2007)

Great post and gets the point across nicely! Horses are my background, and that is why I am not into compulsion training. 

"Breaking" horses as it used to be done by tieing a horses legs together and pinning him on the ground while you got the saddle on, and then held on while his legs were released (or kept hobbled) didn't get you a good horse in the end. It got you just enough to use it. You can't push a horse around, choking, jerking, shocking into what you want. 
It takes patience and communication. Real communication where working with the animal is based on understanding and social drive, IMO. I feel that people who are really good with animals, who are real trainers, have a natural ability to read and communicate with animals by building trust. 
Ex. You have a high spirted horse loose in a field. You want to take him for a ride. He runs from you in the field. How do you catch him? Chase him into a small pen (if you can) and rope him? Ride another horse and rope him? Take treats in your pocket and use your body language to gain his trust? Could you get a horse to stop facing you, and allow you to approach him and put a halter on? 

OR is this too much work and too time consuming? Do you see it as pointless, when you could just rope him and get it over with?

Obviously, this is why we have trainers, to help everyone else that enjoys having a pet learn to communicate what they want.

I have a hard time believing that someone who is an ecollar trainer is aware of the side of communication, or is capable of it. 
Again, e-collars represent the NOW NOW NOW attitude, to me. 

Ecollars can be used in other ways that are useful such as emergencies, just as hot wire fence can be useful in animals running through a fence otherwise. 

MOTIVATION, REINFORCEMENT, PUNISHMENT

MOTIVATION all animals are motivated by different drives and/or needs. You can motivate a dog with a shock or a treat. The reason the dog is motivated is clearly different depending on what is used to motivate the dog.

- REINFORCEMENT - avoid that behavior, the dog works to avoid something unpleasant at the time of the undesired behavior
ex. release the button on the remote when the dog sits

* REINFORCEMENT - something to repeat, the dog works to get something he likes
ex. click when the dog sits and reward with treat/toy etc.

PUNISHMENT can be negative and postive as well

Positive Punishment adds something to the equation, like a jerk on a choke collar or stim/shock when the dog jumps

Negative Punishment takes something away like a treat ball attention when the dog jumps

-------------------
I think we get stuck in the mindset of polars, which is unfortunate because there is SO much more to training than what is being dicussed. 

EX.

Ecollar trainers think postive training is all about bribing with food which is not accurate, and I think they are intimated because it is 
something different and they are not knowledgable on. Positive Trainers should be able to fade whatever they are using to motivate. Just the way a shock would be faded out after the dog reliably responds, right?

EX.
Positive trainers often think that any kind of correction is wrong. These are purely positive trainers, and are not the definition of positive trainers in general. They also are in some denial since punishment can be negative (taking something away) like praise.


----------



## trudy (Aug 25, 2008)

I would have sworn I was totally against ecollars, prong collars etc, but never say never. Yesterday while walking Ty on a downtown sidewalk a man approached with a lunging aggressive large dog. The man held the handle of a 6 foot leash while saying his dog thinks he owns the sidewalk. My hubby walked in front with Meisha, she raised her hackles but kept heeling. 

Then I attempted to follow, Tye did play bow, lunge, leap, pull, etc. Totally out of control. I tried to pull him back but the excitement level was skyrocketing. I went out further off the sidewalk and dragged him away but it took several minutes of extreme playful misbehavior til I calmed him enough to continue the walk. My arms and my carpel tunnel wrist killed. 

I wished I had one of these collars for quick control. Yes I have taught other dogs but never such a powerful one. He did not seem aggressive but insistant. I may need some new training techniques before he is 1. I am shocked at the strength a pup could exert. We will continue with our positive but I won't say never to the others. Used correctly I could have gotten him under control faster and I couldn't have had that much uninterupted time in the summer with crowds. 

WE have been walking lots and we are in our third set of classes, he has always been polite and passed everyone and everything well until then. I have had lots of comments on his calm well mannered being, but he has never been faced with such an animal out of control with an owner not able to pull back.

I just wanted to share because until then I would have been adament about the negative training devices. Everything has a time adn purpose.


----------



## gsdlove212 (Feb 3, 2006)

I can understand your points very well MTAussie and Mary. I too was raised around horses, and I have walked many a horses around to get that breath out LOL. In that aspect I agree with you completely....time trying pays off. But, no one particular training method is 100% effective across the board (or so I have been told). Some dogs aren't food motivated, some arent' toy driven, most are looking to please their owners, but there a some that are headstrong and going through the teenage rebelious stage, and others that are just more independant (ok so maybe they aren't GSDs but still LOL). On the same note there are some dogs that are very "soft", these dogs will react adversely to correction even in small amounts. I think my whole opinion on the issue is that all forms of training, whether using an e-collar or clicker and treats, has its value depending on the situation, the dog, and the handler. As with everything in the world today, there are people who misuse and abuse. They misinterpret or are jsut plain misinformed. Sure, I have seen comments like e-collars bring immediate results and that other methods are just as effective and take longer to master. I can see how this is the case, but I do not think it would be fair to say that everyone who uses an e-collar is lazy and doesn't want to put in the time to train with a clicker and treats. While it may be true in some cases, I seriously doubt it to be the case in ALL of them. I do think that using a tool like an e-collar, one must be very comfortable with their trainer and the trainers methods, and I think that the least amount of stim possible to get the results is definately the best. I just have a hard time judging someone who loves their dog jsut because they use a training aid that differs from what I would use.


----------



## MTAussie (Dec 9, 2007)

I totally agree with you. I don't think there are no exceptions and I tried to convey that with the polar opposites example. I think that tools such a prong, martingale, ecollar, head halter, etc. (not choke chains) can have a place and use. I don't think that ANY of these are necessary in training a pup under 6 months in basic commands, and I DO feel that it is an ethics issue in the end....
Which each trainer has to choose for him/herself. When trainers chose to educate others and promote training methods and equipment, they carry responsibility to your clients and their dogs, and their well-being. That I believe includes their mental well-being as well. IMO.
I checked out Lou's website and he does have some good info there. Although, it seems he doesn't support positive training/trainers. 
Which I think it unfortunate, and cliche'. And maybe, just maybe, adds to the fire in the positive/negative trainer discussion.









But oh well, there are enough dogs that need training, and everyone has to decide what they feel is best for them and their dogs.
And as much as he recieves positive training drop outs, I have had plenty of compulsion training drops outs contact me. I don't think it is the style of training, because you can get results either way, it is the trainers and their effectiveness, as well as owners philosophy on animal treatment. IMO of course
I just hope that enough information on different training techniques is out there, and not so much spin, so that owners can make informed and intelligent decisions concerning their training style.


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: gsdlove212So, I am wondering....to all of the people who promote only positive training with no corrections of any kind, how do you teach that something is wrong? A verbal no is still a correction is it not? As a parent, I use several different forms of punishment when a kiddo does something that they have been taught is wrong....from time outs, to grounding, and even occasionally when the situation warrents a gold old fashioned, non abusive spanking on the butt. Of course they get lots of praise and reward when they do the right thing. My children are happy and loved, and they know that they are loved. Does that mean that because I have used a "compulsion" method that I have abused my children?


As Lauri already said, I don't think anyone here doesn't use any corrections of any kind ever. I've certainly never seen anyone say that, not even the staunchest positive training devotees. My personal training hero, Suzanne Clothier, whose training philosophy is based on building a relationship of mutual trust and respect, believes that corrections are necessary, and that there should be consequences for non-compliance. Just as you need to let your dog know when s/he's doing it right, you need to let him/her know when they're doing it wrong and to try again. This is important information, essential to the learning process. And if you'll notice, at least two people on this thread who are big proponents of positive reinforcement motivational training using food and toys - MaggieRoseLee, who competes very successfully in agility, and Melanie, who has numerous obedience titles on her dogs, have said that they believe there is a place for e-collars, and they have both used them and would again, under certain circumstances. This simple fact has been largely ignored by the other side. 



> Quote:I have not ever used an e-collar (I have never been taught how to use one correctly, and *I have not had a need for it yet*) but that doesn't mean that if I saw a need for it that I wouldn't use it to ensure that what needed to be taught is taught (for me, it would greatly depend on the situation...and since this is hypothetical for me right now...its hard to say if I would choose or not).


Ah - this, to me, is the crux of the biscuit, (to borrow a line from Frank Zappa) - NEED. And for the record, I feel exactly the same way you do. Would I ever use an e-collar? Possibly, if I felt like it was the only way to reliably train a vitally important skill like not chasing critters, a skill that could save my dog's life, if I NEEDED to. Sure, it's aversive, and my general philosophy on training is LIMA - Least Invasive, Minimally Aversive, but sometimes you need a serious aversive to make sure your dog gets that they can't EVER do something that may kill them if they do. But I haven't needed to use that kind of aversive yet, so I haven't. And what I continually see on these ubiquitous e-collar threads, the debate that happens over and over and OVER, is that that's not good enough for the e-collar proponents. Why wait for need? Use an e-collar on any and every dog to train any and every skill, even basic obedience with young puppies. And if you won't accept that premise you'll get bashed over the head with reasons why you are so very wrong and they are so very right.









If that's how they want to train, that's fine. But it's not NECESSARY to use that kind of force in training, and many people choose not to. Why can't they just accept that and move on? Why can't they respect that there is a place for PR training the way that the PR people have conceded that there is a place for aversive training, instead of dismissing PR as cookie pushers and insisting that their way is the only way? Anyone else as sick and tired of this whole thing as I am?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I have one dog that needs an e-collar. He is primarily DH's dog, and DH is not a very good trainer. He tries hard, but he gets flustered and his timing is all off. This particular dog we've been working on for over a year and he has nothing close to a reliable recall. The dog has no drive or motivation for training. He is not toy motivated, only food motivated enough if the treat is ON his nose and he gets bored after a few reps. He is very sweet, loving, social, and gentle dog, awesome with people, but just doesn't care for obedience training. Working with him on recalls frustrates DH and I, and everyone here knows you do NOT want to be training or correcting a dog while you are frustrated. I really think the e-collar would help. It would improve our timing and consistency. We can't proof short recalls b/c he knows a shorter line is attached and causes no problems. It's the step where we get at about 20', even in our own yard, it falls apart and he doesn't listen, runs away, or comes but then runs past us. So if we could use an e-collar, we can proof at that distance and also have perfect timing. If I used an e-collar, I would use it as negative reinforcement at a low, continuous stim, not a correction nick. Using the e-collar would mean we can't intentionally or unintentionally correct the dog unfairly when we are getting frustrated. It just makes the entire process more objective and simpler for the dog.

We haven't tried yet b/c I don't have money for a good e-collar and trainer (my trainer is great but doesn't use the collar and would tell me she can't train me properly). I'm open to it though.


----------



## MTAussie (Dec 9, 2007)

I am tired of it! It does seem to be a bit hopeless in the end. People will choose whatever appeals to their needs regardless. Hopefully legitimate positive trainers will keep making a dent and continue to put out good info.

Side Note: I keep relpying and for some reason my posts are ignored....maybe they suck? (if so please tell me!)Or maybe I am just a thread killer...


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

Well, I will fully admit that I didn't read through all of the copy and paste stuff in either thread. I started to, but it's the same old adamant "shock collar training is GOOD" stuff. I've heard it all before. I did read that Lou considers my posts a personal attack. I have not called him names nor said anything untrue about him - I simply stated facts. He has a vested interest in the shock collar training, which is obvious on his website and in his posts (which, on this forum, pretty much only defend shock collar training and don't delve into ANY other topics). And while my reputation as a trainer is, yes, important to me - it's ONLY important to ME and no one else, as I have not taught classes for profit nor have I sold any training items in years. My reputation as a trainer does not benefit me now nor will it probably in the future, given my current health (for those who don't know, I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease some years ago now).

I do want to emphasize a couple of points. First of all, I do not nor have I ever promoted "all positive" training here. I do think that there's a proper time and place for corrections. I HAVE USED a shock collar, successfully, and will do so again. I've said this over and over, but it seems to fall on dead ears (or eyes? *L*).

What I'm concerned with is that people feel the need to use shock collars for training basic behaviors (from the beginning) when other less aversive methods work just as well for the training stages of the behavior.

I can teach a dog the basics of sit, stay, down, roll over, shake paws, spin circles, heel happily, walk on a loose leash, retrieve and even recall without using aversives (and by aversives, I basically mean corrections - a term which even Lou uses [or used to use, haven't been to his website in some time] for the "stim" of the shock collar). I do withhold rewards if the dog doesn't comply, and I simply say (in a calm, still happy voice) "nope" or "try again" when initially training.

Even when I add in distractions, I usually don't have to add in aversives until the distractions become more intense. Yes, aversives are usually necessary to teach my dogs not to go after a moose that's 20' from the house. But I don't need to use corrections for the initial TRAINING of the proper behavior. The dog can learn what's "right" (in the handler's opinion, of course) without having to be punished for it from the beginning.

And you know - anyway I look at it, "stimming" a dog is punishment. It's something uncomfortable that they want to avoid. That's why it works. I'm not debating that it works. What I'm debating is the NEED for it when in the initial teaching phase of behaviors.

I think that there's a difference in people's feelings toward dogs and training (and this is JUST a personal observation). My relationship with my dogs, and the relationship that I want to promote for others, is based primarily on trust and kindness. And it works for me, and it works for others. I look into my dog's warm trusting eyes, and I can't find it in me to use any more compulsion than needed. And since I CAN and DO train successfully using a high level of positive reinforcement and a minimal level of aversives, that's what I'll continue to use and what I'll continue to promote for others. I would like EVERYONE to have the same relationship with their dogs that I have with mine. 

And I guess that's pretty much what I have to say. Everyone makes their own choice. Personally I think that if you love your dogs, you shouldn't want to use any more correction than necessary. And if that's overly emotional, so be it. I can't help it. I love my dogs. 

Melanie and the gang in Alaska
... where, unfortunately, the cold weather has produced its own version of shock training these days - which makes my dogs hesitate to touch me.


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

And by the way - if anyone does feel the need (and I agree fully with Cassidys Mom on the "need" concept) to use a shock collar - please research, talk to e-collar people who promote the low level stimulation and only buy a high quality collar with a high number of stimulation levels. That way you can really fine tune the amount of shock you provide to your dog and truly use the lowest level possible. My collar has 100 levels. 

There are some highly abusive shock collar trainers out there - and I think we can ALL agree on that. AVOID them at all costs.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## gsdlove212 (Feb 3, 2006)

Very good discussion guys! I am learning alot and I think that is, or at least should be the point of this thread. Thank you for the insight so far.


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestWhat I'm concerned with is that people feel the need to use shock collars for training basic behaviors (from the beginning) when other less aversive methods work just as well for the training stages of the behavior.
> 
> I can teach a dog the basics of sit, stay, down, roll over, shake paws, spin circles, heel happily, walk on a loose leash, retrieve and even recall without using aversives (and by aversives, I basically mean corrections - a term which even Lou uses [or used to use, haven't been to his website in some time] for the "stim" of the shock collar). I do withhold rewards if the dog doesn't comply, and I simply say (in a calm, still happy voice) "nope" or "try again" when initially training.
> 
> ...


Excellent post Melanie.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomAnother e-collar discussion. Yay.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

I'm not sure there's anything in this thread that hasn't previously been said in all the other threads on e collars this forum has seen. That may just be my opinion, though.


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: HistorianI'm not sure there's anything in this thread that hasn't previously been said in all the other threads on e collars this forum has seen. That may just be my opinion, though.


Nope, not just your opinion. It seems to be a law or something that we must have at least one active e-collar thread going at all times. 'Cause if there isn't, by gawd, someone will start one.


----------



## SpeedBump (Dec 29, 2008)

I am just happy people want to train their dog.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The GangOk, Lou. I'll bite. I went and read the article you linked - the Recall article. May I quote some of it here?


Certainly, yes you can.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Smith3Personally, I don't like ecollar training at the moment and don't find it of use to me. But, if someone finds it useful and what they want, more power to them.


An open mind is all I ask for. There may come a time when you might find them useful. 



> Originally Posted By: Smith3You might win more people over by overviewing the benefits of ecollars, training theory, ect


There's plenty of information like that on my website. Here, for the most part, I'm responding to the anti-Ecollar statements of those who oppose their use. 



> Originally Posted By: Smith3you come off as harsh to those who don't find it beneficial (and to be fair, some of those people are coming off as harsh, but you don't win over those of us on the fence).


Two comments to this. First, you're right. Although I'd not go so far as to call myself "harsh." I prefer to say that I have a "no BS approach" and don't mince words. I never mean to offend but sometimes people take my no–nonsense approach as rude. 

Second, after being personally attacked several times (especially when it's done over and over by the same folks) one tends to get a bit testy.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: gsdlove212Ok this might sound really dumb, but here goes nothing. I am not a "trainer", but I do have dogs that I have taught what is ok and what is not ok. I am also a mother. So, I am wondering....to all of the people who promote only positive training with no corrections of any kind, how do you teach that something is wrong? A verbal no is still a correction is it not? As a parent, I use several different forms of punishment when a kiddo does something that they have been taught is wrong....from time outs, to grounding, and even occasionally when the situation warrents a gold old fashioned, non abusive spanking on the butt. Of course they get lots of praise and reward when they do the right thing. My children are happy and loved, and they know that they are loved. Does that mean that because I have used a "compulsion" method that I have abused my children? I do not believe so.


gsdlove you make too much sense! Thanks. 



> Originally Posted By: gsdlove212 Well, I am jsut trying to understand how using only positive reinforcement with no punishment can really work.


It can't. It's impossible to do. There are some who pretend that they can do it. EVERY TIME I've gotten them to describe their training in detail I've shown where they use punishment. One trick they play is to call it by some other name. But since it fits the definition of "punishment" (something that tends to make a behavior not repeat) that's exactly what it is. 

The reality is that a name like, "positive only, pure positive, reward based" and the rest, are nothing but appeals to emotion. It has a wonderful sound to it, but it's nothing but deception. 



> Originally Posted By: gsdlove212 I am sure that people who use an e-collar (correctly) also give love and positives.


We do of course. I use treats, praise, petting, rubbing, toys, tug games, bumping or anything else that works with the dog at hand. 



> Originally Posted By: gsdlove212 So I really do not understand the big fuss.


Me either. It's interesting to note that those of us who use Ecollars are perfectly happy to let people used the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" if they want to. We may warn them that they may have problems at some point, but we don't engage in lengthy arguments about them. But the anti–Ecollar folks OFTEN jump into our discussions with warning of dire consequences, and damage done to the relationship between dog and owner. In fact, in the case of the thread that started this discussion the OP had ALREADY DECIDED to use the Ecollar. But that didn't stop them. 

I think it's a form of religious zealotry that makes them do this. They often feel morally and ethically superior to those of us who use Ecollars and they feel a need to either convert us or to try to counter our suggestions about Ecollars.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The Gang
> 
> 
> > Quote:So, I am wondering....to all of the people who promote only positive training with no corrections of any kind, how do you teach that something is wrong?
> ...


If you consider that every moment you spend with your dog you ARE doing training (even if you don't think you are, you are) – it's IMPOSSIBLE not to use some type of correction. Yet we have people who think that they can "put off" aversives until some future time "when they're necessary."


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: TracieHI LOU! Happy New Year....fancy seeing you here in an e-collar debate Glad you are. I too enjoy reading your posts and diplomatic replies.


Thanks for the kind words Tracie. HNY to you too. Imagine … me being involved in an Ecollar debate. Hard to believe isn't it? ROFL.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: MTAussieGreat post and gets the point across nicely! Horses are my background, and that is why I am not into compulsion training.
> 
> "Breaking" horses as it used to be done by tieing a horses legs together and pinning him on the ground while you got the saddle on, and then held on while his legs were released (or kept hobbled) didn't get you a good horse in the end. It got you just enough to use it. You can't push a horse around, choking, jerking, shocking into what you want.


Actually at least one company makes an Ecollar for horses. It's the same unit that's used on dogs but the strap is much longer. You can do quite a bit with an Ecollar in the way of training a horse. 

I'm no horse trainer but I know that it involves putting pressure on and then relieving it when you get what you want. That's EXACTLY the theory of using an Ecollar to train dogs that I use. 


> Originally Posted By: MTAussie Ex. You have a high spirted horse loose in a field. You want to take him for a ride. He runs from you in the field. How do you catch him? Chase him into a small pen (if you can) and rope him? Ride another horse and rope him? Take treats in your pocket and use your body language to gain his trust? Could you get a horse to stop facing you, and allow you to approach him and put a halter on?


It depends. Here's one place where the horse–dog analogy breaks down. A horse in a field is in no immediate danger. A dog running loose in today's society IS. If you saw a Grizzly coming down the hill I bet that you'd NOT use the treat method to get the horse to go with you. There are many times when expediency is key. 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie I have a hard time believing that someone who is an ecollar trainer is aware of the side of communication, or is capable of it.
> Again, e-collars represent the NOW NOW NOW attitude, to me.


That's quite a narrow viewpoint of Ecollar trainers. You'll find in fact that many of us use the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" when they're appropriate. But the fact is that they're not always so. With many dogs, they simply don't give satisfactory results. Some people don't have good enough timing or the time to train with them. 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie Ecollar trainers think postive training is all about bribing with food which is not accurate, and I think they are intimated because it is
> something different and they are not knowledgable on.


I have no idea where you get this idea from, but you're quite mistaken. I've used the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) MANY times. I'm not the slightest bit intimidated by it and I am knowledgeable enough on it to have taught it to others. 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie Positive trainers often think that any kind of correction is wrong. These are purely positive trainers


There is no such thing as "purely positive training." It's an advertising tool. It's "branding." It does not exist.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: trudy
> Then I attempted to follow, Tye did play bow, lunge, leap, pull, etc. Totally out of control. I tried to pull him back but the excitement level was skyrocketing. I went out further off the sidewalk and dragged him away but it took several minutes of extreme playful misbehavior til I calmed him enough to continue the walk. My arms and my carpel tunnel wrist killed.
> 
> I wished I had one of these collars for quick control. Yes I have taught other dogs but never such a powerful one. He did not seem aggressive but insistant. I may need some new training techniques before he is 1. I am shocked at the strength a pup could exert. We will continue with our positive but I won't say never to the others. Used correctly I could have gotten him under control faster and I couldn't have had that much uninterupted time in the summer with crowds.


Trudy I can't tell from your post, but it sounds as if you think that pressing the button at the moment that your dog was lunging and being unmanageable would have given you control. In fact it might have turned what was an "I want to play" experience into aggression that might have been turned outward towards all other dogs. 

Stimming a dog when he has no idea of what it means, why it started, or to how to make it stop, can bring BIG problems. This can happen, in this situation, because it may be your dog's perception that the other dog is hurting him, no matter what he does and no matter how far away he is. 

If you decide to use an Ecollar I suggest that it should be part of a full training program, not just to cure a problem. I think you'd have the best results if you'd train the recall and the sit with the Ecollar, per my articles (even if your dog already knows those movements.) This teaches the dog what the stim means and that his behavior is what starts it and it lets him know that he's responsible for how long it lasts, how uncomfortable it is, and when it shuts off. 



> Originally Posted By: trudyI just wanted to share because until then I would have been adament about the negative training devices. Everything has a time adn purpose.


Thanks for having an open mind.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomAs Lauri already said, I don't think anyone here doesn't use any corrections of any kind ever. I've certainly never seen anyone say that, not even the staunchest positive training devotees.


We've had folks say that they don't use aversive until (to the effect) "later in their training, when it becomes necessary." The truth is that it's impossible to do to ANY training without using aversives. Such a statement tells me that they either don't understand what they're actually doing, don't understand the simple definitions used in Operant Conditioning, or are trying to conceal what they truly do. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomMaggieRoseLee, who competes very successfully in agility, and Melanie, who has numerous obedience titles on her dogs, have said that they believe there is a place for e-collars, and they have both used them and would again, under certain circumstances. This simple fact has been largely ignored by the other side.


I've not ignored it. but I haven't heard either of them talk about the level of titles that they've achieved. "competing successfully" really has little meaning. I don't think that one should judge "finishing in the middle of the pack" as a "success." Not to diminish their accomplishments but if they were finishing on the podium consistently I think we'd be hearing about it. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Momwhat I continually see on these ubiquitous e-collar threads, the debate that happens over and over and OVER, is that that's not good enough for the e-collar proponents.


I have no idea where this comes from. I've NEVER insisted that anyone use an Ecollar. If people are happy with their methods and they give good results that's fine with me. I've written this many times before and the fact that you've missed it is telling. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom Why wait for need?


Because there is a need for a reliable recall and stationary command for EVERY dog! 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom Use an e-collar on any and every dog to train any and every skill, even basic obedience with young puppies.


Now you're just misquoting. Whether it's deliberate or not, I can't tell. In any case we have no idea what you mean by "young puppies" but I agree with every Ecollar manufacturer (and have said so before, several times) that I wait until a puppy is six months old. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom And if you won't accept that premise you'll get bashed over the head with reasons why you are so very wrong and they are so very right.
> You've got this completely backwards. The truth is that Ecollar advocates NEVER go into threads about positive training and tell people that they should be using an Ecollar. Rather the opposite is how it works. You folks invade nearly every conversation that has to do with Ecollars with reasons why people should not be using it. In the thread that this one spun off from the OP had ALREADY DECIDED TO USE THE Ecollar, when the anti's joined in with their redundant arguments. This is a fact, not an opinion!
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: LiesjeI have one dog that needs an e-collar. He is primarily DH's dog, and DH is not a very good trainer. He tries hard, but he gets flustered and his timing is all off. This particular dog we've been working on for over a year and he has nothing close to a reliable recall.


This case doesn't sound like "the dog" needs the Ecollar. In this case it's the trainer who does if he's to get reliable results. Using the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" requires far better timing, more dedication and more time to get reliable results than using an Ecollar. 



> Originally Posted By: Liesje The dog has no drive or motivation for training. He is not toy motivated, only food motivated enough if the treat is ON his nose and he gets bored after a few reps. He is very sweet, loving, social, and gentle dog, awesome with people, but just doesn't care for obedience training.


There are lots of dogs like this. 



> Originally Posted By: Liesje
> Using the e-collar would mean we can't intentionally or unintentionally correct the dog unfairly when we are getting frustrated. It just makes the entire process more objective and simpler for the dog.


Well, actually you still can do this. But since the results come so fast, people don't get frustrated. 

One reason that Ecollars work so well is that they're ALWAYS aversive. A reinforcement is not always reinforcing.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: MTAussieI am tired of it! It does seem to be a bit hopeless in the end. People will choose whatever appeals to their needs regardless. Hopefully legitimate positive trainers will keep making a dent and continue to put out good info.
> 
> Side Note: I keep relpying and for some reason my posts are ignored....maybe they suck? (if so please tell me!)Or maybe I am just a thread killer...


I've replied to one of your posts above. But perhaps it's things like your reference to "legitimate positive trainers" just above. It seems that the insinuation is that those of us who do not consider ourselves to be "positive trainers" are not legitimate. Perhaps I've misunderstood. 

Perhaps it's you saying things like "I am tired of it!" and "It does seem to be a bit hopeless in the end." If you're so "tired of it" why are you reading this thread? But again, perhaps I've misunderstood.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> Well, I will fully admit that I didn't read through all of the copy and paste stuff in either thread. I started to, but it's the same old adamant "shock collar training is GOOD" stuff.


Seems redundant doesn't it? That's because it's in response to the "same old adamant 'shock collar training is BAD' " stuff. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestI've heard it all before.


That's because your comments are always the same. Quite naturally the responses you get back are the same. Stop being redundant and you'll hear different responses. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I did read that Lou considers my posts a personal attack. I have not called him names nor said anything untrue about him - I simply stated facts. He has a vested interest in the shock collar training,


It's quite simple. When you make such a comment about me, it's a personal attack. It's clearly not a comment on _my ideas _ as I've done with you or as others have done. The difference should be obvious. 

In any case, what you say is clearly NOT TRUE! You've made this comment repeatedly and been corrected each time I've seen it. Yet you continue as if it had some bearing on this discussion Tell us, what excuse would you have made if I wasn't yet a dealer? 

As I've said, Ecollars are a loss for me. That's hardly a vested interest! YOU have more of a vested interest in the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" than I do in Ecollars. I supported Ecollars LONG before I because a dealer of them. And you've been told this before. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest which is obvious on his website and in his posts (which, on this forum, pretty much only defend shock collar training and don't delve into ANY other topics).


Let's just cal this "an error," OK? I've contributed on quite a few other topics. But in any case, of what relevance is what threads I choose to participate in? Many people don't contribute AT ALL yet I don't see you discussing their _lack _of participation. This is ANOTHER personal attack. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And while my reputation as a trainer is, yes, important to me - it's ONLY important to ME and no one else


Nonsense, it's your entire ethos on this forum. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest My reputation as a trainer does not benefit me now nor will it probably in the future


Of course it does! It gives you credibility on the forum. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I do think that there's a proper time and place for corrections. I HAVE USED a shock collar, successfully, and will do so again. I've said this over and over, but it seems to fall on dead ears (or eyes? *L*).


Everything you say is an argument AGAINST their use, with this one exception. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest What I'm concerned with is that people feel the need to use shock collars for training basic behaviors (from the beginning) when other less aversive methods work just as well for the training stages of the behavior.


I disagree that they "work just as well." This forum and all others are rife with threads that start out with things like "HELP, he won't come when I call." The fact is that if they did "work just as well" we'd not be seeing these posts. 

You talk about "some success" in titling your own dogs but I don't recall seeing the titles that you've acquired. Can you tell us of them please? 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And you know - anyway I look at it, "stimming" a dog is punishment.


And releasing the button is reinforcing. I find it interesting that you consistently emphasize one and COMPLETELY ignore the other! It REALLY shows your mind set. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest It's something uncomfortable that they want to avoid. That's why it works. I'm not debating that it works. What I'm debating is the NEED for it when in the initial teaching phase of behaviors.


I'm wondering how many times it needs to be said before you get it? No one NEEDS an Ecollar. We use them because they provide reliable results quickly and efficiently, especially when other methods have failed. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I think that there's a difference in people's feelings toward dogs and training (and this is JUST a personal observation).


I think this comment is just more "holier than thou" nonsense. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest My relationship with my dogs, and the relationship that I want to promote for others, is based primarily on trust and kindness.


Mine too. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And it works for me, and it works for others.


Ditto. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And I guess that's pretty much what I have to say. Everyone makes their own choice. Personally I think that if you love your dogs, you shouldn't want to use any more correction than necessary. And if that's overly emotional, so be it. I can't help it. I love my dogs.


The clear insinuation is that we don't love our dogs. Of course, that's nothing but emotional nonsense.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestAnd by the way - if anyone does feel the need (and I agree fully with Cassidys Mom on the "need" concept) to use a shock collar - please research, talk to e-collar people who promote the low level stimulation and only buy a high quality collar with a high number of stimulation levels. That way you can really fine tune the amount of shock you provide to your dog and truly use the lowest level possible.


Good advice. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest My collar has 100 levels.


Not to be pedantic but the devil IS in the details. Your Ecollar may have markings that show 100 levels. Actually it has 127 levels. The newer collars have digital LCD readouts showing this and allowing for more precise setting of the stim level. 

BTW can you tell us specifically how you stopped your dog from chasing game with the Ecollar?


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: HistorianI'm not sure there's anything in this thread that hasn't previously been said in all the other threads on e collars this forum has seen. That may just be my opinion, though.


I think, for the most part that you're right. This is what the anti Ecollar folks do on every forum that I've ever been on. There are no new arguments against the Ecollar and so all they can do is repeat what's been said before. Quite naturally, our responses are the same. Notice that EVERY ONE of my posts is in response to one from someone else. 

Let me remind you that in the post that started this topic (this is a spin-off from a thread that the anti Ecollar people took off-topic) the OP HAD ALREADY MADE THE DECISION TO USE THE ECOLLAR. Yet the antis saw fit to start this argument all over again. 

Why they feel they have to do this almost anytime an Ecollar is mentioned is beyond comprehension.


----------



## rainydaygoods (Oct 13, 2008)

> Quote:
> Let me remind you that in the post that started this topic (this is a spin-off from a thread that the anti Ecollar people took off-topic) the OP HAD ALREADY MADE THE DECISION TO USE THE ECOLLAR.


Nobody knew that from the start though. Opinions on a certain training program (that you also said you wouldn't use to train dogs, especially not one as young as the puppy that was in question) were asked for... it was a training question and the topic naturally diverged to alternatives to that training method, including a general e-collar discussion (in part because you train so differently with the ecollar and were sharing your philosophy and methods - it wasn't just "anti-ecollar" people... in fact I've seen that even some people who _use_ ecollars were branded "anti-ecollar," I guess because they said they use other methods?).









Now I'll just go back to reading.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

There aren't really any e-collar bashers on this board, as far as I can tell. Even your arch nemesis says that e-collars have their place in training. There does seem to be a heavy duty e-collar promoter on this board though.


----------



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

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Ok, here goes.



> Originally Posted By: Lou Castle websiteMy recommendation is to teach the recall with the Ecollar as if the dog had never received any training at all, by using the following protocol. It's not that you're teaching the recall to those dogs, it's that you're teaching the dog what the stim means and that the dog is in charge of when it starts and, most importantly when it stops.


So this is the method you would use on a dog that had never had any recall training, correct?



> Originally Posted By: Lou Castle website Remember the essence of Ecollar training, give the command and make the dog uncomfortable. Use gentle guidance to get the dog to perform the proper behavior. Make the dog comfortable.


Ok, here is where I start to have a problem, especially with this sentence:



> Quote: Remember the essence of Ecollar training, give the command and make the dog uncomfortable.


This, to me, is pure aversion training. The dog has to AVOID something in order to learn. 

Does it work? Sure. Is it the best way to *START* teaching a behavior? IMHO – *never* <span style='font-size: 11pt'> </span> .

And you never give the dog a chance to get it right on their own. You give the command and immediately press the button.

Ok, personal rant here. What’s with the word “stimulation”? We are using electricity on the dog. It is, after all, an *E*collar. Is it used because people think that the word “stimulation” is more PC or easier to ‘sell’ than electric shock? The action of contact of a human's body with any source of voltage high enough to cause sufficient current through the muscles or hair is called electric shock. It is what it is. End of personal rant.

Alright, back on topic. Does the electric collar has a place in the training world? Of course! But it has drawbacks that need to be considered before using it.

What happens if I click and treat at the wrong time? Not much. What happens if I give the dog an electric shock at the wrong time?



> Quote: Throughout this section I say to use the “continuous button.” But if you've found that it’s too high for your dog and he needs repetitive use of the nick button or the tap mode, that’s what you'll use. … But if that’s the case, your job will be a little bit harder because the communication isn't quite as clear. … If you’re using the nick or tap mode you’re continually stopping and starting the stimulation, so it’s not quite as clear to the dog. Learning will still occur but not quite as fast as with continuous.


Sounds like it could cause problems.

And speaking for ‘learning fast’ - this is a quote from an article you wrote in 2002 on the benefits of using electric shock:



> Quote: None of us has as much time as we'd like to work our dogs so this really makes the most of the time we spend.


It sounds like the main reason for using electric shock is for speed of training. Instead of taking days or weeks to teach your dog you can do it in hours!

Sounds ideal for a lazy owner.

People don’t have as much time as they would like to teach their children but does that justify using electricity on them?

And no, I am not comparing dogs to children. What I am saying is that if electric training was so great why don’t we see it being used on humans? After all it would be the best way to prevent a surgeon from cutting the wrong part inside your body, wouldn’t it?

I found this description from an engineer on how the ecollar actually works:



> Quote:Shock collars use the dog's skin for part of the circuit. In the collars, there are two terminals that contact the animal's skin. When the circuit is activated, one terminal is energized. The "load" is the animal's flesh, and the other terminal provides the ground: return path. Note that even though the two terminals on the collar are only a few centimeters apart, the electricity follows the path of least resistance. If the skin is dry and nonconductive, the voltage in the collar is high enough so that the electricity can spark through the skin into moist, conductive tissue underneath.


Ok, now that I have said all that – I *DO* see the need for electric shock training with certain dogs in certain situations. To solidly proof existing behaviors, when other methods have failed or where it means life or death to the dog.

BTW – the only references I could find on using electric shock collars on horses were for STOPPING behaviors – not teaching them.
</span>


----------



## MTAussie (Dec 9, 2007)

LouCastl
I've replied to one of your posts above. But perhaps it's things like your reference to "legitimate positive trainers" just above. It seems that the insinuation is that those of us who do not consider ourselves to be "positive trainers" are not legitimate. Perhaps I've misunderstood.
Perhaps it's you saying things like "I am tired of it!" and "It does seem to be a bit hopeless in the end." If you're so "tired of it" why are you reading this thread? But again said:


> By legitimate, I mean effective. I am not saying the trainers are not legit if they aren't postive. Just to clear that up.
> I am tired of the round and round, because there is no respect and WAY too much ego.
> My points that I posted twice have been completely ignored, and you pick and choose what to reply to.
> 
> ...


----------



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

Not to worry MTAussie, I predict much more head bashing ahead.
















I also wanted to post a reminder that in the thread that spawned this one, the OP was discussing private trainer options for a _12 week old puppy_. No idea if e-collars are routinely, or even ever used on puppies that young, but I'm pretty sure there have been past discussions on this forum about using them on puppies as young as 4 months old.


----------



## MTAussie (Dec 9, 2007)

want to share some popcorn and a brick wall?


----------



## Tetley's Mom (Dec 1, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Momthe OP was discussing private trainer options for a _12 week old puppy_.


OP from the original post here - God this won't end and I can sincerely say I _regret _posting that message and will be guarded with any other questions I post on the forum (which is truely regretable IMHO AND I would doubt I am not alone thinking this way - there have been a lot of readers) ... To clarify: Yes, the pup is 12 weeks. I never said e-collar would be used before 20 or so weeks - if even then. I saw a 24 wk old that had been using it for _2 wks_. All training prior was private and "positive" as it's referred to here on the boards. 12 wks was misunderstood and has been blown way out of porportion. 

Asking a question shouldn't result in such drama. We obviously all love our pets - otherwise why would we be on here and be so passionate. I get it. But, c'mon, we are adults - let's just respect eachother's opinions! 

C'mom, find somebody on this never ending conversation and send em a hug ...
















to Cassidys Mom

--anybody gonna act like an adult with me??


----------



## trudy (Aug 25, 2008)

Thank you for your reply but I wasn't meaning I was going to get one but that I suddenly understood why some one may go this route. I went to class last night and we discussed it and we practiced walking to other dogs, yes all ones he knows and we paid close attention to reactions. We also will be doing more work and will hopefully not encounter an aggressive dog until we are older and under better control. Next time I will reverse directions adn try that as the means to get focus and see if not face to face he will calm down better.


----------



## Dohhhhh (May 1, 2006)

to you NC PetMomma,

Take each post with a grain of salt. Learn who you just need to bypass post wise altogether







There is MUCH to be learned on this board, much to be ignored (like holyrollers on soap boxes) the biggest thing to take into consideration is that there is more than one way to skin a cat as my granny use to say so you need to find the way to skin that cat that works best for you. In dog training, some find clickers and cookies work best for them, some find that praise alone works best, others like choke chains and prong collars and still others like Lou, me and a few others like our e-collars. Does it make all of us wrong...nope...just makes us skinning cats in different ways (DONT GET ME WRONG>>>I GOT NOTHING AGAINST CATS LOL AND I REALLY DON"T SKIN THEM LOL)


----------



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

Tetley's mom, I hope you realize my post wasn't a bash against you. I know you were just looking for information - and got a lot more than you bargained for! I never for a moment thought that you planned to use an e-collar on your little girl.









I just thought it important to note that the original discussion was about training puppies, which is how this whole thing got started about using aversives and corrections in training vs more positive methods. Many of us have simply stated that we believe that it's best to use positive methods in the initial phases of training, especially for young puppies, saving aversives for later, if necessary. And that it's possible to train to a high level of reliability without using anything more aversive than a negative marker and withholding of the reward. Which proceeded to start a







storm of hostile responses against us so-called ecollar bashers, several of whom actually USE an ecollar.


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMommaAsking a question shouldn't result in such drama. We obviously all love our pets - otherwise why would we be on here and be so passionate.


Absolutely, and please don't let this experience sour you on asking questions here on the board. How will anyone learn anything if we don't ask questions and share our experiences? We won't always agree (obviously!), but you can learn as much from people whose methods you don't agree with as from those you do. 

Yes, your question started something that got out of control, but you weren't responsible for that happening, nor was any hostility directed towards you as the OP, at least that I noticed.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: Lou CastleYou talk about "some success" in titling your own dogs but I don't recall seeing the titles that you've acquired. Can you tell us of them please?


Melanie's dogs' titles are clearly listed in her signature. If you have missed them, here they are. If memory serves, Melanie's Chow Khana is one of the top-ranked Chows in obedience in the US, but I may be mistaken on that count.

GSD: Trick CKC/ASCA/AKC CD, RE NAP NJP, HIC;
GSD: Tazer (pup in training)
Chow: Khana AKC CD RE, DSPP (Therapy Dog), Service Dog;
Chow: Dora AKC NA NAJ
& always in my heart: Kylee CDx4 CDX NA NAJ NAC NJC HIC BH;
Dawson UD HIC; & Lady UD STDs 

As someone who has no vested interest in either side of the discussion, it seems to me that personal attacks are occurring more from Lou Castle's side than IliamnasQuest's, and that there really does seem to be a vested interest by the former to sell e-collars over any other training method. 

Just my opinion as a bystander.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> Quote:
> 
> Let me remind you that in the post that started this topic (this is a spin-off from a thread that the anti Ecollar people took off-topic) the OP HAD ALREADY MADE THE DECISION TO USE THE ECOLLAR.





> Originally Posted By: rainydaygoodsNobody knew that from the start though.


We didn't. Perhaps a look at the first post in that thread will remind you of a few things. I've added emphasis where I think it's important. 



> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMommaI am considering using a trainer from Sit Means Sit for private lessons for my GSD. I have done a good amount of online research about them, met with the trainer, seen dogs face to face, etc. Just wondering if anybody here has used them.


It's CRYSTAL clear that the OP has MADE UP HER MIND to use the Ecollar and is ONLY asking about this particular training franchise. 



> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMommaNote: *I know about the training collar used and am not opposed to this based on what saw in training * - unless somebody knows something that I should. Thanks!


AGAIN it's obvious that the OP has investigated the Ecollar. 



> Originally Posted By: rainydaygoods Opinions on a certain training program (that you also said you wouldn't use to train dogs, especially not one as young as the puppy that was in question) were asked for... it was a training question and the topic naturally diverged to alternatives to that training method, including a general e-collar discussion


It was so clear that the antis had taken the original thread off topic that a moderator stepped in and asked that the _general Ecollar discussion _be stopped. How much more obvious does it need to be? 



> Originally Posted By: rainydaygoods
> in fact I've seen that even some people who _use_ ecollars were branded "anti-ecollar," I guess because they said they use other methods?).


I use many other methods myself. No one has been "branded 'anti–Ecollar' " because they use other methods. It's ONLY because they slam the Ecollar for specious reasons, most of them based on emotion.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: BowWowMeowThere aren't really any e-collar bashers on this board, as far as I can tell. Even your arch nemesis says that e-collars have their place in training.


That person allows their use ONLY under EXTREMELY limited circumstances. I'd call that bashing. The bashers here are not as absolute as on some other sites, but they're still bashers. 



> Originally Posted By: BowWowMeowThere does seem to be a heavy duty e-collar promoter on this board though.


Gee, I wonder who that might be? ROFLMAO. 

Actually my advice for people looking for help with a training problem nearly always suggests that people to try other methods FIRST and to turn to the Ecollar ONLY when they fail. I've written this,


> Quote:*I'd suggest that you try all the solutions suggested to you by others. *If they don't give you the results you want in a timely manner, then take a look at the Ecollar used per my articles. http://www.loucastle.com


If the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" methods worked as well as some pretend NO ONE WOULD EVER get to the Ecollar. So I wonder why the true believers even bother to bring up their arguments.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

The method described on my site is how I teach a dog to recall. It make no difference whether or not he's had prior training. 



> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The Gang Ok, here is where I start to have a problem, especially with this sentence


My website says,


> Quote:Remember the essence of Ecollar training, give the command and make the dog uncomfortable.





> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The GangThis, to me, is pure aversion training.
> 
> Sorry but you're wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: MTAussie By legitimate, I mean effective. I am not saying the trainers are not legit if they aren't postive. Just to clear that up.


Thanks, that makes sense. 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie I am tired of the round and round


Me too but for different reasons. I'm tired of the zealotry. Anti Ecollar folks often come into threads making the same tired arguments that they've always made EVEN when the suggestion is made to FIRST try their methods and ONLY to try the Ecollar if those methods don't work. Ecollars have been studied many times by many people and NEVER has there been a single study that showed any long term or even any short term damage from them. 

Their arguments are based on little besides emotion and "wanting to be _kind _to their doggies. If I was causing anything but minor discomfort, I'd agree, but I'm not. 

I wonder, since you seem to be on the other side, have you seen the video of the JRT where he's feeling his first stim that I've posted? In case you haven't HERE it is. Somehow the horror that the antis want people to think is going on, is missing. Do you have some explanation for that? 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie My points that I posted twice have been completely ignored


Yes, and? 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie and you pick and choose what to reply to.


So does everyone. So what? I'm one of the few people here who answer almost all questions asked of me. 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie I would love for you to find a reputable source of training horses with a shock collar.
> 
> I know two who do.
> 
> ...


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMommaOP from the original post here - God this won't end and I can sincerely say I _regret _posting that message and will be guarded with any other questions I post on the forum (which is truely regretable IMHO AND I would doubt I am not alone thinking this way - there have been a lot of readers)


If you do, they'll have won. That is EXACTLY their agenda, to scare off anyone they can't defeat with their nonsense. 



> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMomma Asking a question shouldn't result in such drama.


Drama is what these folks thrive on. Why else would we have the constant emotional appeals? Why else would we hear things like this,


> Quote: … I think that if you love your dogs, you shouldn't want to use any more correction than necessary. And if that's overly emotional, so be it. I can't help it. I love my dogs.


Drama, pure drama.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Tracie
> like holyrollers on soap boxes


PERFECT! ROFLMAO.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom
> Which proceeded to start a storm of hostile responses against us so-called ecollar bashers, several of whom actually USE an ecollar.


Hostile responses? Please show us where any of us have personally attacked any of you. I've been attacked on that level at least twice in this thread and once in the other. 

You folks who claim to be so kind to the dogs are the ones with the hostile posts. It's always been that way in these discussions. I find it fascinating that people who say they're so kind to the dogs are so UNkind to humans on these lists.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Earlier I wrote (to Melanie)


> Quote: You talk about "some success" in titling your own dogs but I don't recall seeing the titles that you've acquired. Can you tell us of them please?





> Originally Posted By: HistorianMelanie's dogs' titles are clearly listed in her signature. If you have missed them, here they are. If memory serves, Melanie's Chow Khana is one of the top-ranked Chows in obedience in the US, but I may be mistaken on that count.
> 
> GSD: Trick CKC/ASCA/AKC CD, RE NAP NJP, HIC;
> GSD: Tazer (pup in training)
> ...


Thanks Historian. Let's look at those titles. Let me start by saying that that I've never competed in any of these venues. They never held any interest for me. 

Melanie used the term "some success" to talk about her various titles. Yet the highest title we see is the CD4X. I think that means it was repeated four times, but I'm no expert in these things and so would welcome being corrected. 

The AKC gives six titles for obedience. Each harder to get than the one before it. They are: (easiest to most difficult, CD: Companion Dog, CDX: Companion Dog Excellent, UD: Utility Dog, UDX: Utility Dog Excellent, OTCh: Obedience Trial Champion and NOC: National Obedience Champion

To me having "some success" would mean that one has competed and won some of the higher titles, not the lower ones, but as I said earlier, everyone has their own definition of "success." Melanie has several of the lowest titles, the CD (companion dog), a couple of the second rung titles, CDX's (Companion Dog Excellent) and a couple of the middle titles, the UD (Utility Dog). I don’t see any of the higher, more difficult to obtain and train for titles, the UDX or the OTCh, not to mention the NOC. 

If I've missed anything, again, I welcome a correction. 

Thanks Historian, for helping to clear that up. 



> Originally Posted By: Historian As someone who has no vested interest in either side of the discussion, it seems to me that personal attacks are occurring more from Lou Castle's side than IliamnasQuest's


Please point out those personal attacks. I deny that I've made any. At the same time I've pointed out TWO that Melanie has made on me. 



> Originally Posted By: Historian and that there really does seem to be a vested interest by the former to sell e-collars over any other training method.


Please show any post where I've tried to "sell Ecollars." Perhaps you mean "promote?" 

And please show how I could have a "vested interest" in something that COSTS me over $1,000 a year? As I've said repeatedly, I LOSE money on Ecollars.


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

Well, again, I haven't read everything (who has? *LOL*) but for anyone interested, I will comment on my titles.

The UD that is listed (on two dogs) is the highest level of training done in AKC. The exercises are:

Signal Exercise (heeling pattern, finishing with a stand/stay while the handler walks away to the other end of the ring, a down, then sit, then come, then finish to heel position - with NO VERBAL, all signals for the entire exercise).

Scent Articles (four metal and four leather articles are put out on the ground by a helper who touches the articles; handler scents one other article and while the dog and handler are turned away from the articles, the judge puts the scented article in the pile; the handler turns and sends the dog to find the one article scented by the handler; this is done for both metal and leather so the dog must find each).

Moving Stand (while moving forward, when the judge says "stand your dog" the handler gives a command/signal for the dog to stand while they continue walking (no pause allowed); handler walks ten feet away while dog stands still; judge approaches and does a full body exam (as per a conformation exam) on the dog, then tells the handler to call the dog to heel; handler calls dog and the dog must come directly to heel position).

Directed Retrieve (three gloves are laid across one end of the ring - one in the center, one to the left and one to the right; dog and handler are standing in the center of the ring, back to the gloves while the gloves are being placed; judge then indicates which glove to retrieve; dog and handler must pivot in place to face that glove and handler sends dog to glove; dog must pick up correct glove, return promptly to the front of the handler, sit and hold the glove until the judge tells the handler to take it; on command the dog releases the glove; handler then has the dog return to heel position on command).

Directed Jumping (there are two jumps in the ring - a bar jump and a high jump, mid-ring, one to the left and one to the right; dog and handler stand at one end of the ring, facing the other end; when judge indicates, handler sends dog and the dog must run straight to the other end of the ring (between the jumps) and then turn and sit when the handler gives the command; at that point, the judge indicates which of the jumps to send the dog over; handler commands/signals which jump, dog must jump the correct jump and come to the handler and sit in front, returning to heel position when commanded. This exercise is done twice, once for the bar jump and once for the high jump).

As you can see, this is not some simple performance that's easy to pass. I think the flunk rate on utility is something like 35 tries (you have to qualify at three trials to earn the title - qualification means you must earn 170 out of the 200 possible points, and pass every exercise). Both dogs that I put UD's on were taught entirely by me, both dogs earned first places for all three legs of the title.

The UDX and the OTCH are titles that are pursued by people who want to continue showing in Utility and Open classes. There are not any new behaviors that need to be learned for these - it's the same old classes over and over until you earn enough qualifying scores or points to have the title. While I admire people who choose to put that much time into showing in Utility and Open, I personally had no desire to show in the same classes over and over. And when you factor in the cost (here in Alaska there were NO obedience trials less than 150 miles away this past year - some were 500 miles away - and there's only 10-15 AKC trials a year anyhow in the state) it becomes fairly prohibitive. The only OTCH dogs I've ever seen in the state were owned by people who traveled down to the lower 48 states frequently in order to show in the larger trials there.

My first chow, Kylee, earned her CDX and was showing in Utility when I pulled her from competition due to problems (she was showing signs of stress). That was my choice, but she was fully trained in Utility and is one of the very few chows able to perform at that level. 

Kylee earned the honor of being the #1 chow in obedience in the U.S. two separate years. The second year was when I was showing her in Open obedience. That year she was more than 100 points ahead of the next chow in the listings (Delaney Ratings). Dogs earned points for beating other dogs in competition. For example, if a dog placed first in a class that had ten dogs compete then the dog would earn nine Delaney points. Kylee qualified in Open competition 15 times and placed EVERY SINGLE TIME (seven firsts) in classes that were up to 25+ dogs. She beat GSDs, golden retrievers, border collies. 

Open level (CDX) competition is all off-leash. Dogs do a heeling pattern (as commanded by the judge) that includes left, right and about turns; fast and slow paces; and halts where the dog must sit automatically. The handler can only give one heel command each time they step forward from a halt. The handler's hands must be either hanging naturally down at their sides or the right hand must be held against the stomach (over the belly button). They're not allowed to pump their arms like in schutzhund. 

The other exercises are a drop on recall, a retrieve on the flat, a retrieve over a high jump, and a broad jump. Then the dogs must, in a group of up to 12 dogs (strange dogs mostly) do a sit-stay and a down-stay. The sit-stay is three minutes, the down-stay is five minutes, and during the stay the handlers are all taken out of the ring and hidden from the dogs.

In addition, my Aussie was the #6 Australian shepherd in Novice obedience for her ASCA CD (and was a Dog World awardee, because her scores were all over 195 - out of 200 possible points).

All in all, we've earned over 30 titles and more than 10 additional certifications. And these are just on my own dogs - I taught obedience competition classes for years and helped many others achieve titles.

Seems funny that Lou thinks that my comments on him having a vested interest in shock collars are a personal attack (and c'mon - I purchased my shock collar from him and I kind of doubt that I paid LESS for it than he did) and yet he finds it okay to question my credentials and accuse me of not having success (and to give completely erroneous information on the titles - sheesh! *L*).

So I hope this cleared up some of the confusion. In all honesty, I find my success working with PET PEOPLE using primarily positive methods to be more rewarding and more important than those titles I've listed. Getting someone to understand and work WITH their dog through positive reinforcement is just a wonderful thing to do. I love it when I see the light bulb go off in a person's head - and their dog's head - when it clicks. 

And I'll continue to promote the use of primarily positive training as much as I can. After all, if you give a reward at the wrong time, the dog simply gets an extra reward. If you hit the button on the remote at the wrong time, the dog gets shocked (oh, I'm sorry - "STIMMED") for no reason and may very well associate it with the wrong thing. I see no reason to "STIM" a dog for behaviors that I can teach without "STIMMING".

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestWell, again, I haven't read everything (who has?


I have. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest The UD that is listed (on two dogs) is the highest level of training done in AKC.


 This website , says something quite different. I'm sure there's a reason for this. 




> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest As you can see, this is not some simple performance that's easy to pass. I think the flunk rate on utility is something like 35 tries (you have to qualify at three trials to earn the title - qualification means you must earn 170 out of the 200 possible points, and pass every exercise). Both dogs that I put UD's on were taught entirely by me, both dogs earned first places for all three legs of the title.


Tell us again how you don't have a vested interest in this?! ROFLMAO. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest The UDX and the OTCH are titles that are pursued by people who want to continue showing in Utility and Open classes.


Didn't you just tell us (above) that "The UD that is listed (on two dogs) is the highest level of training done in AKC?" Now you say that there ARE titles above that. Again, I'm sure that there's some reason for this divergence. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest My first chow, Kylee, earned her CDX and was showing in Utility when I pulled her from competition due to problems (she was showing signs of stress).


Was this before you went to the so-called "kinder, gentler methods"? 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Kylee earned the honor of being the #1 chow in obedience in the U.S. two separate years.


We had a woman on the police department who won gold medal after gold medal in the police Olympics in her age class in power lifting. Turns out that there was no one else in her class so she won those medals by default. This is the kind of result that's possible when few other compete in a class. Of course I'm not saying that you've done this. Just wondering how many others there were? 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Open level (CDX) competition is all off-leash.


The only times my police dogs were on leash was during training and crowd control. Almost daily we did off leash walk–throughs of the mall, one of the busiest in Southern California. Children running up to the dog and throwing their arms around his neck. Adults who screamed and literally tried to "climb the wall" because they were afraid of dogs. People throwing food at him as we walked past the food court. Slippery floors, elevators, escalators. All off leash. All at a heel. All the while enforcing the law for hours at a time. 


> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest All in all, we've earned over 30 titles and more than 10 additional certifications. And these are just on my own dogs - I taught obedience competition classes for years and helped many others achieve titles.


Could you tell us AGAIN how you don't have any vested interest here? ROFLMAOMSOMN. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Seems funny that Lou thinks that my comments on him having a vested interest in shock collars are a personal attack (and c'mon - I purchased my shock collar from him and I kind of doubt that I paid LESS for it than he did)


Is this the Ecollar that you thought had only 100 levels of stim? 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest and yet he finds it okay to question my credentials and accuse me of not having success (and to give completely erroneous information on the titles - sheesh! *L*).


As I said, "some success" has various meanings. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I love it when I see the light bulb go off in a person's head - and their dog's head - when it clicks.


Me too. It's especially gratifying when they've come from a "positive training class" which has given them NO CONTROL only to see how quickly they gain it. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And I'll continue to promote the use of primarily positive training as much as I can.


And I'll continue to promote the use of Ecollars as much as I can. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest After all, if you give a reward at the wrong time, the dog simply gets an extra reward. If you hit the button on the remote at the wrong time, the dog gets shocked (oh, I'm sorry - "STIMMED") for no reason and may very well associate it with the wrong thing.


You may own an Ecollar but it's obvious from statements like this one that you have NO IDEA of its proper use. No wonder you oppose them! 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I see no reason to "STIM" a dog for behaviors that I can teach without "STIMMING".


As I've said. Some people are talented enough to be able to use those techniques. But the average pet owner (whatever that means) OFTEN is not. We've heard from at least one poster who tells us that her husband is in the latter class. 

I wonder. I've asked you several questions that you've not answered. Is there some reason for this? Is it that you missed them? Or is it that you're avoiding them? If the former, I'll be happy to repeat them for you.


----------



## Dohhhhh (May 1, 2006)

Lou, it has been my experience in training dogs that it really ISN'T the dog that poses the problem when it comes to learning so much as it IS the human. I see that the dogs really pick up the basics very very quickly but the humans are the ones that need the brownies when they do it right. Do you find this to be correct in your training programs as well?


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

Oh good grief


----------



## Sarah'sSita (Oct 27, 2001)

It appears that Lou is confronting the view that ecollars have a bad rap. I agree.
The whole spectrum of adversives and training tools has an incredible wide range: From a slight verbal grunt or body block to let the dog know he/she is not right to what I term abuse. Now I must say that I have not used the ecollar during the teaching phases of a behavior, I shape and I lure and mark and reward. I use the clicker and verbal marker.
The ART of training is the appropriateness of the tool. Its about clear communication. Most dogs respond to clear rules and clear consequences ("What can I do to get what I want?")

As a handler I have found the low estim to be effective communication with a known behavior and it takes the conflict with the handler OUT of the equation. This can be a beautiful thing. I have also found out that dogs are VERY patient and sometimes we as trainers are inpatient and don't allow them time to problem solve before we cue them again or give a poorly timed correction.

I do schutzhund and only a month ago did I purchase my own ecollar after a long contemplation. Prior to that I had been borrowing collars while I had a dummy collar. My dog is happier with the clearer communication. I had good instructors and I am learning. 
Ecollar is not required or necessary for all training or to bring out the dog's potential. No way. However,any trainer/handler that does not acknowledge the complete spectrum of humane training --yes ecollars are humane at least how I use it-is not equipped to bring out the dogs potential. I call that "If you train likea hammer, everything is a nail"

My $.02


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

Good grief is exactly right .. *LOL*

Lou, it appears your goal is now to discredit me as much as possible. That IS a personal attack, unlike stating facts that are readily apparent. The titles I have earned with my dogs are fact and I have no reason or desire to lie about them. They can even be checked on the AKC website (or, if I get around to it, I can scan the title certificates .. *L*). 

To reiterate what you evidently missed in my very long explanation of training titles: the UD is the highest level of TRAINING in AKC competition. The UDX and OTCH titles are merely repeating the Utility and Open levels over and over and over until you gather enough points. NO NEW BEHAVIORS ARE NEEDED for those titles. 

As far as Kylee's stress .. that was in part caused by my desire to push her through the titles. I did go back and re-train her retrieving with a more positive method and it really revitalized her. But she did have some stress issues and I chose what I thought was right for her, even though I would have loved to see her earn that very difficult Utility Dog title. 

I also forgot to mention that her performance in the Open ring earned her an invitation to be on the Alaska state team for the western regional obedience competition. Not sure if they do that anymore, but the top dogs from the state (all breeds) are invited to be part of a team that competes against the top dogs from other states. We didn't go, but it was definitely an honor to be asked. I still have the invitation letter.

A vested interest is more along the lines of those of you who are promoting this for your own gain. At one time, I DID have a vested interest. At this point, I don't. I enjoy training. I enjoy helping people. I enjoy helping dogs. So I post on this GSD forum in a large variety of areas and help where I can. None of these people are ever going to send me money for supplies or pay me for a training class. Those, on this forum, who typically defend the shock collar in a very adamant way are people who are financially vested in the topic.

Now, it's easy for people to say "I don't make any money on this" when they have a business. Businesses are allowed a lot of write-offs. Having a dog business means a person can probably write off costs on their own dogs (that demonstrate or otherwise illustrate their own business). That means a person with a dog training business can write off food, cost of classes, cost of transportation, entry fees, veterinary costs, etc. When you use all these write-offs, it's not unusual (depending on the level of gross income in your business) to not show a profit - completely legally. 

BUT .. the reality is that a person with a business like this is writing off things that a normal dog owner (the majority of dog owners) has to pay for out of pocket without the opportunity to take those off their taxes. And so if we figure all those costs, a dog business is more profitable (in a broad sense) than it looks on paper.

I no longer have a training business, so there is no real or perceived vested financial interest in promoting my training philosophies. I'm all about what I think is right for the dogs without any thought of selling someone a training collar.

As far as the ecollar that I bought from you - yes, it's the one that YOU TOLD ME had 100 levels of stim .. *L* .. the only reason I even brought the stim levels up was to encourage those who DID choose to use a shock collar to not get the collars with only a few levels of shock. I think you would say the same thing, if you weren't trying so darn hard to discredit me.

By the way, I used the method you had posted on your website some years ago - maybe the same one you still have their. The only changes I made were an increase in the level of positive reinforcement when my dog DID comply, and I didn't shock for every single behavior for months before taking the collar off. The low level stim, the training on the long line, etc. - all done as per your website. So if I did it wrong, then you're wrong too .. *L*

The statement I made about shocking at the wrong time had nothing to do with the training I did or even the training that you promote. It was a broad statement. Surely you agree that if someone shocks a dog when they shouldn't, that the dog can easily associate that shock with something they were doing at the time? Not everyone who owns a shock collar is going to use the low level stimulation, and not everyone is going to get the concept of when/how to use the collar properly. Heck, on this website I've read people admitting - some of them who highly recommend the shock collar - that they've accidentally hit the stim button when they didn't mean to (thinking back, it was probably in a discussion about shock collars that are designed to work on more than one dog). 

I don't know what questions I've missed - I've admitted that I don't read all of what you post. I scan the ones where I see my name and I respond to what I feel like responding too. Didn't know you were hanging on my every word! *LOL* 

Oh - one last word - I can heel my dogs (well, not the pup) through crowds of people off-leash too. I just don't really think of that as a very difficult exercise with a trained dog, I guess. In fact, Trick has rarely worn a leash her entire life. My four year old Service Dog (a chow) walks through crowded aisles at the grocery store with tempting fresh-baked loaves of bread at her nose height, kids and adults jostling against her, and she is doing very well at ignoring them. Granted, she is on-leash, but that's primarily because it's required. Most of my dogs were also therapy dogs and visited the nursing home here, too, and would stand patiently for many long minutes while a stranger held onto a handful of fur and talked about the dogs they used to own.

Okay, is that enough? Please - no more insinuations about the titles my dogs have earned. You're barking up the wrong tree there .. *chuckles* .. I'm not showing at this time as my health hasn't allowed it, so titles are not really as important to me as they seem to be to you.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## IliamnasQuest (Aug 24, 2005)

Sarah, if you read back through this entire thread, you'll see that most of us are not saying "NEVER USE A SHOCK COLLAR" - we're just encouraging people to teach the basics with more positive based methods. That's exactly what it seems you do. What bothers us is that some people recommend that the collar be used for ALL training, from basics on up. My mantra - and that of many others - is "positive first". I have used a shock collar, will probably again. 

Sorry, everyone, for the long posts. Feel free not to read them .. *L*

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



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

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestWell, again, I haven't read everything (who has? *LOL*)


Me either, I find Lou's painstaking dissection of every single post that isn't 100% in agreement with him to be incredibly boring, pointless, and argumentative. He invites you to define your success by describing your various titles and achievements (apparently you haven't been bragging enough!), for what appears to be the sole purpose of picking them apart and dismissing them as paltry and meaningless. And THEN, he accuses you of using those titles to earn credibility on the forum (apparently you're bragging too much!), even though the only reason you talked about it up in the first place is because he asked. Sheesh! 

What's particularly ironic is that he's illustrated perfectly the point I made earlier - that every time a discussion of e-collars come up the positive trainers get bashed over the head about how very wrong we are and how very right they are, even those positive trainers that don't have a problem with using e-collars under certain circumstances and have used them themselves. First he says I was WRONG in that assessment (imagine!







), then he goes on to tell me and everyone else who's posted since, in exhausting detail, exactly how very wrong, wrong, WRONG we are. Voila! Bashing over the head. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestSorry, everyone, for the long posts. Feel free not to read them .. *L*


I've actually read every word in your posts, even the long ones.


----------



## Branca's Mom (Mar 26, 2003)

Be VERY CAREFUL Lou
or you are going to oust me from my well-earned position of <u>most obnoxious and annoying</u> board member!


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

I have to agree with Cassidys Mom. Usually I enjoy Lou's posts, and have learned a lot from them, just as I have always enjoyed Melanie's posts and learned a lot from them too! 

Melanie is always polite and respectful, and does not set out to discredit others and their methods, but rather shares her views and experiences. 

I think we can all learn from that, also!


----------



## Dohhhhh (May 1, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: CastlemaidI have to agree with Cassidys Mom. Usually I enjoy Lou's posts, and have learned a lot from them, just as I have always enjoyed Melanie's posts and learned a lot from them too!
> 
> XXXXXXX is always polite and respectful, and does not set out to discredit others and their methods, but rather shares her views and experiences.
> 
> I think we can all learn from that, also!


Shame I cannot get some of the previous posts in older e-collar discussion threads from the archives...blow the "polite and respectful" comment to







(you know where) and could quite possibly explain why _some_ e-collar users are "_so defensive_."


----------



## LedZep (May 4, 2008)

Wow, what a volitile topic. Throughout though, are some good posts and lucid opinions... 

I have read 99% of Lou's writings and tutorials on the e-collar, and I have had the pleasure of some direct email correspondence with Lou - who is very generous and professional with his advice. I still struggle to do it his way (maybe because I started "the other way" and find it hard to turn around), but I respect his methods and his reason for them. I have an e-collar, and didn't buy it from Lou, and he was still nice to me and worked with me. Many trainers sell products and accessories, but that does not (IMHO) void their credentials. In fact, I would bet that in the chicken-egg scenario most wind up selling the tools they find most useful in training, etc. 

What I don't like are people who form an opinion (often in the total absence of any first hand knowledge of the subject) and then insist on lecturing others. Most anti-ecollar folks fall into that category. For their part, I'm sure they feel they are fighting the good fight to rid the world of this barbaric and inhumane practice - but therin lies the proof of their ignorance. 

Whatever your opinions - remember that others are equally entitled to their own, and *gasp* it may differ from yours. Cruelty is an act - a state of mind - a behavior - - not a tool or an item. Any training tool can be used as an effective tool, or as device of torture... it is up to the handler which will apply.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

I think we are beating a dead horse so I am going to close this thread. 

Admin

***


----------

