# Sit Means Sit Training



## Tetley's Mom

I 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.

Note: 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!


----------



## doggiedad

what kind of collar are they usuing? i love the names of your pets.


----------



## Tetley's Mom

> Originally Posted By: doggiedadwhat kind of collar are they usuing


They are using a remote collar for focus - it uses a tiny jolt of electricity. Some think it's controversial, but after reading more about how it's used and talking to the trainer, I see the benefits. The E-collar (as they call it) has been around for nearly 50 years. However the original models were unsophisticated, single-level units. The collars have gone through transition much like that which has been seen in common products like the computer or microwave oven. Today's models are much more effective and are completely humane according to the trainer. 

I got this off a website: "The staff at the KC Conservative allowed the unit to be tested directly on the skin and were able to hold the unit even at the highest level without significant discomfort. The Sit Means Sit method is so effective and gentle that it is fully endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States. Use of this method will reduce the number of dogs being put down or placed in shelters every year for behavior problems. Owner Tom Mancuso reminds clients that this method is much gentler than tugging on a leash. With the Sit Means Sit method, you can control your pet without yelling, raising your voice, fighting or yanking on the dog."


----------



## DianaM

There are much better e-collar methods than Sit Means Sit. Lou Castle http://www.loucastle.com/ is one I would recommend over Fred Hassen, hopefully Lou will see this and chime in. I'd recommend sitting in on a session with a dog that is just starting out; that is when you will see how much stress a method imparts on an animal. I've seen e-collar work done to teach agility to a beginner dog and it was not pretty. I felt awful for the dog. Please note that I am not at all against the e-collar; when used correctly, they're fantastic and I think I'll be owning one sometime for proofing as well as "off leash insurance."


----------



## Amaruq

For a BABY dog I would not use an e-collar regardless of how good the trainer is at their job. I think E-collars have a place for proofing and off lead but there are better methods, especially positive ones for babies.


----------



## mastercabman

> Originally Posted By: AmaruqFor a BABY dog I would not use an e-collar regardless of how good the trainer is at their job. I think E-collars have a place for proofing and off lead but there are better methods, especially positive ones for babies.


I agree,positive training for commands.
E-collar is more for correcting bad/wrong behavior.
I don't think it's really needed for a puppy.

Unless,you have a monster


----------



## Tetley's Mom

> Originally Posted By: oliver annieUnless,you have a monster


No monster here - at all.









I sat in on a lesson this week and the 24 wk old pup *had been using for 2 weeks* didn't seem hurt by the collar. It seemed more humane than the jerk with the leash as I have seen. 

For my pup, the e-collar wouldn't be used until 20 wks at the earliest. Plus the trainer made it known he would make me practice on him and visa versa, calibrating appropriately to avoid "shock" training her. He explained it as more of a tickl to get her focused as needed. I would never hurt my dog to train her. Ever. 

Any specific examples/comments of anybody using Sit Means Sit appreciated. I will definitely be using their services, just looking for personal experiences. Thanks!


----------



## Amaruq

Since you want specific information than I have nothing to offer. I never used them but it sounds like I never would either.









Glad to hear she wont be using the e-collar until she is a BIG girl at 20 weeks. But I guess that is your own choice and you are happy with it.


----------



## Timber1

Without elaborating I agree with you. I am not as opposed to the E Collar as I used to be, but in this situation if was the OP, I would find a new trainer. 

Teaching a pup basic commands can be done easily without using and E Collar, or for that matter a pronged collar. In this case, the use of an E Collar sounds like an easily out for the trainer.

As you mentioned, the more positive training methods are much better with a pup.


----------



## IliamnasQuest

While I do feel there are times when a shock collar is helpful and even appropriate, using it for basic training on a young dog (and 20 weeks is VERY young yet) is not a "gentle" way to train. 

E-collar training is based on punishment. Yes, good trainers use the minimal amount of shock, but the reality is that the dog has to learn to AVOID something it finds uncomfortable. Instead of creating an atmosphere where the dog wants to obey because it's really thrilled about the training and reward and bonding with the owner, the e-collar creates an atmosphere of avoidance. If you truly mean it when you said "I would never hurt my dog to train her. Ever." then I would strongly encourage you to look into other methods for your pup.

There are great positive training methods out there (and great positive training trainers) that can teach you and your pup most of the basics with little to no correction. You'll build a better relationship with your dog. I know that the e-collar trainers swear by their relationships, but pure logic dictates that a dog that is trained using aversives/punishment is going to be less trusting than a dog trained using properly timed positive reinforcements. And having come from a background where I initially did train using corrections, I can tell you that you DO get a better relationship when you concentrate on the positive instead of the negative (and back in the old days I would have sworn on a Bible that the relationship I had with my dogs couldn't be any stronger).

You can always add corrections later on, but you can never take them back once they're used.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

First of all, are YOU doing the training? Going to the classes and learning to work with your dog? 

Or are you sending your puppy away so won't really know what is happening in the training. And though you may get a dog back that has learned from them and will listen to them........unless 'them' are coming to live with your for the rest of the dogs life there will quickly be problems cropping up.



> Quote: I sat in on a lesson this week and the 24 wk old pup *had been using for 2 weeks* didn't seem hurt by the collar. It seemed more humane than the jerk with the leash as I have seen.


Those are NOT the only 2 ways to train. SPECIALLY with a puppy there's new and positive methods that not only don't have 'jerking' involved but no leash at all. 

Watch this 15 week old puppy. See the attention and focus and NO leash at all. Can you dog do this? All it takes is the OWNER to learn a method using treats, a tug toy and good timing. And when the OWNER learn how to teach/train the puppy becomes a willing partner who may never need an e-collar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWZyL8DoI7I&sdig=1

If you go to this site:

Then click on the right side to read up on how YOU can train your dog and become a team yourself: http://www.clickertraining.com/

About Clicker Training
What is clicker training? 
Why train your dog? 
Why can't I just use my voice? 
Is clicker training right for me? 
See what others have to say! 

BTW, I feel there are instances that the e-collar is ideal, but not initial puppy training. And NOT by strangers. I first take my puppy to all the positive based training classes (going WITH the dog cause I know I'm usually the reason my pup doesn't learn, cause I'm not teaching properly) and only as they get older do I use other methods. And I'm the one using them and learning along their side.

Relation based dog training (click here) 

It takes a pack to raise a puppy (click here)


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

Here is a thread on Sit Means Sit training:
http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=758534&page=2#Post758534

And here:
http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=809186&page=2#Post809186

And I will say the same as above-have fun, build the relationship, use motivational methods, enjoy your puppy!


----------



## pupresq

There was another one yet recently too. Based on the info I've seen - yuck. MANY better ways to train a puppy.

Does anyone have a link to the threads where Brian posted video of Shannon working with Fayanna (Little Raven)? They show a teenage girl doing motivational training with a high energy working lines GSD from a breeder on this board - both dog and girl are doing a great job and having a great time. That's how puppy training (well, all dog training) should look IMO! Many better choices than either shocking or yanking for teaching basic skills.


----------



## TonyR

Sit means sit trains only with the e collar,no positive based training,no reward based only e collar. I wouldnt use them.


----------



## Tetley's Mom

Thanks all for your info. My dog has a personal trainer now - has been with her for 4 weeks. She can sit, come, stay (10 seconds/15 ft), and walk well on a leash. I am very happy with her progress and feel she is progressing well with lots of attention and training by both the trainer and MYSELF. Currently, I work with the pup during training and after. We work as a TEAM. I will continue the same with her next trainer. 

Training will NOT be conduced away. I don't like this option. Again, I want to be actively involved as I will be carrying out continued training throughout the week when the trainer isn't around. Training will be conducted under my guidance, and assistance, at my home and in various areas around my town - to train with/without distractions.

I am very active with the pup and will continue to be throughout all her training and endeavors. I love my pup and if for any reason I feel the training is bordering abuse I will cease it immediately. 

Everybody has their own opinion of training, and I THANK YOU all again for your opinions and recommendations. I received a number of positive PMs about the training and am going to give it a try. I will post updates online if anybody is interested.


----------



## Skye'sMom

From the original post:



> Quote: Note: 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!


I've been reading this without comment, but now that you are committed, I will add this.

People gave you what you asked for - "they knew something they thought you should know."

Like me, they read that you wre asking for opinions or insights. As a positive style trainer with many tools in the old training box, I cringe to see an e-collar used on a pup. Especially one already showing itself to be highly trainable and with apparently no need to be fitted with an electric collar.

I am glad I was around to see the shift from traditional to more positive methods. It is a joy to work with bonded, happy, eager teams.

Oops - I forgot - you only want to hear good things about puppies and electonic collars. Guess I can't help with that.


----------



## pupresq

Did you read the links that were posted to some other styles of training? If not, I really encourage you to check them out. Also look at the videos of puppies being trained using these methods. It sounds like you're doing the right thing trying to check out the Sit Means Sit method but you owe it to yourself and your pup to check out the alternatives as well. There are some great ones! Thank goodness training isn't limited to e-collar versus pop and jerk leash training anymore!









ETA: I don't think it was one of the threads Jean linked to but there was a post a few weeks back asking about Sit Means Sit training and several people chimed in to say that it wasn't good - including an e-collar trainer, so it's not just an e-collar versus non-e-collar debate. Not sure if the people who PM'd you were positive about SMS or just e-collar training generally.


----------



## Tetley's Mom

> Originally Posted By: Skye'sMomFrom the original post:
> Oops - I forgot - you only want to hear good things about puppies and electonic collars. Guess I can't help with that.


Please, I have been using this board for quite some time without being negative to people. While I have spent more time reading than writing, I have and do enjoy the boards. I would like to keep this place as cordial as possible for me and all who use it. Let's all try this for 2009. I know I don't want to be scared off, as I am sure there are others like me. This is my last reply to this post. I will update as mentioned above. 

Thank you all.


----------



## Skye'sMom

If you saw that as negative, I apologize. I've been here 5 years and it's the first time I've ben called that and it was not intended. 

Tongue in cheek? Yes. I just found it curious for someone to ask for their experiences and then be blown off when they were non-ecollar.

Good luck to your pup.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMomma
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: doggiedadwhat kind of collar are they usuing
> 
> 
> 
> They are using a remote collar for focus - it uses a tiny jolt of electricity. Some think it's controversial, but after reading more about how it's used and talking to the trainer, I see the benefits. The E-collar (as they call it) has been around for nearly 50 years. However the original models were unsophisticated, single-level units. The collars have gone through transition much like that which has been seen in common products like the computer or microwave oven. Today's models are much more effective and are completely humane according to the trainer.
> 
> I got this off a website: "The staff at the KC Conservative allowed the unit to be tested directly on the skin and were able to hold the unit even at the highest level without significant discomfort. The Sit Means Sit method is so effective and gentle that it is fully endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States. Use of this method will reduce the number of dogs being put down or placed in shelters every year for behavior problems. Owner Tom Mancuso reminds clients that this method is much gentler than tugging on a leash. With the Sit Means Sit method, you can control your pet without yelling, raising your voice, fighting or yanking on the dog."
Click to expand...

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/looking_for_a_dog_trainer_.html

I wonder where the source is for that endorsement, because agree with HSUS about ANYTHING or not, it does not appear to be the case from their site. 

Thought this was funny-looks like a press release written by Ami Moore-isn't she that person in Chicago who uses the collars on dogs' packages? Going to go check that...
http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/node/97954

Yes, here is the thread on that: http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=874486&page=2#Post874486

And pupresq, I believe one of those threads has posts from Tracie, the e-collar trainer, who does not support this particular method. 

I always loved one of the trainers where I took my dogs-Volhard based-who would say people, relax it's only dog school! And there were people planning to compete, etc. but it was a way to remind us-put it into perspective.


----------



## pupresq

Thanks Jean. 

I just googled that Ami woman. Yeek! 

My bottom line on e-collars is wondering why anyone would use one, especially on a puppy, when there are other positive-based methods that work just as well. 

I am not anti e-collar. A lot of people on my SAR team had used one to break a dog of going after wildlife, so in that scenario, an e-collar could save a dog's life by teaching it not to run off and into a road etc. But I just can't see using one for basic obedience without trying other methods first







unless people are just attracted by the idea of having a remote control for their dog.









I had a meeting this afternoon with several members of my rescue group and while I was there I was helping the hostess (normally a cat person) work with her foster Border Collie. She was blown away by how quickly we had him doing all kinds of things (using only a clicker and tiny pieces of cheese). Best part - he and I were having a great time!







He couldn't wait to find out the next trick. To me, that's what training should be. 

I'm not a positive only trainer, but I'm definitely a positive FIRST trainer.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote: I received a number of positive PMs about the training and am going to give it a try


To bad they were afraid (I guess







) to post on the general board so everyone could see. Were they PM'ing you liking the e-collar? Or the Sit Means Sit method? Or both? 

It's a bit disheartening for me that you are reluctant to try more positive based training prior to going the e-collar. Maybe I didn't post enough sites for you to read about how well it works? (though I'm relieved you are also attending the training, you didn't mention this in your earlier post so I didn't know)

Would you like me to find more? Which of them did you have more trouble believing so that you feel only the e-collar will do?

I am also NOT anti- electric training collars. I use them on BOTH my dogs. So sorry your feelings got hurt earlier (hopefully not from me). Only I don't use them on my young puppies for general obedience. And I don't use them on puppies that sound like they are currently doing well in training without the e-collar.

For more info on the Sit Means Sit I found:

Blog on Sit Means Sit


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote: I'm not a positive only trainer, but I'm definitely a positive FIRST trainer.


Me too! 

I found that it means I have to be a smarter trainer also. To come up with ways so my dog wants to do something rather than HAS to do something (or else).


----------



## lish91883

I'm not a fan of the Fred's way of training. Be very careful when using a trainer that was certified by him. Fred is EXTREMELY heavy with the button and the stim levels.

If there is an E-collar trainer in your area that was certified through Robin McFarlan, I would look there first.


----------



## LouCastle

SMS is a franchise. Trainers have to go through a three week school (it used to be that long) and they come out as "Certified Remote Specialists" regardless of how much dog training experience they had before the school (if indeed, they had any at all). Some are quite experienced and some have the three weeks of the school and that's it. I'd not let someone with only three weeks experience in training dogs near any dog of mine. 

I don't know anything about Mr. Mancuso so I can't comment on his skills. 

I do know about the founder of the method and would never use him or one of his students to train a dog. He is extremely heavy handed, using the highest levels of stim of anyone that I've ever seen and he knows little about dogs or their drives. I offered to teach him at one time and he told me _"I only need to know about one drive. The *do it when I say do it *drive." _He is VERY good at forcing behavior from a dog, but not very good at keeping a dog balanced. 

I work at the level of stim that a dog just barely perceives. He works at the level just below where the dog screams in pain. 

The Ecollar is a great tool for training a dog but not as some of these folks use it. 

BTW the Ecollar was invented in 1968, making it 40 years old, not 50. When someone makes this kind of mistake, for me it places much of what they say in doubt. A tool, by itself is neither "humane" nor "inhumane." It's only in how it's used that such a judgment can be made. 

Anyone who tells you that the highest level of stim that an Ecollar has is NOT painful is either EXTREMELY tolerant of pain, is a sadist, is lying or is using something other than a quality unit. I've felt the highest level of stim of several Ecollars. They ALL HURT at those levels. But for training a dog, it's extremely rare that you'd have to go that high and virtually unheard of for a pet to need such levels. 

Thanks DianaM for the kind words. I'd second her advice to watch this trainer with another beginning dog. 

I join with ALL the manufacturers who say not use an Ecollar on a dog that's less than six months old. If the picture next to your name is of the dog that you're considering using the Ecollar on, I'd wait for him to grow up a bit. 

From what you say that Mr. Mancuso has told you, he seems to be one of the better trainers but I wonder about his "50 year" comment and the fact that he's willing to use the Ecollar on a dog that's only 20 weeks old.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestWhile I do feel there are times when a shock collar is helpful and even appropriate, using it for basic training on a young dog (and 20 weeks is VERY young yet) is not a "gentle" way to train.


Used as I do, the Ecollar is a VERY "gentle" way to train. But I'd still not use it on a 20 week old puppy. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest E-collar training is based on punishment.


The truth is that ALL TRAINING is based on punishment. ALL TRAINING is also based on reinforcement (reward). 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest the e-collar creates an atmosphere of avoidance.


The Ecollar creates an atmosphere where the dog is shown when it is wrong (meaning that it's doing something that the owner does not want) AND is shown when it's doing something right (meaning something that the owner DOES want). 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest If you truly mean it when you said "I would never hurt my dog to train her. Ever." then I would strongly encourage you to look into other methods for your pup.


An Ecollar, used as I advocate, causes minor discomfort, at worst, when used for basic OB. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest There are great positive training methods


NC_PetMomma please don’t be taken in by either the marketing techniques of the SMS people OR by those who refer to what they do as "positive training methods." There's nothing "negative" about using an Ecollar when it's done properly. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest You'll build a better relationship with your dog. I know that the e-collar trainers swear by their relationships, but pure logic dictates that a dog that is trained using aversives/punishment is going to be less trusting than a dog trained using properly timed positive reinforcements.


The Ecollar used as I advocate, is the FASTEST and BEST way to establish a good bond with your dog. NC_PetMomma I suggest that you read one of the success stories on my website to see how I established a great bond with an extremely fearful dog that moments before I started to work her, had tried to bite me on the face! It's HERE. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And having come from a background where I initially did train using corrections, I can tell you that you DO get a better relationship when you concentrate on the positive instead of the negative (and back in the old days I would have sworn on a Bible that the relationship I had with my dogs couldn't be any stronger).


NC_PetMomma most of my work these days is with police and SAR dogs. Police officers daily put their lives in the hands of their dogs. SAR workers depend on their dogs to save the lives of lost people, children and Alzheimer's patients. BOTH of those require EXCELLENT relationships between dogs and handlers.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMommaThanks all for your info. My dog has a personal trainer now - has been with her for 4 weeks. She can sit, come, stay (10 seconds/15 ft), and walk well on a leash. I am very happy with her progress and feel she is progressing well with lots of attention and training by both the trainer and MYSELF. Currently, I work with the pup during training and after. We work as a TEAM. I will continue the same with her next trainer.


Wondering why you're going to switch trainers and methods? 



> Quote: I received a number of positive PMs about the training and am going to give it a try. I will post updates online if anybody is interested.


I wonder why some would write privately and NOT post their comments on the open forums. Sometimes there is a reason to go private, but in this case I wonder if it's because those folks are afraid to have their opinions discussed? 

In my case I'll send you some links to discussion on other websites that are not very complimentary about SMS.


----------



## LouCastle

The old saw about having a dog that behaves because it wants to rather than because it has to has such a nice ring to it. Until you consider the dog that WANTS TO chase the cat across the busy street but know that it HAS TO obey his owner's recall.


----------



## DianaM

Good posts, Lou. Your last example is a great reason why the e-collar works! If you're going to be training something fun and, well, pointless (it won't save a life nor the dog's life) such as agility, you needn't train with an e-collar and methods that train a dog to want to do things is just fine. When it comes to SAR, police work, emergency commands, then yes the dog should obey because it MUST. Competition heeling is not a must, downing right before running into a major road IS a must. I don't think one needs to use an e-collar for everything in training and while I think I will be using it to proof recall and the down (it's also my "stop everything and DROP" command), emergency commands, and "insurance," I really don't see a need to use it for things like rally and agility or even everyday casual commands. I still have a lot to learn before even getting an e-collar though as that is one tool that's very easy to screw up with.

If I'm lucky, maybe Lou will visit Florida to do a seminar for regular folks.







Or make training videos.


----------



## Smith3

Personally, I don't like eCollars. I like some others stick to positive (well all positive at first) and will work corrections in later when she SHOULD know what she is doing. 

But, training is a personal decision and I don't see anything wrong if you want to use an eCollar.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote: The old saw about having a dog that behaves because it wants to rather than because it has to has such a nice ring to it. Until you consider the dog that WANTS TO chase the cat across the busy street but know that it HAS TO obey his owner's recall.


Good point and exactly the instances I have now gotten e-collar trained dogs (only cause of the deer, not the cat).

But I didn't use the collar for general obedience on a dog that already was doing very well with normal leash/collar training. And also not on younger pups.

Thanks for posting Lou!!!

And HEY 


> Quote: If you're going to be training something fun and, well, *pointless* (it won't save a life nor the dog's life) such as agility,


 if that wasn't stated by someone who hasn't done agility seriously....... the teamwork and bonding and OFF leash training to get a dog around a course they have never seen before is amazing to see and certainly not easy to train. Specially at speed. Be the same as saying competitive obedience is pointless or herding, or hunting........no lives saved there!


----------



## IliamnasQuest

Being a "positive first" trainer is the best kind of trainer a person can be, in my opinion. Seriously, why use compulsion with behaviors that a dog can learn extremely well (and reliably) with reward instead? And I'm not talking about reward being when you let go of the stim button on a shock collar remote.

All training is not based on punishment .. wouldn't that be truly sad if it were? But I suppose some people who don't commonly use positive reinforcement training might believe that.

When it comes to police dog training, SAR training - the dog must respond and is trained accordingly. But it's not necessarily the BOND that creates the response. You can train a dog to be tremendously responsive to you without having a great bond with the dog. If the dog fears the consequence (and yes, I use the word "FEAR" in a very broad but sensible way) then it will avoid the consequence. 

I went to a schutzhund seminar once where the clinician (a very well known international competitor, world ranked) brought his GSD. This dog responded to commands INSTANTLY. He'd been trained using some very harsh methods. But any time the dog was released, he left the owner and went to visit/relax next to people in the crowd. It was not frenzied and happy like you see in an immature dog - the dog obviously just wanted to be away from the owner. It was so obvious that I heard several very dog-savvy people mention it.

If that's the "bond" people want, then go right ahead and train the basics using compulsion. Compulsion/punishment WORKS if your end goal is just a dog that minds automatically with no question. Compulsion-trained dogs can still act loving (as do dogs that are abused by their owners). Until you have truly taken both roads - training primarily with compulsion and training primarily without - you really can't know the difference in bonding.

A police dog could be trained with high stimulation and be completely dependable to the handler. It has nothing to do with the bond in that case.

I am truly glad to see so many people encourage others to use positive reinforcement as much as possible. You can always take the step into corrections if needed, but since the basics CAN be trained using reward, why choose to use shock or any other type of punishment (regardless of how "gentle" it's supposed to be)? 

It just seems really odd that people would choose to use something that creates "discomfort" when it's not needed. And can we truly measure what the dog thinks is uncomfortable? It has to be uncomfortable enough that the dog really wants to avoid it to work especially under distractions. I think it's probably more painful than people want to admit, but then again I believe in not causing pain/discomfort if I don't have to.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## DianaM

MRL, I know it's a HORRID choice of words, and yes I know very well the bonding and the fun and the handling skills and the mental/physical exercise agility gives (for both handler and dog)..... I guess I should not have used agility and maybe used "freestyle dancing." Or maybe have used a better word than "pointless!"









Hunting doesn't necessarily save lives but crittering off a deer sure would (especially around people with itchy trigger fingers). I sure hope people understood what I was getting at; doing the weave poles is not a life-safety issue nor such a critical issue that it should be trained as though it were life-safety, but downing at the first request and downing FAST could very well be. Please excuse my "awesome" choice of words!


----------



## dogmama

> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMomma
> Note: 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!


NC Mom-

I think people were telling you things that you should know about putting an e-collar on a puppy. So please don't take offense. The missing link in this conversation is why did you think an e-collar was necessary?

My Zack is from working/Schutzhund lines, has an incredibly high drive and pain tolerance. I have an e-collar and have used it on ONLY the no-compromise commands (e.g., "come" and "drop.") I use the lowest level stim and it still makes him jump. So, don't let anybody tell you that it doesn't "hurt." How do we know what the dog feels? 

The puppy stage is crucial for building a bond and trust. IMHO, an e-collar at this stage thwarts that. Training should be about FUN and PLAY in the puppy stages, not about pain and aversion. But, again, I didn't understand why you thought an e-collar was necessary. If you could have elaborated on that, perhaps the folks on this board might have been able to help. After all, these are GSD people with an incredible wealth of knowledge and years of experience. I consider myself a fairly experienced trainer and have learned tons from this board. After all, our GSD's are very "special!"


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

And I think too you can look at this thread, take out all the other stuff and still say...

---No e-collar until after 6 months

---Specifically, Sit Means Sit is not the place to train the e-collar if you do decide to go with it after 6 months


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote:MRL, I know it's a HORRID choice of words, and yes I know very well the bonding and the fun and the handling skills and the mental/physical exercise agility gives (for both handler and dog)..... I guess I should not have used agility and maybe used "freestyle dancing." Or maybe have used a better word than "pointless!"


That's ok, I still love you!!!









And to continue beating a dead horse....







I do believe in using the e-collar if I've tried everything else and need it in the 'life or death' situation like for the 'come' if I have a critter chasing dog. But only AFTER I've tried the positive route.

What I've found in my friends who refuse to go the positive route, it's because they are lazy and want a quick fix for their dogs. To take the necessary time to BOND with their dog, get a working relationship with their dog, a more than willing partner who is dying to learn and be with the handler, is just more than most of them are willing to do. It's much quicker for them to see results with the old yank and jerk training, or using the e-collar to give corrections the millisec the dog goes off track (not saying that's Lou's method! just most e-collar training).

To have a method that is innately based on CORRECTING when the dog does something WRONG (and the only way they can learn is to be wrong so they get corrected) is, for me, not the way I train any more. It used to be, but no more. 

I would much rather use the brain God gave me, and take the time to figure out a way to set my dog up to do something RIGHT so then I can reward them for that. Does is take longer? * YES. *Because I have to be patient, wait for the correct behavior, have the good timing to reward for it so the dog understands, and I have to ignore all the stuff I may not want. 

So I have made the decision that it's not about fast training for me. It's about training my dog well FOR THE DOG. And if it means I have to think. Have to learn a new way. Have to be patient. Then that's a choice I've made, and the outcome is THE SAME!!!! I have an obedient dog. 

So if the goal is an obedient dog, why shouldn't I choose a way that isn't based on any type of pain (even if it's at a low level) when I get EXACTLY the same end result without it?

Watch this video, it's a 6 month old dog that is heeling like a maniac and has ONLY had positive training for this. Don't tell me you could do it better with an e-collar. And if you can do it THE SAME with positive training, why not!???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v559F522jV8


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote: But, again, I didn't understand why you thought an e-collar was necessary. If you could have elaborated on that, perhaps the folks on this board might have been able to help.


*Good point dogmama.*


----------



## Dohhhhh

[/quote]

E-collar is more for correcting bad/wrong behavior.

[/quote]

This is a very common misconception about e-collar training. Proper e-collar trainers do NOT use the collar as punishment. The collar is used like any other training aid.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote: This is a very common misconception about e-collar training. Proper e-collar trainers do NOT use the collar as punishment. The collar is used like any other training aid.


I believe the e-collar is used to 'mark' an incorrect behavior. My comments were based on the fact my preferred method is based on paying attention and rewarding our dogs when they do something right. So marking the CORRECT behavior and rewarding. Not marking the 'bad' behavior with a collar correction.

I am not familiar with how you would activate the collar to reward the dog.


----------



## lawhite

you know.. I think it is interesting that people think it is "easier" to train with corrective/punishment training. There is no evidence that indicates a dog (as well as other animals,including us) learns quicker or better with correction v. reward type training. Actually, dogs appear to learn as fast, if not faster, and they also learn to enjoy learning.. a very good thing. I think the thing is that people find it easier to correct a dog than reward it. I am not sure what this says about us. 

I know that i find it more enjoyable to use positive methods, and my dogs find it more enjoyable, and so do my human students. (no i do not think that dogs=humans, but as far as learning motivation goes, we are not that different).

So truthfully, I think it is sad that someone feels that the first method of training they use on their 20 week old puppy is to use an e-collar. I do not care how gentle it is, it is just sad that they would rather focus on what the dog is doing WRONG instead of what they are doing RIGHT.


----------



## dogmama

MaggieRoseLee said:


> Quote:Watch this video, it's a 6 month old dog that is heeling like a maniac and has ONLY had positive training for this. Don't tell me you could do it better with an e-collar. And if you can do it THE SAME with positive training, why not!???
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v559F522jV8
> 
> 
> 
> Another point - when we say that e-collars are OK for life & death situations (yes, I said it too) - it occurs to me that seeing eye dogs are not trained with e-collars. :/And they certainly make life & death decisions at very high levels. Watch a trainer try to get a seeing eye dog to enter an unsafe traffic situation. It's amazing.
Click to expand...


----------



## Castlemaid

I just watched the video, that's about where I am with Falkor, who is now 8 months old. All positive, shaping the behaviour using treats, tug rewards. He offers this behaviour all the time when we are leash walking, comes up to me and walks by my side looking at me, whether I have treats on me or not. He gets loads of praise in a happy voice. Seems to work just fine? 

Only my second dog to train for obedience. First time ever training a dog from puppyhood. Flat collar and a pocket-full of treats. Not that hard. 

And he is still a puppy. He doesn't have to be perfect.


----------



## Catu

At the end, it's not about what tool you use and what you not, or what school of training you prefer and what you dislike, it is all about how you view dog training.

Some do see the training as a tool, they want a dog that behaves, don't mess in the house or is not rough with the kids and that is all they need and want. Others are control freaks that need their dogs to be robots that do everything they say and only what they say.

But to me the training is merely the expression of the bond I share with my dog. It is about communication, not about me barking orders, but about me reading what this animal is telling to me and the dog reading of me beyond the commands. So far I've not found a better way to worship mother nature than to blend my mind with the mind of one of her creatures.

We can discuss once again about if e-collars are right or wrong, I can tell it is one more tool in my tool-box, but unless we share the same philosophy about dogs and training them, it's a useless discussion.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Seriously, why use compulsion with behaviors that a dog can learn extremely well (and reliably) with reward instead?


Because it give reliability from the start. Most people who use the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) find that when distractions come up they have little or no control. Using an Ecollar as I do, from the start means that distractions are introduced and proofed right away. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And I'm not talking about reward being when you let go of the stim button on a shock collar remote.


Reinforcement is reinforcement. By definition it means that it will tend to make a behavior repeat. Some folks like to pretend that there's some difference between reinforcement as used with an Ecollar and other types, but there really isn't. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest All training is not based on punishment .. wouldn't that be truly sad if it were?


Wondering if there's some reason that you deliberately quoted me out of context? What I ACTUALLY said was this.


> Quote:* The truth is that ALL TRAINING is based on punishment. ALL TRAINING is also based on reinforcement (reward). *


That is simply a true and accurate statement about how animals of all kinds learn. 


> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest When it comes to police dog training, SAR training - the dog must respond and is trained accordingly. But it's not necessarily the BOND that creates the response.


The bond is necessary for the response to occur. It's the training that creates the response. If all you're talking about is the OB you're right. But that's a miniscule part of what a police or SAR dog does. Scent work, the reason that those dogs exist DOES require a very strong bond between the handler and the dog. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest You can train a dog to be tremendously responsive to you without having a great bond with the dog. If the dog fears the consequence (and yes, I use the word "FEAR" in a very broad but sensible way) then it will avoid the consequence.


You'll get a dog that gives a very lifeless response over time. That's NOT what happens with either police or SAR dogs trained with my methods. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest If that's the "bond" people want, then go right ahead and train the basics using compulsion.


Such results have nothing to do with my methods OR with using compulsion. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Compulsion/punishment WORKS if your end goal is just a dog that minds automatically with no question.


To apply such a statement to all training that uses compulsion is absurd. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Compulsion-trained dogs can still act loving (as do dogs that are abused by their owners). Until you have truly taken both roads - training primarily with compulsion and training primarily without - you really can't know the difference in bonding.


I'll disagree but then I HAVE used both methods. They both not always appropriate. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest A police dog could be trained with high stimulation and be completely dependable to the handler. It has nothing to do with the bond in that case.


I've seen such dogs. They don't work worth squat EXCEPT for the obedience. And that's only a very small part of what they do. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I am truly glad to see so many people encourage others to use positive reinforcement as much as possible.


There are times when reinforcement is appropriate and times when punishment is appropriate. It's almost NEVER appropriate to use ONLY ONE. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest It just seems really odd that people would choose to use something that creates "discomfort" when it's not needed.


We're talking here about the level of discomfort that makes a dog flick an ear, scratch like a flea is biting him, or look at the ground. HERE'S a video showing what it's like. 

It about the same discomfort as when people think they need a sweater because it's chilly. I don't think many "reasonable people" are gong to be very put off by it. I'm certainly not and neither are people who use my methods. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And can we truly measure what the dog thinks is uncomfortable?


People who can read dogs can. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest It has to be uncomfortable enough that the dog really wants to avoid it to work especially under distractions.


In your system the dog works to avoid the discomfort of NOT having a treat, for example. That's uncomfortable enough to make him work to avoid it. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I think it's probably more painful than people want to admit


I can tell, and so can anyone else, when a dog is in pain. ALL MAMMALS respond to pain in nearly the same way. They often vocalize and move quickly away from the source of it. They don't "just glance at the ground" as the JRT in the video does. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest but then again I believe in not causing pain/discomfort if I don't have to.


Organisms subjected to appropriate amounts of discomfort grow stronger. A runner (dog or human) who runs so fast or so far that he tires, grows stronger and better at running. The same applies to a weight lifter, a student doing algebra problems or virtually ANYTHING ELSE.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: dogmama
> My Zack is from working/Schutzhund lines, has an incredibly high drive and pain tolerance. I have an e-collar and have used it on ONLY the no-compromise commands (e.g., "come" and "drop.") I use the lowest level stim and it still makes him jump.


Odd but I've put Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs. Not one of them "jump" when they get stimmed. I'd bet that you've not used my methods to teach the dog what the stim means and he's surprised when it comes. But even with this, "jumping" does not necessarily mean "pain" as you've hinted. It also comes from a startle and if you've only corrected your dog with an Ecollar when he makes a mistake or deliberately disobeys, rather than trained the behavior with it, that's just as likely. 



> Originally Posted By: dogmama So, don't let anybody tell you that it doesn't "hurt." How do we know what the dog feels?


We know because, as I said in my previous post, ALL MAMMALS process pain the same way and have the same response to it. 



> Originally Posted By: dogmama The puppy stage is crucial for building a bond and trust. IMHO, an e-collar at this stage thwarts that.


Used as I'd guess you have, that's a distinct possibility. Used as I do however, it BUILDS a bond with the dog and it does so, in a very short period of time. 



> Originally Posted By: dogmama Training should be about FUN and PLAY in the puppy stages, not about pain and aversion.


OOOOOH such harsh words. LOL. An Ecollar, used as I do doesn't cause pain. Minor discomfort is what happens. As far as aversion, it's used no matter what tool/method is in play.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLee
> To have a method that is innately based on CORRECTING when the dog does something WRONG (and the only way they can learn is to be wrong so they get corrected) is, for me, not the way I train any more. It used to be, but no more.


Maggie you've just underscored the difference between how I use an Ecollar and the way that MOST people do so. Most of those writing against Ecollars in this (or any discussion) fail to make that distinction. Most people use the Ecollar to proof or reinforce behaviors that have been trained with other methods. But I TEACH the behaviors with the Ecollar. That has an entirely different effect on the dog and brings an entirely different attitude and response from them. 



> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLee I would much rather use the brain God gave me, and take the time to figure out a way to set my dog up to do something RIGHT so then I can reward them for that.


There's nothing about using an Ecollar that stops anyone from doing this. I've never understood why people make this statement. You know that there's far more to training a dog with an Ecollar than just pressing a button, yet you make this comment! 



> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLee So if the goal is an obedient dog, why shouldn't I choose a way that isn't based on any type of pain (even if it's at a low level) when I get EXACTLY the same end result without it?


Because FEW people are able to get "the same end result." Not a month goes by, on this or any forum about dog training, without someone describing how they're unable to recall their dog away from some distraction, or some other problem that they're having due to a lack of reliability. Some people can get results that are as good but they're a very small minority. 



> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLee Watch this video, it's a 6 month old dog that is heeling like a maniac and has ONLY had positive training for this. Don't tell me you could do it better with an e-collar. And if you can do it THE SAME with positive training, why not!???
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v559F522jV8


I'm sorry but I'm not the slightest bit impressed. The trainer shown is one of the few who CAN get excellent results. The dog is only shown heeling for a few seconds and then it's ONLY because the trainer has either a treat or a toy in her hand. There are no distractions present and since it's done inside a building there's no chance of one popping up unexpectedly. Not even much chance of a stray scent blowing into the picture. 

Here's some video of an Ecollar trained dog who is outdoors, a toy is present only sometimes and the dog is "heeling like a maniac." Also notice how long the session lasts. HERE.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLee I believe the e-collar is used to 'mark' an incorrect behavior.


Not with my methods. It's not used to "mark" anything. 



> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLee
> I am not familiar with how you would activate the collar to reward the dog.


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


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: lawhiteyou know.. I think it is interesting that people think it is "easier" to train with corrective/punishment training. There is no evidence that indicates a dog (as well as other animals,including us) learns quicker or better with correction v. reward type training.


Got any evidence that shows this? 



> Originally Posted By: lawhite Actually, dogs appear to learn as fast, if not faster, and they also learn to enjoy learning.. a very good thing. I think the thing is that people find it easier to correct a dog than reward it.


Got any evidence that show this? 



> Originally Posted By: lawhite I know that i find it more enjoyable to use positive methods, and my dogs find it more enjoyable, and so do my human students.


I know that I find it more enjoyable to use methods that give reliable results quickly for the average pet owner. My dogs find my training enjoyable and so do my human students. 



> Originally Posted By: lawhite So truthfully, I think it is sad that someone feels that the first method of training they use on their 20 week old puppy is to use an e-collar. I do not care how gentle it is, it is just sad that they would rather focus on what the dog is doing WRONG instead of what they are doing RIGHT.


You've made an assumption and then jumped to a conclusion that an Ecollar is the first method that the OP decided to use.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: dogmamaAnother point - when we say that e-collars are OK for life & death situations (yes, I said it too) - it occurs to me that seeing eye dogs are not trained with e-collars. :/And they certainly make life & death decisions at very high levels. Watch a trainer try to get a seeing eye dog to enter an unsafe traffic situation. It's amazing.


Actually many trainers who work with guide dogs use Ecollars. It's not politically correct so they don't discuss it. I've also seen them hit a dog with an SUV knocking it 20' to teach them not to walk in front of cars.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: LicanAntaiAt the end, it's not about what tool you use and what you not, or what school of training you prefer and what you dislike, it is all about how you view dog training.
> 
> Some do see the training as a tool, they want a dog that behaves, don't mess in the house or is not rough with the kids and that is all they need and want. Others are control freaks that need their dogs to be robots that do everything they say and only what they say.


No dog that I've trained is like a "robot." When under command they do as they're commanded to do. The rest of the time they're like any other dog. 



> Originally Posted By: LicanAntai But to me the training is merely the expression of the bond I share with my dog. It is about communication, not about me barking orders,


I never feel a need to "bark orders." In fact I only speak loudly enough to be heard, sometimes that's a whisper, as when the dog is at my side. The only time I raise my voice is when the dog is at a distance and my voice can't otherwise be heard. 



> Originally Posted By: LicanAntaibut about me reading what this animal is telling to me and the dog reading of me beyond the commands. So far I've not found a better way to worship mother nature than to blend my mind with the mind of one of her creatures.


Why people think that this isn't done with Ecollar training is something that I've never understood. It takes just as much thought and consideration for the dog as does any other method. 



> Originally Posted By: LicanAntai We can discuss once again about if e-collars are right or wrong, I can tell it is one more tool in my tool-box, but unless we share the same philosophy about dogs and training them, it's a useless discussion.


We don't have to share a philosophy to train dogs. There are many paths to that end. As long as we achieve results humanely, I don't care how one gets there.


----------



## IliamnasQuest

Lou, I think everyone is probably aware that you have a vested interest in promoting e-collars. While you may claim to not make any money on selling collars or training using the e-collar, it's still a business proposition for you 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). 

_*So everything you say has to be balanced by the knowledge that you have a vested interest.*_ Most of the rest of us do NOT have a vested interest in what we promote - we simply do what we feel is best for the dogs and encourage others to do the same. We don't sell training items or get paid for training advice (at least not at this time). So our opinions come from the heart as much as they do from the head.

All we can do is continue to promote non-aversive training for dogs as much as possible, saving the aversives for later. And I think that when you tell us that you've used shock collars on 3000 dogs, you say it with pride. I see it as appalling and sad. I don't know how long you've trained, but if you've trained for 30 years that means 100 dogs a year, which works out to one dog every 3 1/2 days, roughly. I just can't imagine strapping an e-collar on a new dog twice a week and thinking "yeah, this is great!".

For everyone else reading this thread:
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.

Positive reinforcement: adding something when the dog responds "correctly", creating the desire in the dog to try to respond correctly in the future. For example, you can give your dog a treat when the dog sits. The dog learns to sit in anticipation of the reward.

Anyway I look at it, regardless of the amount of stimulation you use, shock collar training is an aversive. Since basic behaviors can be shaped and trained quite quickly and nicely without the use of aversives, 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.

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. 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!

I'm living with two dogs that have been trained very well using a minimum of aversives. My older shepherd, at six months old, was doing competition style heeling and retrieving. She had NO corrections until after six months old. She was trained entirely off-leash and has been absolutely solid and reliable her entire life. And I'm talking some MAJOR distractions- moose, caribou, bears.

My young chow (the third chow I've earned titles on) is working as my Service Dog - a very responsible position for her to hold. She has been in the competition ring 13 times with 12 qualifying scores (peed in the ring once, my fault for not walking her enough beforehand), earning four titles. We stood in line at the post office today for a long time and she was wonderfully behaved while we practiced retrieving my keys and other simple behaviors. This is a dog with hardly any retrieving instinct and yet she was taught to retrieve using NO force. The only really aversive training was the bit we did with the shock collar to work on off-leash recall and crittering (since she thought she could take on the moose). I weighed the pros and cons of using a shock collar on her and took it very seriously, because causing her discomfort isn't something I enjoy doing. 

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. 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.

I taught a three week long beginning class - that met eight times (two weeknights and Saturdays) - and at the end of that three week period we did an *off-leash* obstacle course. EVERY SINGLE DOG in the group did the course. All the other dogs were standing quietly beside their handlers at the side of the room (just six feet or so away from some of the obstacles). This was a primarily positive, minimally aversive class and ALL the handlers completed the class. These dogs were typical pet dogs with no prior training when they came to the class, and nearly all the owners had no prior experience in training.

Everyone has to choose what they want to do to their dogs. I'm not against shock collars, I just see no need to "stim" a dog to teach the basics. I'm really glad to see so many on here who feel the same way. 

Melanie and the "positive first" gang in Alaska


----------



## dogmama

> Originally Posted By: LouCastle[I'm sorry but I'm not the slightest bit impressed. The trainer shown is one of the few who CAN get excellent results. The dog is only shown heeling for a few seconds and then it's ONLY because the trainer has either a treat or a toy in her hand. There are no distractions present and since it's done inside a building there's no chance of one popping up unexpectedly. Not even much chance of a stray scent blowing into the picture.


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.


----------



## lish91883

Lou I love reading your posts. Your very diplomatic. I find it very hard not to tell certian know it all's which bridge to jump off of.

As for that "vested interest" guess I have one too since I'm an E-collar trainer in NJ. LOL

On a serious note, used the right way an E-collar is an extremely gentle method.


----------



## lish91883

> 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.


But 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.


----------



## dogmama

I'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.


----------



## lish91883

Cuz thats soooo much better.


----------



## lawhite

> Originally Posted By: LouCastle
> 
> 
> MaggieRoseLee said:
> 
> 
> 
> One *DE*activates the Ecollar to reward the dog. And, of course, any other form of rewards that the dogs likes can be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


----------



## dogmama

> Originally Posted By: lish91883Cuz thats soooo much better.


I didn't say it was better. It sucked. But it was what people did. "Cookie trainers" were scorned by Koehler advocates. 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.







(But it was a great retrieve and a straight front!)


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

Ok, people. This post was about Sit Means Sit dog training - not the advantages or disadvantages of using an E collar.

Let's get back on subject. The use (or not) of e collars can be taken to a new post.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote: Ok, people. This post was about Sit Means Sit dog training - not the advantages or disadvantages of using an E collar.
> 
> Let's get back on subject. The use (or not) of e collars can be taken to a new post.


The 'Sit Means Sit' method, from the original poster uses the e-collar. 

And Lou Castle earlier stated they do NOT use the e-collar in the same manner as he promotes. So we DO have to keep this thread NOT about general e-collar use (or not) or how well it can work (or not). Instead the use of it for a young puppy in the way the Sit Means Sit training promotes should be addressed. *NOT GENERAL E-COLLAR USE!!!! *

To again reference the original poster (who I think have made up their mind before even posting







):



> Quote:Note: I know about the training collar used (the e-collar) and am not opposed to this based on what saw in training - unless somebody knows something that I should. Thanks!


----------



## MTAussie

I have noticed that dogs that have been trained with an ecollar often have a much different demeanor than dog trained with positive rewarding methods. 
Like another person posted, these dogs will do all the commands their owner gives ( in a nervous, stressed position) yet desperately wants to be away from them and loves anyone else. 
I too, like Lou, have seen dogs supposedly "trained" basically by abuse and by people who are in training dogs to make money (as all trainers are, but I mean this is their main focus). 

Here's my theory, and I believe it is the key to ecollars and compulsion still existing in places such as Sit Means Sit. 

TIME IS MONEY. The more dogs you can turn over in the fastest time, the more money that can come in. You can hand over the remote and the owner is on his way. These owners are not concerned with learning how to train etc, they want a well-behaved dog, NOW, and they are willing to pay.
They don't notice how their dog is panting during the entire session and is bracing for the next correction, or some want their dog to respond immediately and be at their beck and call at all times.
Watch some SMS videos and look for the dogs panting wildly. I have seen them do a demo where I live and their dogs would be put in a down while they walked around talked to people about training. The dogs is panting like crazy and laying in a crouched position so he would be ready to jump at the next command. Obviously not relaxed, yet obviously stressed.

TIME IS MONEY Training = TIME IS EFFORT owners. 

They are drawn in by words such as 

"guaranteed" 
"quick" 
"immediate" 
"the first time, every time" 

I can say this because I worked there and that is what the clients said.
These trainers are also often paired with these forms of background experience:

police k9 handler
military k9 handler
20-30 years or more experience and have trained thousands of dogs
(I did not take this from Lou, it's from my old boss)

The years of experience is usually a treasured piece of information and a justifcation for their methods by these trainers and anyone with less is not to be taken seriously. 

If you disagree with them, you most likely will see them break out these numbers. 

Often they have lecture for new clients telling them how positive trainers are a waste of time and how many postively trained dogs they have trained again, and how to a dog, everything is "black and white". Basically, what they say is to acheive your desired training you HAVE to use compulsion or your commands will simply not work.









Lastly, I am not saying that Lou Castle is anyone of this at all. I don't know anything about him besides what he posted here. 
I can say that I have noticed some of the things he has posted does have traits of what I have seen in this style or training. 

I do not like this kind of training, I have done an internship in this kind of situation. I too, was impressed by the years of experience, and military/police dog training and was very excited to have the opportunity to work at this place. Only to find it is truely against my personal values and I could not take part in it any longer. Alas, that is a whole different posting.









I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in here and try to promote people trying positive methods first.


----------



## Tetley's Mom

MaggieRoseLee said:


> Quote: To again reference the original poster (who I think have made up their mind before even posting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ):
> 
> 
> 
> I did not make my mind up before posting. I was still debating. I made up my decision during the time I received posts and PMs.
> 
> Now, as the original poster, I again ask _again _that we _please _end this post. You all have been more than helpful and given information that has been insightful and useful with my decision. The decision has been made. Which method? Well, given this post, I have decided to keep that to myself at this time. So, since the decision has been made, this post is COMPLETE in my mind - which should matter as I was the OP.
> 
> Thank you all.
Click to expand...


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMomma
> 
> 
> MaggieRoseLee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: To again reference the original poster (who I think have made up their mind before even posting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ):
> 
> 
> 
> I did not make my mind up before posting. I was still debating. I made up my decision during the time I received posts and PMs.
> 
> Now, as the original poster, I again ask _again _that we _please _end this post. You all have been more than helpful and given information that has been insightful and useful with my decision. The decision has been made. Which method? Well, given this post, I have decided to keep that to myself at this time. So, since the decision has been made, this post is COMPLETE in my mind - which should matter as I was the OP.
> 
> Thank you all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still wish the people who did all the PM's to you hadn't been so afraid to post on the general board. Hard to learn and be open minded when 1/2 the info is behind the scenes.
> 
> And everyone who agrees with you, and that you are basing your final decision, are afraid to post here....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, glad you are still on the board and opened all the links to read/learn and THEN make up your mind.
Click to expand...


----------



## LouCastle

In response to a very wise request from a moderator to keep this to the original topic I've started a NEW thread to continue this discussion. It's a shame that the anti Ecollar folks try to stop the spread of information in this manner; that they take a thread COMPLETELY off topic, but it's what they do. 

HERE'S  the link to that new thread.


----------



## Dohhhhh

> 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.


I bet you ARE right. 20 years ago, the e-collars did not have the fine tuning they have today with the 127+ levels of stimulation. 20 years ago there probably was not trainers like Lou and like Robin McFarland who have studied and fine tuned training with e-collars to an art.


----------



## Dohhhhh

> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLee
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMomma
> 
> 
> MaggieRoseLee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: To again reference the original poster (who I think have made up their mind before even posting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ):
> 
> 
> 
> I did not make my mind up before posting. I was still debating. I made up my decision during the time I received posts and PMs.
> 
> Now, as the original poster, I again ask _again _that we _please _end this post. You all have been more than helpful and given information that has been insightful and useful with my decision. The decision has been made. Which method? Well, given this post, I have decided to keep that to myself at this time. So, since the decision has been made, this post is COMPLETE in my mind - which should matter as I was the OP.
> 
> Thank you all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still wish the people who did all the PM's to you hadn't been so afraid to post on the general board. Hard to learn and be open minded when 1/2 the info is behind the scenes.
> 
> And everyone who agrees with you, and that you are basing your final decision, are afraid to post here....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, glad you are still on the board and opened all the links to read/learn and THEN make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given some of the hostile posts of anti-ecollar folks...I can see why the OP would want to keep things behind the scenes
Click to expand...


----------



## Catu

> Originally Posted By: LouCastle
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: LicanAntaiAt the end, it's not about what tool you use and what you not, or what school of training you prefer and what you dislike, it is all about how you view dog training.
> 
> Some do see the training as a tool, they want a dog that behaves, don't mess in the house or is not rough with the kids and that is all they need and want. Others are control freaks that need their dogs to be robots that do everything they say and only what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> No dog that I've trained is like a "robot." When under command they do as they're commanded to do. The rest of the time they're like any other dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: LicanAntai But to me the training is merely the expression of the bond I share with my dog. It is about communication, not about me barking orders,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never feel a need to "bark orders." In fact I only speak loudly enough to be heard, sometimes that's a whisper, as when the dog is at my side. The only time I raise my voice is when the dog is at a distance and my voice can't otherwise be heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: LicanAntaibut about me reading what this animal is telling to me and the dog reading of me beyond the commands. So far I've not found a better way to worship mother nature than to blend my mind with the mind of one of her creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why people think that this isn't done with Ecollar training is something that I've never understood. It takes just as much thought and consideration for the dog as does any other method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: LicanAntai We can discuss once again about if e-collars are right or wrong, I can tell it is one more tool in my tool-box, but unless we share the same philosophy about dogs and training them, it's a useless discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have to share a philosophy to train dogs. There are many paths to that end. As long as we achieve results humanely, I don't care how one gets there.
Click to expand...

Did I mentioned you in any part of my post so you need to feel attacked??

Hey, I do not even mentioned the use of e-collars as robot makers, I even said I use one myself, why so defensive?.

I appreciate the knowledge in your articles, but the way you dissect other post gets tiring pretty quickly.


----------



## MrLeadFoot

Man, reading threads like this really makes me wonder how the world has gotten so far advanced from the Dark Ages.

There is a saying that most people are like sheep and follow. Were in not for key individuals throughout history, we as a species would never have advanced this far. Consider Benjamin Franklin, for example, who believed strongly about his theories on electricity. While most other folks who new what he was doing at the time undoubtedly thought is he was nuts, he went ahead and proved his theories anyway. And he was right.

Fast-forward through time and think about Louis Pasteur, and even those who intiated the break-away from England to form what is now the United States. For that matter, think of all the U.S. Presidents that changed the face of the U.S. for the better. Sure, some failed, as is expected in all facets of everything in life, but pioneers, or early adopters, are always berated... in the beginning.

Naysayers, for the most part, are typically, sheep that follow. Think about it. How many people poo-pooed the internet and avered that it was a fad? What do they do today? They read the Wall Street Journal online. Maybe some of us on this forum were those naysayers. And, naysayers often say "nay" because they are not comfortable with those things in which they have no experience.

How did we learn to swim? Surely, we feared drowning, and undoubtedly would have, had we not LEARNED about floating, holding our breath, properties of oxygen, detrimental affects of inhaling water, etc. I think that's called "education", whether it be learning about something BEFORE we try it, or via "baptism by fire".

With all that said, and with all what's been said so far on this thread alone, I think we should all step back and remember that forums like these are here to HELP us, and INFORM us. Not argue, and throw flames around.

OK, I've stated my position on the side effects of this thread, and thought I might share my experience with e-collars and similar related training.

In the mid -80s I had two personal protection dogs that lived in my house. These were not Schutzund candidates, these were purely protection dogs. In addition to basic obedience, they were trained specifically to watch people, protect properties, and attack, all on command. Off the job, they were pets, and were allowed to be silly as can be. As an aside, they never once exhibited aggressive behavior "by mistake". Later in life, one of them went on to tracking, and then added search and rescue to his repertoire.

The only problem with these two dogs was their love for the household kitchen garbage. While some camps believe in avoidance and practice the "out of sight, out of mind" theory, we needed these dogs to learn not to ransack the garbage because they were often placed in average people's homes for short periods of service, and the last thing we wanted was them upsetting these people's normal lives. FWIW, these people were already in predicaments where they were in dire need of K9 protection (don't ask), and their lives were already a bit upside down, so the more comfortable we could make them while our 100 lb. dogs were already being added to their households, the better.

We tried everything to try to get these dogs to stay away from the garbage, to no avail. We even studied their patterns. After awhile it became apparent that their favorite garbage treat was cooked chicken bones. After months of exasperating attempts to stop them, we got desperate, and got a fence charger. We placed the garbage on a piece of wet carpet. We wrapped about 6 inches of bare wire around two big chicken bones, placed them in the garbage, and connected the wires to the charger, which was placed remotely outside of the building so the dogs would not hear it in operation. We left the premises in cars, then returned quietly on foot to "spy".

The first one to hit the garbage was the female. She grabbed the first chicken bone and immediately dropped it. She did not jump, she did not yelp, she simply spit it out and sat down, ears perked, focus on the bone. After a few seconds she tried again, and again dropped it. She backed up two feet and sat there.

Next came the male. He grabbed the other chicken bone, let out a tiny little yelp and dropped the bone. He shook his head once and walked away, but kept circling. Finally he couldn't take it any more, or maybe he had formulated a plan. He suddenly lunged forward, grabbed one of the bones, and immediately started crunching it up. We thought he was nuts. We could see his head jerk slightly as the pulses of electricity went down the wire, but he kept going. It soon became apparent to us that he was purposely breaking the bone to get it loose from the wire. Sure enough, when he had the bone broken into small pieces on the floor, he dropped the wire, and ate the pieces.

The female sat there and watched without moving. When the make was done with the first bone, he picked up the second bone and did the same thing. We were shocked to witness this, apparently more shocked than the male seemed to have been, anyway.

On our second stage of this so-called training, we separated the two and did the same thing. We soon discovered that the female could somehow detect whenever there was current flowing, as she would not touch the bone if the charger was on, yet she'd devour the bone off the wire if the charger was off.

The male, on the other hand, quickly learned that he could tolerate the charger for the amount of time it took him to break up a chicken bone enough to get it off the wire and eat it.

OK, so the points here are these:

1) By the actions of the female, we knew that sometimes dogs are WAY smarter than we give them credit for, which in turn means if they really want to, they can avoid corrections.

2) But, they have to WANT to avoid corrections, as seen by the male's behavior. He preferred to take the correction to get the bone anyway. My God, man, this was a fence charger! 

As pointed out above in this thread, today's e-collars are much more advanced than that '85 fence charger was. Dogtra makes a line with a rheostat where you can dial up the power from nothing to what seems like something that will make anyone drop or stop anything. Here's how I know.

Initially, I was totally against e-collar training until my neighbor got one for his hunting dog and achieved great results with it. I went over to see how it worked. He had the Tritronics Sport Basic with has essenitally 10 levels. I held the prongs against the skin on my left palm. He set it on 1 and buzzed me. I felt nothing. He stepped up to 2. Again, I felt nothing. 3 and 4, I still felt nothing. At level 5 I finally noticed the stimulation, which was EXACTLY the same feeling as the electro-stimulation for healing you get at physical therapy. It did not hurt at all, in fact it was very faint. At level 6, it was stronger, but still not painful. It actually felt good. So, I said, "Hey, Brian, I'm shocked (no pun) at how mild this things is. I thought it would be stronger, thus, cruel to use on the dog. Is this all it is? I wonder what it's like on 10." To which he replied, "I don't know, I've never set it on 10." So, I said, "Let me see what 10 feels like." So he set it on 10 and used the "nick" setting which pulses for something like 1/40 of a second. Holy Smoke!!!! It felt like every muscle in my body spasmed for a quick 1/40 of a second. Turns out that the steps up from 6 - 10 were not as gradual at 1 - 6!!!!









Anyway, here's my point: When used correctly, these collars serve to get the attention of the dog. You don't go putting the thing on 10, zap the dog and tell it "No". Some of you are right, that's how Jospeh Mengler would use it. All you want to do is get their attention.

Disclaimer: I have no idea who Lou Castle is (sorry, Lou). However, I suspect that that's how he might use it. 

I now own a collar. I chose the Dogtra model because it does not have steps like the Tritronics models, so it doesn't "jump" up in strength, it is infinitely gradual in increase because of the use of a rheostat.

Like I said above, you typically use the stimulation to get the dog's attention. Do you have to put it on "high"? Heck, No! It's not meant to take the place of your normal training. You only want them to notice something because that gets their attention. I'm sure everone has experienced times when their dog becomes focused on a distraction, so much so that they can't hear you or don't notice you. For sure, GSDs with their naturally high prey drive typically get in this state. You can repeat yourself, yell, tug their leash, kick them (just kidding), if you like. Or, you can nick them with a stimulation level that's just high enough to break their focus. They look at you and go, "Huh? Did you say something?"

Remember the male eating a chicken bone...connected to a fence charger???? Do you really think a little physical therapy electro-stimulation is going to hurt your dog?

FWIW, there have been times with my dog where she's focused on something that the "normal" level of stimulation I use doesn't do a darned thing. I gradually raise it until she notices it. I've even had times where she's hyper-focused on a distraction at my side, and I've turned the unit higher and I was surpsied to actually see the skin on her neck twitch. But, she never noticed the stimulation. No, it's not usually that high, but, the point I make is that these devices are absolutely wonderful to break their focus and get their attention.

I suppose you could use it to severly punish your dog, if you're a complelte idiot.

It is also NOT a substitute for my regular positive reinforcement training; in fact, I use it in conjunction with.

Will it work for negative corrections of serious offenses? Maybe, maybe not, it certainly wouldn't have worked on the male in the story above.

But, it has already saved my dog's life once. At the park playing fetch, the ball went out into the street, just as a young driver came speeding by in a 25mph zone at about 40mph. My dog was about to chase the ball. I called her just as she was moving forward, and stimulated her a split-second after I called her name. She looked at me, and I commanded her to Stay. She stopped in her tracks. Now, I would've zapped her at full strength if I had to because she would've been killed. But, when I looked down at the remote in my hand, I saw that it was only slightly above the level I normally use to train with. Thankfully, I had been training her with the unit for some time prior to that day, so she knew I was trying to get her attention. Look at my sig, you'll see she just turned 6 months today, and I've already been using the unit. Smartly, of course.

Now, note that this particular dog has always been exceptional (in my experience) with obedience, but I taught her to know the e-collar to that I can help ensure that she is responsive. That's it.

And, like someone else on here said, it's simply another tool. If you want to use it, great. If not, great. But, don't reprimand someone because they do. Do you also look down on people for using leashes and choke collars? I don't, even though my dog at only 6 months of age is better off leash than she is on leash.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFootIt is also NOT a substitute for my regular positive reinforcement training; in fact, I use it in conjunction with.


I think if you carefully read the so-called anti-ecollar posts, that's really all they're saying. Some people prefer to use an ecollar exclusively, to train any obedience skill. Other people believe it's not necessary to use aversives for most training, but do believe there is a place for them. Many of those people would, and have, used an ecollar under certain circumstances. I still don't get what's so objectionable about that viewpoint.











> Quote:But, it has already saved my dog's life once. At the park playing fetch, the ball went out into the street, just as a young driver came speeding by in a 25mph zone at about 40mph. My dog was about to chase the ball. I called her just as she was moving forward, and stimulated her a split-second after I called her name. She looked at me, and I commanded her to Stay. She stopped in her tracks. Now, I would've zapped her at full strength if I had to because she would've been killed.


That is exactly the kind of thing that many "positive" trainers feel is a perfectly acceptable use of ecollars. Getting a really reliable recall off leash under distractions can save your dog's life. I don't think you'll find many people here reprimanding someone using an ecollar in that fashion.


----------



## Branca's Mom

I don't see <u>anyone</u> here saying e collars don't have a time and a place. 

I think most here who are _wrongly_ being called _anti_-ecollar are saying <u>they see a time and a place for it</u>. 

Just not for: 
1) young puppies 
2) "teaching" basic obedience

*And....That is all I have to say about that.*


----------



## MrLeadFoot

Are you guys kidding me?







There are indeed several posts on this thread where people have said they are dead set against it.

The OP simply asked for some feedback/recommendations on the Sit Means Sit training. The OP did NOT ask anyone what their opinion was on e-collar training.

I am by no means a







-disturber, but it sure disturbed me that people would be so quick to smother this thread with their opinions.

Further, there is nothing wrong with using an e-collar for basic obedience. In fact, I wish I had used it earlier as my attention-getter. That would have only served to instill more deeply into my dog that the stimulation was just that, a way to get her attention.

Because she was already strong on obedience, I actually had to teach her what the stimulation itself meant. On the other hand, it could very well be that the extra effort is why she's so responsive to it. Maybe had I not taken the time to educate her as to what it was for, and ASSUMED that she got it, it may have turned out differently, and she may have associated it with "Gulp! I better do what he says or he'll electrocute me on setting 127," instead of the "Huh? Were you talking to me?" response she has now.


----------



## Branca's Mom

> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFootAre you guys kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are indeed several posts on this thread where people have said they are dead set against it.


I'm sorry, perhaps I missed it, with all the quoting going on, I couldn't read the whole thread, hurt my poor little brain.... Please correct me by pointing it out


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFootAre you guys kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are indeed several posts on this thread where people have said they are dead set against it.


There are people who said they are against using it ON A PUPPY.

There are people who said they are against using it AS A FIRST LEVEL TRAINING TOOL.

There are several people who said they wouldn't use it on a puppy but that they HAVE used it for other reasons.

Not ONE person said they were 100% against using an electric shock collar for ANY reason.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote: I don't see anyone here saying e collars don't have a time and a place.
> 
> I think most here who are wrongly being called anti-ecollar are saying they see a time and a place for it.
> 
> Just not for:
> 1) young puppies
> 2) "teaching" basic obedience


That is exactly what I meant to post, so if what people read was different, that's due to my poor writing skills.

I love and use my e-collars, had them on both my dogs today. So I am NOT anti-e-collar. Really. Just that there is a time and place and not for puppies.

And if I could only use the positive training and it worked as well, then THAT is the method I would always choose FIRST.

And of course..


> Quote:Are you guys kidding me? There are indeed several posts on this thread where people have said they are dead set against it.


that's going to happen. (though off hand don't remember who is 'dead set 100% against using it ever on any dog, though some may be and that is their right!) HEY, let's talk clicker training (which I love...) you think everyone else would agree? Nopers. Does that mean they can state that? Yes. Does it mean I agree? NO WAY!


----------



## MrLeadFoot

No offense intended to the posters of the following posts, but others have asked for the posts to be pointed out.

Post #922600 
Post #924155

Further, if I misinterpreted your standpoints, I apologize, but, please note I poke my nose in because the OP's original Topic seemed to have become one of something else entirely.

Now I see why, for the most part, the OP politely excused themselves from this topic. This is a classic example of how easy a thread can get hijacked into another issue. The moderators did the right thing by asking for the e-collar pros/cons issues that arose from this thread to be moved to another separate topic, and I apologize for myself having revived the WRONG issues of this thread, when I should have posted my experience on the other topic.


----------



## MrLeadFoot

OK, looks like I fell into the trap and became a feces-disturber. My sincere apologies to the empassioned folks that posted on this thread. Please disregard my posts, except this one. I was completely wrong about everything I said. Again, I apologize, and will do my best to not meddle in others' business again.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote:OK, looks like I fell into the trap and became a feces-disturber. My sincere apologies to the empassioned folks that posted on this thread. Please disregard my posts, except this one. I was completely wrong about everything I said. Again, I apologize, and will do my best to not meddle in others' business again.










I thought your postings were informational.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFootNo offense intended to the posters of the following posts, but others have asked for the posts to be pointed out.
> 
> Post #922600


Actually, that was Melanie, who has stated numerous times that she HAS used an e-collar, and would use one again - but NOT for basic obedience or on puppies, just like Tammy said. 

And the other post was MTAussie, and not to speak for her, but what *I* got from her post was that she was talking about a specific _kind_ of e-collar training. Her reference to not liking "this kind of training" was in direct reference to places like Sit Means Sit, where e-collars are used to teach, again, basic obedience skills, and are used on young dogs. Places that tell clients "positive trainers are a waste of time" and that "to achieve your desired training you HAVE to use compulsion or your commands will simply not work."

Now, she may also be dead set against e-collars under any circumstances, I have no idea. But that's not what she said in her post.


----------



## MTAussie

Cassidys Mom, Thank YOU!! You actually read my post!









Again, ecollars have their place. NOT under 6 months and NOT for basic training. IMHO of course


----------



## MTAussie

PS I have a tri-tronics collar


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

> Originally Posted By: MTAussieCassidys Mom, Thank YOU!! You actually read my post!


I did! And I'm glad I interpreted it correctly!


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

> Originally Posted By: MTAussiePS I have a tri-tronics collar


Well see, there you go - not one person on this thread said they were dead set against e-collars! AND several "positive" trainers on the thread have used them.


----------



## MTAussie

You saved my sanity!


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: LicanAntai Did I mentioned you in any part of my post


Nope. 



> Originally Posted By: LicanAntai so you need to feel attacked??


You said that some, "are control freaks that need their dogs to be robots that do everything they say and only what they say." 

I responded, "No dog that I've trained is like a "robot." When under command they do as they're commanded to do. The rest of the time they're like any other dog." What about that statement makes you think I "feel attacked?" 



> Originally Posted By: LicanAntai Hey, I do not even mentioned the use of e-collars as robot makers


The discussion is about Ecollars. Had you been referring to some other tool as "making robots" you'd have mentioned it. 



> Originally Posted By: LicanAntai why so defensive?


What makes you think I'm defensive? You made a statements and I countered it. How is that "defensive?" 



> Originally Posted By: LicanAntai I appreciate the knowledge in your articles, but the way you dissect other post gets tiring pretty quickly.


Yaknow what REALLY gets tiring? Listening to people who think they're qualified to comment on how others write! Everyone's a critic. At least they think they are! 

Yaknow WHAT ELSE REALLY gets tiring? People jumping to conclusions. E.g. you thinking that I "feel attacked" or that I'm "defensive."


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom
> Other people believe it's not necessary to use aversives for most training


Anyone who believe that they can train a dog without using aversives either is fooling themselves, lying or does not understand the definition of an "aversive."



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom I still don't get what's so objectionable about that viewpoint.


What's objectionable is that some of you folks keep saying it. It's IMPOSSIBLE. I've shown this many times. If you'll tell us in detail how you teach a dog to sit and recall, I'll be happy to show you where it is in your specific case. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom That is exactly the kind of thing that many "positive" trainers feel is a perfectly acceptable use of ecollars. Getting a really reliable recall off leash under distractions can save your dog's life. I don't think you'll find many people here reprimanding someone using an ecollar in that fashion.


I see no reason to waste time in training a recall that's NOT reliable only to have to go back and do it again so that it is reliable.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: Branca's MomI don't see <u>anyone</u> here saying e collars don't have a time and a place.
> 
> I think most here who are _wrongly_ being called _anti_-ecollar are saying <u>they see a time and a place for it</u>.
> 
> Just not for:
> 1) young puppies
> 2) "teaching" basic obedience
> 
> *And....That is all I have to say about that.*


I see no reason NOT to use one for " 'teaching' basic obedience." One needn't oppose EVERY use of an Ecollar to be anti–Ecollar.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: MTAussie
> Again, ecollars have their place. NOT under 6 months and NOT for basic training. IMHO of course


Agree with the first part. Disagree with the second.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomWell see, there you go - not one person on this thread said they were dead set against e-collars! AND several "positive" trainers on the thread have used them.


Who cares? Those folks have made very general anti-Ecollar statements, even while they said they used them. The general mood of those posts was anti-Ecollar even with those folks giving very narrow conditions under which they'd use them. One does not have to oppose Ecollars for EVERY use to be anti-Ecollar.


----------



## AbbyK9




----------



## IliamnasQuest

> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFootNo offense intended to the posters of the following posts, but others have asked for the posts to be pointed out.
> 
> Post #922600


Actually there was no place in that where I said I was adamantly against the use of the shock collar. In fact, in my previous post I started out stating that I felt there were appropriate times to use one.

It's truly interesting to see how much misinterpretation is being done in these threads by those who DO want to use shock collars for ALL their training - which is my only real disagreement. I've been misquoted numerous times, words taken completely out of context, accused of lying and misrepresenting my background, been referred to as a religious zealot, "holier-than-thou" and that my beliefs in training - even though I do quite well with my dogs and with those who have taken my classes - are nonsense. And all of this just because I want people to consider that there are other ways to train *basic behaviors* than to rely on a tool that works only because it makes the dog uncomfortable by using an electrical shock.

I just have one request. If anyone chooses to respond to my post, please copy a paragraph in its entirety when quoting and don't add in emphasis (bold text or colors) where it isn't already. Those are blatant attempts to take things out of context and to create meanings that aren't there. It's dishonest and underhanded. And to me, if a person chooses to do that in order to attempt to make their point valid, then they're really dragging bottom. A good method of training doesn't need subterfuge in order to be promoted or upheld. 

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## Dohhhhh

> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFootNo offense intended to the posters of the following posts, but others have asked for the posts to be pointed out.
> 
> Post #922600
> Post #924155
> 
> Further, if I misinterpreted your standpoints, I apologize, but, please note I poke my nose in because the OP's original Topic seemed to have become one of something else entirely.
> 
> Now I see why, for the most part, the OP politely excused themselves from this topic. This is a classic example of how easy a thread can get hijacked into another issue. The moderators did the right thing by asking for the e-collar pros/cons issues that arose from this thread to be moved to another separate topic, and I apologize for myself having revived the WRONG issues of this thread, when I should have posted my experience on the other topic.


You could not have posted in the other thread...it was shut down...prematurely in my opinion.


----------



## Dohhhhh

> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFootOK, looks like I fell into the trap and became a feces-disturber. My sincere apologies to the empassioned folks that posted on this thread. Please disregard my posts, except this one. I was completely wrong about everything I said. Again, I apologize, and will do my best to not meddle in others' business again.


I am sorry that you feel that way. I enjoyed reading your posts, learning of your experiences and would enjoy reading more of them. Hope you change your mind and continue to post...if not on this thread, then on others.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestIt's truly interesting to see how much misinterpretation is being done in these threads by those who DO want to use shock collars for ALL their training - which is my only real disagreement. I've been misquoted numerous times, words taken completely out of context, accused of lying and misrepresenting my background, been referred to as a religious zealot, "holier-than-thou" and that my beliefs in training - even though I do quite well with my dogs and with those who have taken my classes - are nonsense. And all of this just because I want people to consider that there are other ways to train *basic behaviors* than to rely on a tool that works only because it makes the dog uncomfortable by using an electrical shock.
> 
> I just have one request. If anyone chooses to respond to my post, please copy a paragraph in its entirety when quoting and don't add in emphasis (bold text or colors) where it isn't already. Those are blatant attempts to take things out of context and to create meanings that aren't there. It's dishonest and underhanded. And to me, if a person chooses to do that in order to attempt to make their point valid, then they're really dragging bottom. A good method of training doesn't need subterfuge in order to be promoted or upheld.


So true. In response to my first post on the other thread, Lou quoted one tiny sentence out of a paragraph and then responded to it as if it stood alone, completely ignoring the context of the sentence in the point I was trying to make, and also changing the meaning of the sentence. Just so he could argue against it. That's just pointless arguing for the sake of arguing, serving no purpose other than to "win". And what's especially ironic is that he went on to accuse ME of "misquoting" and "spinning"! 

This was the post in question:



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomAh - 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.


His response?



> Originally Posted By: LouCastle
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomWhy wait for need?
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is a need for a reliable recall and stationary command for EVERY dog!
Click to expand...

Well, duh! I never said otherwise. My post wasn't about whether or not every dog NEEDS a reliable recall, it's whether or not every dog (or trainer) NEEDS to use an e-collar to train one. He apparently thinks they do, many people would disagree with that. And I'm pretty sure he knew EXACTLY what I meant when he chose to selectively quote my post. But it certainly wasn't the only time, he went on to do it over and over again, to my posts and others, deliberately quoting out of context, just like he accuses us of doing. It seems clear that he won't tolerate any disagreement as simply a difference in training styles, it's all an attack on e-collar trainers, some nefarious plot by "zealots". And WE are always WRONG! Because in order to NOT be an "e-collar basher" we must not place ANY restrictions on the circumstances under which we'd use them: 



> Originally Posted By: LouCastle One does not have to oppose Ecollars for EVERY use to be anti-Ecollar.


That's an interesting interpretation, but he's certainly entitled to that opinion.


----------



## MrLeadFoot

> Originally Posted By: LouCastleThose folks have made very general anti-Ecollar statements, even while they said they used them. The general mood of those posts was anti-Ecollar even with those folks giving very narrow conditions under which they'd use them. One does not have to oppose Ecollars for EVERY use to be anti-Ecollar.


That's EXACTLY how they read, to me.

IMHO, again *IMHO *, words are simply words, but when I read the posts, probably incorrectly, it sure sounded like people were dead set against them, even though they said things like, "under dire circumstances" (not verbatim). When I read the posts IN CONTEXT, those types of statements were merely words. Of course, I obviously interpreted them incorrectly (as I previously stated and apologized for, and recanted), but talk about cruel.

If you don't use a collar for basic obedience as well (and I'm not saying they need to be used for ALL obedience, or ALL the time for that matter, then under those "dire circumstances" you'd HAVE to be cruel because the dog wouldn't understand what a normal stimulation level was, and therefore would not understand if it receives a timualtion under dire circumstances. Thus, you'd end up HAVING to zap them hard, just to get their attention.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

> Originally Posted By: LouCastle
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomWell see, there you go - not one person on this thread said they were dead set against e-collars! AND several "positive" trainers on the thread have used them.
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? Those folks have made very general anti-Ecollar statements, even while they said they used them. The general mood of those posts was anti-Ecollar even with those folks giving very narrow conditions under which they'd use them. One does not have to oppose Ecollars for EVERY use to be anti-Ecollar.
Click to expand...

To quote, well, YOU: Who cares? The fact that people who prefer to use positive reinforcement as their primary training method can, and do, also sometimes use e-collars, shows there's some common ground on this issue. Again, why isn't that good enough? Why do we need to agree with you 100%? We don't expect you to agree with us 100%, at least I certainly don't. 

I'm still puzzled by this apparent mentality that unless everyone agrees COMPLETELY, they're TOTALLY against you. It's absurd, and frankly, more than a little amusing.


----------



## IliamnasQuest

> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFootIf you don't use a collar for basic obedience as well (and I'm not saying they need to be used for ALL obedience, or ALL the time for that matter, then under those "dire circumstances" you'd HAVE to be cruel because the dog wouldn't understand what a normal stimulation level was, and therefore would not understand if it receives a timualtion under dire circumstances. Thus, you'd end up HAVING to zap them hard, just to get their attention.


Actually that's not the case at all (and I even think that the regular e-collar trainers would say this, or something similar). You teach an adult dog, taught with ANY method previously, how to respond to a low level shock in the same way you would teach a dog with no training. You determine the lowest possible stimulation that gives you the tiniest of response (a flick of the ear, etc.) and then you teach the dog how to stop that stimulation. Just because a dog has been taught using +R doesn't mean they can't learn to avoid a low level stim just like any other dog.

You don't just slap a shock collar on a dog and shock it at a high level when it does something you don't like. Regardless of when or why you start a dog with the collar, you do the same low level stimulation training so that the dog understands how HE can stop the shock.

I will fully admit that I don't like shocking my dog, regardless of the level. I also don't like yanking on a corrective collar, or other means of correction. I don't like creating uncomfortable or painful situations for my dog. So I do all the training I can without those. And before I use something more aversive, I weigh how important it is to me and how important I think it is to my dog. Earning titles, for me, is not important enough to use a shock collar or a prong collar (I never use choke chains, so they're completely out of the question). The only time I've found a need for a shock collar was to solidy recalls on dogs that would occasionally give into the temptation to take off - sometimes after moose - when playing off-leash. I had the choice of keeping them on-leash all the time, or finding a way to control the off-leash better. 

Teaching of the basics - sit, down, stay, all tricks, retrieving - I have been able to teach with a minimal of aversives. If I can do it without shock or prong, why would I *<u>choose</u>* to use those unneccesarily?

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> It's truly interesting to see how much misinterpretation is being done in these threads by those who DO want to use shock collars for ALL their training - which is my only real disagreement.


NO ONE has said that they want to use Ecollars for ALL training. Since you seem to disagree, please show us the posts. As you said, "It's truly interesting to see how much misinterpretation is being done …" 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I've been misquoted numerous times


See above. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest words taken completely out of context


I've been told that I'm being quoted, asked for the source of that quote, only to be greeted with silence. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest accused of lying


Don't think so. Show us the post. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest and misrepresenting my background


Ditto. In fact what has happened is that your background has been shown in context. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest been referred to as a religious zealot, "holier-than-thou"


Don't think so, at least not by me. I'm pretty sure that those comments were made generally in reference to anti Ecollar people. Since you keep telling us that you're NOT anti Ecollar they would not apply to you. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest and that my beliefs in training - even though I do quite well with my dogs and with those who have taken my classes - are nonsense.


Some are. For example, your claim to put off using aversive until they're necessary. Of course the truth is that you use aversives (as does everyone) right form the start. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And all of this just because I want people to consider that there are other ways to train *basic behaviors* than to rely on a tool that works only because it makes the dog uncomfortable by using an electrical shock.


Quite the understatement there. It's NOT just that you want people to consider it, it's that you want people NOT TO USE Ecollars FOR ANY BASIC BEHAVIORS. That's a far cry from just wanting people to "consider it." 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I just have one request. If anyone chooses to respond to my post, please copy a paragraph in its entirety when quoting and *don't add in emphasis (bold text or <span style="color: #FF0000">colors</span>) where it isn't already. <span style="color: #FF0000">* [Emphasis added] </span>


ROFL. When quoting posts I'll emphasize what I feel is important and do so in a way that I think shows it best. As long as I show that I'm the one adding the emphasis, it's perfectly acceptable. 

If I think that breaking up a paragraph into it's component sentences is the best way to show what I'm talking about, I'll do that too. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Those are blatant attempts to take things out of context and to create meanings that aren't there.


Nonsense. It's done to show exactly what my responses are referring to. It's a common debate technique. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest It's dishonest and underhanded.


Nah, it's neither. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest And to me, if a person chooses to do that in order to attempt to make their point valid, then they're really dragging bottom.


Thanks for sharing your opinion. Of course we've seen that you do it sometimes too. But I guess it's OK when YOU do it?! And of course this is yet ANOTHER of your many attempts to try and discredit those who are arguing against you! LOL. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest A good method of training doesn't need subterfuge in order to be promoted or upheld.


Except for your longer posts virtually ALL of your post is quoted when this is done. The context is kept, the information is there. These things you discuss here have nothing to do with training. and only have to do with the details of the debate. Interesting how you try to merge them. 

All of this is just your attempt to muddy the waters.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: TracieYou could not have posted in the other thread...it was shut down...prematurely in my opinion.


I too think it was closed prematurely. Lots of comments were made alleging wrongdoing and the thread was closed before they could be responded to. 

It now appears that some are continuing that discussion back here, in spite of Mod's requests to take it elsewhere. It seems that the mods have approved of this.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: Sarah'sSitaIt 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


A very insightful post. Thanks Sarah.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> Lou, it appears your goal is now to discredit me as much as possible.


That was the intent of your "vested interest" argument. Now it's come home to roost. 

No one has accused you of lying about your titles. If you disagree, show us the posts. I've accepted your claims of titles. 

But to summarize, the AKC has SIX tiers of titles. You've earned some of the lowest ones. You call that "some success." Let us know when you achieve "some *real *success" perhaps in the form of an OTCh. Lots of people play at OB for years, never achieving the higher titles. They've achieved "some success" too. I merely detailed your accomplishments. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> 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.


In other words you've not repeated your titles often enough to earn the higher ones. You could have squeezed by, qualifying at the lowest scores possible to earn the titles you have. The higher titles have the same movements as the ones you've done, but earning them shows that the dog's behavior is habitual and successful. So far, you've not shown that by earning those titles. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest 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.


So you used compulsive methods on her and they caused stress. THEN you went to the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) and SHE STILL SUFFERED STRESS! 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> At one time, I DID have a vested interest. At this point, I don't.


You still do. As YOU said, there are more interests than just fiscal. In this case it's your reputation on the line. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest 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.


Except that I write off NONE of those things. Face it Melanie, you're wrong and you're just grasping at straws. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest As far as the ecollar that I bought from you - yes, it's the one that YOU TOLD ME had 100 levels of stim ..


You just never bothered to listen to what you were told. Apparently you knew it all already. It has MARKINGS that show 100 settings, but it has 127 levels of stim. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest 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


You probably thought you were doing something to improve the method. You weren't. I've measured the results doing what you did. They were POORER. Probably because they distracted the dog form the situation and focused him on you. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest 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*


Except that I DO NOT SAY to use treats OR a long line. So you *DID NOT *follow my protocol, contrary to what you say! Interesting that you THINK you did, when by your own statements it's clear that you did not. Obviously you missed the second paragraph, HERE.  



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> 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?


Anyone who's used an Ecollar has pressed the button at the wrong moment. Using low level stim means that if you do this, NOTHING serious happens. It's just not that aversive to make an impression with a single, or even several _wrong _button presses. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest 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.


"Not everyone who owns a [clicker] is going to use [it properly] and not everyone is going to get the concept of when/how to use [the clicker] properly." 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I don't know what questions I've missed


Skipping or skimming posts will do that. Earlier I wrote,


> Quote: 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?*


 And if not, why not. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I can heel my dogs (well, not the pup) through crowds of people off-leash too.


Earlier I wrote,


> Quote: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.


That's just a LITTLE BIT beyond merely "heeling through crowds" isn't it? 




> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Okay, is that enough? Please - no more insinuations about the titles my dogs have earned.


There were no such "insinuations." I gave you credit for all your titles. They just weren't the high titles I was expecting from someone who claimed "some success."


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestSarah, 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.


No that's NOT all you're doing. The phrase, "lazy owner" has been pointed in our direction. People have insinuated that we don't love our dogs as much as you folks do. It's been implied that we are not as kind to our dogs as you folks are. I've been personally attacked with the lie that I have a vested interest in Ecollars. 

Please don't insult us with this "all we're doing" nonsense. What you're doing is quite obvious. The general message is that Ecollars should not be used AT ALL except for life threatening issues. It's NOT just that you want other methods used for the basics. 

But the fact is that "the basics" _the recall especially, _ IS life threatening if it's not reliable. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest 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.


Let's just call this an error, instead of what I think it truly is. NO ONE has said that the Ecollar should be used for "all training." If you disagree, show us the post. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestMy mantra - and that of many others - is "positive first".


My mantra is "results achieved humanely." 

Usually my advice when someone asks for advice with an OB problem, most often the recall is 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


But even with the advice to try your methods FIRST, you can't let it stand. If your methods were as effective as you pretend, NO ONE would ever get to the Ecollar. But we know from the number of threads that begin, "HELP he won't come when I call" that they don't. Not everyone can apply them properly, and they don't work on all dogs.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom
> 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.


I find your comment to be incredibly rude! A good example of ANOTHER personal attack. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomHe invites you to define your success by describing your various titles and achievements (apparently you haven't been bragging enough!)


Melanie presents her credential in the signature line of every post that she writes. It's her claim to fame, her credibility. I just thought I'd show what all those letters really meant. She's not even passed the halfway mark of the various levels of titles set up by the AKC. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Momfor what appears to be the sole purpose of picking them apart and dismissing them as paltry and meaningless.


If you think they're "paltry" and "meaningless," so be it. I don't think so. But then neither do I think that they show a huge degree of training ability. They show _some _ as in her statement, "some success" but that's all. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom (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!


Conveniently overlooking the fact that they're included in EVERY post that she writes. LOL. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom 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


I'm sorry that you folks have built yourselves up to be infallible only to have me come along and show where you're wrong. I've done so repeatedly. 

You pretend that you "put off using aversives until they're necessary." The simple and obvious truth is that all you're doing is overlooking the reality that you're using aversives at just about every turn. Some pretend that they've not using punishment (not in this thread, [yet, lol]) at all). And every time that someone has described in detail how they train I've shown where they DO use it. 

Melanie says she's trained my crittering protocol "per my website" but then we find out that she "freelanced" my protocol. 

If you weren't wrong about things so often, I couldn't point it out. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom
> 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.


Stop saying things that are wrong and I won't be able to do this. 



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





> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom I've actually read every word in your posts, even the long ones.


Me too. I think that if someone goes to the trouble to comment in a thread that I'm involved in, the least I can do is to read what they've written. But there are some rude individuals who don't bother. For some reason, probably as a personal attack or to discredit others, they feel a need to tell us about it! ROFL.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: CastlemaidUsually 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!


Thanks for the kind words



> Originally Posted By: CastlemaidMelanie 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!


Perhaps you can give us a reason that she started down the "vested interest" road EXCEPT for the purpose of deliberately trying to discredit me, I can't think of a valid reason for it. It certainly has nothing to do with the use of Ecollars.


----------



## LouCastle

> 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!





> Originally Posted By: TracieShame 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_."


Good point. I try and treat each thread as a new experience until and unless people start saying things that are in contradiction to what's gone on before. In this case the "vested interest" statement carried over from the previous thread and needed to be addressed. Now it's been carried back here. 

People sometimes try and win these discussions by discrediting the opposing parties. They have no real arguments of fact (notice that my requests for links to scientific studies showing claimed "Ecollar damage" or "problems" have gone completely unfilled) and so that's where they think they can make points. That usually results in it coming back at them, with interest.


----------



## LouCastle

Earlier IliamnasQuest wrote


> Quote: It's truly interesting to see how much misinterpretation is being done in these threads





> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom So true.


No, not even a little. I've addressed this a few posts above. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom*<span style="color: #FF0000">In response to my first post </span> on the other thread, Lou quoted one tiny sentence out of a paragraph and then responded to it as if it stood alone, * completely ignoring the context of the sentence in the point I was trying to make, and also changing the meaning of the sentence. Just so he could argue against it. That's just pointless arguing for the sake of arguing, serving no purpose other than to "win". And what's especially ironic is that he went on to accuse ME of "misquoting" and "spinning"! [Emphasis added]


I'm sorry CM you're QUITE WRONG. Let's just call this an error and NOT a deliberate lie. Let's look at that thread. 

You FIRST post in that thread, WAS NOT AS YOU'VE REPRESENTED IT in this post. 

HERE'S your FIRST POST. It was #924301,


> Quote: Another e-collar discussion. Yay.


That post appears on page one of that thread, nine posts down. I did not respond to that post. So the first few words of your comment, just above, are WRONG! HERE's  the link to page one of that thread. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom This was the post in question:


CM now quotes her SECOND POST in that thread; NOT her first as she alleged. It was #925068 and it was the first post on Page two. [NOTE: In this post she's omitted the first paragraph, that she quoted from gsdlove212]. HERE's  the link to page two of that discussion so you can see the post she refers to. 

CM now quotes the entire first paragraph of that post and says that I quoted ONLY FOUR WORDS from it. 

She says that I ONLY quoted this,


> Quote: Why wait for need?


The only problem with this is that it's COMPLETELY UNTRUE. But I'll be polite. Let's not call it a lie, let's just call it _an error. _ 

My response to her SECOND post (which she claimed improperly was her first) is on page two of that thread can be seen RIGHT HERE.  It's post #925535. It's the 14th post on that page (if you're using the forum default display of 25 posts per page). 

ANYONE CAN SEE THAT I QUOTED VIRTUALLY EVERY WORD of CM'S POST (except for her quotation of gsdlove) and commented on MANY parts of it. NOT as she's just claimed, "one tiny sentence out of a paragraph …" 


> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom But it certainly wasn't the only time, he went on to do it over and over again, to my posts and others, deliberately quoting out of context, just like he accuses us of doing.


No CM, just as with this one post, AS I'VE shown, you're completely WRONG. 

I suppose that it's possible that there's something going on with CM's computer or her settings that does not allow her to see what I actually wrote, but I seriously doubt it. 

I make this allowance ONLY because I find it inconceivable that someone would make such statements KNOWING that I'd reveal the truth, including directions as to how to check these comments out. But she did and WHY she did it is a mystery. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom It seems clear that he won't tolerate any disagreement as simply a difference in training styles


You folks don't, why should I? I don't recall you folks EVER letting a suggestion to use an Ecollar stand without launching into this entire discussion AGAIN. Here, it was so far off topic that a moderator had to ask that it be stopped! 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom it's all an attack on e-collar trainers


Yep. Need some proof? I've been personally attacked in the weak and WRONG "vested interest" argument. Those statements are ONLY made for ONE PURPOSE, to try and discredit me. I responded by showing which of us really has the vested interest and which of us can easily be discredited. One of you folks have said that those who use an Ecollar are "lazy owners." Those aren't attacks on the use of the Ecollar. Those are personal attacks on other forum members. I don't bring these things up until you folks are disingenuous and claim that you don't do this. 

You folks simply won't stick to the topic. You have to branch out into personal attacks. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Momsome nefarious plot by "zealots".


Not really. It's just what zealots do. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom And WE are always WRONG!


Not always. But when you claim that "all positive training" is possible; when you pretend that you "put off the use of aversives until they're necessary" you ARE WRONG. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom Because in order to NOT be an "e-collar basher" we must not place ANY restrictions on the circumstances under which we'd use them:


Such nonsense. I place restrictions on when I'd use them, in this case NOT on a dog under six months of age. 

These are commonly known as Straw Man arguments CM. They're effective until they're pointed out for what they are, a fallacious debate technique.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom
> The fact that people who prefer to use positive reinforcement as their primary training method can, and do, also sometimes use e-collars, shows there's some common ground on this issue. Again, why isn't that good enough?


It's fine with me. Except that you folks won't let it go. You bring up the ENTIRE argument again virtually EVERY time that an Ecollar is suggested! Along with all the threats of "damage done, serious problems," and all the rest. Of course when they're asked to provide scientific studies to back up these comments, all you can hear is the crickets! 

And BTW I use "positive reinforcement as [my] primary training method". Each button press of an Ecollar gives punishment and each button release (they have to occur together) brings reinforcement. That's a 50:50 relationship between punishment and reinforcement. As I've said many times, I also use praise, petting, rubbing, toys, tug games, bumping or anything else that works with the dog at hand. That makes my use of the Ecollar, "primarily positive." There's MUCH MORE reinforcement than punishment. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom Why do we need to agree with you 100%? We don't expect you to agree with us 100%, at least I certainly don't.


I don't require that ANYONE agree with me. That's just silly as I have no way to force anyone to do so. 

As an example of what you folks do, YOU'VE not argued a single point about the Ecollar in your last posts. It's ALL arguing about arguing. 

Notice that in my responses, while I'm replying to you, I'm ALSO talking about the Ecollar, as in my paragraph just a few graphs back. 

Wondering if you folks will ever get off this horse and get back to discussing Ecollars?


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

OMG!!!!!







Really, I just don't have anything more to say than that!


----------



## MTAussie

Lou, didn't you start the second thread? It seems that you are well known for being a forum antagonist regarding ecollars. The rambling and contradictions are getting _painfully_ redundant. It is obvious you like (or just coincidentally end up time after time in the same arguement) pushing peoples buttons (no pun intended) and creating a hate and discontent-type thread. 
I don't think that putting out helpful or intelligent information is the point of the discussion anymore.







Just a suspicion.

Can we please close this thread so that we can stop the badmouthing? It's becoming very unprofessional and as well as misleading regarding information and individuals.


----------



## Dohhhhh

LouCastle
If you weren't wrong about things so often said:


> Lou...you better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

Can you say "has to have the last word?"


----------



## DianaM

Are we even discussing Sit Means Sit anymore or are we just talking about semantics?


----------



## Dohhhhh

> Originally Posted By: MTAussie
> Can we please close this thread so that we can stop the badmouthing? It's becoming very unprofessional and as well as misleading regarding information and individuals.



Why does the thread need to be closed? Some of us are finding it quite amusing. SOME of us are actually enjoying the posts. When I find a thread that annoys me, I just avoid that thread.....I don't ask that it be closed. When I find a poster THAT ANNOYS ME, I IGNORE THEIR POSTS.........geez people, see it for what it is......entertainment


----------



## Tetley's Mom

> Originally Posted By: Tracie Why does the thread need to be closed? Some of us are finding it quite amusing.


Well in light of humor ... OP here ... to actually share what occured since everybody seems to love this post.









We had 2 training sessions today: (1) in the AM with our first trainer, (2) in the PM with the SMS trainer. Wanna talk about a world of difference in "positive" training styles. 5 minutes with the SMS trainer got us further than 5 wks with the original trainer. WE got sit, down, roll, spin, and place. WOW.







Before assumptions are made: No e-collar used (as I have mentioned ... no e-collar for basic puppy obedience) - only PRAISE & TREATS just like our first trainer ... know what the difference was?? PASSION and SKILLSETS. The SMS trainer was what everybody told me - AMAZINGLY SKILLED AT DOG TRAINING. The original "positive" trainer - company claims all positive training - introdcued a puppy choke collar and leash tugs 2 wks ago ...







The SMS trainer used _nothing _of the such.







So, does this say his style and methods are better than trainer 1? Not necessarily, just means he is a BETTER trainer. Not all trainers are 'the best' at what they do. It's like that with all so-called pros in all industries. Once I download my pics from the camera, I will be blogging about the experience on the Tetley blog. If interested, check it out tomorrow. 

I was so excited about the training I actually went out and got a video camera to document her progress with SMS.











> Originally Posted By: Tracie geez people, see it for what it is......entertainment


Well, I tried to calm people with my hugs on the other post... that seems to die off, unfortunately - so you may get more entertainment with this post







.... as I fear some may still find some reason to incinuate that I somehow abused my dog today.


----------



## pupresq

Skill and enthusiasm are important! Glad to hear they're using praise and treats with a baby. I think there was general consensus on this thread from both sides that that was the way to go. 

Glad you've found a better method than pop and jerk - which I think (again) both sides agree is outdated and minimally effective.


----------



## MTAussie

Sounds like the first trainer was using compulsion if they gave you a puppy choke collar? 
It sounds like the SMS trainer is much more effective. Thank you for the update and we will have to give some props to SMS. Unfortunately their are some other SMS trainers giving the name a bad repuatation. It should be that easy and fun! I am happy that you found a good trainer!
I would love to note the only thing needed was praise and treats, and little knowledge!


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

> Originally Posted By: pupresqSkill and enthusiasm are important! Glad to hear they're using praise and treats with a baby.


I agree. From Karie's description, her original trainer wasn't all that great, (I don't know of any trainers advocating choke collars and leash corrections in puppy classes, and wouldn't personally attend such classes if I did), and I'm glad that she's happy with the second trainer. Finding a really good trainer can make all the difference. But I do have to ask - if you're making great progress using positive reinforcement training with treats and praise, why would you feel the need to progress to using an e-collar? Why not stick with what's working?

This is an honest question, I'm truly not trying to start anything here.


----------



## DianaM

Nice to read about the progress! This trainer must be a lot better than the original SMS trainer. See how it goes; you might have found yourself someone to stick with.



> Quote:But I do have to ask - if you're making great progress using positive reinforcement training with treats and praise, why would you feel the need to progress to using an e-collar? Why not stick with what's working?


One good thing about an e-collar is that once you've set it, it's consistent in its corrective level. Humans on the other end of the leash can vary their corrective level TREMENDOUSLY without realizing it. I do think an e-collar is great for consistency in corrective level. So that's one reason to stick with an e-collar, but I'd also like to hear the answers to the question myself.


----------



## Tetley's Mom

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom if you're making great progress using positive reinforcement training with treats and praise, why would you feel the need to progress to using an e-collar? Why not stick with what's working?


It's working now and hopefully will forever, but I am not opposed to the e-collar for more _advanced obedience _and _consistency _in a few months. This has been the plan since our first conversation with the SMS trainer. I am looking for SOLID results in a timely fashion. I am not lazy, I want the training to stick - and I want her to pass her tests not by the "skin of her teeth," but with FLYING colors. 

The e-collar used by the SMS trainer we met with today has been recommended by several of Therapy Dog owners locally that dropped out of Trainer 1's program. If this is wrong in some eyes, so be it







but I will proceed until anything (if anything) "off" occurs. 

I would hope that people respect me for that. But that is their own choice.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMomma
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom if you're making great progress using positive reinforcement training with treats and praise, why would you feel the need to progress to using an e-collar? Why not stick with what's working?
> 
> 
> 
> It's working now and hopefully will forever, but I am not opposed to the e-collar for more _advanced obedience _and _consistency _in a few months. This has been the plan since our first conversation with the SMS trainer.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I just figured why work with an e-collar trainer unless you plan to eventually use the collar in your training. But if you like the trainer and they agree to continue working with you even if you don't choose to use an e-collar, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't stay with them. For me, I'd rather find a good PR trainer to work with from puppyhood on, and then seek out an e-collar trainer down the road if I feel it's necessary - BUT that's just me, and neither approach is any more "right" than the other.


----------



## Tetley's Mom

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomI just figured why work with an e-collar trainer unless you plan to eventually use the collar in your training.


Well, we most likely will use the e-collar for the reasons I mentioned above - more advanced, consistency, and timely while balancing with POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT. Again, as mentioned, I am _not opposed _ to e-collar training when used humanely AND see the advantages of them - namely the FOCUS of the dogs that have effective trainers that have used them. I don't believe its one or another nor do I believe e-collar is negative training when used right. I believe in a balance of the training. That is MY view (again I appreciate the respect of all who understand this is MY opinion). The pup will be introduced if/when her training calls for it - and when her age is right.


----------



## MrLeadFoot

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFootIf you don't use a collar for basic obedience as well (and I'm not saying they need to be used for ALL obedience, or ALL the time for that matter, then under those "dire circumstances" you'd HAVE to be cruel because the dog wouldn't understand what a normal stimulation level was, and therefore would not understand if it receives a timualtion under dire circumstances. Thus, you'd end up HAVING to zap them hard, just to get their attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that's not the case at all (and I even think that the regular e-collar trainers would say this, or something similar). You teach an adult dog, taught with ANY method previously, how to respond to a low level shock in the same way you would teach a dog with no training. You determine the lowest possible stimulation that gives you the tiniest of response (a flick of the ear, etc.) and then you teach the dog how to stop that stimulation. Just because a dog has been taught using +R doesn't mean they can't learn to avoid a low level stim just like any other dog.
> 
> You don't just slap a shock collar on a dog and shock it at a high level when it does something you don't like. Regardless of when or why you start a dog with the collar, you do the same low level stimulation training so that the dog understands how HE can stop the shock.
> 
> I will fully admit that I don't like shocking my dog, regardless of the level. I also don't like yanking on a corrective collar, or other means of correction. I don't like creating uncomfortable or painful situations for my dog. So I do all the training I can without those. And before I use something more aversive, I weigh how important it is to me and how important I think it is to my dog. Earning titles, for me, is not important enough to use a shock collar or a prong collar (I never use choke chains, so they're completely out of the question). The only time I've found a need for a shock collar was to solidy recalls on dogs that would occasionally give into the temptation to take off - sometimes after moose - when playing off-leash. I had the choice of keeping them on-leash all the time, or finding a way to control the off-leash better.
> 
> Teaching of the basics - sit, down, stay, all tricks, retrieving - I have been able to teach with a minimal of aversives. If I can do it without shock or prong, why would I *<u>choose</u>* to use those unneccesarily?
> 
> Melanie and the gang in Alaska
Click to expand...

You misunderstood my post entirely. Sorry it wasn't clear enough. 'Nuff said.


----------



## MrLeadFoot

> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMommaThe e-collar used by the SMS trainer we met with today has been recommended by several of Therapy Dog owners locally that dropped out of Trainer 1's program.


Would you mind sharing with us WHICH collar it was that was recommended, or do you think my asking (and your subsequent answer) will start another flame-throwing burst?


----------



## Tetley's Mom

> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFootWould you mind sharing with us WHICH collar it was that was recommended


The SMS Training Collar. But I only saw it. It's not being used at this point in the training - pup too young and needs to get her basics in place first.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomOMG!!!!! rofl Really, I just don't have anything more to say than that! rofl


Interesting. Just a few posts back you accused me of quoting you out of context, quoting only four words from a rather lengthy post and misquoting you. 

When I showed that you were WRONG, that I'd quoted almost your entire post, you have nothing more to say! 

And some wonder why these conversations go the way they do?! ROFLMAO. 

This kind of behavior is a real classic.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: MTAussieLou, didn't you start the second thread?


Yes I did. You folks diverted the topic from it's original purpose and started the Ecollar debate all over again, as you almost always do. Moderators asked that you stop the _general Ecollar debate _in this thread. There were many posts that I'd not responded to so I started a new thread. 

The moderators closed that one and YOU FOLKS brought it back here. 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie It seems that you are well known for being a forum antagonist regarding ecollars.


Does it seem that way? I argue the truth wherever people spout the usual lies, misconceptions and downright wrong ideas about Ecollars. But I'm never the antagonist; rather I respond to the posts of others. Rarely do I start posts about Ecollars, rather I contribute when someone has a problem in training that the Ecollar may be able to cure those problems. When I do that, you folks have a fit, as we've seen. 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie The rambling and contradictions are getting _painfully_ redundant.


Of course they are. You folks are spouting the same old nonsense that anti–Ecollar folks always use. Quite naturally, my responses are the same. 

But there's quite a bit of originality here. For example, we have CassidysMom writing this


> Quote: Lou quoted one tiny sentence out of a paragraph and then responded to it as if it stood alone, completely ignoring the context of the sentence in the point I was trying to make, and also changing the meaning of the sentence.


Of course it was not true. Of course I didn't do, as she claimed. Of course she was completely WRONG and perhaps made those comments purposefully. It's interesting that when the truth is shown, beyond all doubt she has no explanation for those comments. That's new information! LOL. 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie It is obvious you like (or just coincidentally end up time after time in the same arguement)


It's no coincidence. I like Ecollars. I think they're the wave of the future for training dogs. I want people to use them so as to inflict the minimum amount of discomfort on dogs. I think that the best way to do that is to get out the information about them, to provide it free to as many people as are interested in learning, to nay–say the myths and rumors that exist about them, and to allay the fears that some people provoke about them. 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussiepushing peoples buttons (no pun intended) and creating a hate and discontent-type thread.


I'd prefer it if people could have a polite and civil discussion. But some folks won't allow it. In most cases folks have been spouting the lies and the misinformation for so long and had no one oppose it, that they think that's the way it's supposed to be. When I come along and start showing the truth, punching holes in the false theories and misconceptions, some just can't stand it. And so they respond with personal attacks, and other kinds of distractions. 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie I don't think that putting out helpful or intelligent information is the point of the discussion anymore. Just a suspicion.


Many people have taken this to a new levels. CassidysMom's post about how I deliberately misquoted her is a new classic. A new level of an attempt at distraction. And now that she's been caught out, all she can do is rofl. No apology, no explanation for her "error." Just rofl. FASCINATING!!!!!!!

Either she was simply mistaken or she deliberately and knowingly lied in an effort to win some points. Perhaps you have some other reason for this? I'd love to hear it. 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie Can we please close this thread so that we can stop the badmouthing?


This is not unusual. OFTEN people take these threads to this place and then ask for them to be closed. It's one way to interfere with the flow of information about Ecollars when misinformation and personal attacks have failed. 

If you find this so upsetting, is there some reason that you simply can't just NOT read it? 



> Originally Posted By: MTAussie It's becoming very unprofessional and as well as misleading regarding information and individuals.


It's been that way since Melanie started the personal attack with the "vested interest discussion." Notice since then how little Ecollars or SMS are being discussed? Part of the strategy.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomCan you say "has to have the last word?"


Can you say "Makes false accusations and when called on it pretends it never happened?"


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: DianaMAre we even discussing Sit Means Sit anymore or are we just talking about semantics?


When someone lies and says that I have a vested interest in something yet pretends that they don’t, is that a discussion about semantics? 

When someone lies and says that I only quoted four words from a lengthy post and is the truth is shown, is that semantics? 

Sorry but I don't think so.


----------



## LouCastle

I think, in view of the fact that this post has over 1,400 views, More than any other post in this section of the Forum (except for the sticky's) it shows that quite a few people ARE interested in it. Perhaps it's just the soap opera, but there may be some learning going on.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMommaWe had 2 training sessions today: (1) in the AM with our first trainer, (2) in the PM with the SMS trainer. Wanna talk about a world of difference in "positive" training styles. 5 minutes with the SMS trainer got us further than 5 wks with the original trainer. WE got sit, down, roll, spin, and place. WOW. Before assumptions are made: No e-collar used (as I have mentioned ... no e-collar for basic puppy obedience) - only PRAISE & TREATS just like our first trainer ...


GREAT to hear of your success. Notice that this is just what I've been saying all along. Some people, *and here we have a professional trainer, *are UNABLE to get good results with the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig). The fact that some of you pretend that ANYONE can get good results is just silly. 

HERE's some video of ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL trainer getting poor results. It's NOT as easy as some would have everyone believe.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> Glad you've found a better method than pop and jerk - which I think (again) both sides agree is outdated and minimally effective.


Why oh why did you have to go to this place. You'll find that MOST people who finish on top of the podiums in AKC OB, any of the biting sports and MANY other venues that place a premium on control and precision use leash corrections. They're NEITHER "outdated" NOR "minimally effective." 

I use them when appropriate, although I don't use the misnomer "pop and jerk."


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMomma
> It's working now and hopefully will forever, but I am not opposed to the e-collar for more _advanced obedience _and _consistency _in a few months.


PetMomma, more than likely you'll find that in the absence of distractions and as long as your dog is quite young, his OB will be quite good. As he ages however, usually between six months and fourteen months things will change. You'll no longer be the center of the universe as he matures and his hormones change. He'll find that things like other dogs, falling and blowing leaves, squirrels, cats and more, will be more interesting that all the liver treats in the world. 

If you are very dedicated and spent huge amounts of time in training you may be able to maintain control. But if you're like most pet owners that won't last for years and years. And so your control will start to slip until it almost completely disappears.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMomma
> Well, we most likely will use the e-collar for the reasons I mentioned above - more advanced, consistency, and timely while balancing with POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT.


Some trainers who use the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) will tell you that this is impossible. They use the phrase "poisoning the cue." But they're wrong, I do it all the time. 



> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMommaAgain, as mentioned, I am _not opposed _ to e-collar training when used humanely AND see the advantages of them - namely the FOCUS of the dogs that have effective trainers that have used them. I don't believe its one or another nor do I believe e-collar is negative training when used right. I believe in a balance of the training. That is MY view (again I appreciate the respect of all who understand this is MY opinion). The pup will be introduced if/when her training calls for it - and when her age is right.


Well said.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFootWould you mind sharing with us WHICH collar it was that was recommended





> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMommaThe SMS Training Collar. But I only saw it. It's not being used at this point in the training - pup too young and needs to get her basics in place first.


I'd suggest an Ecollar from either Dogtra, Tri-Tronics, or Unleashed Technology. The ones from SMS are made for them by Petsmart and they're not known for their quality.


----------



## IliamnasQuest




----------



## pupresq

> Quote:Why oh why did you have to go to this place. You'll find that MOST people who finish on top of the podiums in AKC OB, any of the biting sports and MANY other venues that place a premium on control and precision use leash corrections. They're NEITHER "outdated" NOR "minimally effective."
> 
> I use them when appropriate, although I don't use the misnomer "pop and jerk."


Did I say leash corrections were bad or ineffective? NO! I said pop and jerk training is ineffective and outdated. You are seeing conflict where there is none.


----------



## IliamnasQuest

> Originally Posted By: NC_PetMommaWe had 2 training sessions today: (1) in the AM with our first trainer, (2) in the PM with the SMS trainer. Wanna talk about a world of difference in "positive" training styles. 5 minutes with the SMS trainer got us further than 5 wks with the original trainer. WE got sit, down, roll, spin, and place. WOW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before assumptions are made: No e-collar used (as I have mentioned ... no e-collar for basic puppy obedience) - only PRAISE & TREATS just like our first trainer ... know what the difference was?? PASSION and SKILLSETS. The SMS trainer was what everybody told me - AMAZINGLY SKILLED AT DOG TRAINING. The original "positive" trainer - company claims all positive training - introdcued a puppy choke collar and leash tugs 2 wks ago ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The SMS trainer used _nothing _of the such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, does this say his style and methods are better than trainer 1? Not necessarily, just means he is a BETTER trainer. Not all trainers are 'the best' at what they do. It's like that with all so-called pros in all industries. Once I download my pics from the camera, I will be blogging about the experience on the Tetley blog. If interested, check it out tomorrow.


I think that what you're doing here is great, and I think that most of us who responded to your initial questions about SMS would agree with me. What you may not have realized (and what may not have been made clear) is that SMS trainers have been discussed on this board many times and some of them are very harsh and maybe not very educated on dog behavior. So people get a bit tense when someone says they're thinking of using one of these trainers. There's evidently a lack of consistency in the knowledge and ability of the various SMS franchises, which has led people to view them somewhat suspiciously.

You're starting out like I would - lots of positive praise and treats, some corrections but not making corrections the basis of your training. This is great! This is what I wanted to encourage you to do, and unfortunately I think a lot of that got lost in some of the copy and pasting being done. 

The first trainer you describe was obviously NOT a very positive trainer. Sorry you were mislead. Just like the ecollar people here dislike it when they see other ecollar trainers promoting the collar to be used at a high level of punishment, I dislike it when I see a trainer who advertises positive training and then doesn't use it. It's a buyer beware market in all aspects including dog training. I encourage people to come and view my classes before joining one, and the first night of beginning class is free so that people can decide if they want to continue with me after the first hour. This gives them a chance to see how I train and if their training thoughts go along with mine. 

Sounds like you're having a wonderful time with your little guy! Best of luck to you and I look forward to seeing how he progresses. If you get a chance to read the "Training Challenge" posts, please join in. We're just doing fun stuff and everyone is welcome to take part.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## DianaM

@ Melanie's "creative" post.


----------



## Catu

> Originally Posted By: DianaM..:: @ Melanie's "creative" post.


I Love it!!! Not that somebody wont try, but it will cost him a lot more work.


----------



## MTAussie

> Originally Posted By: DianaM..:: @ Melanie's "creative" post.


haha!







anytime now.......


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

> Originally Posted By: LouCastleMany people have taken this to a new levels. CassidysMom's post about how I deliberately misquoted her is a new classic. A new level of an attempt at distraction. And now that she's been caught out, all she can do is rofl. No apology, no explanation for her "error." Just rofl. FASCINATING!!!!!!!
> 
> Either she was simply mistaken or she deliberately and knowingly lied in an effort to win some points. Perhaps you have some other reason for this? I'd love to hear it.


_Gasp_, I've been caught out! I'm WRONG! It's true beyond all doubt! Oh, no, what to do? Does that mean I DON'T win any points?!?!?! *pouts*









Anyone else bored silly by this pointless bickering?


----------



## Brightelf

I mostly stopped paying attention after the comment about how some Guide Dog schools drive SUVs into their dogs to teach 'em a lesson.









But overall lots of others have _good training ideas _slipped into their posts here, even when they don't apply to all dogs or all situations.. with or without e-collar. I love reading the training advice here when people kinda slip it in. Even in a controversial thread, there's good info to glean from others here.


----------



## Dohhhhh

Tetleys Mom, I do hope that you do not feel I was making light of YOUR situation or questions. If you did I apologize. My post was directed at the "Good VS Evil" posts.

It makes me happy to read that you have found a trainer that has helped you with your dog. I wish you and your pup much success. I enjoyed reading your post


----------



## Dohhhhh

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Fred Hassun,owner of the SMS franchises has a line of SMS ecollars made specifically for his francises through Dogtra......


----------



## lhczth

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomAnyone else bored silly by this pointless bickering?


Yes, but I am still stuck reading it. If people are tired of the bickering maybe they need to stop themselves.


----------



## Branca's Mom

The endless quoting an picking apart just about every single post was annoying enough.

The condescending attitude worse than even my own on my very worst day.

but this:



> Originally Posted By: BrightelfI mostly stopped paying attention after the comment about how some Guide Dog schools drive SUVs into their dogs to teach 'em a lesson.



Didn't he say something like *they deliberately run into them throwing them 20' *or something like that? Kinda permanently lost me there too. 

His training methods using the ecollar may be perfectly wonderful but after reading his posts here, I wouldn't look to him for any kind of advice about anything. <u>anything at all.</u> But that is just me. Everyone is of course free to make up their own minds.

And, if it was my smart a$$ comment that got the other thread shut down, or if this post has gone too far.... mods please feel free to just delete either of them and keep the threads alive......


----------



## Tetley's Mom

> Originally Posted By: TracieTetleys Mom, I do hope that you do not feel I was making light of YOUR situation or questions. If you did I apologize.


No offense taken. I knew what you meant.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

> Originally Posted By: lhczth
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: Cassidys MomAnyone else bored silly by this pointless bickering?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but I am still stuck reading it. If people are tired of the bickering maybe they need to stop themselves.
Click to expand...

Lisa, you're absolutely right, it's going to go on as long as other people are willing to play along, that's become quite obvious. I'm going to take my dog to the park today to chase balls and swim in the SF Bay rather than continuing to indulge in the endless chronicles of "I know you are, but what am I?". 

Branca's Mom, have I told you lately that I love you?


----------



## MrLeadFoot

> Originally Posted By: BrightelfI mostly stopped paying attention after the comment about how some Guide Dog schools drive SUVs into their dogs to teach 'em a lesson.


I didn't see this in a post. I must've missed it, but done right at VERY LOW SPEED, I can see how this to be a very effective way to teach a dog about cars.

Not to hijack this thread, but since it was brought up, I thought I'd share an experience that might be helpful to some of you and your dogs:

We once had a situation where a tire dealer was having a big outdoor sale, and asked if we could provide him with a dog as a deterrent at night because he wanted to keep the tires outside overnight during the sale. So, we chose the biggest, most imposing male K9 we had and brought him to the site.

We'd patrol the dog on foot every 1/2 hour or so in a manner where it was obvious that there was some kind of "security" at the site. At one point we took a "lunch" break. We chained the dog on a 50 ft. chain to a grated manhole cover in the middle of the parking lot, just so that he would continue to be easily seen as we humans ate. While we were eating, this big old station wagon rolled slowly into the parking lot with only it parking lights on. Of course, it raised some suspicions, so we watched intently. It seemed apparent that the driver did not see us humans as the car crawled through the lot.

Now, this particular K9 we had on site was a very bold and confident, yet intelligent and calm dog. As the car approached, we figured he would eventually scoot out of the way of the car as it approached. Of course, we were also at the ready to call him out of the path of the car if we thought he was going to be in danger. As the car approached the dog, the driver slowed even more but kept inching forward. The dog stood tall and appeared to be facing down the car. He seemed to think he was invincible and didn't budge. The car kept crawling forward and eventually made contact with the dog. There was no impact, nor did the car knock the dog over; I can only describe it best as a "push". Obviously, the weight of the vehicle and the "pushing" caused the dog to lose his ground forcing him to step backwards. He didn't show any aggression, but amazingly kept trying to hold his ground. It seemed as though he really thought that no one, or nothing, could physically outdo him.

He quickly realized the car was no match for him, and stepped aside to let the car continue rolling past, and eventually the car just rolled out another driveway and left. The dog never took his focus off the car until it was out of sight. We were actually quite dumbfounded ourselves as to what had just occurred, made to big deal about it, and just chalked it up to something weird.

From that point on, that dog ALWAYS kept a wary eye out for vehicles. He wasn't skittish or anything, but he seemed to have learned how vehicles worked. He seemed to be able to tell when a vehicle was coming toward him, and believe it or not, he also seemed to be able to judge speed and distance, and always, always removed himself from harm's way. For example, walking on a sidewalk with cars driving past raised nary an eyebrow for his guy. However, when crossing the street or walking toward an oncoming car, he seemed to know just how much room he needed to safely get where he was going.

When we finally noticed this change in behavior, we decided to see if we were just imagining it or not, and set up a controlled situation to see what the dog would do. We simulated a "guarding" situation in a fenced parking lot and set the dog loose. We had a car drive in, and without commands from anyone, the dog proceeded to challenge the car in “alert” mode, head up high, ears perked, tail up, the works. However, as the car moved toward him he would side-step and circle the car, not unlike a lion circling potential prey. The driver then proceeded to make erratic maneuvers with the car, making quick left and right turns, and this seemed to trigger the prey drive in the dog. He became more aggressive – barking, growling, snapping, etc. and appeared to try and "herd" the car.

I'll never forget this set of incidences, as they sure as heck amazed me, because this dog actually taught me quite a bit. Kind of akin to the hunter becoming the hunted, the trainee taught the trainer. Maybe some of you can incorporate this “car savvy” into your own training. If anyone does, I'd love to hear the results.


----------



## Branca's Mom

> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom
> Branca's Mom, have I told you lately that I love you?


Well....Of course you do...









I am the person people can point to and say "well, at least I ain't as bad, sarcastic, mean or pathetic as her"... 
I fit the bill perfectly for a lot of people I am sure


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestLou is is very apparent to myself and others that you were desperately trying to discredit me with your entire spiel on titles


Just like your discussion of "vested interests" was a "desperate" attempt "to discredit me. One difference; I'm right. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest and your misinterpretation of those titles.


I misinterpreted nothing. I quoted the descriptions directly from AKC sites. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest An OTCH is impossible to earn in the state of Alaska without traveling to the lower 48 states.


LONG BEFORE you'd be trying for an OTCh you'd need to get a UDX. You don't have one of those do you? And you don't have to leave Alaska to get that do you? 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I did mention this previously but you carefully edited that out in all your ad nauseum quoting.


It's irrelevant. Before you tried for the OTCh you'd have to get the UDX. The mere fact that you mention it shows how desperate YOU are to dispute the truth. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I find it completely ridiculous that you chose to bring numerous posts from another thread and put them here.


ROFL. YOU FOLKS are the ones who continued that conversation here (and continue to keep it up) AFTER that thread was closed. It's HYSTERICAL that you accuse me of doing something inappropriate when YOU have just done the exact same thing! 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestIt's just your nature to to continual harass people


YOU are the one who STARTED and continued the discussion about "discrediting" with your "vested interest argument." When the truth was shown, you just kept it up. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I challenge anyone here to go over to the other thread and read about the training required in order to earn a Utility Dog title and then come back and tell me that's it's not pretty darn advanced.


I've never said that it's "not advanced." But what a great Straw Man argument! 

It's really quite simple. You told us that you had "some success" in competition. I wondered what that phrase meant so I checked it out. Now I've shown that it means that you have some OB titles but that you didn't rise above halfway in the OB titles that the AKC offers. NEVER has ANYONE said that it's not "pretty darn advanced." It is what it is. 


> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest and you can only lose 30 points out of a possible 200.


It's possible that you cold have lost 29 points, just squeaking by. I don’t know and really don't care. I DO KNOW that you have NEVER obtained the higher titles, above the half way mark on the tier of titles that the AKC awards. 

I'm not discounting your work or your success, I'm just quantifying your "some success" statement. If you think that discredits you, so be it. I don't happen to think so; I think it's just clarifies how far you've gone. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest But then again, Lou you've never trained or competed in these venues so your assessment of the difficulty holds no merit.


LOL. I started that discussion with this, "Let me start by saying that that I've never competed in any of these venues. They never held any interest for me." How much "merit" it holds or does not hold I leave to the readers. Some will be impressed some will realize just what it means. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I also challenge people reading this to to the other thread and see how many times Lou contradicts himself! It's phenomemal ..


Notice that Melanie DOES NOT give any information as to where this occurs so that a reader might go find it! That thread went about 75 posts, more of them written by me than any other single poster. Melanie could have easily noted which of my posts had these alleged "contradictions" but instead she directs people to read thorugh the entire thread to find them, knowing that few, if any will. She hopes that people will just take her word for it. ANOTHER clever debate technique, until it's pointed out. 

Making an accusation without supplying supporting evidence means nothing. But it's what Melanie does a good deal of the time. When I make such a claim I show the posts, but she never has. I think that's telling about the accuracy and honesty of what she writes. The REAL reason she does it this way, is that these "contradictions" only exist in her mind. 

Want a "challenge?" SHOW US THOSE CONTRADICTIONS! Show us the posts Melanie. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest trying to defend a practice SO MANY PEOPLE on here find somewhat appalling


I didn't realize that dog training was a "majority rules" kinda thing. Silly me I thought it was about humanely getting good results. 

And BTW "_somewhat _appalling" ROFLMAOMSOMN. Sounds like another personal attack to me! 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest Lou I hope you don't train the way you post.


ROFL. Let's just compare our results OK? Earlier I wrote regarding my work – referring to distractions when heeling a police dog, trained to bite humans, through the shopping mall,


> Quote: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.


And you responded


> Quote: I can heel my dogs (well, not the pup) through crowds of people off-leash too.


Your distractions were "crowds of people." Mine were *just a bit *more, especially for a biting dog. Welcome to the real world instead of the artificial one of the competition ring.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> Did I say leash corrections were bad or ineffective? NO! I said pop and jerk training is ineffective and outdated. You are seeing conflict where there is none.


Perhaps. When you wrote "pop and jerk training" I thought you were referring to leash corrections. Can you clarify what you mean by that term please?


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestI think that what you're doing here is great, and I think that most of us who responded to your initial questions about SMS would agree with me. What you may not have realized (and what may not have been made clear) is that SMS trainers have been discussed on this board many times and some of them are very harsh and maybe not very educated on dog behavior.


That was mentioned very early in this thread. I also sent PetMomma a few links to other discussions showing the same thing. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest So people get a bit tense when someone says they're thinking of using one of these trainers.


Let's not pretend that it's JUST when "one of these trainers" comes up. This happens almost anytime someone brings up the Ecollar. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I think a lot of that got lost in some of the copy and pasting being done.


Not to mention the personal attacks. LOL. Interesting how you characterize that ONLY the "copy and pasting" as interfering with communication. 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest The first trainer you describe was obviously NOT a very positive trainer.


Here we see the problem in anointing people with the label "positive trainer." The term has no definitive meaning. 


> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest I encourage people to come and view my classes before joining one, and the first night of beginning class is free so that people can decide if they want to continue with me after the first hour. This gives them a chance to see how I train and if their training thoughts go along with mine.


Didn't you tell us that you don't have a vested interest because you no longer teach classes? That you no longer charge for them? Doesn't the statement that you just made, _" … the first night … is free" _hint that you charge for the rest of the classes? This is written in the present tense meaning that you NOW teach classes that people pay for. Did I miss something? 

In any case, I give a free demo to private clients that usually lasts about two hours. This is one–on–one with them. 

BTW since you brought up your classes again, I notice that you didn't answer the question I asked about your guarantee. Here it is again in case you skimmed past it before. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Quote: 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? *


 And if not, why not.


----------



## LouCastle

Earlier I wrote,


> Quote:
> CassidysMom's post about how I deliberately misquoted her is a new classic. A new level of an attempt at distraction. And now that she's been caught out, all she can do is rofl. No apology, no explanation for her "error." Just rofl. FASCINATING!!!!!!!
> 
> Either she was simply mistaken or she deliberately and knowingly lied in an effort to win some points. Perhaps you have some other reason for this? I'd love to hear it.





> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom _Gasp_, I've been caught out! I'm WRONG! It's true beyond all doubt! Oh, no, what to do? Does that mean I DON'T win any points?!?!?! *pouts*


We now see that CM's post was NOT a mistake, rather it was a premeditated lie to try and discredit me. Interesting how VESTED some people are in their training or an argument that they'd go to such a length. 



> Originally Posted By: Cassidys Mom Anyone else bored silly by this pointless bickering?


I was bored by it LOOOOOONG ago. But I'll not let you folks make false accusations without showing the truth.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: BrightelfI mostly stopped paying attention after the comment about how *some Guide Dog schools * drive SUVs into their dogs to teach 'em a lesson. [Emphasis added]


I NEVER said that *"some Guide Dog Schools" *did this. I said that I'd seen it happen. I only saw it once from one school. There's much that goes on behind the scenes that the public doesn't know about. 



> Originally Posted By: Brightelf But overall lots of others have _good training ideas _slipped into their posts here, even when they don't apply to all dogs or all situations.. with or without e-collar. I love reading the training advice here when people kinda slip it in. Even in a controversial thread, there's good info to glean from others here.


I agree. It's another reason I hate to see mods close contentious threads.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: TracieSomeone correct me if I am wrong, but Fred Hassun,owner of the SMS franchises has a line of SMS ecollars made specifically for his francises through Dogtra......


Tracie I think they're made for him by Petsmart, not Dogtra. Dogtra is closed for the weekend, but if you like I can call tomorrow and check.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: Branca's MomThe endless quoting an picking apart just about every single post was annoying enough.


If someone goes to the trouble of writing a post I think it's worth my time to respond to their comments individually. People who don’t do this miss things. You may have noticed that several people have missed questions that I've asked. Of course perhaps they've seen them, but don't want to answer. 



> Originally Posted By: Branca's Mom Didn't he say something like *they deliberately run into them throwing them 20' *or something like that?


Yep that's what I've seen. If we ever get into the discussion about marine mammals you may hear some rather unpleasant things too. You're not required to believe anything. That hardly stops it from being the truth. 



> Originally Posted By: Branca's Mom Kinda permanently lost me there too.


How can I ever go on?!


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFoot
> I didn't see this in a post. I must've missed it, but done right at VERY LOW SPEED, I can see how this to be a very effective way to teach a dog about cars.


That's what was done. This dog did not have a fear or even a respect for cars. He continually led his trainer into the street directly into their path when commanded to do so. This is an area that we've touched on before, intelligent disobedience; where a dog is supposed to over–ride a command he gets. They tried throwing a buckets of water on him to teach him this respect/fear but that failed. They yelled, they threw increasingly hard and heavier objects but nothing worked. He was either going to learn or be washed out, wasting hundreds of training hours. 




> Originally Posted By: MrLeadFootNow, this particular K9 we had on site was a very bold and confident, yet intelligent and calm dog. As the car approached, we figured he would eventually scoot out of the way of the car as it approached. Of course, we were also at the ready to call him out of the path of the car if we thought he was going to be in danger. As the car approached the dog, the driver slowed even more but kept inching forward. The dog stood tall and appeared to be facing down the car. He seemed to think he was invincible and didn't budge. The car kept crawling forward and eventually made contact with the dog. There was no impact, nor did the car knock the dog over; I can only describe it best as a "push". Obviously, the weight of the vehicle and the "pushing" caused the dog to lose his ground forcing him to step backwards. He didn't show any aggression, but amazingly kept trying to hold his ground. It seemed as though he really thought that no one, or nothing, could physically outdo him.
> 
> From that point on, that dog ALWAYS kept a wary eye out for vehicles. He wasn't skittish or anything, but he seemed to have learned how vehicles worked. He seemed to be able to tell when a vehicle was coming toward him, and believe it or not, he also seemed to be able to judge speed and distance, and always, always removed himself from harm's way. For example, walking on a sidewalk with cars driving past raised nary an eyebrow for his guy. However, when crossing the street or walking toward an oncoming car, he seemed to know just how much room he needed to safely get where he was going.


He and his trainer were on the sidewalk and the SUV was coming out of a driveway. At first they roared right up to him as he passed by stopping at the mouth of the driveway. They stop inches from him, blasting the horn and revving the motor. It didn't faze him. Then they tried the "pushing" that you describe in your post. It had no effect. Then they tried bumping him lightly. He thought it was a game and got quite excited. Finally they hit him hard enough to knock him about 20'. That got his attention. He started avoiding cars. 

Later I'm told they had to teach him to approach cars as he had become afraid of them. 

The dog wasn't injured. I hated to see it. I'd probably have washed the dog out myself, but it wasn't my choice. It came very close to abuse. Some will see it that way, I'm quite sure.


----------



## pupresq

> Quoteerhaps. When you wrote "pop and jerk training" I thought you were referring to leash corrections. Can you clarify what you mean by that term please?


I was referring to the style of training which is thankfully out of vogue of relying almost exclusively on either nagging or harsh leash corrections to train dogs. Nothing wrong with a well timed, well executed leash correction when a leash correction is just one technique in your tool box. That's not what I was referring to. 

I'm talking about leash corrections as an entire training methodology. You still see it sometimes especially from people who have been reading older books. The dogs are looking everywhere but at the handler and the handler is trying to manuever them around by the collar. Seems to go along with mashing on dogs hind ends to get them to sit. It works but not well (especially compared to other techniques) and it's not fun for anyone.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: pupresq I was referring to the style of training which is thankfully out of vogue of relying almost exclusively on either nagging or harsh leash corrections to train dogs. Nothing wrong with a well timed, well executed leash correction when a leash correction is just one technique in your tool box. That's not what I was referring to.
> 
> I'm talking about leash corrections as an entire training methodology. You still see it sometimes especially from people who have been reading older books. The dogs are looking everywhere but at the handler and the handler is trying to manuever them around by the collar. Seems to go along with mashing on dogs hind ends to get them to sit. It works but not well (especially compared to other techniques) and it's not fun for anyone.


That's quite a mouthful for the phrase "pop and jerk training." That phrase along with such phrases as "yank and jerk, and yank and crank" are most commonly used by the so-called "kinder, gentler trainers" to describe any training that involves leash corrections, whether nagging or harsh. And they use it with anyone who uses leash corrections, not just those who use it "as an entire training methodology." 

I've never encountered this phrase used the way you do. Is it used this way by everyone on this forum or just you?


----------



## pupresq

I haven't seen it used much at all on this forum and wouldn't presume to mind read for other posters. I'm using it to refer to a style of training that I've observed and don't think much of, but not because it's negative. 

I would describe my own personal style of training as a mixed bag and don't fall into any particular one camp or faction. Hope that helps! 

ETA: I can refer to it as "Yank and drag" if that'll make you happier.


----------



## IliamnasQuest




----------



## AbbyK9

****. I wrote a response to the thread and then the board hiccuped while I was posting it, loosing the post in the depths of the Internet. So here it goes again.

E-collars are a great training TOOL.

In the trainer's toolbox are a great deal of great tools that all work if they are used correctly and are used on the right dog. There are collars and halters and harnesses and all sorts of things. They all work. They don't all work equally as well on all dogs. Some dogs perform much better if trained one way, and some dogs perform better if trained another way. 

A good trainer, a trainer I would want to work with, is someone who knows all the different tools and how to use them, and will use the minimum equipment required to reach the training goals.

A trainer's goal in training a dog should be to have complete control of the dog, either with verbal commands or hand signals, when the dog is off-leash and not wearing any kind of collar whatsoever. When you can send a dog to retrieve, get him to heel, and get him to hold a long down-stay around a crowd of people without anything on the dog (no collar, no lead, no e-collar, no nothing), you have a very well trained dog.

As the saying goes, there are many roads that lead to Rome. To get to the goal of a trained dog who will respond without any collar, there are many ways and many tools in the trainer's toolbox. Some dogs need some of the tools. Some dogs need others. Some dogs don't.

Good trainers should not fall into the rut of "one size fits all" training, because that's not taking the individual dog into account. Some dogs need an e-collar. Some dogs need only a handful of treats. Most dogs, throughout their lives, will need a training tool of some kind, whether that's a special collar or harness, a motivating toy, or a special kind of treat. But not all dogs should be trained the same way.

I object to a trainer that trains the same way regardless of the dog's age, breed, background, and individual needs. I don't like Petsmart training for this very reason, because their approach is always treats and a head collar. 

Corrections absolutely have their place in training. 
Compulsion absolutely has its place in training.

Notice I said "its place". Just like all kinds of tools have their place in training, corrections and compulsion also have their place in training. They aren't the training, they are just a part of the training. Good training should have more than corrections and compulsion. Good training should make the dog WANT to work and make the dog use its head.

I look at all of these posts by Lou, and, as someone who does not know Lou and has never trained with him, all I can say is that his posts make me not want to know him and make me not want to train with him.

I don't like that he feels the need to force his opinion as an absolute - he wants everyone to use e-collars as THE training collar, regardless of whether it is the best choice for the dog or not, and regardless of whether it is needed or not. Reading Lou's post, one is supposed to agree that the e-collar is the best choice for every dog and that every dog needs an e-collar for training, or the dog can't be reliably trained.

That bothers me. Regardless of whether he sells e-collars, regardless of how long he's trained, regardless of what dogs he's trained or what titles he's earned.

It also bothers me that he feels the need of making his points about the e-collar by dissecting posts, taking text out of contest, and trying to discredit others. I do not see others trying to discredit Lou. I do, however, see how, with his line of thinking on the e-collar, he would take it that way. Because it HAS to be absolute. Either you are ABSOLUTELY for the e-collar, or you are trying to dispute Lou, and if you dispute Lou, you must be trying to discredit Lou. 

Quite frankly, I don't think anyone even cares anymore. I don't think the discussion will end unless people get bored reading Lou's post, or until everyone agrees with Lou. I do think that this thread, and the other tread on e-collars are doing great harm to Lou himself, because they certainly don't put him in a good light. If I knew nothing of Lou other than the posts on this thread, that would be enough for me to look for a different trainer if I'd been considering him and had come up with these threads by Googeling his name.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestyou really shouldn't even be trying to tell people what's what.


I'm not telling people "what's what." I'm just talking about your titles and your description of them as "some success." 



> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest The titles in AKC are not linear ]
> 
> Yes and you've achieved ONLY the bottom three tiers of the titles offered by the AKC.
> 
> 
> 
> IliamnasQuest said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's painfully obvious you don't what you're talking about … you're trying to make my titles look like nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just putting your titles in perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestdoes this mean that trainers who have NO titles or who have fewer/lesser titles than I have are no good?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've made no comment about the quality of any trainer based on titles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestYou are so frantic about this entire shock collar concept that you jump into posts that are encouraging others and attempt to tear them apart. There was nothing in my post to the OP that you should have commented on, and yet you can't stay out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made several statements that were untrue, some that are common misconceptions about the Ecollar and some that are myths. I merely corrected them. That seems to have given you permission to have the entire Ecollar debate all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestI haven't taught any classes in over a year, and even then I primarily only teach for a non-profit organization, which means I do NOT get paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's clear Melanie that despite all of this that YOU DO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THIS. It's all about your reputation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestAs far as the distractions in crowds point .. geez, I'll get more descriptive since you insist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did I "insist?" Don't think so. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestI often practiced at the local mall with my dogs. It was not unusual to have people touching, jostling, grabbing my dogs while they were working. More than once I had one of my dogs on a stay outside the mall while I watched form inside (practicing out-of-sight stays) and children ran up and hugged my dog – with NO problems. and I didn't even have to shock those dogs in order to teach them that .. hmmmmm …
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's great but pretending that those things are anywhere near the distraction for your dogs that they are for a dog that's trained to bite is just silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestYou alienate a LOT of people,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some are alienated. Some are not. Do you think I'd have spent nearly 30 years as a police officer if I cared about whether or not people like me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestthere are probably many things that you and I would agree on if you weren't so adamantly opposed to ANY mention of shock collar training that isn't 100% in favor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In MY VERY FIRST post on this thread I recommended AGAINST USING THE ECOLLAR. This is just like many of the rest of your comments. WRONG!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestHow many times do you say "so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig)"? We all KNOW you mean that as a dig ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used to write "so-called 'kinder, gentler methods' " but on another forum it was pointed out to me that people regarded this as a dig. One of those folks suggested instead writing _"so-called 'kinder, gentler methods' (and that's not meant as a dig)' _and so that's what I've adopted. I think once or twice in recent discussions I've written the other iteration and then I DID mean it as a dig. But if it says "and that's not meant as a dig" then it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestIf I can train a sit, down, stay, etc. to a consistent reliability without the need for a shock or other *fairly aversive *corrections, then I see no reason to include them. [Emphasis added]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before Melanie used to say the same thing but she'd leave out the word _"fairly" _as in _"fairly aversive corrections." _But now she includes it. I've pointed out that she DOES use aversions at every stage of her training, in spite of her earlier claims that she did not. Now she's just trying to sneak it by.
> 
> I happen to think that (for example) withholding a treat is FAR MORE aversive than giving a dog a stim at the level that he first feels it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestMaybe my dogs are just more bonded to me than yours are to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever the attempt at a cheap shot. You really are hysterical. In any case, my dogs thorugh the years have trusted me with their very lives and the police dogs that I work with have their handlers putting their own lives in the dog's paws. Please Melanie, tell us how risky the competition ring is and how much of a bond your dog needs to have in you to enter it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestA simple "NO" usually quite well for most corrections with my dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This could just be a sign of a dog with not a very high level of dogs. NOT the animals that I work with regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestbut there's no reason in my mind to cause discomfort in my dogs for behaviors that I can train without that discomfort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've seen that, contrary to this statement that you DO cause your dog's discomfort in all phases of your training in spite of your denials. These denials just make you look silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestWhen you can train chows to performance level I'll be more impressed with your abilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see no need to try and impress you with my training abilities. I'm certainly not impressed by yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuestUntil then, you're just another guy with a shock collar remote in one hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just a guy with an Ecollar remote in one hand who's taught forty-two seminars and workshops in eighteen states, thirty-three cities and three foreign countries (Canada, The UK and Spain). Some people think I have something to say and some don't.
> 
> Have you taught any seminars?
Click to expand...


----------



## LouCastle

BTW Melanie, I've asked this question several times now. Indirectly it DOES go to the quality of your training but you've not answered it. Perhaps you've missed it again. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Quote: 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? *


 And if not, why not.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: HistorianE-collars are a great training TOOL.
> 
> In the trainer's toolbox are a great deal of great tools that all work if they are used correctly and are used on the right dog. There are collars and halters and harnesses and all sorts of things. They all work. They don't all work equally as well on all dogs. Some dogs perform much better if trained one way, and some dogs perform better if trained another way.
> 
> A good trainer, … is someone who knows all the different tools and how to use them, and will use the minimum equipment required to reach the training goals. …
> 
> Corrections absolutely have their place in training.
> Compulsion absolutely has its place in training. …


Right up until this point I was going to write "Good post." Then you started with the personal attacks. Yasee when you talk about me, my personality and the rest you're not talking about the topic. When those comments are derogatory, as many of them are, they're personal attacks. But you folks seem to delight in these kinds of posts. 



> Originally Posted By: HistorianI don't like that he feels the need to force his opinion as an absolute - he wants everyone to use e-collars as THE training collar, regardless of whether it is the best choice for the dog or not, and regardless of whether it is needed or not.


I've often written that "no one needs an Ecollar. Sorta makes your comment completely UNTRUE! 



> Originally Posted By: HistorianReading Lou's post, one is supposed to agree that the e-collar is the best choice for every dog and that every dog needs an e-collar for training, or the dog can't be reliably trained.


See above. 



> Originally Posted By: HistorianIt also bothers me that he feels the need of making his points about the e-collar by dissecting posts


I've multiquoted since I've been on the Net. On some forums it's the way things are done. On some forums some do it and others don't. On some, as with this one, people snivel about it endlessly. It won't change how I do things. Just because you don't care for it, hardly makes it improper. 



> Originally Posted By: Historiantaking text out of contest


I deny that this has been done. Feel free to show the posts where it's happened. One reason that it may happen is that this forum (the only one that I've ever seen) has a 1,000 word limit on posts. So when I respond to a long post from someone else, the post sometimes gets too long. Something has to go. If it has happened, people are free to respond and show the correct context. 

I find it interesting that you slam me for this while completely ignoring CassidysMom's post wherein she said that I only quoted four words from a paragraph. In truth I'd quoted the entire paragraph. AGAIN I notice the accusation is made without the slightest bit of supporting evidence. 



> Originally Posted By: Historianand trying to discredit others.


AGAIN I find it amusing that you slam me for this while giving Melanie a free ride for her attempt to do it to me. And she's the one who started it in spite of knowing (or should know) the truth of the situation. 



> Originally Posted By: HistorianI do not see others trying to discredit Lou.


I'll ask you the same question that's I've asked of others. Why else would Melanie bring up the "vested interest" discussion? Notice that the others have not responded. Perhaps you'll have an answer. 



> Originally Posted By: HistorianI do, however, see how, with his line of thinking on the e-collar, he would take it that way. Because it HAS to be absolute. Either you are ABSOLUTELY for the e-collar, or you are trying to dispute Lou, and if you dispute Lou, you must be trying to discredit Lou.


Obvious nonsense. Go back to my very first post on this topic. It was #922354. I recommended AGAINST using the Ecollar for this situation. I have no idea where you folks come up with, AND KEEP coming up with this. It's happened so many times and I've corrected it so many times that it has to be a deliberate deception by now. 



> Originally Posted By: HistorianQuite frankly, I don't think anyone even cares anymore.


Yesterday about this time the readership was over 1,400 views. Right now it's 1,872, an increase of about 400 views in just one day! I disagree with your assessment. People may be reading now just for the soap opera but they do seem to be reading. 



> Originally Posted By: HistorianI don't think the discussion will end unless people get bored reading Lou's post, or until everyone agrees with Lou.


I've NEVER wanted everyone to agree with me. I rarely learn anything from people who agree with me. If we all agreed, there'd be little point to forums like this one. Someone would say something, we'd all go "uhuh" and it would be over. 

But it's posts like this one, full of things that are wrong, untruthful comments and long personal attacks that will prolong this kind of response. All that's necessary to stop these responses is for you folks to stop the personal attacks and get back to talking about dogs. 



> Originally Posted By: HistorianI do think that this thread, and the other tread on e-collars are doing great harm to Lou himself, because they certainly don't put him in a good light.


I don't feel a need to be "in a good light." I'm not interested in whether or not people like me. 



> Originally Posted By: HistorianIf I knew nothing of Lou other than the posts on this thread, that would be enough for me to look for a different trainer if I'd been considering him and had come up with these threads by Googeling his name.


Feel free to go elsewhere for your information. My feelings won't be hurt. There are plenty of people who DO come to me with questions. In fact, I'm at the point where I'm turning clients aside. I have more work than I want.


----------



## Branca's Mom

3 or 4 years ago I was an <u>unbelievable miserable person</u>. Argumentative, combative and just down-right mean-spirited. It came from things going on in my personal life that lead me to (_inappropriately_) vent my frustrations here. I hope that at least some people realized what was going on and took pity on me. 

So, sometimes when I see someone showing their butt... I try to remember the times when I acted inappropriately and hope that whatever trials this person is going thru to make them behave this way they get thru quickly and move on to better things and happiness finds them again.

So, I am sending out well wishes to anyone going thru tough times.... I hope whatever is bothering you passes quickly and you can be happy again.


----------



## GunnerJones

" Whooshh , SLAP, POP, (with voice out of sync of lips) Our Kung Fu is better than your Kung Fu!!! HIIIIIIIIYAAAAA thwack"


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: Branca's Mom3 or 4 years ago I was an <u>unbelievable miserable person</u>. Argumentative, combative and just down-right mean-spirited. It came from things going on in my personal life that lead me to (_inappropriately_) vent my frustrations here.


Anyone EVER going to talk about dogs again?


----------



## AbbyK9

I'm not going to respond to your cut/paste dissection of my post, as I think it makes my point for me. The fact that you would take the part about using different tools as a "personal attack" says a lot.



> Quote: In fact, I'm at the point where I'm turning clients aside. I have more work than I want.


Okay, it's great you have more work than you want. But I have yet to see a dog trainer who promotes themselves who does not get the clients they want. The e-collar trainer that was arrested for abuse, I believe it was in Chicago, also had plenty of clients. This means little to me.

You complain nobody is talking about dogs anymore on this thread. As a matter of fact, I see loads of discussions going on all over the forum. It just seems none of them are talking to you. I wonder why that is. I'm sure it has nothing to do with your posts.


----------



## LouCastle

> Originally Posted By: HistorianI'm not going to respond to your cut/paste dissection of my post, as I think it makes my point for me. The fact that you would take the part about using different tools as a "personal attack" says a lot.


I didn't take your comments about "using different tools as a 'personal attack.' " RATHER it was your comments about ME on a PERSONAL level, that were the personal attack. These were comments such as "he feels the need to force his opinion …" and "one is supposed to agree that the Ecollar is the best choice …" and your sniveling about the fact that I "dissect posts" and the lie that I "take text out of context" and your double standard in slamming me for trying to discredit others when it was done first to me and you give them a pass. There's more but you should get the point. 

I'm always entertained when someone makes a claim that is easy to prove but they don't do so. Your comment about me "taking text out of context" is one such claim. I've invited you to prove it, the posts are right there, but you've decided that you're "not going to respond." I think that's a not–so–clever way of getting out of the accusation. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Quote: In fact, I'm at the point where I'm turning clients aside. I have more work than I want.





> Originally Posted By: Historian Okay, it's great you have more work than you want. But I have yet to see a dog trainer who promotes themselves who does not get the clients they want.


I don't promote myself except on these forums. I don't advertise. All of my business comes from word of mouth. Clients what are happy recommend me to people who need help. 

That comment was made in response to this personal attack from you,


> Quote:If I knew nothing of Lou other than the posts on this thread, that would be enough for me to look for a different trainer if I'd been considering him and had come up with these threads by Googeling his name.





> Originally Posted By: Historian The e-collar trainer that was arrested for abuse, I believe it was in Chicago, also had plenty of clients. This means little to me.


Nice try at "guilt by association." But it won't work. My seminars have been seen by members of the Humane Society and rescue groups alike. In fact, one rescue group put one of them on! 



> Originally Posted By: Historian You complain nobody is talking about dogs anymore *on this thread. *[Emphasis added]


Yep, kinda like this post of yours. 



> Originally Posted By: Historian As a matter of fact, I see loads of discussions going on all over the forum.


You missed the point you made in your very own words (highlighted above)! As you said *on this thread*! Does this thread not count any more? Isn't it part of the forum? Does the OP no longer have significance to you? LOL. 



> Originally Posted By: Historian It just seems none of them are talking to you. I wonder why that is. I'm sure it has nothing to do with your posts.


As should be obvious to anyone, I'm ONLY talking about this thread. You folks, as the moderator pointed out earlier have AGAIN take it off topic. ROFLMAO

YOU may need for people to respond to you so that you feel you have some value, I have no such need. It's enough for me that dogs learn and learn quickly when my methods are used. As always when these conversations go south a small group of people PM and email me wanting more information. That's happening again. That's PLENTY for me. I don't need to change everyone's mind. I'm content with starting small and growing from there. 

BTW it's interesting that SOMEHOW you missed my compliment paid to the first part of your post where you WERE ACTUALLY talking about dog training. It's only when you turned to the personal attacks that your remarks started circling the toilet. 

As a shift away from the personal attacks, here are some things that my clients have said about my work. BTW ALL of these folks tried the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" (and that's not meant as a dig) to fix their problems. They didn't work. 

Kamal wrote,


> Quote: Just wanted to give you an update on Kaiser. I've been working on his recall command and enforcing it with the e-collar. He has been responding really well and obeying the commands without delay. He is doing so well that I've taken him to dog beach in Huntington Beach and he has been responding well even with dogs around. He is doing so much better that we've been able to go up to dogs and greet them without all the aggression. It really is an amazing change in his reaction to dogs. Thanks for the great advice.


Marlene wrote,


> Quote: I can say that Uncle Lou saved two GSD from being PTS thru his kindness in helping me correct their habits......They didn't belong me but I ask for help in training them , he offered me help which turned them around...


And Rob wrote,


> Quote: I can't thank you enough for your protocol on crittering. After just a couple of weeks, my 15 month old lab not only doesn't chase the things that she used to chase, but now she will just look at them and then go on about her business. It really didn't take but a few trips outside working with your protocol to get her this way, but as you said in the protocol, she did need a "reminder" about a week or so later. The protocol works great and I can't thank you enough for it.


----------



## Amaruq

Enough!


----------

