OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Tricks, obedience, behavior, and more.
User avatar
MikeInTacoma
Moderator
Posts: 3421
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:27 am
Location: Tacoma, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby MikeInTacoma » Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:52 am

Ok, I'm a little confused. First I read Kane was lunging and carrying on; then Erin says "no big reaction" but unsafe around dogs. The "no big reaction" part sounds to me like prey-based aggression; the "lunging and carrying on" sounds like fear-based aggression. Can you guys straighten me out?

User avatar
BabyReba
Moderator
Posts: 11589
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:21 pm
Location: Winter Park, Florida
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby BabyReba » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:15 am

Sorry, not really. I don't live with the dog and I never interacted with him daily; All I can tell is what I saw when I first met him and saw him at training, and when he came here. He would be laying down, maybe his ears would move forward or something, then if a dog got close enough, he'd go for it . . . when he was at my house, he walked up on the back porch with us and immediately jumped up on the window sill and was scrabbling at the end of the leash trying to bust through a window. He didn't make a huge show of it--he was just going to do what he wanted to do.

But I didn't really know him before that, and I didn't see Amanda work with him before, as I said. So that's all I can tell you. And now I'm done, the rest of the conversation is up to the people who feel like discussing e-collars.

All I wanted to do was verify, since I think the "not naming names" part of the post meant me . . . since we're in the same schutzhund club, I see Amanda and Kane almost every week

User avatar
mommy2kane
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 5364
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby mommy2kane » Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:04 am

wegobad wrote:
mommy2kane wrote:
wegobad wrote:
You see, it's puzzling to me, because I know of other high-drive DA dogs who have titled in various dog sports like Schutzhund, who were trained with positive reinforcement / negative punishment, and not with shock collars, prong collars, etc.

Please give us a list of these High Drive DA dogs and their handlers because I would love to talk to them about their methods.

I'll respond to the rest in a sec.

The dogsports titled "high drive DA dogs" I was thinking of are Nelson's Drago, some of Diane Jessup's dogs, and Wallace the Disk Dog. Could be that I'm wrong about how some of them were trained, though; all I know about it is what sticks in my mind from reading here. (And as you see from my questions, I don't know that much about Schutzhund...) (I know Disk Dog isn't as impressive as Schutzhund, but the dog is off leash, chasing a disk, in a park full of other dogs... :dunno: )


I'm in no way trying to drag others into this debate, that don't want to participate voluntarily. However, I do have reason to believe that some of the names you listed have used some level of compulsion (i.e. e-collars, prong collars, choke collars, etc).

User avatar
mommy2kane
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 5364
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby mommy2kane » Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:30 am

wegobad wrote:Ok, if you didn't first establish a reward marker, then you weren't using the most efficient of the "cookie cookie" methods. So maybe you didn't give it the best possible shot. But from your and Erin's descriptions, it sounds like once Kane was reacting, he would ignore the clicker and treats anyhow. As would most dogs; which is why you work with them below their reactivity threshold.


Work was done below his reactivity threshold. WAY below. Sure, we were able to teach him some things at this level. He knew "leave it" or "look" or whatever. As it gradually increased, he would lose his mind. Once he knew what was expected of him, other training methods were brought into play. Especially when control was needed right away. Kane had been in fights. Kane had been quaratined. Control was needed fast.

wegobad wrote:I've been thinking lately about dogs who "light up" with an impressive threat display toward other dogs. I have to wonder about the nature of their dog-aggression. Threat displays make the other animal run away. So if the dog wanted to murder the other dog, he would tend to not lunge and carry on, right? At least, that's how it seems to be with my Rufus. When he's barking and whatnot, I actually feel pretty relaxed (though embarrassed), because on the handful of occasions when I've seen him attack, he was very silent beforehand. So, I'm kind of concluding that, at least in some cases, dogs who light up around other dogs are reacting fearfully. Does that make sense?


I see what you're saying, but I don't believe Kane's dog aggression is fear-based. That's my opinion. Others who have seen him have said the same thing. He's an ignorant fool. Sure, he had his times of barking/lunging/carrying on, but he also has no problem being slick about it (or trying to be slick) and waiting for his opportunity. Granted, the "silent attack" doesn't really bother me too much because I know Kane. I'll never be suckered into the "oh, look - he's being good - maybe that dog could walk up on him." Kane knows what he wants and how to get it!

wegobad wrote:Whoops, sorry, getting off the e-collar track...

So, when Kane was lighting up, you couldn't distract him with treats etc. In a normal desensitization / counterconditioning program, you want to give him the reinforcement when notices the other dog, but isn't close enough to react to it. So, maybe at a quarter mile away, Kane will alert on the other dog but not lunge / growl / puff up / etc. -- that's where you begin. Or maybe Kane is one of those dogs who will light up at an even farther distance. In that case, maybe Constructional Aggression Treatment (CAT) would help, especially if the aggression is (at least partly) fear-based.

If the aggression is not fear-based, but prey-based (I'm pretty sure that the fight drive of the APBT is a modification of the prey drive), then my guess is that CAT wouldn't work. Because it uses the removal of the stimulus dog as the reward. If Kane wants to get closer to the other dog (the better to bite its head off), then removing the stimulus dog is a punishment, not a reward.


Sure, in the beginning it was MORE than a quarter mile away. We worked our way to closer distances. He was rewarded for not lighting up. But there was a point that couldn't be crossed. And it wasn't anything super close, either. And again, I have no reason to believe his is fear-based. No hackles or anything, he was deliberately trying to get to that other dog.

wegobad wrote:For a bunch of obvious reasons, it is unacceptable to use the biting of another dog as a reward for Kane. So if that's really what he wants more than anything (which I'm not 100% sure about, because of his threat displays), then I admit I don't know with certainty how to change his behavior with "purely positive" methods. The books I've been reading tend to have disclaimers about the "rare" dogs who actually enjoy fighting for the sake of fighting. My guess is that a long counter-conditioning and desensitization program would be the way to go; and it would not show results immediately, but might need weeks or months to show appreciable progress.

But also -- we've all heard of dogs blowing through invisible fences, shaking off tazer darts, and attacking even though they were wearing e-collars. So, if Kane wants more than anything to bite the other dog, then... why does a shock on the neck get his attention and stop his behavior?


Unfortunately, I've seen Kane in action. It's not all talk, it's not trying to get that other dog away - it's a fight. I know my dog, I've lived with him for almost 4 years and he wants more than anything to get at another dog. So, I'd obviously have to agree with your statement that if this were the case, I don't think purely positive methods were the right route to take.

Invisible fences are a joke (my opinion, not meant to knock anyone). Now, I'll admit - I've never had one and am not 100% sure about what they do. I assume it's "kinda" like an e-collar, but they only get one quick stim as they run through. Kane would not let an invisible fence deter him from another dog. I can't say anything about the tasers. Kane has never attacked another dog with an e-collar on. I could see how a dog COULD do such a thing, if the corrections aren't given or maybe they're too "low" . . . but in my opinion, when you use compulsion you generally mean business. If it comes down to safety, I'm not going to watch Kane run down the field at another dog and do nothing. Or stim on such a low level that he's not reacting. During our training, I've come to know what my dog needs. I know what's too low, or what's too high. Believe me, I don't turn it up to 100 (or 127, I believe) and fry him. For what? I have enough control that that's not needed. I know what level I need to stop a behavior. Or to grab his attention if he focusing too hard on another dog. Or to use in regular obedience (without the presence of another dog) to proof exercises. It's not a "one size fits all." My e-collar use was worked with gradually, over time, with a trainer. I didn't go to the store, pick one up and put it on my dog. I've put it on myself and pushed the button. I know what corrections Kane is getting.

My disclaimer - I'm not trying to make anyone "pro-ecollar" or "pro-compulsion" or "anti-positive." I think this thread could be really informative and just help people understand the use of e-collars. This is what I use. This is what we succeed with. And if you were to ever come to VA/MD and watch my dog train, you'd see a happy, bouncy dog in obedience. Our e-collar use doesn't shut him down to the point of no return.

User avatar
Kingsgurl
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 7459
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Shingle Springs, CA
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby Kingsgurl » Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:49 pm

Obviously, that is going to depend on the individual dog. I could reduce Martin to a pool of quivering Jello with a few well timed corrections (I'm not even talking about e-collar corrections here, I'm talking simple leash pops or even a harsh eh eh. He hates to be wrong, he shuts down) Mysti could handle negative markers much better.

I've actually toyed with the e-collar idea for one specific scenario with Mysti. There is a 4 foot section of my back fence that butts up to another yard. There is a psyco Malti-Poo in this yard who charges the fence and barks/growls at my dogs. Mysti stalks it, waiting quietly for it to challenge her, then puts on an impressive display of "I'm going to eat you" She is not kidding. This section of fence is at the bottom of my yard, she knows she is NOT allowed to engage in this behaviour. She also knows it takes me a little bit to get down the hill and stop her. She stops when I get about 10 feet away and are closing in on her. She will, at this point, offer a sit or a down and ignore the little dog completely. She will not call off the display if I am further than 10 feet (she knows I can't reach her)
I currently use positve rewards to keep her from this spot, but the adrenaline rush is enough of a positive reinforcer for her that it's hard to always compete.

User avatar
MikeInTacoma
Moderator
Posts: 3421
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:27 am
Location: Tacoma, WA, USA
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby MikeInTacoma » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:49 am

mommy2kane wrote:
wegobad wrote:[...] which is why you work with them below their reactivity threshold.

Work was done below his reactivity threshold. WAY below. Sure, we were able to teach him some things at this level. He knew "leave it" or "look" or whatever. As it gradually increased, he would lose his mind. Once he knew what was expected of him, other training methods were brought into play. Especially when control was needed right away. Kane had been in fights. Kane had been quaratined. Control was needed fast.

That makes it sound like the stimulus was increased not gradually enough, and with not enough time to habituate to the lower intensity. Desensitization and counterconditioning can consume a frustratingly large amount of time and other resources.

As to "control was needed fast" -- usually I'd suggest simply tauter management until the problem behavior has diminished. But, in the real world, that's not always practical, which can lead to harsh choices.

mommy2kane wrote:
wegobad wrote: [...] Threat displays make the other animal run away. So if the dog wanted to murder the other dog, he would tend to not lunge and carry on, right? [...] So, I'm kind of concluding that, at least in some cases, dogs who light up around other dogs are reacting fearfully. Does that make sense?

I see what you're saying, but I don't believe Kane's dog aggression is fear-based. That's my opinion. Others who have seen him have said the same thing. [...]

So, probably not fearful aggression. Tougher, because the aggression is its own reward.


[...]
mommy2kane wrote:
wegobad wrote: Whoops, sorry, getting off the e-collar track...

So, when Kane was lighting up, you couldn't distract him with treats etc. In a normal desensitization / counterconditioning program, you want to give him the reinforcement when notices the other dog, but isn't close enough to react to it. So, maybe at a quarter mile away, Kane will alert on the other dog but not lunge / growl / puff up / etc. -- that's where you begin. Or maybe Kane is one of those dogs who will light up at an even farther distance. [...]

Sure, in the beginning it was MORE than a quarter mile away. We worked our way to closer distances. He was rewarded for not lighting up. But there was a point that couldn't be crossed. And it wasn't anything super close, either. And again, I have no reason to believe his is fear-based. No hackles or anything, he was deliberately trying to get to that other dog.

Ok, is this a reasonably accurate picture? Kane would "light up" with a threat display, and attempt to pursue and attack another dog, when the stimulus dog came into sight, even at a distance of maybe half a mile or more. Over time (how much time, and how many sessions, roughly?), by rewarding Kane for calm behavior (what rewards?) when seeing a dog in the distance, you got him to not "light up" as the stimulus distance was gradually reduced. But, Kane was still interested in the stimulus dog, and would have attacked if the opportunity arose. Eventually, you reached a smaller distance, where Kane would not behave calmly with a stimulus dog in sight. And, this "smaller distance" was not super close. (So I'm guessing, maybe 50 feet?)

So, when you reach a plateau where further improvement does not come, I think the usual advice is to back up to a less challenging intensity (i.e., a larger distance) where the dog was behaving as you wished, and spend some more time practicing at that intensity. And then, when you do increase the intensity (i.e., decrease the distance), you do it with even smaller "baby steps" and even more desirable rewards. And, you don't want things to always be getting harder for the dog, never easier; so you sometimes reward good behavior very much below threshold. For example, if Kane is holding his Sit when the stimulus dog is 80 feet away, but not 70 feet away -- then you spend more time at the 80' intensity; and once in a while, you reward him at the 90' intensity. And when you think he is ready to go below 80', you don't jump straight to 70'; but maybe 78'.

But still, maybe there comes a point when you run short of resources, and you can't throw more time, treats, and stimulus dogs at the problem. (Really, using a reward marker really seems to improve the efficiency of training. Might have helped when you were doing the "cookie cookie" thing with Kane.) And it can become tempting to use a positive punishment, like a shock from an e-collar. If it's done carefully and well (so consistently, that the dog effectively is in control of the shocks), it may change the dog's behavior without bad side-effects. But all the research Red referenced on the first page shows how difficult it is for us to be that careful and consistent, and how bad the side-effects can be.

It makes intuitive sense to me. You've got a tense situation -- a confrontation with another dog. You want to take energy out of that situation -- you don't want to add energy to it with shocks or other compulsive methods.

mommy2kane wrote:
wegobad wrote: [...] For a bunch of obvious reasons, it is unacceptable to use the biting of another dog as a reward for Kane. So if that's really what he wants more than anything [...] then I admit I don't know with certainty how to change his behavior with "purely positive" methods. The books I've been reading tend to have disclaimers [...] So, if Kane wants more than anything to bite the other dog, then... why does a shock on the neck get his attention and stop his behavior?

Unfortunately, I've seen Kane in action. [...] During our training, I've come to know what my dog needs. I know what's too low, or what's too high. [...] I know what level I need to stop a behavior. Or to grab his attention if he focusing too hard on another dog. Or to use in regular obedience (without the presence of another dog) to proof exercises. It's not a "one size fits all." My e-collar use was worked with gradually, over time, with a trainer. I didn't go to the store, pick one up and put it on my dog. I've put it on myself and pushed the button. I know what corrections Kane is getting.

Sounds like you're using the e-collar properly, or at least as properly as possible. I respect that you shocked yourself with it, and got guidance from a trainer. And I'm happy that Kane is not showing signs of damage or brokenness (thanks Erin, it helps).

I do believe that dogs are individuals, and some are more hard-headed and more resilient than others. I've heard a trainer (Pat Miller I think, but maybe it was Pia Silvani) say that, one reason compulsive training is still popular is that, with most dogs, it works. It may be that, with a small fraction of dogs, it's the only thing that works within a reasonable budget of time and other resources. (Of course, agreeing on how much time is "reasonable" won't be easy. I think that "pure positive" folks say that it takes as long as it takes, and the dog is the one who sets the pace. Ideally, I agree with that; but in the real world, ideals sometimes get compromised.)

mommy2kane wrote:My disclaimer - I'm not trying to make anyone "pro-ecollar" or "pro-compulsion" or "anti-positive." I think this thread could be really informative and just help people understand the use of e-collars. This is what I use. This is what we succeed with. And if you were to ever come to VA/MD and watch my dog train, you'd see a happy, bouncy dog in obedience. Our e-collar use doesn't shut him down to the point of no return.

Cool. You're describing your experiences. There are e-collar enthusiasts out there, who work to increase sales and use of e-collars ("SitMeansSit" comes to mind); but that's not you.

User avatar
Red
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 9519
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:35 am
Location: SoCal

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby Red » Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:43 pm

I am of the opinion that some dogs do not belong off leash and that there are limits that need to be understood and accepted. It's puzzling how some behaviors are described and then owners think that being off leash around other dogs is a must do type of situation. I am not talking about some reactiveness that can be worked with, I am talking about strong and unsafe behaviors with an history.

Anyway, for the sake of the discussion.... people continue to use e -collars to punish dogs going down the field or breaking positions to go after another dog, long time after training has started and aversion though an e- collar, or other aversive equipment, was introduced. The punishment used did not reduce the probability of the behavior to happen in the future (so was it really an appropriate punisher, by definition, or something else got in the way?) and these dogs are still getting stimulated. So why to use high levels of punishment, which are painful, when punishment is not having long term effect? Either some contingencies are missing or there are other reasons that one should think about. For some aggressive behaviors there are physiological automatic reinforcers that we cannot extinguish, plain and simple. In this case behaviors are most likely not going to be eliminated permanently so continued stimulation is required and, in my opinion, it is absolutely not fair for the animal to be exposed to it because the owner must have a title. To add an example, the increase of heart rates following an aversive stimulation such as electric stimulation is one of those physiologic reinforcers that make punishment less than productive.

On the subject on charging and jumping fences, fence fighting and what not..why would an electric stimulation be justified there? While there potentially are situations in which one need to consider to results to high levels or aversion or equipments such as an e collar they should be a life or death matter. Because of that oh so unrealistic concept of respect and dignity of a companion animal. An owner who is not willing to manage the dog with less intrusive intervention, such as a tether when the dog is out, raising a fence, or blocking one area of the yard to deny the dog access to what is proving some kind of reinforcer, hardly qualify as a life or death situation. Imagine if it was possible to electrically stimulate people for laziness instead.

User avatar
mommy2kane
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 5364
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby mommy2kane » Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:35 pm

Red wrote:The punishment used did not reduce the probability of the behavior to happen in the future (so was it really an appropriate punisher, by definition, or something else got in the way?) and these dogs are still getting stimulated. So why to use high levels of punishment, which are painful, when punishment is not having long term effect? Either some contingencies are missing or there are other reasons that one should think about. For some aggressive behaviors there are physiological automatic reinforcers that we cannot extinguish, plain and simple. In this case behaviors are most likely not going to be eliminated permanently so continued stimulation is required and, in my opinion, it is absolutely not fair for the animal to be exposed to it because the owner must have a title.


How do you know the punishment used did not reduce the probability of it happening again? Did you poll all e-collar users? Because our training HAS reduced the probability of my dog breaking a long down when on the obedience field. We progressed to the point of earning our BH last month. I'm not going to continue saying how my dog is not damaged and shaking under a table because some people are just not going to "get it" or believe it. But my "poor" dog is not exposed to "horrible" corrections just because I must have a title (if that was at all directed towards me). My "poor" dog was going to end up being put down if control was not established, and I didn't have years to use positive training and continuously decrease (and increase, and decrease) the distance between him and another dog because he was still "lighting up" at a long distance.

I have never pushed my training methods on anyone else. I don't expect (nor do I think it's acceptable) for any Joe-Shmoe to go out, purchase an e-collar and correct (or attempt to correct) their dog. This is the training method I use and the method that has worked. I'd have different thoughts if my dog was scarred and fearful and trembling after training sessions.

Have you EVER put a training collar (choke, prong, etc) on a dog? Have you EVER given a leash correction? If not, then that's great for you. If so, I think those can be considered "abusive" if used impropertly. I saw a post that said in a perfect world we wouldn't need all these training collars. But unfortunately, the world/dogs/people/training in NOT perfect and we use what works for us and our dogs. I can't honestly say that our training is 100% negative and compulsion - because it's not. We use corrections, and when he does right he gets rewarded. Food, praise, play, etc. I balance it out. I consider my dog to be a pretty extreme case - an exception to the rule (as some think that ALL dogs can be trained/managed using purely positive training and no corrections) - a hard dog who needs a little more than most, and can STILL be happy and bouncy and flashy.

User avatar
Stormi
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 5078
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:05 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby Stormi » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:06 pm

A fantastic article by Cerified Dog Behavior Consultant, Angelica Steinker:


The problem with shock
By Angelica Steinker, M.Ed., PDBC, CDBC, NADOI Endorsed, CAP2
It isn’t that shock collar training doesn’t work, because it does. The question is at what price? Some extremely skilled trainers may be able to offset some of the problems shock collars can cause. However, shock collars are for sale at almost every pet store making them readily accessible to the general public. A shock collar can potentially lead to very serious problems if not managed by a skilled trainer. There are a multitude of other powerful training options including obedience, behavior management, and positive reinforcement.
Malfunction
The first potential problem is that the unit itself may malfunction. Malfunctioning shock collars can cause electrical burns, creating holes in the affected dog’s neck and causing serious physical and emotional damage. To prevent this from happening never leave a shock collar on an unsupervised dog. This presents a problem for owners who use in ground shock fencing which makes use of a boundary that shocks the dog if they cross it. By design this particular type of shock collar is left on an unsupervised dog.
Logistical issues
Any clicker trainer can tell you timing and reward delivery are mechanical skills. When you are a clicker trainer if you click late or fumble to get your treat you haven’t done any harm. Learning may be delayed or the behavior may not be quite what you wanted but you have not hurt the dog. For effective shock collar training superb timing is needed, a skill that even very few professional trainers possess. Another logistical issue is to be effective the collar must be on the dog, this means the dog will become “collar wise” i.e. they will learn when the collar is on and when it is not. Many dogs would rather run through the fencing and endure a shock than avoid reaching other dogs or people. For these dogs the underground shock fences are ineffective and for the unprotected people, children and dogs the situation is potentially dangerous. In addition users of underground shock fencing can forget to replace batteries making the shock fencing ineffective.
Abuse
Shock collars can too easily lead to abuse. Many people don’t want to hurt their dogs. Thus they set the shock at a low setting which is typically ineffective for stopping the undesired behavior. They then raise the setting and again this is ineffective. So the setting is raised yet again. Since the dog is exposed to the pain gradually, the surprise effect is lost and the shock may not be effective at all.
As trainers we must understand that some people feel powerful when punishing a dog. When a person of this type is given a shock collar it can lead to a vicious cycle of abuse. Many professional trainers have seen dogs “housetrained” with shock collars. In one particular case a terrier had learned to avoid urinating in front of humans, not a useful concept when you want to housetrain a dog. The professional trainer who rehabilitated this dog had to work months to undo the damage that had been done to this small terrier. Without the use of a shock collar she housetrained her and placed the dog in a loving home where the owners adore her and are committed to training without pain.
Side Effects
The primary reason shock collars are effective in stopping behavior is because they hurt. The problem is that when you train with pain you have unwanted side effects. These side effects are called fallout. Murray Sidman, a famous behavior analyst, wrote an entire academic text on the topic which those looking for a thorough exploration can read (Coercions and its fallout). Fallout is when we use shock that will be associated with both the trainer and the training process causing stress for the animal. That stress can then be associated with the behaviors we are training, with the equipment we are using, the training field and of course with the trainer.
Slow work and Frantic work
Dogs who are shocked during training are stressed. In a scientific study dogs who were trained with shock displayed stress signals when they were approaching the training area. This behavior is the opposite of what we want as dog sport enthusiasts. Dogs that are trained with shock will frequently work slowly and deliberately. They are over thinking and being very careful to avoid being shocked. If the punishment of the collar outweighs the joy of the sport, they won’t love their work and won’t do it with speed and happiness. Of course highly skilled shock collar trainers can force a dog to work quickly. It’s simple. If the dogs work slowly they are shocked if they work fast they avoid the shock. In behavioral science this is called negative reinforcement. The dog’s behavior makes a bad thing go away, so the behavior increases. It does work, but it does not make the happy attitude that training with positive reinforcement does.
Stress
The bottom-line is that shock can cause stress. In a well known experiment Stanley Milgram showed that shocking another being is very stressful for most humans. Professional trainers should be familiar with Milgram’s obedience to authority studies. Authority carries with it power, and that power is something that should not be exploited. The reality is that if you have credibility people will comply with even abusive training instructions.
A dog who is shocked for several different behaviors may go into a state of shut down, or a global suppression of behavior. Owners may mistakenly assume the dog is now “trained” because the dog is suddenly very quiet and not doing anything. In reality this dog is afraid to do anything. The ultimate step of the global suppression of behavior is learned helplessness. This occurs when the dog fails to do anything, curls into a ball, and gives up. Many who work with rescue dogs have seen the traumatic and long lasting effects of learned helplessness.
Aggression
A dog that is being hurt may become aggressive. If a dog has a history of aggression the use of a shock collar is particularly dangerous. Aggressive behavior should NOT be punished (suppressed). When you punish a dog for aggression and you don’t teach a substitute behavior you simply hide the problem. You then open yourself up to a much bigger problem where without warning the dog may become aggressive. You may have punished the barking, lunging and growling, so the dog may go straight to biting which is VERY dangerous.
Shock yourself
Shock collar users often attempt to argue that the shock doesn’t hurt. For this specific reason I bought a shock collar and used it to shock myself. It does hurt. It is common for underground fencing companies to put the shock collar on the lowest setting to show the owner the shock sensation. Do not be fooled, a shock collar works if it hurts.
E-Collar
Many shock collar supporters use euphemisms for shock collars to soften their image. They call them e-collars, training collars, e-touch, stimulation, tingle, etc. They do this to avoid the fact that shock collars shock.
Ideal training
The ideal training methods prevent unwanted behaviors before they ever occur. Trainers read their dogs’ subtle body language signals to avoid stress which may lead to aggression or fear. Ideally a trainer never sees the unwanted behaviors in the first place. They play with their dogs instead of forcing behaviors, thus deepening their bond with their dogs. They act instead of react and their dogs love them for it. Most widely recognized associations in the world forbid the use of shock collars. A well informed trainer should not need to use shock. Sports, tricks, and training are supposed to be enjoyable and reinforcing for canines and humans on their own merit without the use of force. Let’s make training and competition fun, and shock free.
Recommended reading:
Articles
Pat Miller, Whole Dog Journal, February 2006 Shock or Awe
Pat Miller, Simply Shocking is WDJ 2/03
Books
Coercion and Its Fallout, Murray Sidman
Canine Aggression Workbook, James O’Heare
Control Unleashed, Leslie McDevitt
Scientific Articles
Polsky R. “Can Aggression in Dogs Be Elicited Through the Use of Electronic Pet Containment Systems?” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 3(4): 345–357, January 2000. An abstract is available free online at www.Informaworld.com. The full article is also available for purchase.
Hiby, E.F.; Rooney, N.J.; Bradshaw, J.W.S. “Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare.” Animal Welfare, Volume 13, Number 1, pp. 63-69(7) February 2004.
Schalke E, Stichnoth J, Ott S and Jones-Baade R. “Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations.” Applied Animal Behavior Science, 105(4): 369–380, July 2007.
Websites
www.TrulyDogFriendly.com
www.PeaceablePaws.com
www.AskDrYin.com

User avatar
ProudMommy77
Forum Junky
Posts: 3766
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:46 am
Location: Sunny, PA
Contact:

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby ProudMommy77 » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:28 pm

well, I have nothing to add, not a debate I want to get caught up in. But, I did have the pleasure of meeting Amanda and her SO, including some of the dogs at the AADR show in July up here in PA.
Kane does suffer from not being able to contain his wild crazy kisses..lol..the dog is fine, by no means damaged, total love muffin, and adores all people.
Amanda, congrats on the BH!!! I wish you all the sucess and luck!!!

User avatar
mommy2kane
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 5364
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby mommy2kane » Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:38 pm

ProudMommy77 wrote:well, I have nothing to add, not a debate I want to get caught up in. But, I did have the pleasure of meeting Amanda and her SO, including some of the dogs at the AADR show in July up here in PA.
Kane does suffer from not being able to contain his wild crazy kisses..lol..the dog is fine, by no means damaged, total love muffin, and adores all people.
Amanda, congrats on the BH!!! I wish you all the sucess and luck!!!


Thanks! Sorry, Kane lacks manners when meeting people. He goes all out! lol

User avatar
Red
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 9519
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:35 am
Location: SoCal

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby Red » Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:53 pm

Amanda, not sure why you insist on people calling your dog a "poor dog".I made sure not to use such words since I have not met Kane so I could not have a sure opinion on him. I own a heavy dog aggressive male as well so I understand how it is to live with an animal that seek to do damage, for one reason or the other. My input here is mainly about making people aware of the side effects and discourage them to jump into using an e-collar. It's a sad reality that many purchase an e-collar without having a valid reason. And it is a reality that folks follow what very heavy handed trainers have to say without second thoughts.I believe that aversion is a part of pretty much any creature's world and there can be situations in which aversion has a place. I am trained to know how to apply it but it would have to be after other behavior modification change programs did not work or in front of a behavior that needs to be stopped in a few seconds time frame, before a dog is injured or someone is hurt (I am talking about an accident, not a dog set up to fail from the beginning). It is just not my first choice and definitely not something I would use long term. As a matter of fact, if it was not that my older female just blew one of her knees and I need to save money for her surgery I meant to go up to San Francisco to hear Michael Ellis to talk about e-collars. That's because I educate myself not only on what I like but also what I don't like, so that I am in the position to actually say something that is based on facts. Can't say the same about many who use aversion and don't want to hear a thing against it.

User avatar
Mya&theSiebenDackels
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 5973
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Northern Mississippi

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby Mya&theSiebenDackels » Sat Oct 31, 2009 12:07 am

We have tried to use e-collar on the dachshunds for barking.

The collars worked for about a week and then the dachshunds just started barking straight though them. We had to stop using them because Gracie caused her self to convulse because she was ignoring the shock and barking at what ever she was barking at.

They did not work very well for our dogs and were causing more harm than good.

User avatar
mommy2kane
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 5364
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby mommy2kane » Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:14 am

Red, I agree in the fact that too many people jump on e-collar use for no good reason. Again, I don't think they should be given to any person on the street who wants one. It should only be used with a good trainer, for a good reason. I use one and I think it was a good reason, backed by good trainers who taught me the proper use, and it's worked for us. I'm not here to tell everyone to go out and get an e-collar. I'm against people coming on here and wanting to put a prong on a puppy that doesn't walk on a leash. There's a time and place for everything.

And it's great that you research things you don't like, so that you can say things based on fact. What I'm trying to get across is that not EVERY dog goes through the "torture" that most people think e-collars cause. It's not that I don't want to hear a thing against aversion - I have no problem hearing it. It's not going to change MY mind because my methods work. But if it changes someone else's mind who has no business slapping an e-collar on their dog in the first place, that's great.

User avatar
mommy2kane
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 5364
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA

Re: OFFICIAL e-collar debate thread

Postby mommy2kane » Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:20 am

To be honest the article that Stormi posted IMO is a great article for this thread. It describes the precise timing needed NOT to damage a dog. I think it's a well written piece.

One of the above posts (barking)is a reason why they shouldn't be available to anyone and everyone. No offense to Mya, but you can't just slap an e-collar on a dog like that and let them go at it. That probably wasn't the proper method for that problem.


Return to “Training and Behavior”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests