Red wrote: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.
Yeah, that's weird for me too. But I accept it. As things are currently constructed, the dog's owner makes the rules. If the owner wants / needs the dog to behave well off-leash, for whatever reason, then that's their right -- though depending on the circumstances, I might feel they're wrong. But, the owner doesn't care a whit about my opinion; and as long as the dog gets a little food and water now and then, neither does the law.
Red wrote: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 [...]
That's a good point, and I'm glad you brought it up. Mommy2Kane's reply --
mommy2kane wrote: [...] our training HAS reduced the probability of my dog breaking a long down when on the obedience field. [...]
It would be nice to have that quantified, at least roughly. (Something like, before e-collar, Kane broke Long Down 80% of the time; and after 12 sessions with e-collar over three months, Kane breaks Long Down 5% of the time.) Any chance there are training notes?
Red wrote: (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? [...]
mommy2kane wrote: [...] 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. [...]
From everything I've read recently, Red is right that if the positive-punishment training is working, then the unwanted behavior (and therefore the punishments, i.e. shocks) should stop quickly.
And, the dog can be experiencing psychological distress from the shocks without such extreme symptoms as cowering under the table. The symptoms may be more subtle; or the dog's lifespan may be reduced. But this is an unproductive line of discussion. I'll simply accept the independent testimony that Kane doesn't seem obviously distressed by the e-collar. Non-obvious distress, I'm less sure about; but I don't see any way to have it measured, so... moving on.
Red wrote: [...]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. [...]
Yeah; you can do a lot with training, but we sometimes encounter a dog's individual limitations, and it would be better to use a different dog for that particular job. But then we get back to the possibility that, for whatever reason, the owner has no use for a dog with that particular limitation. Regardless of my disapproval, the owner is the dog's owner, not me.
mommy2kane wrote: [...] 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. [...]
So let's assume that for whatever reason, the dog must hold a Long Down, by the end of the month, or else the local ACO will follow a court order to seize and euth' the dog. In that situation, if the owner has the choice of PTSing the dog or using an e-collar for quicker training results, I'd probably rather see the dog shocked occasionally. Especially if the dog seems mostly happy despite the e-collar.
Of course, it's a false dichotomy, because PTS and e-collar are not the only choices. There's also clicker training, desensitization / counter-conditioning, and maybe CAT. Heck, there's probably pharmaceutical stuff that could help, like DAP or something. But if someone must change the dog's behavior in a hurry, with limited resources, or else the dog gets PTS, then I'm not going to jump on them for trying an e-collar. I'll just be glad I'm not in their situation.
mommy2kane wrote: [...] 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. [...]
Yes, I have. At the time, that's the advice I was aware of, and the people advising me to do it sounded like they knew what they were talking about. And you're right, those can be abusive too (which is why Red argues against them too). Sometimes, I was abusive, though I didn't intend it. I don't use that stuff any longer, and it's tough for me to imagine a situation where I'd want to.