Need a lot of training in a short time

[urge to herd]

Lou Castle,

 

I have read and given thought to the two threads you've been posting on during the last couple of days.

 

 

Eileen,

 

Thank you for the excellent job you do here. The above post says everything I didn't know how to say in response to Mr. Castle. Brilliant.

 

Ruth

[stockdogranch]

Eileen: Thanks for such an articulate post,

A

[PSmitty]

Thank you for such a well thought out and written post, Eileen.

[Laurae]

I'll add my thanks, too, Eileen, for your very articulate post.

[Tea]

I wonder how hard it would be to train a young Marine by use of the e-collar?

 

Especially to teach him to be a sniper?

 

Hum??????

(Tea's immagination working this early AM!)

--------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Whoops Missed.....Ok Recruit go again

 

Ready Aim Fire!

 

Whoops! Go again! I wasn't quite on the button quick enough!

 

Ok

 

Ready, Aim

 

Here hold on I'll turn this up a bit so you will be better simmed or Stimmed

 

Ready Aim.....

 

No you are not aiming at the target.....

 

Ok Son now calm down....... put the rifle down.....

 

oh crap.......

[Ooky]

Eileen's post on this subject to so thoroughly awesome, it is article-worthy, IMO. I just wanted to speak to this:

 

In my experience, electric shocks -- even mild ones --are a particularly unpleasant sensation that gets worse over time. It is not exactly pain, but it's definitely unpleasant.

 

 

This is at the crux of one of my major objections to the e-collar. I have been electrocuted several times while working with a type of machine called a flow cytometer, that sends cells single file between a set of charged plates to then separate the cells based on whatever parameters you want to set (cells expressing a certain gene vs those that aren't, for instance). When charged, these plates carried 50,000 volts (though not a lot of amps), but enough so that you definitely did not want to touch them when they were on. During the years I operated this machine, there were times I made a mistake and touched these plates. Even though the actual sensation was "not that bad" in terms of actual PAIN, it was extremely unpleasant. Additionally, I found it would confuse me if I touched them more than one time...like if I made a couple of mistakes I would start making more as if my thinking was being impaired. IF a dog feels even a small degree of that, and if it also increases for them based on multiple shocks, I can't see why you would want to use it during all sorts of training since it seems the ability to reason, pay attention, and remember would be reduced.

[Lou Castle]

In the following post Eileen's comments are in black and my responses are in blue or red.

 

Lou Castle,

 

I have read and given thought to the two threads you've been posting on during the last couple of days.

 

To begin with, let me say that I am not unfamiliar with e-collar training and how it works. I looked into it nearly twenty years ago.

 

Eileen, if you looked into Ecollar "twenty years ago" you saw work and technology that is today, twenty years old. To think that it's the same as what's being done today is absurd. Nothing is the same as it was twenty years ago. I doubt that there's any technology that you'd like to go back twenty years to. Yet you use this as the basis for your comments and knowledge about Ecollars. Don't you think this is a bit unfair and unreasonable?

 

At that time, TriTronics was advocating the same approach that you extol as "new" -- basically what the Operant Conditioning folks call negative reinforcement. A mild, continuous electric shock is applied to the dog until he begins to perform the desired behavior, at which point the shock is stopped. The dog is therefore motivated to perform the desired behavior, and over time learns that he can make the shock stop by doing what the handler wants. Because of the dog's ability to generalize, the collar can be used in training many different behaviors.

 

As I've said here many times, that's not what I do. It's not a matter of stimming the dog until he happens upon the desired behavior. The dog is guided into the desired behavior. It happens this way right from the start.

 

The collar I investigated allowed one to choose among many different levels of shock, from very low to very high.

 

Tri−Tronics Ecollars of that era had at most, 18 levels of stim. Some had only six levels. The collar I use has 127 levels. The lowest setting on today's collars is far lower than those of two decades ago and they can be adjusted with more precision.

 

(BTW, I call it shock because that's what it is, although I understand why you prefer to call it "stim." People understandably might not want to shock their dogs, whereas "stimming" their dogs carries no unpleasant connotations.)

 

As to calling shock stim, I use the language of just about every other dog trainer who use Ecollars. You, of course, are free to use any terms that you like. It's a euphemism but let's admit that we all use them many times a day. Those who use leash jerks (myself included) prefer the term "correction" for the same reason. Using the word "stim" is the same as saying "I corrected the dog" avoids the unpleasant connotation of saying, "I jerked the leash and hurt his neck." But they are the same thing.

 

There was a level low enough that a dozing dog, when shocked, would just raise his head and look around and go back to dozing. No dispute about that. But for the collar to be used effectively in training, it must be set at a level that is unpleasant for the dog, or the dog is not motivated to "turn it off" by obeying the command.

 

You're talking about what you saw twenty years ago. I doubt that you'd judge anything else by that standard, but here you are doing just that with me. The level that awakened the dozing dog to "raise his head and look around" is EXACTLY the level of stim that I use. This is clearly stated in the articles repeatedly. THERE IS NO NEED TO GO ANY HIGHER, contrary to your comment or to what you may have seen. To say that what you saw is the same as what I do, especially in light of the fact that you've never seen my work is, again, absurd.

 

You would not advocate setting the shock level so high that the dog is in pain -- I understand that -- but he must, as the docs say, "experience some discomfort."

 

The level that awakened the "dozing dog" and had him "look around and go back to dozing" is sufficient.

 

And that discomfort will be a large part of any training session. How much time do I spend training my dogs? Quite a lot. I decided I did not want to inflict that much "discomfort" on them,

 

This forum allows for the discussion of leash and collar techniques. Those are based on causing enough discomfort to the dog so that he'll avoid it in the future. This is similar to how the Ecollar works but I don't see you moderating people who discuss use of those tools. But perhaps I've missed it. The level of stim is both highly adjustable and highly repeatable. It's almost impossible, except for the most expert trainer, to deliver exactly the level of discomfort with a leash correction that he did last time or to turn it up or down with precision, something that's easy with the Ecollar even for the beginner.

 

and I did not want them to come to associate training with discomfort.

 

Oddly enough the dogs that I train are quite happy. NOT ONE OF THEM "associate training with discomfort." The reinforcements far outnumber the punishments.

 

I did try a collar on my own arm, and I agree with you that the shock seemed mild during that brief trial. But would I want to spend a significant part of my training time feeling that shock on my arm, mild as it was? No, I would not.

 

If you'd spend a few minutes reading my articles you'd see that it lasts about 1 1/2 seconds. It's about as uncomfortable to the dog as is the bite of a single flea.

 

In my experience, electric shocks -- even mild ones --are a particularly unpleasant sensation that gets worse over time.

 

I'd guess that you're another one who does not think that withholding a treat causes discomfort to a dog. I think that there's much more discomfort in this (and sometimes the delivery of the treat is delayed for quite some time) than in the few seconds of discomfort that a dog gets during an average Ecollar training session. It's not unusual to hear of treat trainers who don't feed their dogs, sometimes for days at a time, to get them to be more interested in the treats. This causes discomfort that lasts for days! It's exactly as you state, "a particularly unpleasant sensation that gets worse over time."

 

It is not exactly pain, but it's definitely unpleasant. To say that it's no different from a dog wanting a treat and not getting it is disingenuous, IMO. I am not a treat trainer, but I recognize a big difference.

 

It's obvious that the tool is not right for you and the dog you currently have. You have been able to train him [them] with other methods and you're happy with the results. But there are many people here who have not been able to use those methods and achieve the results that they want.

 

I'd guess that you're another one who does not think that withholding a treat causes discomfort to a dog. I think that there's much more discomfort in this (and sometimes the delivery of the treat is delayed for quite some time) than in the few seconds of discomfort that a dog gets during an average Ecollar training session. It's not unusual to hear of treat trainers who don't feed their dogs, sometimes for days, to get them to be more interested in the treats. This causes discomfort that lasts for days!

 

As to "spend[ing] a significant part of [your] training time feeling that shock on [your] arm" had you read my articles you'd see that out of a 30 minute basic training session, there's probably less than 10 seconds total of stim. When the basic work is done and advanced work begins, the mode is switched and in 30 minutes there's less than one second of stim given. AGAIN what you imagine, and your experience of twenty years ago is NOT what happens.

 

Anthropomorphism when discussing dog training may be entertaining but in trying to understand what a dog thinks and/or feels it is never a good thing. Fact is that dogs are very communicative via body language when they feel the sudden onset of discomfort. A dog that flicks an ear, blinks or shakes his head is showing that he does not think that the stim "gets worse over time." If the dog thought, as you do, that the " sensation [got] worse over time" their reaction would get more and more overt. But it does not. The dogs display the same behavior as when they first feel it and as the training progresses, (over the course of a few minutes) they don't even show that. They learn very quickly what starts and stops the stim and that they are in charge of it. A good observer of K−9 behavior can see the stress in BOTH situations. Some who don't like some forms of training will ONLY see it in the form that they don't care for. They'll conveniently dismiss it when it occurs in the method that they favor. I think that's what's happening here.

 

Over the years since, I've talked to a handful of border collie trainers I respect who told me that they had tried the e-collar and rejected it because they didn't like the results.

 

I can pretty much guarantee that they're not using my methods. I've NEVER had anyone who's tried it tell me, no matter what breed they own, that they "didn't like the results." You may or may not be aware that I'm on quite a few lists/boards. Human nature being what it is, if there was anyone who had tried my methods and did not like them or their results, they'd be posted on some of them. But you won't find such postings, they simply don't exist. My methods are far more gentle and make far more sense than the training that you saw twenty years ago, the training that's formed the opinion that you hold today. Basing your comments about my work on that, is not only unfair it's illogical and unreasonable!

 

A couple of them expressed the opinion that at least one dog they'd used it on was "weird now," and they regretted that they'd even tried it.

 

I've seen the same thing with clickers, haltis, leash and collar work and just about ANY tool you can name. The difference, between us; I don't blame the tool. I place the responsibility where it belongs, with the trainer. Blaming the Ecollar is like a fat person blaming the spoon.

 

Do I know for a fact that they used the collar in the way you would recommend? No I don't. But these were good trainers, and not stupid.

 

It's not a matter of being stupid. It's a matter of finding a way that worked that DID NOT cause the issues you saw and that you have been told about. I handled a police dog and when I started with Ecollars it actually negatively affected the dog's search work. I went looking for new methods. I found them and improved on them. Now much of my work is with dogs that save the lives of lost persons. If it made them in the slightest bit "weird" or otherwise negatively impacted the work, I'd not use it at all.

 

And one of the problems I see with e-collars is their capacity for misuse, and the much graver consequences that could result from misuse, as compared to other training methods.

 

There is NOTHING but opinion to support the feeling that an Ecollar has a greater capacity for misuse than any other tool. Anti-Ecollar people have been looking for such evidence for years and it's never been shown. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but please let's not pretend that it's based on anything but your emotions.

 

A leash and corrections is JUST as likely to be misused and that tool can cause physical injury. An Ecollar can't.

 

The directions you give in your "protocols" are quite long, detailed and demanding, and you seem to recognize that a lot of people are not going to read them in full or follow them exactly; they are going to take shortcuts, and you acknowledge that the results will not be good if they do.

 

While I'm sure that this occurs all that happen is that the training takes longer. You seem to want to pretend that this is limited to the Ecollar, when in fact it's going to occur with ANY instructions for the use of any tool. I'm quite clear in advocating that people NOT take these shortcuts. I'm quite clear in my articles when I say that these shortcuts will lead to poor results. Few other types of instruction contain these kinds of warnings.

 

Moreover, if the trainer becomes frustrated and angry -- feelings not unknown in dog training -- he holds in his hand the ability to "teach that SOB a lesson" without even raising a hand. It's true that the e-collar is not the only training tool that can be misused. Heck, you don't even need a tool -- you can kick a dog to death, I suppose. But it's a lot harder to do than just pushing a button, and I think someone is a lot more likely to come to their senses before they've inflicted traumatic pain.

 

FIRST, people using my methods just don't get "frustrated and angry." Join my Ecollar list and read the posts if you don't believe me. Second there are studies that show that "getting even" by merely pressing a button are not satisfying to the angry person. The physicality of hitting kicking, or giving a harsh leash correction, bring much more relief of the anger and frustration to the person.

 

That's my point and the findings of several studies on this. "Getting physical" better relieves the stress of the anger and frustration. It's far more satisfying than just pushing a button. That does not relieve the frustration.

 

So in short, I think e-collars are more likely to be misused, and more likely to cause serious problems if misused, than other training methodologies.

 

Eileen there's NOTHING that supports such an opinion and there's quite a scientific volume of evidence that contradicts it. And with an Ecollar all you can do is inflict pain. You can't inflict any physical injury as can hitting, kicking, or giving repeated harsh leash corrections.

 

I'm also not surprised that the border collie trainers encountered problems with e-collar training, because I think border collies as a breed are particularly unsuited to that type of training.

 

My experience with them, trained with my methods, contradicts your theory. This was with dogs that did not respond to either training using leash corrections or the so−called "kinder gentler methods."

 

From what you've written, I gather you think there's no significant differences among breeds in their suitability for the e-collar, and that so-called "sensitivity" just refers to what level of shock is appropriate, and varies by individuals but not by breeds. I disagree. In fact, the whole premise on which these Boards are based is that border collies ARE significantly different from other breeds; if not, it could just be an "all dogs" website.

 

I know from having worked with individuals from every classification of dog that you're wrong. People flock together because they have the breed in common and they like to feel as if they're part of a group with things in common with other people. There's nothing wrong with this but ALL animals follow the principles of learning. What is reinforced tends to be repeated and what is punished tends not to be repeated. This applies to ALL animals from the smallest, to the largest. You'll find the same thing occurring with such things as people who collect stamps, people who work in rocket research, military veterans and more. They're not really different from other folks but they want to feel as if they are.

 

There is no scientific study that show any difference in different breeds of dogs as far as things we're discussing. But people want to think that their breed of choice is _______________ (fill in the blank with whatever adjective you prefer).

 

While there are indeed variations among individual border collies, it is characteristic of the breed to be exceedingly sensitive and reactive –

 

Making them perfect for my methods. I've worked with many highly sensitive dogs. One example. One dog was so sensitive and so fear−aggressive that if she walked from shade into bright sunlight, someone was going to get bit! The Ecollar was the ONLY tool that worked on her.

 

for example, to react so strongly to a flying insect that they will flee a room that it's in, because they were bitten by a fly years earlier. They are like a sensitive instrument. They feel, think, associate and remember to the highest degree.

 

To think that all BC's are going to "flee a room" because of a fly is silly. This is an extreme in the breed.

 

I think that my experience trumps your opinion and theory. Some of the BC's that I've worked with were definitely uncomfortable with my presence at first. But in 20 minutes or so, I was their new best friend. They were playing with me like they were my dogs. Most of them climbed into my lap, licking my face when the session was done. They bumped me in play and I bumped them back.

 

Training this type of dog with a device that repeatedly inflicts discomfort on them which you liken to a flea bite is asking for trouble -- trouble that can be very difficult if not impossible to undo.

 

Ecollar training is easy to do Eileen. Dozens of people who have never before successfully trained a dog with any method, have used my articles to train their dogs to their complete satisfaction. There's a page with testimonials (unsolicited, I might add) that has many letters from them, some written to me and some posted on Internet lists and forums.

 

In addition, these are dogs who have been bred intensively to want to work with people -- to take pleasure in figuring out what you want them to do and then doing it. They don't NEED to be trained with a device designed to make them figure out how to avoid unpleasant electric shocks instead.

 

Like any other breed there are individuals who simply don't respond to other methods. Some of the dogs I worked with would not stop chasing game. Some of them would not recall. Some of them were fear−aggressive towards other dogs. Some of their owners had been working with them for years using the so−called "kinder gentler methods" to try and stop it. With these individuals, they simply did not work. Doubtless some of those owners were not applying those methods properly. But some were "experts" who had been using them for years and they had trained many dogs before the ones−with−the−issue−that−did−not−respond, came along.

 

Their breeding gives us an advantage to build on in training. We undermine it and work against it at our peril.

 

A fair and reasonable person can make this identical statement about any other breed as well. Every breed is "special" in some way, some in many ways. Fact is not every BC on the planet is the result of good breeding.

 

When Anna said this earlier, you replied that there have been people who have not been able to train their border collies with other methods, implying that this is reason to use an e-collar.

 

I neither said nor implied that because some people have not been able to train their BC's, that was a reason to use an Ecollar. I said that it is something to consider.

 

Nonetheless, how long do you think that someone should keep doing something that's not working? After a while (how long depends on the owner) they're going to just give up and either take the dog to the shelter of have him PTS. I give them an alternative. Please don't tell me that you're one of those people who would rather see a dog killed than to have an Ecollar used on him.

 

I consider these to be failures of the trainer, not the training method or training device.

 

Just a few paragraphs back you were blaming the Ecollar for problems, NOT the trainer. But when the situation is reversed and it's your methods that are not working you become reasonable and rational. I find this very curious.

 

There is no reason to think that these same trainers would have more success with an e-collar than with a method better suited to the biddability that border collies have been bred for for hundreds of years.

 

Again, Eileen, my experience is different than your theories. You might consider reading the story on my site about Roma, a highly fear−aggressive dog. Roma's owner had trained a certified SAR dog, with a find to his record, with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." She had tried those methods for about two years, only to have them not make any significant change in the dog's behavior. She had also tried T-Touch, and herbal remedies. None of this stopped Roma's fear aggressiveness. The Ecollar did. And it did it in very short order. Dramatic changes occurred in one session lasting about 25 minutes.

 

I wonder, if you had seen a hammer used to commit a brutal murder, would it change your mind about the usefulness of hammers when used to build houses for the homeless? I don't think so. But this had been exactly the effect on your of seeing Ecollar use twenty years ago.

 

I've read your claim that you've trained many dogs with the e-collar and never seen a failure. If I'm not mistaken, Root Beer says the same about her all positive reinforcement training. It's a claim easy to make and incapable of proof or refutation.

 

Eileen, the way you write this, stating that it's "my claim that I've trained many dogs" infers that you think there's some doubt about it. I just completed my 46th seminar/workshop. I've done them in 19 states, 34 cities, 3 foreign countries (Canada, The UK and Spain); 14 of them were repeats (done for the same seminar organizers) and one of them asked me back FOUR times. Many of the people who put these seminars on are quite willing to tell you of what they've seen and the comments of the attendees.

 

I don't know about Root Beer's experience but mind covers well over 3,000 dogs that I've put Ecollars on. Mine has been in front of audiences, sometimes as large as 300-350. MY EXPERIENCE CAN BE proven. I'll be happy to supply you with contact information privately.

 

I'm sorry this post is so lengthy, but I wanted to give a substantive reply before donning, as I now do, my moderator's hat.

 

These Boards are a community of border collie owners, who share their thoughts and experiences with the breed. There are very few members who do not have border collies, and generally those members are here to learn about border collies and to get help in looking for a border collie.

 

It's great that you've created a place where owners, former owners or wanna be owners can get together to "share their thoughts and experiences." I'm not a BC owner and probably never will be. But I AM a dog trainer who has worked with many individuals of the breed. Sharing experience is GREAT but it's still, as you've said the experience of "owners." I would think that you'd want the experience of trainers as well. Often owners are quite good but often their experience with various members of the breed is quite limited. They've trained their own dogs and that's it. I've probably worked with more examples of the breed than many of the contributors to this thread and the other one that I was participating in. I've probably worked with about 25 of them. Is that "relatively little experience?" How many owners have worked with that many? And my experience is with dogs that had problems that the owners or trainers they consulted could not fix using many other methods!

 

My goal here is to help those people who either have or get those dogs and then have them not get the results they desire in training them. I want to keep ALL BREEDS of dog out of shelters and rescues, BC's of course, included. It's not necessary that I own one to do that.

 

As you may have noticed, we've also gone to great lengths to make these Boards free from advertising and, as you've seen, the members like it that way. Members have certainly recommended particular training methods and training devices (including e-collars on occasion), but these recommendations have been in the context of sharing experiences as users, not purveyors, and incidental to other more general posting about their border collies.

 

One side effect of "mak[ing] these Boards free from advertising" is that commercial trainers with vast amounts of experience (not talking about myself here) don't stop by to offer advice or share their knowledge. That ends up with, owners teaching owners. While they may be very experienced it's doubtful that they have the experience, the training or the education that a trainer does. You get into a situation of "the nearsighted leading the blind."

 

I don't think we've ever had an instance before of someone who doesn't own a border collie, and apparently has relatively little experience with them, coming here with the avowed intent to promote a particular training device which he sells, and posting at least seven "click here" type links to his promotional website within the space of little more than a day. That is perceived as spamming by the members who've responded to your posts, and by me as well.

 

My website has about twenty articles devoted to helping people train their dogs. Most of them are about the Ecollar but many are general in nature. Together they are about 70,000 words. There were couple of sentences that talk about the fact that I do some training and sell Ecollars. But I've removed them. My site is NOT a commercial website. There's no place that discusses sales, prices or ordering. There's no place to select an Ecollar and click on it. There's no place to enter a credit card number. There's no address given to mail a check to. It's not about selling anything but a training tool and method. It's a free service to help people get their dogs with by using an Ecollar in the most gentle, the least impactful and the most humane way.

 

If you like, in the future I'll post the the links AND the protocol. But it makes no sense to me, it uses up bandwidth, makes the posts extremely long and will only draw more silly comments. I could also summarize the protocols but that will only draw more silly comments. People will see holes that the full protocols cover and they'll jump on them (in attempts to discredit the Ecollar) only to have me post, correction after correction to their assumptions and the conclusions that they've leapt to. But if that's what you want, I'll be happy to do so.

 

Given all this, given that I think use of this training device is potentially harmful to border collies,

 

Eileen this is simply a case of you (and others) thinking that you know all about the tool, when the truth is that you don't. Your personal experience is, by your own admission, out of date by two decades, and you've closed your mind to the possibility that things have changed.

 

Fact is that people on this site may, at some point, turn to the Ecollar when other methods don't meet with success. Without a source of information they are almost sure to use the tool improperly, cause their dog a lot of pain and get poor results. They may decide that the dog or breed is too much for them and get rid of it in any number of ways, some worse than others. I would think that you'd want someone around who can help those people and make sure that they both use the tool correctly and cause their dog a minimum of stress.

 

and given the acrimonious tone of the posts you've put up and evoked thus far

 

As to "acrimony" on my part, that's been ONLY in return to abuse heaped on me by people who are invested in one way or another in their own methods and are threatened by someone suggesting an alternate if their methods don't work. I've been called names a couple of times, that was not returned. I've had my experience questioned a couple of times, that was not returned. I've had people accuse me of insults but when asked to produce those statements they did not. I've had people try and put words into my mouth and I merely corrected them. I've had people use Straw Man arguments against me and all I did was to point them out. This is a simple case of some not liking the message and assaulting the messenger as a result.

 

as well as your apparent intention to keep on with plenty more of the same ("I'll be back with lots of spare time very shortly," etc.),

 

My statement "I'll be back ..." is a reference to the fact that I'm alone in standing against the tide while quite a few others have ganged up on me. UNIVERSALLY they have little or no experience with the tool and are ONLY writing from a place of a lack of knowledge. You are a good example. While you've been polite your experience is twenty years old.

 

I’m not surprised that you don't want me to continue posting! Many people when faced with the truth that something they'd made their mind up about has changed, simply can't face it.

 

I've concluded that it's not in the best interests of the Boards for you to continue posting. I will give you an opportunity to post one reply to the substantive part of my post (and to any other posts you care to address), and then ask that you take your proselytizing elsewhere. If you wish, I will be glad to discuss this further with you via PM.

 

Thanks for the opportunity to reply in PM's but I really don't see any point in it, that may change but you've told me that your mind is made up and (in effect) that you won't be swayed. I've done nothing wrong except to disagree with the status quo and support my arguments with personal experience and that of people who have actually used (not just theorized as have you and my other opponents) my methods. You mind is made up, and it's based on something that happened twenty years ago. If that wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

 

It may have evaded your notice but no one was ever interested in a discussion about training with Ecollars. Instead all that was presented was personal attacks, one after the other. I asked repeatedly for the topics to get back to training but no one was ever willing to do so. I think that is because that they knew that when the truth about my methods were presented their lack of knowledge about modern use of Ecollars would be exposed and some would actually turn to the the Ecollar for their training. It's happened this way on many forums and with many individuals and groups.

[Alchemist]

Eileen, I want to echo everyone's thanks for your extremely well-articulated post. I would hate to see these Boards devolve to a stage for self-promotion or for espousing training "tips" detrimental to the dogs we love so well. I truly appreciate your efforts in moderating these Boards.

 

I've just been reading Bruce Fogt's "Lessons from a Stock Dog". In it he describes his and Lewis Pence's efforts to use shock collars as a training technique. I thought that some of the BC Board readers might be interested in his observations.

 

Bruce and Lewis's dogs were reluctant to take their downs at the far end of the field. "It [a shock collar] seemed like it would be a really effective method of correction. We could correct the dog right as it was doing something wrong. We would still be at the other end of the field, but our correction would come instantly."

 

It didn't work as planned. "They didn't like the shock at all. In fact, they were immediately so nervous about being shocked they couldn't concentrate on their work. They didn't quit working, but they quit thinking about what they were doing. We thought they needed to get used to it; after a few days it would go better. It didn't. The dog's confidence was shaken and they were so nervous that their work was very poor. We had only given a few well-timed corrections. We tried not to over do it, but they were only thinking about the collar, and not their work. Also, they didn't seem to connect the shock with what they were doing on the sheep. It was too unnatural and unexpected. They didn't understand it. Those few shocks put them on edge, and getting smooth and relaxed work out of them was difficult. They kept expecting the sky to fall... They worked frantically, but without focus... After giving the collars a fair test, we concluded they had no place in training a dog to work livestock. It took us several weeks to repair the damage we had done to our dog's self confidence and concentration. I have seen many dogs trained with shock collars and most all of them show the same signs of mental stress displayed by Sparky and Spain. There are much better training methods that give results without warping the dog's mind. I am sure there are legitimate reasons for using shock collars, but I don't feel teaching a dog how to work livestock is one of them."

 

ETA: I know that Mr. Castle wasn't originally espousing the use of e-collars for training Border collies to work livestock. I just want to echo what others have said - a Border collie isn't one of your everyday dogs. I can't imagine an ecollar as anything but wildly counterproductive on any Border collie I've ever owned. I'm sure there are many legitimate training techniques for teaching a Border collie to stop chasing cars or cats or to stop pulling on a leash. To paraphrase Mr. Fogt's words, I don't feel that a shock collar is one of them.

[Eileen Stein]

I don't want to prolong this, but since Lou Castle in his final post above makes such a repeated point that my "experience with e-collars is twenty years old," I will address that point briefly. The e-collar I examined 20 years ago didn't have 127 shock levels, that's true. It had either 15 or 18 levels, I forget which. But since it included the level that Lou says "is EXACTLY the level of stim that I use," it would be just the same as today's equipment with respect to what we're talking about. As for the method, I'm going by what Lou writes in his articles, not what TriTronics said 20 years ago. I just mentioned that they advocated the negative reinforcement approach back then because Lou had said so many times that back in those days they only used the zap-upon-misdeed approach. Well, not so. As for how lengthy the "discomfort" administered to the dog lasts, Lou says in his response here "If you'd spend a few minutes reading my articles you'd see that it lasts about 1 1/2 seconds." But it was from his articles that I got the idea that it lasts much longer. For example, in his article about training the recall, he talks about the initial training -- having the dog on a flexi, and when the dog wanders to the end of the flexi, pressing the button and pulling the dog towards you, and releasing the button after the dog takes four or five steps. Then he says,

After a few minutes of this you may find that the dog comes and stands by you and doesn't wander off again. His superstition at this time is that “out there” at the end of the Flexi; the ground is “hot.” He knows that it’s uncomfortable and he doesn't want to be there. [seems to me this would have to be a higher shock level than the one where the dozing dog raises his head and then goes back to dozing, but never mind.] He may think that the center of the circle and/or near you is a “safe spot.” That’s OK for right now. . . .

 

[Next] You’re going to turn and walk away, at the same time pressing the button. It’s important that you walk in the opposite direction from where the dog is looking. Part of this is teaching him to pay attention to you and walking in another direction from where he’s looking will assist in this. A couple of things may happen. One is that he'll just sit there. He'll probably show a bit of confusion because what’s happening now is in conflict with the superstition that he’s just learned, that the center of the circle is the safe spot. If you reach the end of the Flexi continue walking and pressing the button. Remember that you may have to “bounce” on the button to keep the stimulation going. If you reach the end of the Flexi, keep walking and pull the dog towards you. As he increases his speed in response to this, release the button and stop walking. He should get to your position and stop.

 

If he continues to walk past you, immediately reverse your direction, and press the button. If he keeps going in the same direction he was headed he'll soon reach the end of the Flexi. Be aware that you'll probably have to bounce on the button so that the timer in the Ecollar doesn't shut off the stimulation. If you reach the end of the Flexi, use it to pull him towards you. When he takes 4–5 steps towards you in response to the pull, take your finger off the button. Repeat this until he’s turning to move with you every time you step off. At this time you can introduce the “here” command.

[Emphasis added.]

 

According to the manual of the e-collar Lou sells, the collar delivers continuous shock for twelve (12) seconds, after which the timer would turn it off if you didn't "bounce" the button to override the cutoff and keep the shock going longer.

 

Well, as I said I don't want to belabor this. I think Lou was right in his last response when he said, "It may have evaded your notice but no one was ever interested in a discussion about training with Ecollars." Evidently that's true. It's certainly true for me.

[geonni banner]

Yikes! And I thought I was a blabbermouth...

 

Well, they say you can lead a horse to water, but if you belabor him about the ears for a long time with a halter, he may never go near water again.

 

I don't know about anybody else, but I still have no fixed idea of whether an e-collar has a place in a rational trainer's toolbox, but I sure am gonna give e-collar trainers a wide berth! Phew!

[rushdoggie]

FWIW: I have never seen ANY positive reinforcement/clicker trainer advocate withholding food for several days. I have seen it suggested that training sessions do not occur after a meal, especially when a dog is just learning, but never more than a few hours.

 

Talk about straw men.

[Gloria Atwater]

Wow. I go away for a week and come back to find the e-collar debate has invaded a border collie forum. Dunno 'bout y'all, but my mind is blown.

 

And where did withholding food enter into the discussion?

[njnovice]

Wow. I go away for a week and come back to find the e-collar debate has invaded a border collie forum. Dunno 'bout y'all, but my mind is blown.

 

And where did withholding food enter into the discussion?

 

Err...apparently, some people think making a dog sit to get a treat is more stressful than shocking it if it doesn't sit. then, it went into treat trainers starving their dogs so they like treats better. It was really all very confusing.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

After eight years observing top ecollar trainers, one critical use myself and friends who train with e-collars and friends who loathe shock collars, I've arrived at conclusions which won't make anybody happy.

 

First: if I needed to pet train a rescue dog very quickly I would take it to a top ecollar trainer. Note: I didn't say that I'd buy a collar and train it myself - I don't have the special skills ecollar training requires. But fast, reliable pet training/happy dog? I've seen it.

 

Second:Ecollars should not be sold except to licensed practitioners. Giving an ecollar to an unschooled civilian is like letting your teenage son testdrive a Ferrari. It's begging for disaster. (Many ecollar trainers agree, apostles - with NRA logic - claim any restriction is equivalent to an outright ban.)

 

Third: Shock Collars should never be used for stockdog training. Ecollar apostles, like Mr. Castle, say -rightly- that sheepdoggers experimenting on sheepdogs with shock collars in the 90's didn't know how to use them (ie "Shock the shit out of them”) and that ecollar training is different than that model today.

 

What apostles ignore is the nature of the ecollar correction; whether it's a painful shock or a slight annoyance: the correction is anonymous. The dog doesn't associate it with the trainer, it thinks Life -the World -its Lebenswelt - caused the pain/annoyance. Example:sheepdog is outrunning, 100 yards out it starts to cut in and the trainer zaps (ticks, stims, shocks) him. The dog may not associate the correction with his mistake; he may decide that "sagebrush is very dangerous" or "a hundred yards out I get zapped" or, or . . .

 

The luckiest of the shock collar trained sheepdogs I’ve seen became goosedogs.

 

On another list, a top ecollar trainer mocked a Patrick Shannahan clinic. (my paraphrase) “The dog went wrong 200 yards out and the trainer took a step towards it and waved his stick. Hell, with an ecollar I could have given a real correction.”

 

Sheepdog corrections are personal, not anonymous. The world doesn't correct the dog, I do. If I make a bad correction, the dog doesn't learn to fear sagebrush, he'll likely think: "there goes old Dopey Donald again."

 

The pet dogs of top ecollar trainers I've seen were - exceptions reserved - happy and mannerly. In my more limited experience ( three classes, several agility trainers and trials) most dogs trained with purely positive methods were confused, ill mannered and/or unhappy.

 

The Purely Positive trainer's vices are sentimentality and adherence to a discredited scientistic learning theory that can’t understand dogs as canine pack animals.

 

The ecollar trainer's vice is control: "Look what I can get my dog to do." When you mix an oversized human ego and a dog that can be shocked at distances of a mile, that's a recipe for a miserable dog. At least one influential ecollar apostle burns out his demo dog every two years. Total control is illusory: I’ve seen panicked dogs blow right through the worst an ecollar can do.

 

I have known five older pet dogs who were trained with ecollars from puppyhood. They were mannerly and did interesting tricks. Although they were mannerly off-collar/off leash, their ecollar was only removed to demonstrate that ability. I don't know if this says something about ecollar trained dogs or ecollar trainers. Two of these dogs seemed “odd” to me.

 

I have seen purely positively trained Border Collies at an agility trial that were so crazy I didn’t think they could be rehabilitated, I have seen an ecollar trainer’s Dobermann Pincher whose eyes were affectless and insane.

 

An experienced trainer friend says a new vibrating collar works better than an ecollar -at least for SAR work. I’ll be interested to learn more.

 

Donald McCaig

[Root Beer]

The Purely Positive trainer's vices are sentimentality and adherence to a discredited scientistic learning theory that can’t understand dogs as canine pack animals.

 

 

And I'm going to ask you a question, which I know won't make anyone any happier. But I simply must ask.

 

Did you read any of Lou Castle's articles? His whole approach is based on that exact same scientistic learning theory. He is using a different quadrant as the basis of his work, but it is still the exact same theory. Granted, he is using R- and P+ instead of R+ and P-, but it's the opposite side of the same coin.

 

Exaxmple - how is "apply stim until the dog gets where you want him to be" regarding a dog as a pack animal any more than "click/treat when the dog is where you want him to be"?

 

I am not asking to be combatitive - I really want to know what it is about the shock approach that you feel reflects an understanding of dogs as pack animals that use of positive reinforcement in training lacks, in your opinion.

[Mark Billadeau]

Since humans are naturally lazy creatures training tools which allow for the least physical exertion, fastest time to desired dog behavior, and least interaction with the dog are the ones more likely to be abused.

 

 

[Blackdawgs]

Why is an anonymous correction acceptable for a pet dog, but not a sheep dog?

[juliepoudrier]

Since humans are naturally lazy creatures training tools which allow for the least physical exertion, fastest time to desired dog behavior, and least interaction with the dog are the ones more likely to be abused.

This. If e-collars were used only by experts, that would be one thing, but after reading the quotes Eileen posted. it seems that even the experts are using a lot more "stim" than they would lead us to believe on a forum such as this one.

 

Lou Castle is correct that poorly timed, inappropriate corrections are bad no matter what the tool used, but someone witholding a treat because a dog didn't offer the desired behavior is NOT the same as someone getting annoyed and cranking up the "stim" on an e-collar. And while Lou claims that never happens, I think we all know that most humans are as Mark described: interested in quick results, and if a little "stim" works a little, then a lot of "stim" should work even faster/better.

 

As I've said numerous times before, I think an e-collar has a place in training when the dog's behavior puts its life at risk or another's life at risk, but beyond that, I think there's just too much room for abuse with something like that. Ref the thread where the person bought the ACD and kicked it across the cab of his truck because the person he bought it from suggested tough treatment. Can you even imagine what such a person would do with an e-collar? I don't even want to think about it.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

Why is an anonymous correction acceptable for a pet dog, but not a sheep dog?

It's not about lifestyle but about activity (pet vs sheepdog).

 

Anonymous corrections are good for when you want the dog to choose anything other than the undesired action AND you don't want your presence to be part of the context.

 

Lesson: You can do anything other than that and it does not matter if I'm present or not.

examples: stay off the counters, don't chase cars, stay out of trash cans, etc

 

Anonymous corrections are not well suited for when you want to alter how the dog is doing something and this is especially true for stock work when your presences is specifically part of the context (stock work is a 3 party activity: stock, dog, person).

 

Lesson: Keep doing that but do it this way not the way you are currently doing it.

examples: go around the sheep but farther off the sheep, walk towards the sheep but slower, go through the open door but after I say it's okay, keep walking on leash but don't pull

[Mark Billadeau]

Let's expand on the lesson about not going through an open door except when allowed. You could use an anonymous correction on a dog when it goes through an open door (when you're not present). Let's say the dog then chooses to not go through the open door. What did the dog actually learn?

 

Never go through any open door

Never go through that open door

Don't go through any open door when alone

Don't go through that open door when alone

etc

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

Kristine asked,

 

"Did you read any of Lou Castle's articles? His whole approach is based on that exact same scientistic learning theory. He is using a different quadrant as the basis of his work, but it is still the exact same theory. Granted, he is using R- and P+ instead of R+ and P-, but it's the opposite side of the same coin."

 

I confess that I have not. I met Mr. Castle several years ago on another list and swiftly lost interest in him and his views.

 

And " I really want to know what it is about the shock approach that you feel reflects an understanding of dogs as pack animals that use of positive reinforcement in training lacks, in your opinion."

 

I know nothing about ecollar learning theory and don't claim to. What Mr. Castle claims may be representative or not. I don't recall another ecollar trainer discussing learning theory in my presence (though to be fair; when I hear +P or -Z my brain shuts down.)

 

I don't really care what theory trainers need, make use of or justify themselves with. At present there is no convincing scientific mammalian learning theory though insights aplenty can be gathered from ethnology, mammalian brain studies and, yes, Mr. Skinner. I believe that the experienced trainer's anecdotes, "for instances", posture and example are more likely to improve the novice's skills than mastery of any theory.

 

Look to the dog. Look to the dog.

 

Donald McCaig

[Blackdawgs]

 

Anonymous corrections are good for when you want the dog to choose anything other than the undesired action AND you don't want your presence to be part of the context.

 

OK, I'll buy this if we are talking about correcting a dog for chasing cars, livestock, etc.

 

But, for the vast majority of interactions with pet dogs, the owner wants (or should want) to be in the picture.

[Mark Billadeau]

It's not about lifestyle but about activity (pet vs sheepdog).

Clearly this statement was too cryptic.

 

The use of pet dog vs. sheep dog is often used to convey a general difference between the types of corrections/interactions these dogs receive. Pet owners here are not what I would consider the typical pet owner in terms of how much training they give to their pets as compared to the pet owning general population (example: dog chained in the back yard and only interacts with owners during feeding time).

[Ooky]

 

First: if I needed to pet train a rescue dog very quickly I would take it to a top ecollar trainer. Note: I didn't say that I'd buy a collar and train it myself - I don't have the special skills ecollar training requires. But fast, reliable pet training/happy dog? I've seen it.

 

...

 

I have known five older pet dogs who were trained with ecollars from puppyhood. They were mannerly and did interesting tricks. Although they were mannerly off-collar/off leash, their ecollar was only removed to demonstrate that ability. I don't know if this says something about ecollar trained dogs or ecollar trainers. Two of these dogs seemed “odd” to me.

 

 

I'm confused with the conjunction of these two statements. Why would you go to a top e-collar trainer with a rescue dog, no matter how fast it would be, if you've seen an approximate 40% "weirding" rate among pet dogs trained with these devices? And a seeming reliance on the tool (since they only remove the ecollar for demonstrations?) I may be missing something here.

[Tea]

Why does the training have to be fast?