Dirty Little Secret

[MyTDogs]

A Shock Collar, E. Collar...whatever...is a training tool. One best left to experts, IMO. Anyone can abuse a dog with any training tool including flat buckle collars, head halters & even just his bare hands.

 

I think we can all agree Border Collies as a breed are more biddable than many others.

[juliepoudrier]

I guess whenever we have these discussions for me it comes back to the point Amelia made in her most recent post. If people are breeding/selecting for dogs who require a shock collar in order to proof recalls or other distance training, what does that say about the breeding program? Any dog who is working in tandem with a human to do a job should be selectively bred for the ability and desire to work with the human--the much vaunted biddability we always talk about. So is it that the dogs are being bred to be able to withstand shock collars (i.e., need shock collars to train) because the dogs being successfully used now have required shock collars as part of their training? What if such dogs weren't bred and instead only those who were good retrievers (Um, doesn't "retriever" imply the dog was created to return to the human bringing with it the "prize"--the downed prey? So why would you breed from a dog that didn't naturally do that without having to be shocked to make sure they did it?) who could be trained to do their work without such collars (and without taking eons to do so) were the ones bred? How long before you'd have a line of retrievers (or maybe even *most* retrievers) who didn't need that extra tool to proof the training? Which came first? The shock collar as a training short cut, or the dog that needed to shock collar in order to be fully trained?

 

As I said in an earlier post, I am not completely opposed to the use of such a device when the dog's life is at stake. But I also know human nature, and when a little of a good thing gets things done more quickly, then it's not long before at least some folks are thinking that a lot will get it done a lot more quickly, and it's the dogs that suffer.

 

Maralynn,

I have repeated my belief that a shock collar might be acceptable in a life or death situation. If a dog is yanked off its feet for chasing cars--a life or death situation--then I guess it's certainly no worse than using a shock collar to deal with the same situation. But I still don't see how that equates with a dog who has been lovingly trained with postitive methods and has a good relationship with its handler at some point in its later training requiring a shock collar to proof the training. Coming up with a number of examples of other things that hurt doesn't negate the disconnect between calling a dog well trained and then saying at the same time that the dog needs to be shocked to proof that training. It's nonsensical.

 

Yes, a shock collar is a tool. So it a clicker. The former can cause a great deal of pain when misused (and I don't think for one second that trainers don't get mad and take a "I'll show that bastard" turn on their controllers), while the latter when misused isn't hurting anything, though it may confuse the hell out of the dog. So I think using the "it's just a tool argument" is a bit disingenuous. The horse trainer could say the barbed wire wrapped bit is just a tool, but is it a tool that should ever be inflicted on a horse? A spur is just a tool, but if the horse's sides are bloodied, is that okay? A choke collar is just a tool too, but in the wrong hands (and they don't even have to be inherently cruel hands, they can just be clueless hands) it can do some serious damage. I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point. For anyone who doesn't, it's this: Tools are just tools, but some are more humane than others, and given that humans are what they are, it's best to err on the side of using tools that are least likely to inflict real damage, because if damage can be inflicted, it will be, sooner or later.

 

J.

[vaporflowers]

Julie, I see your point, but I also wonder if in selecting for biddability, other traits could potentially be lost or surface. Like if you bred for increased biddability in a certain breed, you might increase sensitivity and lower pain tolerance, which I would assume would be essential for heavy upland hunting. Or if, in certain breeds, limiting the trait for biddability would limit the gene pool from a health perspective (some of them are in trouble as it is).

 

I see how it could be seen as a slippery slope from a "how many corrections does it take" perspective, but could some of that "hardness" and actual LACK of biddability make the dog a superior hunter in some ways?

 

I don't know, I don't have hunting dogs, but it's a thought.

[Maralynn]

If people are breeding/selecting for dogs who require a shock collar in order to proof recalls or other distance training, what does that say about the breeding program? Any dog who is working in tandem with a human to do a job should be selectively bred for the ability and desire to work with the human--the much vaunted biddability we always talk about.

 

I'm guessing that it is because they value other things higher than biddability such as higher prey drive in comparison to other drives. Biddability can also relate to sensitivity and they don't want the same level high of sensitivity in their dogs. That sensitivity can come with other issues such as sound sensitivity - Labs and Malinios are a lot more "bomb proof" when it comes to noise than BCs.

 

I know that some SAR people just don't like Border Collies for the job due to the softer overall nature of the breed. They want a tougher, more independent dog with more of a one track mind (food! or Tug! as opposed to what is as opposed to analyzing the situation). They place a higher importance on a dog that wants to find/possess a reward (which = dog that isn't going to leave that victim and will give an incredibly persistent alert) then they do a dog that is highly in tune and responsive to the handler.

 

I know that the other BC on my SAR team is highly analytical and took at least an extra year of training/work to achieve FEMA certification compared to the other two dogs (Rott and Lab) that the handler trained to the same level.

[Gloria Atwater]

I can't answer your question, Mara. But I think for border collies, in particular, an e-collar, however used, is a shattering, unequivocally negative thing.

 

If a dog can't be worked without an e-collar, then I believe that dog and that handler are not suited to work together. Maybe the dog is too tough, or the handler is too weak, or the handler lacks the skills or understanding to communicate his/her wishes to the dog - whatever, it's not working, and an e-collar is just a crutch in lieu sound training.

 

As for the big, high-drive types like GSDs or Malinois ... I don't know. There are some of those in my neck of the woods and I see them trained on sheep without e-collars. Using no more than the force of their trainers' voice and presence and a stock-stick or flag, they understand a correction.

 

So, while I can't deny that e-collar training can be effective, when employed by people who are masters of timing and dog body-language, I still denounce it. If they need an e-collar to proof a dog at a distance, then they need to go back to shorter distances and nail down the training before moving further out. Same as if I'm training and outrun, and my BC is rocketing in on his lift. If he goes ballistic on his approach at 100 yards out, I shorten things back up or move in closer to my sheep, and get his compliance - and my corrections - proofed from closer at hand. When that's solid, then we reach out for distance. We back up any time distance proves a detriment and go back over the basics, before moving on again.

 

Yes, e-collar training works. But I still view it as a crutch and a shortcut, where more time on the basics would be better suited. To each their own ... but I still maintain that there's a better way. As Tea and others have observed, hunters and stockmen trained their dogs for the past 200 years without e-collars, and made some damned fine working dogs. I can't embrace the e-collar as anything but a shortcut around slower, more thorough training.

 

Just my humble opinion.

 

~ Gloria

 

 

So if a dog could control if they got shocked or not (ie, either obeying or blowing off a command they knew/understood) would this make a difference?

 

That is how the people that I know use ecollars with high drive working breeds (GSD, Malinios, Field Lab) They train behaviors without the collar. They proof the behavior the best they can at a short distance under varying distraction. They set the dogs up for success, They reward obedience, give fair corrections for blowing off commands that are known/proofed. The ecollar just allows them some distance in the commands. ie, off leash work in an environment where something might pop up which might give the dog an opportunity to blow off a command. The ecollar gives them long distance control. Handler gives a recall command, dog sees a squirrel out of the corner of it's eye and blows off a command it understands. Dog is corrected with the collar.

 

When the dogs are corrected, they understand that it is just a long distance correction from the handler. That blowing off a command is not an option.

 

The dogs are happy. They're not confused by the collar any more than any other fair correction. they don't cower or flinch at the collar or the sight of the remote. Training is fun and rewarding. Working with the handler is fun and rewarding. Blowing off the handler gets corrected.

[Gloria Atwater]

I felt a ecollar zap once. It hurt less than getting zapped by an electric fence. It was very similar to the static shocks that one gets around the house.

 

You got lucky.

 

I still reference the woman who had the collar on the wrong dog, and kept hitting the control until she realized the dog screaming in the distance was locked in its crate in her vehicle.

 

Otherwise, I think you've just run up against this group's overall unwillingness to accept or employ an e-collar. A shame about the SAR lab. I don't know if I would have put an e-collar on it the next time, though. Perhaps because I don't know labs. Or perhaps because I'd be perfectly willing to stall its SAR training in order to re-solidify its ground work at a slower, natural pace.

 

Anyhow, I think my complaint is that maybe there are field dog/hunting dog trainers who reserve e-collars as a last resort, a tool brought out last of all things, but ... I think a lot of people use them to get better results, faster. As a shortcut. As a means to hurry a process along at the human's, not the dog's pace. And too often, as a gimmick that gets a dog to a certain point, sooner, so as to impress or please a client.

 

E-collars may have a place. Maybe. But I dislike them. And nothing has convinced me that they are necessary, unless, as Julie opines, the dog is engaging in a behavior that's going to get it killed and no other method of correction works. Bottom line, people trained hunting dogs for two or three centuries before e-collars came along, and I would suppose they created some mighty fine dogs. What's changed, besides the modern human penchant to get more results, faster and sooner?

 

~ Gloria

[DeltaBluez Tess]

Did the dogs change that much the hunters had to resort to the e-collar?

 

I know our field dogs were very willing to do as we asked....have the breedings on the dog changed so much that a e-collar is required? if so, that is a sad state of affairs. If not, then it is still a sad state of affairs of people taking short cuts.

 

I am sure there is a time and place for a e-collar but it is not at my place. I have seen dogs ruined by them....

 

Diane

[Smalahundur]

A question for those who zapped themselves with one of these things, did you actually put it on your neck?

[Maja]

A question for those who zapped themselves with one of these things, did you actually put it on your neck?

I zapped myself on the inside of the forearm (the place where one gets poked for blood) but it was a small cattle prod, not an ecollar. I also once touched the electric fence with the metal frames of my glasses which hit me from both ends of my temples and created a very strong circuit - much stronger than the regular zap on the fence, which I have experienced a few times.

 

I think that the abuse of the collar is what excludes it from use even for lifesaving problems like car chasing. Because every time somebody uses it for something like that, it lends legitimacy for people like this absolutely terrible woman who was using it repeatedly on the wrong dog. It's not just that she was using it on the wrong dog but the she was prepared to use it over and over in her training. So I think this is where a person advocating reasonable use for life saving habits will, or using on a very low impulse, always hit a brick wall with people who are against ecollars, because no one would like to help the cause of these abusive people.

 

Maja

[Smalahundur]

I agree, the potential of abuse is so big it outweighs (in my opinion) the very limited "justified" use (and I personally doubt very much there are trainingsproblems that can only be fixed by e-collar).

Simply ban them.

[juliepoudrier]

I think that the abuse of the collar is what excludes it from use even for lifesaving problems like car chasing. Because every time somebody uses it for something like that, it lends legitimacy for people like this absolutely terrible woman who was using it repeatedly on the wrong dog. It's not just that she was using it on the wrong dog but the she was prepared to use it over and over in her training. Maja

This, exactly. Humans take things to excess for *their own* puproses, and often the welfare of the animal takes a backseat to the human's desires. It disgusts me.

 

It doesn't bear thinking about what dogs go through because someone, perhaps even someone who is so masterful at using such a tool as to never really hurt a dog, advocates that tool, because when that tool is picked up by others who not only are less capable users of the tool but also are less concerned about the welfare of the animal, it's the animal who suffers. I suspect for every person who uses the tool correctly and doesn't unnecessarily hurt the dog, there are many, many more people who are using such tools abusively.

 

J.

[Tea]

Smalahundu, Gloriar- You hold them down and I'll put the dang thing on 'em

 

 

then we'll train them.......

 

 

 

 

 

Ok....Ok.....

 

 

[G. Festerling]

Yeah but, as not all dogs are created equal, neither are all trainers. I do 100% believe that a e-collar has no use in stock dog training. Especially if the mix between handler and dog is a slowly growing relatioship between two matched individuals. If the match is off for some reason, a tool like an e-collar becomes at very best a crutch and at worst abuse.

 

I am however also of the believe that any tool is just as good or bad as the user. Wether the user is simply not good because their timing, control, understanding are lacking or they have lesser excuses like a bad temper or an ego that gets in the way. Either way, the dog looses. But to state that any tool is evil based on wrong use and ignorance of use, goes a bit far for me.

[Maja]

Either way, the dog looses. But to state that any tool is evil based on wrong use and ignorance of use, goes a bit far for me.

I agree with this statement, but I don't think that's the case exactly.

 

In some methods you've got to try very hard to hurt the dog by being ignorant or hard hearted. In others, you've got to try very hard not to hurt the dog. And some tools just make way too easy to hurt the dog unnecessarily. I think this difference is very important in how we evaluate tools for training.

 

Maja

[juliepoudrier]

In some methods you've got to try very hard to hurt the dog by being ignorant or hard hearted. In others, you've got to try very hard not to hurt the dog. And some tools just make way too easy to hurt the dog unnecessarily. I think this difference is very important in how we evaluate tools for training.

Exactly.

 

J.

[Laurae]

A question for those who zapped themselves with one of these things, did you actually put it on your neck?

 

And account for the weight difference between a 150- or 200-pound person and a 50-pound dog?

[Eileen Stein]

A question for those who zapped themselves with one of these things, did you actually put it on your neck?

 

I think this is a very significant question. I've run into many people who have tried the collar out on their arm or hand. I have tried a collar on my arm, zapping myself at a very low working level, and it was not bad. It was unpleasant -- and unpleasant in a worse way than a cut from thorns or a smack from the end of a tree branch, for reasons I can't explain -- but it wasn't actually painful. But I have never come across anyone who was willing to put the collar on their own neck, and give the transmitter to someone else (even someone they trusted) to zap. There probably are e-collar advocates somewhere who would do this as a demonstration, but I've never run into one. Why? Maybe because your neck is much more the "core" of you than your arm is, and because something unpleasant that you don't have control over is more traumatic than something equally unpleasant that you do have control over. I don't know. But that IS what happens to your dog when you use an e-collar, and to be able to say you're willing to try it out on yourself, or you have tried it out on yourself, I think that is what you need to do.

[G. Festerling]

Maja, I agree. Having said that though, a highly skilled trainer/handler will know and keep in mind the potential for harm if a given tool is used wrongly. And will seek to avoid it. Also, a highly skilled handler/trainer should/would not go to an e-collar as the first tool. Or at all.

 

And edited to add, I suppose in many cases we can certainly have a tendency to overestimate our skill and not wanting to admit to ourselves that it takes much experience, time, skill you name it to even get close.

So if the first thing one grabs to train is a tool like an e-collar, maybe one needs todo some admitting that one maybe lacking some skills.

That certainly was true when I used it on a cat killing rescue. Not sure if I would have better skills now. I choose to let others deal with those issues.

[MyTDogs]

I think this is a very significant question. I've run into many people who have tried the collar out on their arm or hand. I have tried a collar on my arm, zapping myself at a very low working level, and it was not bad. It was unpleasant -- and unpleasant in a worse way than a cut from thorns or a smack from the end of a tree branch, for reasons I can't explain -- but it wasn't actually painful. But I have never come across anyone who was willing to put the collar on their own neck, and give the transmitter to someone else (even someone they trusted) to zap.

 

Has anyone put a pinch collar or choke chain around their neck or even a simple buckle collar? Do that & let the person, unaware, go running at top speed for say 30-50 ft (the length of an average long line) and then yank them off their feet. Doesn't sound too nice & I think it could do actual, real damage to the person's neck. Humans and dogs are different. Our perception of pain is different (not more or less just different) so I don't know that the dog's neck is as sensitive as ours.

 

Every single day I see many patients with ill fitting prong collars & choke chains at work. Dogs taught to pull on the leash until their tongues turn blue & they gasp for air. To me that is cruelty but I do not suggest banning choke chains. Instead I take the time to try & educate the owner about how to use the tool effectively....because I can see some benefit in having the tool around for my own use someday.

 

The truth is that shock collars are a hot button issue because everyone starts talking in extremes. Most people fall near the middle. Most e collar trainers do not intend on torturing their dogs as most of the pet owners I see are not trying to strangle their dogs.

 

E.collars used properly don't actually "burn" dogs- they produce static electricity much like when taking clothes out of the dryer. Any marks are likely the result of the collar being too tight & causing pressure issues. Dogs are not vocalizing or urinating or defecating, etc..

[Amelia]

The truth is that shock collars are a hot button issue because everyone starts talking in extremes. Most people fall near the middle. Most e collar trainers do not intend on torturing their dogs as most of the pet owners I see are not trying to strangle their dogs.

 

No matter your intentions, your emotions will over rule them every single time when they are heightened...unless you're the Dalai Lama, and there's only one of him. Just like the guy who admitted to me that he threw his shock collar away after waiting for his dog to jump in a water tub before zapping her. He didn't intend to torture his dog either until he got mad.

 

And I don't buy the argument that we should condone abuse becasue there's so many ways to accomplish it. The existence of pinch collars doesn't make shock collars acceptable. I've picked a cause and I'm sticking with it, and abuse in any form is abominable.

 

cheers all

[geonni banner]

There have been sheepdogs, watch/guard dogs and hunting dogs for a very long time. They were created, and used successfully for centuries without the help of shock collars. Why do we need them now?

 

Or is getting a dog which may or may not be ideally suited to what the human wants the reason that the human “ups the ante” in training to force the result he wants? I see people trying to make a dog into something it isn’t all the time. It usually involves greed or ego, or both.

 

Breeding dogs which are crippled by the body/face type that their owners wish to have – for profit or to be able to say, “My dog is a champion!” and “Don’t you want one of his ribbon-getting pups?” is not the only way to ruin a dog. The end result of a training program that has a goal of a “push-button trained” dog, without considering the dog’s suitability or feelings, is often achieved by brutality of all sorts – including shock collars, (Let’s call them what they are,) beatings, stranglings, or intimidation.

 

I wonder if this “technological aid” is ever used on dogs whose owners don’t compete in trials or sell the product (dogs or training) for profit. Does the sheep farmer use a shock collar, or the “pot hunter”? (And if they do, what are the results? Do they get a keen, useful dog, or simply one that seeks to avoid pain, and by extension, their owner?)

 

If a person’s goal is to work successfully and in harmony with a dog, one will choose the dog carefully, basing the choice on the strengths present in that dog, and then work as hard as the dog does to achieve that harmony which ensures performance. If you have patience, good mentorship and a suitable dog, there is no need for brutality – electrical or otherwise.

[Lana]

Here is a link to an article Candy Kennedy wrote around 15 years ago, it is a very good read.

 

http://www.abcollie.com/index.php/2010/05/04/short-circuit/

[Tea]

I don't/wouldn't use pinch collars of choke collars? Why the H*** would anyone use these as well?

Pinch collars-????

[geonni banner]

Here is a link to an article Candy Kennedy wrote around 15 years ago, it is a very good read.

 

http://www.abcollie.com/index.php/2010/05/04/short-circuit/

Wow. Great article!

[Smalahundur]

Yep, a good read, thanks for the link Lana.