Dirty Little Secret

[MyTDogs]

I would like to clarify that my statements were made regarding the banning of E. Collars. I do not think they have a place in stockdog training & I would not train with someone who uses them, but I do not think they should be banned either.

 

For some dogs it is a matter of life & death. As a last resort many aggressive, car chasing, animal killing dogs can be rehabilitated with a good trainer using an e collar. To me it is better to live than be dead- even if it requires e collar training. It seems absurd to suggest that it would be more humane to euthanize a dog than rehab it with an ecollar.

 

Sadly, while some here think pinch collars & choke chains are cruel & useless tools, many a JQP uses these things every day- most often improperly. Should we ban them? Should we despise the owners for "torturing" & "abusing" their dogs? I choose to try & educate them in the proper use instead of vilifying the tool or the user.

[Gloria Atwater]

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.

 

Adding my dittos. ANY tool can be abusive in the wrong hands: a stock stick, a training flag, a long line, etc. But one has to pretty much lose their cool and go over the top to inflict real harm with those. With an E-collar, though, mis-use is just a click away.

 

And I've seen people use an e-collar on a dog out of pique and anger. Back before I knew enough to form an opinion.

 

~ Gloria

[Gloria Atwater]

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.

 

Exactly. Our arms are pretty tough. I could sit and endure a lot of abuse to an arm, (cut, bruise, etc) and just disconnect from the sensation until it passed. But my neck? Nuh-uh. It's way too close to the nerve centers for me to be comfortable with an e-collar or anything else. I'll be impressed only when I hear of someone putting an e-collar around their neck and handing the control off to someone else.

 

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.....

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

 

That's the whole point. There are only a relative few professional trainers out there - of gun dogs or whatever. But there are a hulluva lot of e-collars sold every year. Where do they go? To the hands of private owners looking for a fix. Perhaps under the guidance of a skilled trainer, but the point is, I do not believe the majority of e-collars really do go to people who honestly understand their use or who can be wholly trusted not to lose their temper and "fry" a dog for some infraction.

 

In fact, the pro-e-collar websites pretty much convince me of that. They advocate e-collars as a means to an end, not a tool of last resort. And dumb ol' Joe Blow falls for it, not realizing he utterly lacks the savvy or timing to make each and every e-correction perfect.

 

That's the basis of my stance against them. In the case of most dog training, (I know nothing about police/protection training) I feel an e-collar is, A) a crutch or shortcut in lieu of slower, less mechanical training, or a very last resort when every other avenue has been exhausted and the dog is endangering lives, his own or those of creatures around him. They should not be a go-to or solution for ordinary training problems. But ... they are. In too many circles, they are.

 

~ Gloria

P.S.

Tea, you rock!

[Gloria Atwater]

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/

 

 

Very well said. Thanks for the link, Lana!

 

~ Gloria

[Gloria Atwater]

Everyone's probably tired of seeing me here, but here's one more link, to an article in which a trainer discusses the use of force. I think it's beautifully thought out, and worth a read.

 

And I think it ties in directly with the controversy over electronic collars. Because in my view, e-collars are force, regardless of how overt or subtle.

 

Anyhow, for your reading pleasure: "I Had To"

 

http://www.suzanneclothier.com/blog/i-had?mid=5101

 

~ Gloria

[Tea]

Good read on both articles. Thanks

[Mark Billadeau]

General clarification questions

 

Are those who are against all uses of e-collars also against all uses of shock (i.e. bark collars, invisible fences, electric fences, etc)?

Is it the use of shock or is it how the shock is related (or not related) to the action of the dog in the dog's mind that is the issue?

[juliepoudrier]

Speaking only for myself, I don't use bark collars and don't particularly like their use. I referred earlier in this thread (I think) to a dog that had a sore/burn on its neck from the electrodes of a bark collar (at the time I guessed perhaps the dog had been wet and that's how the electrodes managed to cause that damage, but in any case, people who use such collars should be aware that they CAN actually damage the skin). The difference is that the DOG controls through its own actions whether a shock is received (a significant differenece, IMO, than the human controlling the shock collar), but I just plain don't like them.

 

I see electric fences the same way. The animal contained within controls whether a shock is received. And of course we all know that there are instances when the animal will choose to brave the shock because what's on the other side is way more appealing than the threat of the shock, but in the end it is the animal's CHOICE, not the human's. And the bark collar and electric fences never have an element of revenge or punishment--they are inanimate objects that can't take proactive action against the animal. (That said, I experienced a situation in which a horse got itself tangled in the bottom wire of a high-tensile electric fence. She lay there being shocked until she was discovered by her owner. She did not survive. The electric fences we used growing up were milder I think. We children could check that it was working by touching it, and while it was unpleasant/hurtful it wasn't so bad that we weren't willing to touch the fence occasionally. But again, it was a CHOICE we made to do so.)

 

It's the HUMAN component that is the problem with shock collars of the non-bark-bark collar variety. For me the real issue is the pain of the shock and the fact that the human controlling that shock can allow his/her emotions (i.e., anger) to take control, with the dog suffering, sometimes greatly, in the end. There's enough abuse out there when it comes to training dogs without condoning tools that allow the human to easily up the ante and administer very real pain while being totally disassociated from the action (just pushing a button vs. doing something that requires the human's physical involvement; the latter is also quite awful, but I think perhaps it *could* be more self-limiting than the types of punishments that can be administered by the push of a button.)

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

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.

 

No, I don't think anyone has tested out a pinch collar or choke chain in that way. But you never hear anyone claim that they know it's okay to do those things because they've tried it out on themselves. You only hear that claim in connection with the shock collar. My point is simply that unless they have tried the shock collar in the way it is used on the dog, the claim counts for very little.

 

Also, AFAIK nobody here is advocating letting a dog go running at top speed for 30-50 feet and then yanking them off their feet. So why would anyone test out what effect that would have on a person?

 

 

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.

 

It might be more sensitive or less sensitive or equal in sensitivity. But if you're going to say it's okay to use a shock collar on a dog because you tried it out on yourself and it was no big deal, seems to me you at least have to try it out on the analogous body part.

 

If you're going to say it's okay to use a shock collar on a dog because dogs don't feel pain the way we do, then there's no need to try the collar on yourself at all, but fewer people will find that claim persuasive.

[Mark Billadeau]

Julie, your objection appears to be centered on the inconsistent and/or poorly timed application of the shock by a human for an action the dog chose to do.

 

My personal opinion is that this training tool (e-collar) should be reserved only for life and death issues that could not be resolved by any other means; we don't own one.

[juliepoudrier]

Mark,

My objection is that the human can cause a great deal of pain to the dog and can do so in anger while the dog cannot escape the pain for as long as the human chooses to apply it. In the other examples you provided in your OP, pain (of various levels) can be "administered," but the animal's *direct actions* cause the application and release of the pain. The same is not true for a collar that is controlled by another entity. Even a perfectly consistent trainer with perfect timing can cause a great deal of pain to a dog in a moment of anger or just out of a misguided notion of "more is better."

 

This is what I stated was my main objection:

For me the real issue is the pain of the shock and the fact that the human controlling that shock can allow his/her emotions (i.e., anger) to take control, with the dog suffering, sometimes greatly, in the end. There's enough abuse out there when it comes to training dogs without condoning tools that allow the human to easily up the ante and administer very real pain while being totally disassociated from the action....

 

I think it's pretty clear I'm not talking about inconsistent or poorly timed applications. I'm talking about pain that is being controlled by someone else--the creature not on the receiving end of the pain. I don't know how I can make that clearer.

 

I'm pretty sure I stated earlier in this thread that the only time I would *consider* a shock collar to be merited is when the life of the dog or some other living creature is in immediate danger because of the dog's actions. Even then, though, I think it's possible to manage the situation (whatever that situation might be) WITHOUT resorting to the use of a shock collar.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

My objection is that the human can cause a great deal of pain to the dog and can do so in anger while the dog cannot escape the pain for as long as the human chooses to apply it

No different than any other training tool or method. The biggest difference with this tool/training method is it takes the least amount of physical effort on the part of a lazy trainer to use. It takes more physical effort to hang a dog by a leash&collar than to simply press a button. The issue is not the training tool but the person behind the tool and the ease of mis-use.

[G. Festerling]

Hmmm.... I can honesty say that yes, I have tried the effects of the choke, flat, end even prong collar on my neck with being brave enough to hand a person I trust the leash.

Because i want to know myself. I have also been spurred, had someone come after me with a whip (never mind the times I whopped myself accidentally) to feel just what. And yes, I admit, none of them are pleasant. And I totally know how trust in the person on the other end is essential. But I also know that a well placed correction with any will not result in detrimental harm if it is balanced with proper training that allows the animal to earn respect and praise more than corrections. And a good trainer will be able to set that up and does all possible to do so.

 

Let me say again though, I totally do believe that an e-collar has no use in stock work. For

more than one reason.

 

By the way, I tried the collars exactly because of a discussion like this a long time ago in

my working dog club. After I got kicked out of a small group because I told the trainings

director that my dog neither needed nor deserved an e-collar. This despite my belief that it is not the devil. But because of my belief that it is a tool best used as a last resort and only in special circumstances.

[juliepoudrier]

[/b]No different than any other training tool or method. The biggest difference with this tool/training method is it takes the least amount of physical effort on the part of a lazy trainer to use. It takes more physical effort to hang a dog by a leash&collar than to simply press a button. The issue is not the training tool but the person behind the tool and the ease of mis-use.

Which is why I said in one of my posts that a shock collar allows the trainer to disassociated himself from the actual act of punishment. Hanging a dog requires the trainer to be actively involved and to directly see (and feel, as the dog struggles) the effects of the punishment. A shock collar allows the trainer to keep his hands clean, so to speak.

 

Anyway, I think we're starting to go in circles here, since the arument that it's not different than misusing any other tool has been made before, several times. You asked how people though a shock collar was different from a bark collar or an electric fence and I gave my reasons why I think they're different. If you believe they're all the same or that all can be misused equally, that's your choice. I happen to think they are different.

 

I also already stated that there are plenty of abusive techniques out there, but most of them at least require the abuser to take a hands-on approach. The shock collar allows the abuser to stand back and abuse, which means it's even less likely that the abuser's conscience will have a chance to kick in. And see your comments I quoted above: either it's no different or it's different--it can't be both.

 

Personally, I don't see the need to put any additional potentially abusive tools in the hands of so-called trainers or to condone their use because, well, lots of other tools can be used abusively too. I draw the line at abuse, period, and a shock collar is just one of the most obvious examples of tools that can be and are used abusively.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

I draw the line at abuse, period, and a shock collar is just one of the most obvious examples of tools that can be used abusively.

agreed

[vaporflowers]

I think, with regards to banning shock collars, that there is one potentially life-saving use that justifies their existence to me... and that is rattlesnake avoidance training.

 

I know enough hikers in desert areas who swear by it; the dog smells the snake long before the owner sees or hears it, giving the owner insufficient time to call the dog to safety if the dog decides he's interested. Associating the odor of a poisonous snake with a shock seems to go a long way towards preventing a bite where snakes are prevalent (and it's not just "in the wild"... my friends in AZ have had several show up in their backyard).

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

When police departments were considering adopting multishot automatics vs their traditional six shot revolvers, some worried that the sheer availablity of firepower would lead to too much firing in panic/near-panic situations. In several well studied incidents, their worries have been justified..

 

Some years ago, a study was conducted where differently aggressive responses were possible with and without a gun in the room. To nobody's particular surprise, more aggression was elicited when a gun was present.

 

Saying thus and such is a "tool" - removing it from consideration of how it interacts with its users - is misleading.

 

 

"Tools" are not neutral. The film was "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", not the :"Texas Dishwasher Massacre".

 

 

I have seen retrievers, bird dogs, pet dogs and ATF bomb detection dogs effectively trained by experts using ecollars. Although I have qualms about anonymous corrections (and the ecollar's long term effect) the dogs I saw were happy, mannerly and good at their work. I have seen perhaps a dozen sheepdogs trained by shock collars. None was right and some were psychotic (I have seen psychotic treat/praise trained pet and agility Border Collies too.)

 

I have used a shock collar on my dogs in a life threatening situation and would use one in rare circumstances again. That said: shock/ecollars positively invite misuse and I venture that more than half of the ecollars sold at PetSmart - withal their instructional DVD - are used to abuse pet dogs.

 

It is a powerful, no-pain-to-the-user tool,with difficult-to-cure long lasting effects.

 

I believe its use should be restricted to licensed professionals,

 

 

Donald McCaig

[ItsADogsLyfe]

My thoughts because I did not see it posted. It isn't just the pain involved with a shock collar, its the electrical shock. As living beings I think we instinctively avoid direct contact with anything producing electrical current. It doesn't just hurt when you get shocked, it affects your entire body and mind. I have been shocked a few times and even though I knew why and where it came from it still affected me more than just the physical pain. A dog has no idea where it comes from when he is shocked with a collar. If he feels the fear to get away from the electricity he can go nowhere. I think this is why so many dogs that are shocked with a collar act very nervous. I have groomed an aussie that was trained (at 6 mos) with a shock collar and the dog, now an adult, does not act normal. Her reactions to simple grooming procedures are not that of the normal dog.

I love and respect my dogs and they respect me so why would I want to put a collar on them that will ruin that just to take a shortcut in training.

[Gloria Atwater]

My thoughts because I did not see it posted. It isn't just the pain involved with a shock collar, its the electrical shock. As living beings I think we instinctively avoid direct contact with anything producing electrical current. It doesn't just hurt when you get shocked, it affects your entire body and mind. I have been shocked a few times and even though I knew why and where it came from it still affected me more than just the physical pain. ....

 

 

Absolutely agree. A friend of mine has an electric wire strung along her back pasture, because sometimes coyotes and even bears come down and she doesn't want them in her barnyard. Because I'm a dork, I've managed to hit the darned wire more than once, over the years, the most recent being a month or so ago. The jolt of that shock not only hurt like a b****, it left my nerves jangling and my thoughts rattled for several minutes after. It's as if the electricity temporarily scrambled some circuitry in my head!

 

Granted, that hot wire is nothing like a shock collar. Plus, horses and bears can choose to back off and not get stung. But I've wondered if the same principle applies to dogs with e-collars, when that use becomes abuse. We as humans can identify, "Oh, I've been shocked," but a dog has no clue what just hit him, and that fear plus the fact it's electricity surely must play into its effects. Especially in a dog with a more sensitive nature.

 

(Sadly, in years past, I've seen e-collars used on dogs who were hard to manage because they were very excitable, anxious dogs and I've never understood how being zapped was supposed to fix that. If they keep cranking up the power, are they further scrambling that poor dog's head?)

 

Also, I did zap myself with an e-collar once, several years ago. No idea what they had it set on, but the damned thing BIT!

 

Nope, don't like 'em.

 

~ Gloria

[Mark Billadeau]

This is an age old argument:

 

the tool incited misuse and abuse vs. the person who selected that tool was prone to such actions

 

In my book it always comes back to the person

the person selected that tool

the person chose to misuse that tool

the person......

 

Cars can be used to kill or used for simple transporation, did the car invite the killer towards hit and run?

 

Tools are neutral, it takes a person to pick it up and use it.

[RachelO]

Thank goodness you and Indie found each other! That poor girl! I wish those damned things would be outlawed everywhere, even those invisible fence things. And those self-titled "trainers" who use them are a joke. They are used by people who are lazy and who have absolutely no idea what they are doing. All the best to you and Indie!

[Smalahundur]

This is an age old argument:

 

the tool incited misuse and abuse vs. the person who selected that tool was prone to such actions

 

In my book it always comes back to the person

the person selected that tool

the person chose to misuse that tool

the person......

 

Cars can be used to kill or used for simple transporation, did the car invite the killer towards hit and run?

 

Tools are neutral, it takes a person to pick it up and use it.

Using that logic, a grenade launcher would be an acceptable means of home defense. Hey, it is just a tool right...?

 

My point, and I said this earlier, things are not so black and white. Hoe big is the potential for abuse, in case of shock collars pretty big, and how important/needed is the "justified" use, well one can, as is obvious in this topic, disagree on that.

 

I personally don´t think the suffering of the dogs with stupid owners (and I know quite a lot of those, don´t you?) does not outweigh saving the very few dogs that allegedly can´t function without shock collar "training".

 

Both the car and the grenade laucher analogies are of course not very good. Each on the opposite far end of the spectrum, both not very comparable to a shock collar.

 

But we do agree on the fact it´s always the person, not the tool.

What we disagree on is our view of the "general public". You trust them better than I do.

I think there are tools better not generally available, and we probably have to agree to disagree on that .

[Journey]

And those self-titled "trainers" who use them are a joke. They are used by people who are lazy and who have absolutely no idea what they are doing.

 

Really?? And you know this how? How many gun dogs have you trained? As for self titled what is the other option?

[Mark Billadeau]

Using that logic, a grenade launcher would be an acceptable means of home defense. Hey, it is just a tool right...?

The grenade launcher is not automatous; it requires a person to obtain and use it for home defense.

 

 

[Smalahundur]

The grenade launcher is not automatous; it requires a person to obtain and use it for home defense.

Ehm, yeah, that was my point, I agree with you on that part (I also wrote that, did you actually read my whole post?).

But does it mean you think they should be for sale at your local supermarket?

 

The grenade launcher analogy was an answer to your car analogy, as I said they both compare very poorly to shock collars, and analysing those two examples in detail is not very relevant for the shock collar discussion.