Jump to content
BC Boards

Dirty Little Secret


Amelia

Recommended Posts

Karen,

I think a number of people have expressed the same sentiment RachelO has expressed. I recall several comments along the lines of "How did people train hunting dogs before the advent of shock collars?" I think it's a valid question. If it could be done successfully without a shock collar, then what conclusions might be drawn about using one? I think laziness, shortcuts, etc., are all reasonable assumptions.

 

And I haven't trained the first hunting dog, but I can research how dogs were trained historically and compare that to what's being done today and draw my own conclusions.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

To the question of how bird dogs were trained before shock collars, there is the GOB method of bird dog training-you go out and buy a dog if it does everything you name those things it does and you are a dog trainer. If the dog does not do evertything, you shoot the dog and buy another until you find one that does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

Shock collars were invented to keep hunting dogs from running "trash" (unwanted prey). Until the shock collar, such behaviors were changed by "the Number Nine Correction": #9 shot, open choke, 200 yards. More than a few hunting dogs were blinded.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a number of people have expressed the same sentiment RachelO has expressed. I recall several comments along the lines of "How did people train hunting dogs before the advent of shock collars?" I think it's a valid question. If it could be done successfully without a shock collar, then what conclusions might be drawn about using one? I think laziness, shortcuts, etc., are all reasonable assumptions.

Julie,

I attempted to answer that question in one of my posts earlier, since by accident I know the answer: The hunting dogs are supposed to have, in addition to strong drives, a high dose of willingness to please. They are bred that way. It is very much like border collies that way: A BC that has all the drives and not biddability so no good.

 

Maja

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah....I understand then with the hunting dogs and the differences now and when my Old Pop was a boy. When he was a boy there wasn't any trash prey. They ate everything they shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Then go to my example of a leash and collar where the person chooses to hang the dog as a correction. Since such harm (permanently damaging eyes) can be done by a leash and collar should these be available in the pet stores? Slip collars can permanently damage trachea if used incorrectly; should these be available in pet stores? Head halters can cause neck injuries when not used properly, should these be available? A stock stick can be tossed at a dog as a correction and if it hits the dog it can do permanent damage, should these be available?

 

Tools can be mis-used; should the possibility of mis-use of a tool by some mean that tool should not be available?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And I haven't trained the first hunting dog, but I can research how dogs were trained historically and compare that to what's being done today and draw my own conclusions.

 

J.

 

If it's between a #9 and a SC, I will take the collar. One also has to take into consideration society today verses back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's between a #9 and a SC, I will take the collar. One also has to take into consideration society today verses back then.

I suppose if I had to make that choice I'd wonder if I'd chosen the proper dog or the proper training methods. If I have to resort to abuse to get a dog to do what I need it to do, then there's something seriously wrong somewhere--either with me or with the breeding programs from which I'm getting my dogs.

 

And I do realize that cultural norms have changed. Nowadays people are completely aghast if someone decides to destroy a dog that isn't working up to expectations instead of neutering it and placing it in a pet home. I guess that idea could extend to the use of a shock collar too--if you need the device to train the dog then maybe the dog is better off neutered and in a pet home. A difficult-to-train (to the point of requiring abusive techniques) purpose-bred dog seems a bit of an oxymoron to me.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then go to my example of a leash and collar where the person chooses to hang the dog as a correction. Since such harm (permanently damaging eyes) can be done by a leash and collar should these be available in the pet stores? Slip collars can permanently damage trachea if used incorrectly; should these be available in pet stores? Head halters can cause neck injuries when not used properly, should these be available? A stock stick can be tossed at a dog as a correction and if it hits the dog it can do permanent damage, should these be available?

 

Tools can be mis-used; should the possibility of mis-use of a tool by some mean that tool should not be available?

As I (and others in this topic) already said you weigh the potential for doing damage/abuse against the usefulness of a tool.

You think that balance is in favor of the use of shock collars, I don´t.

And yes we can (and should!) weigh those pros and cons for any tool we use in animal training.

 

And I seem to have to keep on repeating myself, some tools should not be available to the general public, because the "possibility of mis-use" as you call it is simply too big.

And all the pro-shock people here keep on telling how only experienced trainers with impeccable timing should use them, and I am willing to bet that that is a sad minority of the group of people actually (ab)using them .....

 

Well I am done in this topic, if you choose too keep on misunderstanding my point of view, or not being able to accept that people don´t share your opinion, well then that´s your problem isn´t it.

I for one am happy to live in a country where these devices are not regarded as "just another training tool".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think that balance is in favor of the use of shock collars, I don´t.

No, I think it's the personal responsibility of the user to know how and to correctly use any tool. If the tool is used for abuse or harm than it's society's responsibility punish those, who cannot correctly use the tool, for their actions.

 

Our difference is you believe it is society’s responsibility to prevent people from making poor decisions by not allowing them access to something they might abuse where I believe this should be a personal responsibility.

 

If people are not expected to control themselves (and get punished when they don't) will they every learn to control themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all the pro-shock people here keep on telling how only experienced trainers with impeccable timing should use them, and I am willing to bet that that is a sad minority of the group of people actually (ab)using them .....

 

I prefer the term pro-choice :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think it's the personal responsibility of the user to know how and to correctly use any tool. If the tool is used for abuse or harm than it's society's responsibility punish those who cannot correctly use the tool for their actions.

 

Our difference is you believe it is society’s responsibility to prevent people from making poor decisions by not allowing them access to something they might abuse where I believe this should be a personal responsibility.

 

If people are not expected to control themselves (and get punished when they don't) will they every learn to control themselves?

Yeah, that sums it up.

I think people have proven not to be trusted with certain responsibilities (hello Wallstreet ;) ). I don´t see a lot of improvement.

I think there is a certain cultural difference between the US and Europe in this regard (legislation concerned with fire arms also a good example of this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people are not expected to control themselves (and get punished when they don't) will they every learn to control themselves?

You've touched on something here that has long bothered me. And that's the question: "Where is the punishement for people who mistreat animals?" ISTM that even within our own working dog community we don't stand up to the abusers and tell them they need to stop. Sure, you hear of isolated incidents where someone is removed from a trial or similar, but in general we continue to buy dogs from these people (tacit approval of their training methods), attend trials at these people's farms, etc. The fact is that if there were a real threat of being outed and/or punished for abusiveness, including abusing shock collars, then perhaps there would be less abuse. But when we as a group tend to look the other way, we're in essence condoning it.

 

I understand that it's a sticky situation to point out people who are abusive, but I don't know how many times in private conversations I've been told about this person or that one. Maybe it's all hearsay and no one is ever abusing dogs, but as Amelia pointed out at the start of this thread, there are people who are known to do stuff like this and NO ONE speaks up, either to the culprit or to any body that might act against them. I realize that you need proof and a lot can be hidden from public view, but we have to start somewhere and peer pressure seems like as good a place as any. So why don't we?

 

Recently someone asked about trainers. I made some suggestions of folks to send a dog to and folks not to send a dog to and my reasons why. Others had suggested at least one trainer that I recommended AGAINST because credible eyewitness evidence of abuse. This abuse occurred at a trial, so there wasn't just one witness. And yet, a few years down the road, folks are recommending that people send their dogs for training to this person. Why is that? (And maybe this is a topic for its own thread.)

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

Julie wrote (in part) about dog abuse. "This abuse occurred at a trial, so there wasn't just one witness. And yet, a few years down the road, folks are recommending that people send their dogs for training to this person. Why is that? (And maybe this is a topic for its own thread.)"

 

This is a tough. complex issue. While it's possible (and there are weak means available) to sanction USBCHA members for abuse at trials, I don't believe the USBCHA can sanction anyone for abuse at clinics or the home training field.

 

Everybody who has trialed for any time knows people they wouldn't trust with dogs. Seeing abuse is a different matter and I haven't seen abuse in ten years. But . . .

 

The accused abuser has rights too. In Virginia, the first instance of abuse is a misdemeanor, the second is a felony punishable by sanctions up to five years in prison. An abuse accusation can have serious consequences and a false or frivolous accusation has consequences too.

 

Abuse is much rarer than what I heard about (and saw) 25 years ago when someone dragging a dog behind his pickup followed by thumps and yelps was unremarkable.

 

Handlers who won trials without abusing their dogs had an impact as did competitive women. Most of the abuser generation have passed to their eternal rewards where, I trust, they will find their dogs waiting for them.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald,

I just said to someone today that it was an awful thing to wish on someone, but that there were a few I would happily see go to their great reward, for the sake of their dogs.

 

BTW, I'm not suggesting that people bring others in our community up on charges or that witch hunts be started, with people seeking frivolous excuses to turn in others. What I AM saying is that peer pressure can do a great deal to change the way people behave. But as long as we tend to turn the other way, choose not to directly confront, or continue to patronize and befriend these folks, we are tacitly condoning their behavior--and that's sending a strong message to the new folks that come into the fold. I think that as a community we can do more to pressure the abusive types to stop. It doesn't matter that there are fewer now than there were two decades ago. There shouldn't be any. JMO.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think it's the personal responsibility of the user to know how and to correctly use any tool.

 

See, this is where the wheels come off for me. I don't believe there is a proper way to use a shock collar. On it's face, it's abuse. That is why I think the people who use them should be outed and put out of business. Insolvency is a powerful deterrent.

 

The person who tortured Indie was vehemenently opposed to everything AKC for years. After running off her last round of clientele some years back, she reinvented herself as a staunch AKC trainer, judging card and all. Now she puts shock collars on all those tervs, bouviers, heelers, etc., is driving a BMW, bragging that her dog trial next weekend is full, and giving more lessons than she can handle.

 

And Donald, I know you're not suggesting that a shock collar or shooting a wayward dog are the only choices folks have for training a gun dog. Are you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is where the wheels come off for me. I don't believe there is a proper way to use a shock collar. On it's face, it's abuse. That is why I think the people who use them should be outed and put out of business. Insolvency is a powerful deterrent.

 

But Amelia, this takes us full circle back to the beginning. How can they be outed if you started this and you yourself won't out them? How do people learn *what* questions to ask or who if it's not pubic knowledge or info that's readily available? Didn't you say (can't go back and reread it) that it was confirmed in writing, to the owner, a shock collar was used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Amelia, this takes us full circle back to the beginning. How can they be outed if you started this and you yourself won't out them? How do people learn *what* questions to ask or who if it's not pubic knowledge or info that's readily available? Didn't you say (can't go back and reread it) that it was confirmed in writing, to the owner, a shock collar was used?

 

PM'd you. Confirmed by telephone call between owner and abuser after I suspicioned. Owner related the call to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

Shock collars were invented to keep hunting dogs from running "trash" (unwanted prey). Until the shock collar, such behaviors were changed by "the Number Nine Correction": #9 shot, open choke, 200 yards. More than a few hunting dogs were blinded.

 

Donald McCaig

 

 

Alrighty, then. I know to stay far away from gun dogs, since the entire hunting-with-dogs culture is apparently founded on violence. :blink:

 

Though I still have to believe there were old-time gun-dog men who trained their dogs by kindly methods, just as there were old-time shepherds who trained their dogs without using boots or whips. Which belief I cling to, because I refuse to believe e-collars are just a logical, less-lethal substitute to buckshot.

 

~ Gloria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Errr, it's been said that before the advent of the shock collar there was #9 shot. What did hunters correct with before there were shotguns?

 

People have been training hunting dogs and stock dogs for a really long time. Some of those people invented hunting breeds and herding breeds.

 

Yes, there was "ruthless" culling, but what else? A crappy hunting dog is better than no hunting dog when your larder and not a bit of ribbon or your picture in "Field and Stream" is at stake. But a good hunting dog is better than a crappy one. I can't believe there weren't techniques for improving/ correcting a dog before the shotgun came along.

 

Ditto sheepdogs. Ditto rat catchers. Ditto guard dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is where the wheels come off for me. I don't believe there is a proper way to use a shock collar. On it's face, it's abuse.

For me these collars would be the last resort to life threatening situations and use of these collars for things that can be accomplished by other means is abuse. But then my training experience has been with primarily one breed and biddable individual dogs. Since I don't have experience training other breeds or individual dogs that have very hard temperaments I won't make a blanket judgment that this tool is always abuse. I've learned from other issues I've dealt with (i.e. severe thunderphobia) that unless you walk in those shoes you really don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I have to add to this discussion is about gun dogs: a couple of years ago an english friend of my husbands spent a couple of nights with us and we spent a lot of time talking about dogs, with him teasing Dave about using a border collie as a bird dog. One of his observations was his horror at the use of shock collars, he had never seen one used in the uk. His pedigree included belonging to a gun dog training group that included owners and managers of shooting estates, and a brother that managed a major estate where he was regularly invited to shoot. (just in case people do not realize bird shooting in the uk is an expensive and posh sport)

Since then my thoughts about their use in gun dogs have been, that is also a quicker way to complete a dog, and just like with pet dogs a way for a trainer to hand over the dog to its owner who has a method of control. Even gun dogs owned by wealthy people in the UK are still family pets, while here many of them live in kennels and are tools. So there is not the level of handler/dog relationship that is needed for good control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...