# Sarah Kalnajs: 'Some thoughts on pos-R training'



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

shared with permission - thanks, Sarah! :001_smile: 


> _A few words on Positive Reinforcement Training
> by Sarah Kalnajs on Monday, May 9, 2011 at 4:30pm
> 
> A few words on Positive Reinforcement Training
> ...


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Sarah Kalnajs said:


> I am a crossover trainer...
> Was I able to train dogs that way? Yes... BUT - The dogs didn't get excited about training


Exactly why I've got so enthusiastic and onboard.

Now I take dogs for a walk and doing a little bit of training practice, is a part of the activity, something they enjoy, just like swimming, or playing fetch!

It is not a chore, it is fun, and they do learn when they did it right, and try again when they don't perform; when they don't understand or don't improve, it's been my fault, every time; I didn't chose the right plan or environment.

Training the dogs used to be mind numbingly boring!


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Another good post, however where does this sit with those owners who whilst being able to train their dogs to jump through hoops, come high water with a bolting rabbit and being off lead would run across a motorway. No amount of R+ can overcome instinct, and I think the majority of 'husky' type owners would agree in that their breeds are most definitely a no no for allowing off leash, no matter how well they have been trained. R+ isn't the be all and end all of training when emergencies arise some have to train for this inevitability in whatever way makes their dog safe off lead.

In a grump so saying as I see tonight :smile:


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Exactly why I've got so enthusiastic and onboard.
> 
> Now I take dogs for a walk and doing a little bit of training practice, is a part of the activity, something they enjoy, just like swimming, or playing fetch!
> 
> ...


But that's what walks should be like - training mixed in as part and parcel - training occurs unfortunately even when we aren't looking for the opportunity sometimes :tongue_smilie:


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> come high water with a bolting rabbit and being off lead would run across a motorway. No amount of R+ can overcome instinct


That's just not true! I've overcome chase instinct by working on it having researched the issues. Off leash without nasty techno-stuff, R+ is the only way, a long line is P-.

You can use positive interruptors as well to manage the situation, by catching the dog as it assesses and builds up to chase.

Instincts can be redirected. Husky's may be more independant and difficult, but that does not mean something is not possible. Don't say "Oh Border Collie easy" because uncontrolled chasing and nipping is one of the reasons they're not recommened as family pets. Herding is basically chasing modified, to control the animals.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Fantastic post.........T'is the way I've been taught to train dogs, since I were but a lad. New fancy words and new fancy scientific phrases, but basically the same method. I suppose one could even call it "traditional" especially in our house and around my doggy friends and doggy clubs.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Don't say "Oh Border Collie easy" because uncontrolled chasing and nipping is one of the reasons they're not recommened as family pets. Herding is basically chasing modified, to control the animals.


Would never say BC are easy, just like I'd never say labs, GRs or Spanners are, dogs 'full stop' are not easy to train, they take time and effort. I have personal experience of a good friend who's done everything there is to R+ train her rescue spaniel over three years to become a better behaved dog to live with. This dog literally can jump hoops and I'm sure she'd be able to teach her to walk on stilts, but that's not her thing since it's be making fun of the dog and that MOST positively is not her way. She's taught this dog using R+ methods (cuddles and treats which with an untouchable spaniel was no mean feat), even an emergency stop and return was brilliant 99.9% of the time - it failed when the fezzie got up and flew to the railway line ... 

No method is 100% fail safe, bar an intact lead and collar, especially with this dog who has failed to pass beyond being a 'juvenille' in all behaviours.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

grandad said:


> Fantastic post.........T'is the way I've been taught to train dogs, since I were but a lad. New fancy words and new fancy scientific phrases, but basically the same method. I suppose one could even call it "traditional" especially in our house and around my doggy friends and doggy clubs.


Ahhhh, 'traditional' can't use that word anymore, don't you know :nono: :tongue_smilie:


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> That's just not true! I've overcome chase instinct by working on it having researched the issues. Off leash without nasty techno-stuff, R+ is the only way, a long line is P-.
> 
> You can use positive interruptors as well to manage the situation, by catching the dog as it assesses and builds up to chase.
> 
> Instincts can be redirected. Husky's may be more independant and difficult, but that does not mean something is not possible. Don't say "Oh Border Collie easy" because uncontrolled chasing and nipping is one of the reasons they're not recommened as family pets. Herding is basically chasing modified, to control the animals.


I've seen BC's worked from pups to trial dogs and they never chased anything. They were to busy working sheep and to knackered after they put in a days work


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> it failed when the fezzie got up and flew to the railway line ...
> 
> No method is 100% fail safe, bar an intact lead and collar, especially with this dog who has failed to pass beyond being a 'juvenille' in all behaviours.


Was that dog proofed against the Pheasants? Saying someone failed with a rescue dog, does not mean people don't succeed especially with puppies. But I have to question the choice of ground, such birds like cover.

I think you have too much faith in leads and collars, they can break & ppl can lose the end of them, letting go if stampeded, or they can get a good dog killed.

I planned ahead. My priority for non chasing was :

Everyday essentials : Deer, Joggers & Cyclists, Children playing, football games, Cars/Road Traffic and Dogs

Good for peace : Ducks, Geese & Pidgeons, calling away from playing with dogs

Nice but tricky : Squirrels, Sheep & other livestock not frequently encountered (management on leash feasible), blown items

I can take my dog, to the edge of the deers flight distance, have him look at them which is enough to tip them into retreat, and he *does not even think of moving after them*.

Solving most of it, has fixed most of the other cases. Ducks can take off at a tempting speed in our direction of travel, and not get a chase reaction.

Saying it's not 100%, is true, I guess a sudden brain storm could happen, I could get distracted and fail to lead at a vital moment. But I am seeing the dog near the animals almost every day. You see the signs when a chase is about to occur, and there is time to do something, and if you miss it, it is possible to stop a dog and recall. The most likely problem, is if I mess up and throw a Frisbee say that catches the wind turns, and crosses a driveway to carparks which may (not) have traffic on it. Relaxed, happy dogs enjoying company don't just bolt off, without weighing things up and psyching themselves up to run.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

grandad said:


> I've seen BC's worked from pups to trial dogs and they never chased anything. They were to busy working sheep and to knackered after they put in a days work


And I've had Aunt's WSD come back from day's work when visiting relations, and then play kickabout football with us, chasing that to, and enjoying playing for a bit; just like a pet.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

> The distinction is that their preference in training is whenever possible to use Positive Reinforcement & Negative Punishment .....Positive trainers fully understand that there must be consequences in learning but see no need for consequences
> to be harsh physical punishers in order to have a wonderfully trained & well-mannered family (or performance) pet.
> While they may sometimes opt to use Positive Punishment as a tool, their choice of punisher would be perhaps
> clap their hands & make a noise, or moving just a bit into the dog's space.


I agree. Guess I'm a positive trainer. But I wonder how this sits with those who disavow the use of all positive punishment.



> If you wouldn't do it to a pre-verbal child, then please don't do it to your dog.


I disagree. I wouldn't put a flat collar and standard leash on a child of any age, confine them to a kennel nor send them outside to "do their business". But I do that to my dog.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> No method is 100% fail safe, bar an intact lead and collar, especially with this dog who has failed to pass beyond being a 'juvenille' in all behaviours.


So if no method is 100% why do people hound on R+ methods so much in regards to it 'not working all the time'. No method can work all the time. It depends on too many variables- the trainer, the dog, the reinforcers, the level of motivation, the time of day, the dog's history, the trainer's experience etc., etc.

I thoroughly believe that, generally, R+ can be used to teach any behaviour. However, the success of that behaviour depends on too many things and if you want a dog that is 100% reliable, then you're better off getting a computer game.

This is not a go at you ISG- I just thought your comment was a nice point to talk about.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

Rottiefan said:


> So if no method is 100% why do people hound on R+ methods so much in regards to it 'not working all the time'. No method can work all the time. It depends on too many variables- the trainer, the dog, the reinforcers, the level of motivation, the time of day, the dog's history, the trainer's experience etc., etc.


Well from sitting back and observing how some members do the above it appears to me that they do it to deflect attention away from the correctional methods and tools that they prefer. 

You know R+ works, so do I.  So does just about every trainer of assistance dogs etc and loads of more enlightened and in touch trainers out there. But some folks have difficulty in re-evaluating their methods so try anything to desperately justify them. It's sad but it's the way it is.  All we can do is ignore their jibes and sneering and just get on with promoting kinder methods.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

arlow said:


> I disagree. I wouldn't put a flat collar and standard leash on a child of any age, confine them to a kennel nor send them outside to "do their business".


Haven't you seen those toddler harnesses with leads that are used to stop them running off?
Perhaps it's an argument against using flat collar and leash, if you fear injury for children.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

CarolineH said:


> You know R+ works, so do I.  So does just about every trainer of assistance dogs etc and loads of more enlightened and in touch trainers out there


I met the trainer of a local lady's hearing assistance dog yesterday, she was checking how the dog's getting on, and having called to see if we could come over, it turned out one category was to see how the dog was with other ppl's dogs and strangers. Little (lakeland?) terrier free to play, running up to my BC for a sniff in delight, must have checked a box


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

CarolineH said:


> Well from sitting back and observing how some members do the above it appears to me that they do it to deflect attention away from the correctional methods and tools that they prefer.


I think they do it, because they know really that the correction stuff is wrong if another method works as well, so they attack R+ to justify a coercive method.

What strikes me around now, is just how entrenched & accepted, forcing a dog is, as everyone seems to know being firm is necessary. We have a huge cultural bias going on. This is ppl who describe themselves as dog lovers, and experienced owners, not just status dog types or TV followers of Pack Leaders.

When ppl see a dog gently talked to, well trained, they think the dog deserves rewarding and is good; rather than making the connection that the fun the dog has, is what's making it good.



Andy Nickless said:


> If you want to train a border collie to work sheep, you should understand that it's a long term project and put aside any desire for instant gratification and results
> ...
> A working border collie can be a tough cookie - to train one, you sometimes have to be even tougher!
> 
> ...


Train a Sheepdog Border Collie Herding Stock Dog Training to Fetch Sheep Farm Ranch or Sheepdog Trials

Apart from some PL ranking ideas and words like respect, use of a training stick (not to hit) but guide the dog as it naturally avoids it, the dog *must* be stopped from attacking the sheep; there's quite a bit of insight and the training shown is R+ based not emphasising "discipline".


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Haven't you seen those toddler harnesses with leads that are used to stop them running off?
> Perhaps it's an argument against using flat collar and leash, if you fear injury for children.


I have and they creep me out. But never have I seen it used around a child's neck.

My broader point is that this is a specious argument. There are all sorts of things I do to a dog that I would not do to a child, including clicker training for that matter.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> ...where does this sit with... owners who [are] able to train their dogs to jump through hoops,
> [but] with a bolting rabbit and [the dog] off lead [s/he'd] run across a motorway[?]
> *No amount of R+ can overcome instinct*, and I think the majority of [Nordic] owners would agree...
> that their breeds are most definitely a no no for... off leash, no matter how well they have been trained.
> ...


"some *have to train* for this *inevitability* in *whatever way makes their dog safe off-lead"*...?
kaka.

* they do not *have to -* there is no MUST BE OFF-LEASH rule. 
anyone whose dog is not well-proofed & well-trained can be on a long-line for safety; nobody claims that 
*all dogs must be off-leash.* Who says so?

* it is not *inevitable - * as see above. Fenced spaces or a long-line when outside fences will provide 
plenty of safe exercise for owners who have no interest in training their dogs to a high standard - and there are 
plenty of such owners, who cannot be bothered to teach a solid recall & yet somehow expect the dog to just do it. 
*failure to train* & *failure to proof* is on the owner - it is not the dog's fault. If U are too bloody lazy 
or simply don't care for dog-training, that's fine; just keep the dog safe. 
*there is no excuse for letting a dog off-leash if U know that this dog is not well-trained & proofed, IMO.*

* *"...whatever way makes their dog safe off-lead."* 
there is absolutely no proof that 'whatever way' produces any better results than does reward-based training, 
which uses pos-R the huge majority of the time, neg-P [remove desired thing to reduce an unwanted behavior] 
now & then, & minimal punishers [verbal interrupter, stepping into the dog's space, a hard glance, etc] 
very rarely.

are U implying that *punishing* the dog makes the dog *more-likely* to come back?

or punishing the dog *at a distance* makes the dog avoid the bolting rabbit?

if U allege that punishing in general makes dogs more likely to recall, i can state absolutely that the MOST LIKELY 
cue to be poisoned by owners [or handlers or trainers] who *punish* is recall, bar none.

if it must be punishing *at a distance*, so far as i know, the only means to punish the dog *over there* 
would be a shock-collar, & i am sure that U are well-aware of the risk of serious fallout from the use of shock.

plenty of dogs, Nordic or not, have been taught solid, reliable recalls with pos-R training. 
U can do precisely as U please - have a nice life. :001_smile: And i am not in a grump; i'm saying what i've seen.


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> "some *have to train* for this *inevitability* in *whatever way makes their dog safe off-lead"*...?
> kaka.
> 
> * they do not *have to -* there is no MUST BE OFF-LEASH rule.
> ...


does everything you post have to contain references to e collars. yeah we all get it you train a certain way.

i like chips but i dont want them every day for my tea :


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Haven't you seen those toddler harnesses with leads that are used to stop them running off?


yes - my mother had one in white-cotton webbing, & all of us but my eldest sister, the first-born, wore it 
at one stage or another of toddlerhood or pre-school age - my older bro, the second-born, wore it longest, 
as he was the most impulsive, the most distractible, & the least-likely to listen when intent on something.

my mother had the luxury of only having one toddler to mind when her eldest was between 12-MO & 3-YO, 
& by the time my only-bro was a toddler, Big Sis was old-enuf to help mind him; but Jack was no help with me, 
since he was still as likely to take off on his own madcap impulse, VERY unlike the eldest child.

as for pos-R marker training & children, see *YouTube* & the hundreds if not thousands of videos, 
all showing *TagTeach - * marking a tag-point, the correct next step in the sequence. 
it is used in gymnastics, swim coaching, dance, teaching physical tasks [tie shoelaces, knitting...], 
and heaven knows what else.

YouTube - tagteach

i especially recommend: 
YouTube - TAGteach with Toddlers


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Statler said:


> does everything you post have to contain references to [*shock*] collars[?]
> yeah[,] we all get it [-] you train a certain way. [EDIT: i-e, without physical-punishment.]
> 
> i like chips[,] but i don't want them every day for my tea.


hmmm - interesting, as this exercise - *recall training* - is THE MOST-OFTEN USED scenario to justify 
the use of shock-collars to _'give dogs their freedom'_ by letting the dog off-leash, with the threat of shock 
as the enforcer?

there are 4 or 5 other Forum-members who all use shock-collars extensively if not exclusively, to train - 
and they introduce shock-collars as a 'good thing' in their posts. i suspect 1 or 2 of them have NOT ONE post 
that does not include a reference to e-collars, e-training, e-touch, or some other euphemism for shock-collars.

why don't U whine about them, beating the drum to sell shock-training?

but as they're on my ignore-list :thumbup1: i will not be checking to confirm my theory.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

videos: Achieve reliable-recall with pos-R, including Premack - Pet Forums Community


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> as for pos-R marker training & children, see *YouTube* & the hundreds if not thousands of videos,
> all showing *TagTeach - * marking a tag-point, the correct next step in the sequence.
> it is used in gymnastics, swim coaching, dance, teaching physical tasks [tie shoelaces, knitting...],
> and heaven knows what else.
> ...


Interesting. I might be persuaded to use TAGteach after doing some research.

But my point still stands, there are a lot of things appropriate to do to a dog that are not appropriate for a child. BTW, I noticed both you and Rob changed the wording of my initial comment from collar to harness. I would not attach a leash to a collar around child's neck.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

arlow said:


> I noticed both you and Rob changed the wording of my initial comment from collar to harness. I would not attach a leash to a collar around child's neck.


Oh dear, please note I quoted you accurately, so I certainly did not change your wording.

My point was about something similar that was indeed used on children, and throw in something, that might have ppl ask themselves a question. If you think it's dangerous for a child to have leash on collar, why put such on an untrained puppy?

I also, when seeing your comment about clicker training children, wondered, as when you hear adults with children, they do quite a lot of baby verbals. How much of that is actually "marker" training encouraging eye contact and such, followed by a tactile reward, might be interesting.

If clicker training worked well with children, why wouldn't you use it?


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> hmmm - interesting, as this exercise - *recall training* - is THE MOST-OFTEN USED scenario to justify
> the use of shock-collars to _'give dogs their freedom'_ by letting the dog off-leash, with the threat of shock
> as the enforcer?
> 
> ...


yes very bored with all the e collar and r+ self promotion that goes on. 99.99% of members wouldnt know an e collar if it was hung round their necks.

you are obviously a very well read and experienced person with a passion for the virtues of r+. so why not offer specific advice to problems instead of extolling the negatives of e collar use constantly. to imply the word punishment is a harsh thing is very misleading. its just a word after all that you implant into your posts as beatings and electrocutions. to 99.99 percent of forums users this is not the case.

im sure im now on your ignore list but im sure a frind will spell it out to you


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Oh dear, please note I quoted you accurately, so I certainly did not change your wording.
> 
> My point was about something similar that was indeed used on children, and throw in something, that might have ppl ask themselves a question. If you think it's dangerous for a child to have leash on collar, why put such on an untrained puppy?
> 
> ...


Rob, I didn't mean to suggest you were misquoting me. But I do think you changed my meaning. I never said anything about harnesses. For the record, I am perfectly willing to put a flat collar and leash around a dog's neck, but I'm not willing to put same around a child's neck. This is just one example, but there are many ways I treat a dog differently from a child. The standard cited in the article is one with which I disagree.

As for clicker training, I just threw that in as an afterthought and will retract it to avoid getting off topic. But to answer your question, if I was shown that clicker training worked well with children (without significant negative side effects), I would be open to it. I try to stay open to learning new things.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Statler said:


> yes very bored with all the e collar and r+ self promotion that goes on. 99.99% of members wouldnt know an e collar if it was hung round their necks.
> 
> you are obviously a very well read and experienced person with a passion for the virtues of r+. so why not offer specific advice to problems instead of extolling the negatives of e collar use constantly


Terry very often does. May be snipers from the sidelines ought to take your suggestion to heart.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

arlow said:


> Rob, I didn't mean to suggest you were misquoting me. But I do think you changed my meaning. I never said anything about harnesses


No you didn't say anything about that hence the quote. I was me that said something about children in harnesses.

To me, lead + harness has similar but generally safer effect to lead + flat collar. FWIW I actually used trad flat collar + long lead on our pup, he's never had a harness.

If children behaved as well as dogs, perhaps collars and leads would work on them.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

YouTube - Loups du Soleil Habbit - food play foundation - 11 weeks

this pup is off-leash, outdoors... yet happily & totally engaged. Unusual? not at all.

is it just his *breed*? like Border Collies, are they just born workaholics who are _'so easy to train...'_?

 i'm ducking now, as *Rob-D* & *katieFranke* & *ColliePoodle* & *sketch* & a mob of other BC-fans 
& owners will gather to lynch me,  since as we all know, trainable & intelligent does not equal 
'biddable' & 'easy to train'.

maybe this puppy is drugged! :blink: it's in the treats, O-M-DoG, he's addicted!... nah.

the trainer is engaging, she moves, keeps it interesting, food vanishes & reappears, she makes eye-contact, 
she makes food *contingent*, her timing is good, this is a fun activity & the pup is enjoying himself - 
*and* learning. What's wrong with learning enjoyably? nothing. How many of us avoid things we find 
boring or aversive - cleaning the gutters, balancing the checkbook, vacuuming, algebra homework?

_when training is fun, both person & dog enjoy the process - & the person will train more. 
this cannot help but be a good thing - as we get out of training what we put into it.  
investing more time in training pays off, so enjoyable, engaging training is terrific - everybody wins!_


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Rottiefan said:


> if you want a dog that is 100% reliable


Very true. When it comes to Biology nothing will every be 100%. Except mortality. When training I am for reliability, latency, etc. As a competitor that has a very different meaning to me than it does to other people. Reliability requires training and that is a process not an event.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> trainable & intelligent does not equal
> 'biddable' & 'easy to train'.
> 
> maybe this puppy is drugged! :blink: it's in the treats, O-M-DoG, he's addicted!


Yep, those treats are shocking, there should be a law against such blatant bribery and corruption! :tongue_smilie:
Look even I'm salivating and I only had a small portion of Freddies' liver cake on Sunday.

Now seriously... has anyone quantified those characteristics above in a useful way?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Statler said:


> ...why not offer specific advice to problems[?]


i have - and i do. :001_smile: that does not mean that EVERY post has to be about a particular dog & family 
[family can be one person or a 4 generation extended family with married adult-kids, or...]. 
writing about housetraining or dogs who RG food or similar subjects are broadly applicable to many dogs - 
and many sorts of families.

to say that shock-collars [for whatever purpose] carry greater risks, in common with other aversive tools, 
is also broadly applicable. If we had only addressed the issue of slavery one slave at a time, we could have avoided 
the Civil War - but odds are good that we would still have some great-grandchildren of 1860s slaves living 
in bondage, or as tenant farmers with kids who never go to school, as they must turn hands to work as early 
as possible, at a very young age. Addressing the institution allowed society to act widely, with far-reaching 
consequences that still have echoes in the current day. 


Statler said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> to imply the word *punishment* is a harsh thing is very misleading.
> *[punishment]* is just a word after all that you implant into your posts as beatings and electrocutions.


horse-manure - i have frequently stipulated that *punishers* include anything which will DIScourage 
a repetition of the prior behavior; for one of my former-clients, *petting her Poodle-puppy* was a punisher, 
because she chose a very happy, active, extremely-playful puppy to replace her 17-YO much missed Poodle, 
& she wanted to *cuddle her - * so she'd call her over & attempt to hold her in her lap, which the pup 
predictably hated, & soon she fled from the lady at every opportunity.

this made *coming when called* extremely unlikely, as the woman 'punished' it by holding & petting 
the puppy, whose sole desire was to escape her loving arms.

_a punisher is anything which reduces the incidence of the prior behavior. 
hopefully, they are used mindfully & only to punish UNdesired behavior, but as U can see, 
it's possible to unintentionally punish desired behavior with something we don't think of 
as 'punishment' - petting & affection; but this puppy saw it as hateful restraint._

aversives - which are by definition unpleasant experiences - are conversationally termed 
'punishment', but punishment in casual chat is not the same as punishment in behavior-science. 
shock is the universal aversive; no species yet tested has 'liked' shock: if it is perceptible, they avoid it, 
try to escape it, vocalize, etc.

cold water is an aversive to warm-blooded mammals, but a hunting-Lab will eagerly jump into cold water 
for the chance to find & retrieve a shot waterfowl - the activity outweighs the discomfort.

if a prong-collar comes out every time the dog is about to leave for a walk, the dog will wag & prance to see it - 
but that does not erase the aversive of the prongs on their skin, it only associates the physical aversive 
[the prong collar] with an enjoyable activity [the walk]. It does not make tightening the prong-collar 
a pleasurable experience. Physical aversives are inherently uncomfortable or not enjoyable.

when we tighten the prong-collar [or the dog does], *if it is clearly contingent,* the dog may learn 
to avoid the aversive sensation by avoiding going wide of the owner's leg or by staying within an area 
beside the owner's leg, but if it is *noncontingent or confusing,* the dog will not be able to predict 
what behavior 'causes' the tightening, & cannot avoid the aversive of the tightened prong-collar.

so it may be an effective aversive - the dog does not like it - yet be an *ineffective* punisher: 
the dog cannot make the connection between their action & the subsequent aversive, so the behavior 
persists, despite continued application of the aversive.


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Yep, those treats are shocking, there should be a law against such blatant bribery and corruption! :tongue_smilie:
> Look even I'm salivating and I only had a small portion of Freddies' liver cake on Sunday.
> 
> Now seriously... has anyone quantified those characteristics above in a useful way?


dont understand the question but will say no


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

> Originally Posted by leashedForLife -
> _ trainable & intelligent does not equal 'biddable' & 'easy to train'._





RobD-BCactive said:


> ...seriously... has anyone quantified those characteristics above in a useful way?


i have no idea. How would U rate them, or what scale would U use?


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Punishment is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

I punish my son for wrong doing, its how I do it that counts in my book whch will different to my neighbour. Neither of us lay a finger on our children, nor use electric collars - our punishments differ in that whilst they may be right the approach matches the child's personality.

How did we get onto collars, again!


----------



## Statler (Jan 3, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Yep, those treats are shocking, there should be a law against such blatant bribery and corruption! :tongue_smilie:
> Look even I'm salivating and I only had a small portion of Freddies' liver cake on Sunday.
> 
> Now seriously... has anyone quantified those characteristics above in a useful way?





Irish Setter Gal said:


> Punishment is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> I punish my son for wrong doing, its how I do it that counts in my book whch will different to my neighbour. Neither of us lay a finger on our children, nor use electric collars - our punishments differ in that whilst they may be right the approach matches the child's personality.
> 
> How did we get onto collars, again!


you forgot the prong collars too  :tongue_smilie:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> Punishment is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.


no, it is not - *punishment* in behavior science has a specific definition. :001_smile:


Irish Setter Gal said:


> How did we get onto collars, again!


just for U... *EDITED.*


leashedForLife said:


> ...not... EVERY post has to be about a particular dog & family [family can be one person
> or a 4 generation extended family with married adult-kids, or ...].
> writing about housetraining or dogs who RG food or similar subjects are broadly applicable to many dogs -
> and many sorts of families.
> ...


also BTW the repeated use of an aversive can be regarded as ineffective nagging, or can be seen as abuse.

jerking on the leash over & over, scolding verbally, pushing the dog into a sit when s/he does not understand 
the meaning of the cue, yelling at a barking dog - we have all seen [or heard] plenty of ineffective aversives. 
and of course, this applies to humans of any age, as much as to dogs, cats, horses, parrots, & other nonhumans.

the husband who ignores it when his wife parks the car precisely, then moans & complains when she parks 
too close to the lawn-mower for the umpteenth time, has missed an opportunity to reinforce, & is probably 
repeating an ineffective punisher - his complaints are a continuing intermittent aversive, 
but they do not accomplish their [theoretical] goal: His spouse accurately parks the car, every time.

giving her something to aim for [a tennis ball on a string, hung where the hood ornament should be 
when the car is parked precisely] would probably be more efficacious.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Collars, err - you did, post #33


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

A few words on backtracking and two faced hypocracy of so called R+ only trainers, by Sarah Kalnajs



leashedForLife said:


> A few words on Positive Reinforcement Training by Sarah Kalnajs on Monday, May 9, 2011 at 4:30pm
> 
> A few words on Positive Reinforcement Training
> By: Sarah Kalnajs, CPDT-KA, CDBC
> ...


Probably not, but it's certainly not helped by evangelical support for every aspect of R+ only and being overly critical of other methods that are approved as will be seen as this backtracking goes on.



> If you're looking for a dog trainer, and you're confused by all of the controversy, hopefully this short piece will help you.
> 
> Positive-Reinforcement Trainers... Dog-Friendly Dog Trainers... Clicker Trainers... Science Based Trainers - Those are a few phrases commonly used to describe the group of trainers who promote dog training through the use
> of a thorough understanding of the science of learning theory.


Hopefully this short piece will teach your granny to suck eggs by stating the obvious common sense we already knew, and trying to make R+ supporters seem less radical by weezeling out of their holier than thou statements and admit there is a place for aversive aspects in training, albeit to be used sparingly and only when a situation absolutely calls for it where other methods are failing.
Oh, and by learning theory, we actually mean the over emphasis towards the function of positive reinforcement and prefereably being used out of context, it's a small part of learning theory and as countless studies prove can be less important than environment, or motivation in the process of learning.



> They use both classical & operant conditioning techniques to train dogs and while food is used in training, when done properly, reinforcement training is about just that - REINFORCEMENT, & not as some would put forth, BRIBERY.


Such as giving a dog a titbit for every single action, rather than making food an occasional or rare treat and using verbal treats instead. Let's view a case in study of a parlour trick where the dog is less than interested in anything but a bag of yummies (and the ever so laughable quote "it may take you several sessions to even get this far".....Huh? Why? How? Are you kidding?) and is simply bribing the dog with no actual or quantifiable reason for funneling titbits down the dogs neck as she is.....

YouTube - Head Collar Desensitization.wmv



> Keep in mind that POSITIVE DOES NOT EQUAL PERMISSIVE (thanks Susan Garrett) & trainers in this category DO IN FACT use punishers in training, including some positive punishers.


So, it seems R+ is only viewed as a function.....of the self riteous who won't admit in public they indulge in the techniques they so vocally and abusively defend. Nice backtrack. Oh, forgot, lets hear how they decide what is and isn't an evil use of a punisher without offering any exhaustive or definitive list, simply a preference.



> The distinction is that their preference in training is whenever possible to use Positive Reinforcement & Negative Punishment (remove something the dog wants, in order to decrease the frequency of a behavior) & when necessary use the tools of Positive Punishment (the addition of something unpleasant to the dog, that will reduce the frequency of a behavior) and Negative Reinforcement.


Pardon? Please elaborate on the acceptable tools and techniques, preferably some justification as to how they are determined to be acceptable?



> Positive trainers fully understand that there must be consequences in learning but see no need for consequences to be harsh physical punishers in order to have a wonderfully trained & well-mannered family (or performance) pet. While they may sometimes opt to use Positive Punishment as a tool, their choice of punisher would be perhaps clap their hands & make a noise, or moving just a bit into the dog's space.


So half arsed for fear of being judged by even more pioused supporters and losing face? Seems a little bit too insecure for my likings, bordering on sly and embarrassed. Still not definitive list, still not sticking a neck out and giving acceptable supporting proof.



> My personal rule is this: If you wouldn't do it to a pre-verbal child, then please don't do it to your dog. Why? Because your dog doesn't have the cognitive capability of understanding what you are doing, any more than your pre-verbal child understands that his drawing on the kitchen wall produced a sound spanking.


Ah, the lack of cognitive capability is why I have opposable thumbs too, it's actually my responsibility to determine what's best and reasonable, based on a superior level of cognitive capability and the ability to manipulate tools, safely. Comparing a pre-verbal child to a dog is still unfair and comparing apples to oranges, it's the worst analogy to ever try and make. Since the thought process is wildly different and the learning capability is worlds apart a pre-verbal child is a godlike intellect in comparrison to a dog.



> I am a crossover trainer. This means that many years ago (goodness how time flies), I used the metal collars, held a dog on the ground, forced them to 'face their fears', etc.


And now am so completely embarrassed by following the fad training of the day have changed to the new fad training of the day and go over the top to prove how embracing of the new methods one can be, to the point of fanatical denial and self retribution.



> Was I able to train dogs that way? Yes... BUT - The dogs didn't get excited about training & many became fearful of the collar, the leash, the car, dog class... (the list goes on and on). You CAN train a dog through force
> & intimidation but mostly you are training them what NOT to do, with a good dose of 'be afraid of the person on the other end of the leash'.


So....not a very good trainer to start with then? Lacked understanding or application of the methods? Why should I think this person would be any better with the new "denial" method of positive training?



> It is true that some dogs are much more sensitive to the use of quite harsh physical methods than others, but the point I learned... the reason I switched training methods, and did not look back? WHY TAKE A CHANCE WITH A DOG IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?


Instead of realising it's all a function of the different aspects of learning behavior and adapting before reading a snippet of a BF Skinner bio and selectively using some minor techniques while ignoring the concept of social learning theory?



> In other words, if you can get a wonderfully trained & well-behaved dog using positive reinforcement & negative punishment as methods, why on earth would you want to use a technique that at best, the dog wouldn't exactly love, and at worst could create more problems than you started with?


Well, an example would be nice, and a balanced solution too maybe?



> Reinforcement trainers avoid the use of metal training-collars, shock collars & physical manipulation (Alpha rolls, scruff shakes & the like), shown in an impressive quantity of scientific research & literature to have no merit
> in dog training. (See David Mech, glance through 'Coercion & Its Fallout' by Murray Sidman or search via Google Scholar "use of shock collars on dogs" to learn more about this).
> 
> To state it plainly, both experience & science show that it is erroneous to think that by rolling a dog over onto their back we 'show them we are dominant', & they will then change their behavior. It simply isn't true.


But hang on a second, alpha theory was all the rage for a while, it was the training fad of its time and some threw out the previously acknowledged methods and preached this instead as the only sure fire way to train out unwanted behaviours, plenty of trainers jumped onto that bandwagon and agreed....then jumped onto the next fad bandwagon which was......



> There's a very large difference between an offered behavior & a FORCED behavior. One cannot force an emotional state on another mammal by placing them in a physical position. Clients who come to my office having done this to their dog report the same things:
> 
> 1. THEIR DOG BECAME MORE AROUSED AND MORE AGGRESSIVE in response
> or
> ...


Maybe because they were so sold on the idea as a one stop 100% solution and didn't objectively view the ideas....spurred on by "convincing research" and a lot of armchair trainer's support blindly encouraging other owners to use the methods......



> Is it possible that an experienced trainer using those methods might get different results than those clients (who arrive at my office in droves) by nature of their better timing or knowing when to back off by having a good understanding of canine body language? Of course. But that's the point.
> If the tool you use to train has the capacity to do harm in the hands of the non-expert, then it should not ever be advocated for use by the non-expert!


Or talked about with complete authority by a non-expert, some of which are very vocal and employ bullying tactics to enforce their views. Maybe the experienced trainers have only picked out the little bits of this theory that have emphatical merit....mainly the common sense bits. Smahe that the non common sense bits tend to be believed hook, line and sinker by fanatics no matter what the method.



> People should NOT be able to walk into a pet-supply & walk out with a remote controlled shock collar to place on their dog's neck, to shock the animal each time they 'misbehave'. Many times the damage of this type of,
> hmmm, I can't even call it training... so INTERACTION then, is so severe that the dog must be euthanized. Also, we need to call it what it is. It is a collar that uses an electric shock as an aversive to the dog. It bothers me greatly
> that some put 'gentler' names on these devices & call them 'e-stim' or even 'training collars'. I've never had to disguise the term 'liver treat', after all!


So no shock collars then? Are all other tools fair use? For the record, you did just disguise the term 'liver treat', it's a bribe.



> A final comment on the shock collar, anticipating the typical response by it's advocates, is the following... 'Well, the dog is only shocked once or twice, and after that it's ONLY a beep.'
> 
> Remember Pavlov's dog, everyone? The dog that began salivating at the sound of the bell as it came to predict food? That is an example of classical conditioning, & it is exactly what happens with the shock & the beep.
> 
> To Pavlov's dog, the bell BECAME the food in the dog's mind. The bell produced the same physiological reaction in the dog as the food. In the use of shock collars & shock fences, the BEEP becomes the SHOCK. The dog experiences the same physiological reaction to the beep as they did to the shock. They become one & the same and THAT IS WHY IT WORKS. (That is, until the dog is sufficiently motivated to break through to follow a deer or rabbit and is then too fearful to return, as they'd have to endure the shock to return to their own yard.)


Same can be said about the classical conditioning aspect of a treat/bribe, Skinner based his research on it too. But I digress, no shock collars, got it. Is everything else still fair game?



> For those that say the shock isn't painful? Look, if it wasn't painful, it wouldn't work. Is it the most painful thing ever experienced? No. But how many of you are willing to put it on a 3-year-old child & try it out?
> Enough said.


Ok, ok, no shock collars, I get it, honestly. But how's about a definitive guideline of what is acceptable discomfort, and the criteria to determing what is acceptable, since it is true that some dogs are much more sensitive to the use of quite harsh physical methods than others...... just as I expected, backtracking, and a whole lot of rhetoric, and absolutely no committment to providing any firm guidelines....just no shock collars.



> Am I biased towards this type of training? Absolutely! Proudly so! Am I passionate about this subject? Certainly!
> Do I hope that others will take time to learn about these issues & cross over as I did? I very much do.


Like learning about the different types of aversive techniques than seem to be so badly ignored and very much misunderstood by those who swear blind only the R+ side of the model has any validity, and intimidate those trying to learn about the alternatives and incorporate them into a wider training regime?



> At the same time, I believe firmly that everyone who works with dogs, LOVES DOGS. I don't think any trainer of any method is clasping their hands thinking... 'hmm, how can I hurt a dog next... '
> 
> All I'm saying now, all I've ever said is this:
> If there is a way to train your dog JUST AS WELL IF NOT BETTER and without the risk of any fear, without physical discomfort or potential fallout (such as developing behavior problems from training)...WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO DO THAT?


Maybe because of peer pressure and coersion by fanatics that actually aren't as committed as they appear, or use certain methods in secret and never own up to it to try and be seen as the most dog friendly R+ person in the world? Basically conned by deceit and misinformation. Fanatics lose a sense of reason and tend to be overly critical, not forgetting ignorant or open to ideas and methodology that conflicts with their ideal fairly world.



> It bears repeating... if you can get a wonderfully trained & well-behaved dog using positive reinforcement & negative punishment, why on earth would you want to use a technique that at best the dog wouldn't exactly love, & at worst could create more problems than you started with?


Well, since none of this has stated any more than use common sense and a mixed bag of training techniques, and has failed to stand firm on a recommendation or methodology, perhaps it's a ploy to instill a sense of confusion and completely backtrack on an R+ only model that is actually unfeasible, or an R+ biased model that tries to disguise negative punishment or positive punishment so it's supporters can get a smug sense of superiority over more balanced approaches. I notice so far in the thread that most who agree with this were most adamantly against the use of aversives in training, yet this acknowledges their validity, supports their use, and just doesn't like shock collars.

Funnily enough, it's arguing the exact case some posters have also argued for and been quite seriously bullied, abused and targeted over by the fanatics who didn't realise their peers actually supported this too. Again, backtracking and a basic admission of failure while trying to introduce aversives by stealth and playing down their effects. It's be funny if it weren't so tragic.

regards,

Austin


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by leashedForLife -
> trainable & intelligent does not equal 'biddable' & 'easy to train'.
> Quote:
> ...


OK, for trainable may be you could record something like the number of 5 minute sessions needed to achieve a 90% successful response to the cue in a medium distraction environment, say a park with ppl & dogs passing on a path at a given distance.

Intelligent is a research topic, I reckon

Biddable, is this dog's desire to please you, and defer it's own gratification? Is there even a precise definition, for an empirical test to test?

"Easy to train", well I guess we could compare number of successfully proofed desired behaviours in high (but not xtreme distraction) against number of undesired accidental or instinctive behaviours. However the skill of the trainer matters v. much in this case. For example those ppl who have trouble recalling their dogs, but then see their dog race up to someone else who's more fun and didn't poison the recall by mistakes, can't blame the dog for bad trainers, can we?

Actually if noone has worked on harder data, and it's doable it'd make a great research project to define the comparative scales and get some ball park numbers for small samples of a few common breeds.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Haven't you seen those toddler harnesses with leads that are used to stop them running off?
> Perhaps it's an argument against using flat collar and leash, if you fear injury for children.


Ok, I've reread this and now I think get what you're saying, which is essentially the same point I was making. By Kalnajs's logic, it is an argument against using a flat collar, and I find it unpersuasive.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

LuvMyDog_Worldwide said:


> ...two faced hypocracy of so called R+ only trainers, by Sarah Kalnajs


QUOTE - 
"two faced *hypocracy* of so called *R+ only* trainers, by Sarah Kalnajs" - 
---------------------------------

re *hypocracy*
* being a poor speller is not a crime; too lazy to use Spell-Check is bad manners.

* calling derogatory names is supposedly off-limits on PF-uk. 
'hypocrite' is not an endearment.

re *R+ only*
* the entire POINT of Ms Kalnajs' article is that no-one can be 100% rewarding, 100% of the time; 
labeling her POSITIVE-REINFORCEMENT ONLY is either a deliberate reconstruction of the facts, 
or complete inability to comprehend.


----------



## arlow (Apr 20, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> re *hypocracy*
> * being a poor speller is not a crime; too lazy to use Spell-Check is bad manners.


*U* have got to be kidding! Do* U* use *Ur* Spell Check? Can you spell *Chutzpah?*


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> re *R+ only*
> * the entire POINT of Ms Kalnajs' article is that no-one can be 100% rewarding, 100% of the time;
> labeling her POSITIVE-REINFORCEMENT ONLY is either a deliberate reconstruction of the facts,
> or complete inability to comprehend.


I think "complete inability" is part of it, but there's willfull miscomprehension to, because these snipers & carpers are not trying to understand or learn, but just take shots at stirring things up, by making sweeping generalisations of common myths and entrenched memes.

Best ignored


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> shared with permission - thanks, Sarah!


I'll respond from within the quotation from Sarah Kalnajs. My comments are in blue



> A few words on Positive Reinforcement Training
> By: Sarah Kalnajs, CPDT-KA, CDBC
> 
> Recently I've heard from trainers [who refer] to themselves as 'balanced', that Positive Reinforcement trainers
> ...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Now I take dogs for a walk and doing a little bit of training practice, is a part of the activity, something they enjoy, just like swimming, or playing fetch!


Exactly how my, Ecollar trained dogs, respond.



RobD-BCactive said:


> It is not a chore, it is fun, and they do learn when they did it right, and try again when they don't perform; when they don't understand or don't improve, it's been my fault, every time; I didn't chose the right plan or environment.


Ditto.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Training the dogs used to be mind numbingly boring!


I've only been training dogs for a short time (32+ years). But I've NEVER found it to be boring!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Herding is basically chasing modified, to control the animals.


I don't think so unless you're using the term _"chasing"_ to mean something different than it usually means. Chasing comes from prey drive which has several components, all of them linked to survival and hunting for food. The satisfaction for prey drive is the killing of the prey. But the satisfaction for herding is control of the animals.

But that is another discussion.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> So if no method is 100% why do people hound on R+ methods so much in regards to it 'not working all the time'. No method can work all the time. It depends on too many variables- the trainer, the dog, the reinforcers, the level of motivation, the time of day, the dog's history, the trainer's experience etc., etc.


I've put Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs and not had one that didn't respond. I have little doubt that somewhere out there is a dog that won't respond to an Ecollar but I haven't found him yet. OTOH I've come across many dogs for whom the so−called "kinder gentler methods" don't work for many things and some for whom they don't work at all. In fact the majority of my work with pets and SAR dogs is of this nature. Please don't tell me that it's the trainer that's not doing it properly, many of them were highly skilled. Heck even Karen Pryor admits that she "had to" kill an animal because it would not respond to her methods.



Rottiefan said:


> I thoroughly believe that, generally, R+ can be used to teach any behaviour. However, the success of that behaviour depends on too many things and if you want a dog that is 100% reliable, then you're better off getting a computer game.


The advantage to using an Ecollar is that if the dog decides to make the wrong decision, such as running towards a busy street, the owner has another opportunity to enforce the command. Those who use other methods do not.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> * they do not *have to -* there is no MUST BE OFF-LEASH rule.


There are MANY rules that say that dogs MUST BE OFF LEASH. Anyone who participates in virtually any kind of competition follows them, be it flyball, agility, police K−9 competitions, SchH, Ring Sport, Mondio, KNPV, SAR or MANY others.



leashedForLife said:


> Fenced spaces or a long-line when outside fences will provide plenty of safe exercise for owners who have no interest in training their dogs to a high standard - and there are plenty of such owners, who cannot be bothered to teach a solid recall & yet somehow expect the dog to just do it.


There are many off-leash dog parks that are fenced in that provide such freedoms. Yet I've seen people chasing their dogs around the parks when the owner is ready to go home but the dog is not. I've seen dogs escape from these parks when someone left the gates open or didn't time the gates right and have seen owners chasing those dogs around. A couple of them ran into the street and were hit by cars. EVERY pet dog on the planet should have TWO BOMBPROOF commands. One is the recall. The other is a stationary command such as a sit or a down. "Bombproof" means that the dog will obey no matter what distractions are present, with one command, and no matter how far he is from the handler (of course, as long as he can hear the owners commands).

Any trainer who says that this is not necessary does not deserve the title. Any trainer who tells a client that _"a leash will suffice"_ and that _"training is not necessary"_ is negligent.



leashedForLife said:


> *there is no excuse for letting a dog off-leash if U know that this dog is not well-trained & proofed, IMO.*


Very conveniently overlooking the fact that leashes sometimes break. Sometimes dogs pull them out of the owner's hands. Collars break. Sometimes dogs back out of them. ANY piece of gear can fail, leaving the dog off leash.



leashedForLife said:


> * *"...whatever way makes their dog safe off-lead."* there is absolutely no proof that 'whatever way' produces any better results than does reward-based training,


There are TONS of such proof. One need only look at the methods used by those are consistently winning top honors at the highest level of competitions in just about any sport that rewards reliability and precision. FEW of those dogs are trained with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." If these methods were as good as conventional techniques at getting results, there would be an equal spread of the top finishers using both methods. If, as you want everyone to believe, the so−called "kinder gentler methods" were BETTER as you allege, those folks would be DOMINATING those competitions! But they're not. Some of you folks will beg this question till the cows come home, but it doesn't change the truth. The conventional methods give more reliable results.



leashedForLife said:


> if it must be punishing *at a distance*, so far as i know, the only means to punish the dog *over there* would be a shock-collar, & i am sure that U are well-aware of the risk of serious fallout from the use of shock.


As has been said many times before, when the Ecollar is used properly (and it's just a matter of following my articles) there is none of this fallout that you so love to bring up.



leashedForLife said:


> i'm saying what i've seen.


Perhaps getting out a bit more and seeing modern methods used with modern Ecollars would help?!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Blue Dog Training & Behavior Madison, Wisconsin


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> there are 4 or 5 other Forum-members who all use shock-collars extensively if not exclusively, to train 


I don't think that there are ANY Ecollar users here who use them _"exclusively."_ Since you disagree name them please.



leashedForLife said:


> and they introduce shock-collars as a 'good thing' in their posts. i suspect 1 or 2 of them have NOT ONE post that does not include a reference to e-collars, e-training, e-touch, or some other euphemism for shock-collars.


Well you'd be wrong about me. I bring them up when you (or others) spout the usual nonsense about them. The overwhelmingly majority of our mention of Ecollars are IN RESPONSE to you or another forum member bashing them.



leashedForLife said:


> why don't U whine about them, beating the drum to sell shock-training?


Because you're wrong. We are mostly responsive to your posts. This thread is yet another perfect example. In your very first post in the thread you brought them up NUMEROUS TIMES when you quoted Ms. Kalnajs.



leashedForLife said:


> but as they're on my ignore-list i will not be checking to confirm my theory.


Thanks for simplifying my life. It doesn't stop me from pointing out the NUMEROUS holes in your statements.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> I think "complete inability" is part of it, but there's willfull miscomprehension to, because these snipers & carpers are not trying to understand or learn, but just take shots at stirring things up, by making sweeping generalisations of common myths and entrenched memes.


Pure twaddle. MOST of us use the so−called "kinder gentler methods" when they're appropriate. But we know that they are not always so. If any here are guilty of _"willful miscomprehension"_ or _"just tak[ing] shots"_ or by _"making sweeping generalizations of common myths"_ it's you folks.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Blue Dog Training & Behavior Madison, Wisconsin

_'the language of dogs'_ & _'Am i safe?'_


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

Looks interesting LFL. :thumbsup:


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

I'm fascinatedby this thread, everyone seems to be getting very hot under the collar ( excuse the pun.) about something that I have not the faintest idea about. Is everyone discussing electric shock collars or something similar?
Please excuse my ignorance on this subject, I really am getting old and all these newfangled ideas seem somehow to have passed me by. If I have got this right, and the idea is to give a pup a small electric shock to encourage it to walk on a lead properly then I'm sorry but I think it's barmy and woe betide any trainer, therapist or behaviorist who tried to use this method on any pup of mine, I'm afraid he would be wearing said device somewhere only his wife would find it.
I'll stick to the oldfashioned way of taking my time and being patient, I want my dogs to work for me because they want to, not because they're afraid not to.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

springerpete said:


> If I have got this right, and the idea is to give a pup a small electric shock to encourage it to walk on a lead properly then I'm sorry but I think it's barmy and woe betide any trainer, therapist or behaviorist who tried to use this method on any pup of mine, I'm afraid he would be wearing said device somewhere only his wife would find it.


Am loving the image portrayed here! :laugh: 



> I'll stick to the oldfashioned way of taking my time and being patient, I want my dogs to work for me because they want to, not because they're afraid not to.


:thumbsup: Best way every time!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

springerpete said:


> ...everyone seems to be getting very hot under the collar ( excuse the pun)
> about something that I have not the faintest idea about. Is everyone discussing electric shock collars
> or something similar?


no, not at all! i posted what i thought was an excellent article by Ms Kalnajs, short & succinct. 


springerpete said:


> ...all these newfangled ideas seem somehow to have passed me by.
> [SNIP]
> I'll stick to the oldfashioned way of taking my time and being patient, I want my dogs to work for me because
> *they want to*, not because they're *afraid not to*.


yes! :thumbsup: that's the very concept, excellent. :yesnod:


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

springerpete said:


> Please excuse my ignorance on this subject, I really am getting old and all these newfangled ideas seem somehow to have passed me by. If I have got this right, and the idea is to give a pup a small electric shock to encourage it to walk on a lead properly then I'm sorry but I think it's barmy


That is what some people would have you believe Ecollars are all about. They have no idea of the modern use of modern versions of this tool. If you want to find out something about this take a look at this article on my site ABOUT TEACHING THE RECALL.



springerpete said:


> I'll stick to the oldfashioned way of taking my time and being patient, I want my dogs to work for me because they want to, not because they're afraid not to.


This does not happen with dogs trained with my methods.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Sarah Kalnajs on stress signals


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

All very well Lou, but the bottom line is, people do not buy pet puppies, with the intention of passing electrical currents through them.

The products you advocate are already criminal in Wales (gaol & fine), and would breach the UK Animal Welfare Act duty of care to avoid pain, if shown scientifically to cause pain (like the older products certainly did).

British people know that cruelty to animals is common abroad but are disgusted by it. Rewards based methods have been proven effective and had all party support when discussed by Parliamentary commitee.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> All very well Lou, but the bottom line is, people do not buy pet puppies, with the intention of passing electrical currents through them.


Yes, I know RobD but sometimes people get adult dogs that have issues that the so−called "kinder gentler methods" do not give good results with in a timely manner. Since an Ecollar, properly used causes only minor discomfort it's a good way to get life saving behaviors such as the recall and the sit or down.

And anyone can discover that when that puppy turns into an adult that the methods that were previously used lose their effect when he discovers the outside world. Those methods take time to be effective (if they are at all) they must be worked on for the dog's entire life if they're to be reliable (the Ecollar methods do to, but not nearly as much) and often they're quite difficult for the average pet owner (whatever that means) to apply properly.



RobD-BCactive said:


> The products you advocate are already criminal in Wales (gaol & fine), and would breach the UK Animal Welfare Act duty of care to avoid pain, if shown scientifically to cause pain (like the older products certainly did).


Attention people of Wales. Do not use Ecollars. They're a violation of the law in your country! Your legislators, albeit with good intentions were duped while investigating whether or not to pass this legislation. They were sold a bill of good by zealots who lied to them about the effects of Ecollars, saddling you with a ludicrous law. You should vote them out and replace them with people who understand science and are smart enough not to be taken in by ignorant people who have an agenda.



RobD-BCactive said:


> British people know that cruelty to animals is common abroad but are disgusted by it.


ALL right thinking people, no matter where they live, are sickened by animal cruelty. Pretending that it only happens abroad or that ALL Brits are disgusted by it is both stupid and arrogant. One can't nationalize animal cruelty and it's absurd to even make such a statement.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Rewards based methods have been proven effective and had all party support when discussed by Parliamentary commitee.


Truth is that _"rewards based methods" (there's that vague term again) has been proven effective WITH MANY DOGs FOR MANY BEHAVIORS."_ For some dogs and some behaviors it is completely ineffective, gives poor reliability and/or takes an inordinate amount of time to give results. This is a fact and it makes no difference what party supports it.

Hinting that all Ecollar use amounts to animal cruelty shows ignorance on the part of the person making the statement. But it's not incurable. Education is the key. I've done my best but some have closed minds. Fortunately not ALL do.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> *The products you advocate* are already criminal in Wales (gaol & fine), and would breach the UK Animal Welfare Act duty of care to avoid pain, if shown scientifically to cause pain (like the older products certainly did).


Thats misleading. They are ONLY illegal if you attach the receiver to a collar that is the letter of the Welsh law.

E-stimulation training is perfectly legal in Wales but NOT if someone attaches the receiver to a collar, then & only then does it become illegal. E-pulse training is legal in Wales, if you knew anything about them you would know that.

.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Reactive Champion: Sarah Kalnajs Seminar: Body Language Overview

Reactive Champion is a blog by the owner/trainer of a dog-reactive dog, who uses _Control Unleashed_ 
primarily, as her everyday B-Mod for her formerly highly-reactive dog, Maisey.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Reactive Champion: Sarah Kalnajs Seminar: Signs of Stress


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Reactive Champion: Sarah Kalnajs Seminar: Anticipatory Behaviors


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

springerpete said:


> I'm fascinatedby this thread, everyone seems to be getting very hot under the collar ( excuse the pun.) about something that I have not the faintest idea about. Is everyone discussing electric shock collars or something similar?
> Please excuse my ignorance on this subject, I really am getting old and all these newfangled ideas seem somehow to have passed me by. If I have got this right, and the idea is to give a pup a small electric shock to encourage it to walk on a lead properly then I'm sorry but I think it's barmy and woe betide any trainer, therapist or behaviorist who tried to use this method on any pup of mine, I'm afraid he would be wearing said device somewhere only his wife would find it.
> I'll stick to the oldfashioned way of taking my time and being patient, I want my dogs to work for me because they want to, not because they're afraid not to.


Oh, the image that conjures up is quite wonderful!! You are fortunate to live in an enlightened part of the world that has already outlawed electric shock collars and anything associated with them, such as electric fences, electric bark collars and other such barbarous implements.

The sooner the rest of the UK get around to it the better. Unfortunately, other parts of the world, especially the US, have never quite caught up with the banning of debarking and declawing that we have in this country, so unfortunately they are unlikely to ban shock collars.

A lot of advocates for these things call them ecollars or remote collars in order to mislead. They are shock collars, they give shocks, calling them by a gentler name does not change the facts.

Your way is best, believe me. Don't ever change it.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Oh, the image that conjures up is quite wonderful!! You are fortunate to live in an enlightened part of the world that has already outlawed electric shock collars and anything associated with them, such as electric fences, electric bark collars and other such barbarous implements.


Yep he now lives in a part of the world where if a dog can't be stopped from chasing sheep they are often killed. I guess you think that's better than having him feel a few occurrences of minor discomfort and learn not to chase the sheep.

_"Implements"_ cannot be _"barbarous."_ They're just inanimate objects. It's only when something is picked up by a human and put to use that it can be _"barbarous."_ In the case of Ecollars, use can be _"barbarous"_ or it can be very humane! The choice is up to the user. Of course this also applies to ANY tool used in dog training as well. Some people just won't admit this basic truth.



newfiesmum said:


> The sooner the rest of the UK get around to it the better.


It will mean that EVEN MORE dogs are killed because they don't respond to the so−called "kinder gentler methods" and can't be brought under control.



newfiesmum said:


> Unfortunately, other parts of the world, especially the US, have never quite caught up with the banning of debarking and declawing that we have in this country, so unfortunately they are unlikely to ban shock collars.


Lots of places in the US have banned debarking and declawing. But you're right, it's VERY unlikely that we'll ban Ecollars. We seem to have a much higher belief in personal freedom and personal responsibility here.



newfiesmum said:


> A lot of advocates for these things call them ecollars or remote collars in order to mislead. They are shock collars, they give shocks, calling them by a gentler name does not change the facts.


How silly. No one is _"misled"_ by calling them Ecollars rather than shock collars.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Reactive Champion: Sarah Kalnajs Seminar: Appeasement Signals

these are the ones that may be misinterpreted as 'feeling guilty', 
or some, when displayed by a fearful dog, who wants us to *'please go away...',* may instead 
make us suddenly feel compelled to pick-up & cuddle the scared dog - with possibly unfortunate results.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> It will mean that EVEN MORE dogs are killed because they don't respond to the so−called "kinder gentler methods" and can't be brought under control


The overall quality of life is a consideration, rational cost/benefit analysis suggests maximising that, not having dogs widely suffer through coercive training practices, due to so called "aversive" trainers advising average pet owners poorly and causing the displacement aggression and anti-social behaviour previously reported in forum.

Certain UK Shock-collar fans have basically made a convincing case for legislation of Shock Collars as a tool of very last resort by responsible Veterinary Behaviourists, not every trainer selling snake oil symptom suppression to those seeking quick fixes.

UK politicians know that the public just needs to hear mention of 2 prong electrodes to feel sickened and disgusted, hence all party support.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> The overall quality of life is a consideration, rational cost/benefit analysis suggests maximising that, not having dogs widely suffer through coercive training practices, due to so called "aversive" trainers advising average pet owners poorly and causing the displacement aggression and anti-social behaviour previously reported in forum.
> 
> Certain UK Shock-collar fans have basically made a convincing case for legislation of Shock Collars as a tool of very last resort by responsible Veterinary Behaviourists, not every trainer selling snake oil symptom suppression to those seeking quick fixes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> The overall quality of life is a consideration, rational cost/benefit analysis suggests maximising that, not having dogs widely suffer through coercive training practices, due to so called "aversive" trainers advising average pet owners poorly and causing the displacement aggression and anti-social behaviour previously reported in forum.


You folks are the only ones who think that Ecollars are _"coercive training practices."_ Those of us who use them know that you're wrong.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Certain UK Shock-collar fans have basically made a convincing case for legislation of Shock Collars as a tool of very last resort


Somehow, I'm not convinced!



RobD-BCactive said:


> by responsible Veterinary Behaviourists, not every trainer selling snake oil symptom suppression to those seeking quick fixes.


Those of us who know how to use Ecollars know that nothing is _"suppressed"_ as you keep saying. We also know that an Ecollar is far from a quick fix. In fact, some Ecollar training lasts for the life of the dog with just a single application.



RobD-BCactive said:


> UK politicians know that the public just needs to hear mention of 2 prong electrodes to feel sickened and disgusted, hence all party support.


Sorry to hear that your health is suffering as a result of this discussion. I prescribe some education and you'll feel much better. Oh, I forgot, one has to have an open mind for that remedy to take hold. Never mind.

Most legislators look for something REAL when passing legislation. Not just that some folks don't like something. Making this statement about _"the public"_ makes you wrong AGAIN. SOME members of the public don't like Ecollars. But some do.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Reactive Champion: This is a stressed dog?

thoughts on her dog, & her dog's coping skills at Sarah's seminar weekend - 
it includes description & video of her dog's reactions over 48-plus hours.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> You folks are the only ones who think that Ecollars are _"coercive training practices."_ Those of us who use them know that you're wrong.


 A Quote from your website advising DIY E-Collar training


> If you're a beginner, this is very much a "read and follow the instructions carefully and closely" situation.
> The results of using an Ecollar come very quickly, especially if you have good timing and good dog training skills. If you're a complete novice they'll take a bit longer. If your timing isn't very good results will come a little bit slower but they're still faster than with most other methods.


Is this really responsible, considering It refers to a Novice and if you havent got
good dog training skills and good timing, Surely more harm and Problems could be caused



> There may be a temptation for some people to turn up the stim level in the hopes that it will make things go faster. It won't. In fact it will probably have the opposite effect; it will set your training back and could cause you problems that you (at the beginner's level) can't fix. It will just cause your dog needless stress and discomfort, things that we're avoiding by proper use of the Ecollar. Those problems can be fixed but it will take an experienced trainer to do it.


Yet in another part of the same website



> Do this training before his mealtime, when you are sure he is hungry. Pick a day when you have no commitments for the whole day.
> 
> Put the collar on the dog with the highest possible level of stimulation.
> 
> ...


and from your post above


> Those of us who know how to use Ecollars know that nothing is _"suppressed"_ as you keep saying. We also know that an Ecollar is far from a quick fix.


One more interesting quote from ECMA Website, which Im sure that you know all about as it was formed in 2004 I believe, by several manufacturers of E collars and other electronic training aids for dogs, One of the companies of which
you are a dealer of and listed on their website. The brand I think you have mentioned as being one of the best. Bearing in mind this is from the Manufacturers in the FAQS part of their website.

4) Any collar receiver worn for an extended period can cause a condition similar to bedsores known as pressure necrosis.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Sled dog hotel quotes from my website.



> If you're a beginner, this is very much a "read and follow the instructions carefully and closely" situation.
> The results of using an Ecollar come very quickly, especially if you have good timing and good dog training skills. If you're a complete novice they'll take a bit longer. If your timing isn't very good results will come a little bit slower but they're still faster than with most other methods.





Sled dog hotel said:


> Is this really responsible, considering It refers to a Novice and if you havent got good dog training skills and good timing, Surely more harm and Problems could be caused


Yes it is _"really responsible."_ The instructions were written ESPECIALLY for the COMPLETE NOVICE. Someone who has never before used an Ecollar. Someone who DOES NOT have good timing. Someone who knows little about dog training. One DOES NOT NEED _"good dog training skills and good timing"_ to use an Ecollar. As the quotation says, quite clearly, and as you quoted, _"If you're a complete novice they'll take a bit longer. If your timing isn't very good results will come a little bit slower but they're still faster than with most other methods."_

The _"harm and Problems"_ that occur is that it takes more repetition than if one has good timing. Since we're talking about stim at the level that the dog can first feel, NONE of the horrorshow of _"problems"_ that you folks talk about occur.

BUT since you seem to think that _"more harm [more harm than what?] and Problems could be caused"_ please tell us what _"harm"_ and _"problems"_ might result.

Sled dog hotel quotes from my website. SOMEHOW she managed to leave out the fact that I have the part shown here in bold, emboldened on my site to draw attention to it and keep the novice from turning up the stim level.



> There may be a temptation for some people to turn up the stim level in the hopes that it will make things go faster. It won't. *In fact it will probably have the opposite effect; it will set your training back and could cause you problems that you (at the beginner's level) can't fix. * It will just cause your dog needless stress and discomfort, things that we're avoiding by proper use of the Ecollar. Those problems can be fixed but it will take an experienced trainer to do it. [Emphasis Original]





Sled dog hotel said:


> Yet in another part *of the same website * [Emphasis Added]





> Do this training before his mealtime, when you are sure he is hungry. Pick a day when you have no commitments for the whole day.
> 
> Put the collar on the dog with the highest possible level of stimulation.
> 
> ...


Gonna have to say that this is extremely misleading. *First, IT'S NOT AS YOU'VE SAID, "in another part of the same website." * The article you cite IS NOT on my website.  It's on Dr. P's website. This is clear at a glance. The layout and format of Dr. P's site does not resemble mine in the slightest. The article was written to show people how difficult it is and how hard on the dog it is to poison proof. It was written so that people WOULD NOT EVEN TRY to do this. And it's succeeded any number of times. I've gotten dozens of letters from people who decided against trying to do this.

Second, I wonder why you said that this was on my website, when it's clear that it is not. I also wonder why you failed to show links for the articles you cited? Could it be that you knew that would reveal the truth, that this article is NOT on my website, as you stated? It's painful to have to say that someone has deliberately lied, but I can find no other explanation. Perhaps you have one?



Sled dog hotel said:


> and from your post above


Sled dog hotel quotes me from another post in this thread,


> Those of us who know how to use Ecollars know that nothing is "suppressed" as you keep saying. We also know that an Ecollar is far from a quick fix.


I guess she's referring to the article on poison proofing, but there's nothing _"suppressed"_ there. Rather, behavior is modified.



Sled dog hotel said:


> One more interesting quote from ECMA Website, which Im sure that you know all about as it was formed in 2004 I believe, by several manufacturers of E collars and other electronic training aids for dogs,


I know little of ECMA. They're a European association and I have nothing to do with them.



Sled dog hotel said:


> One of the companies of which you are a dealer of and listed on their website.


Actually, The European arm of Dogtra is a member of ECMA. The US branch is not. You are correct, I'm a dealer of their Ecollars, but I don't ship the Europe.



Sled dog hotel said:


> The brand I think you have mentioned as being one of the best. Bearing in mind this is from the Manufacturers in the FAQS part of their website.





> 4) Any collar receiver worn for an extended period can cause a condition similar to bedsores known as pressure necrosis.


Yes, and? Not sure what this has to do with ANYTHING that's being discussed. I've discussed this issue several times here and it's discussed on my website. Do you have a point in bringing this up?


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> You are correct, I'm a dealer of their Ecollars


That explains a lot of things. I saw they were quite expensive to, many models advertised at > $400.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Sled dog hotel quotes from my website.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> That explains a lot of things. I saw they were quite expensive to, many models advertised at > $400.


You can thank your governments for those prices. They've placed all sorts of taxes on products imported into your country. Here the most expensive single dog collar is $380 but my prices are deeply discounted. Most people spend about $270.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Maybe you think this advice is responsible too


I just said (in my last post) that I DID think that my advice was responsible.



Sled dog hotel said:


> considering its well documented that pups go through fear of the unknown periods, and aversive frightening techniques and bad experiences can have an ongoing lasting effect during this time.


There are no _"aversive frightening techniques"_ or _"bad experiences"_ in my methods for the use of an Ecollar. This is just the usual more of the scare tactics that you folks use. Since you seem to disagree, please tell us, in detail, where they are.



Sled dog hotel said:


> I notice on your site you reccomend using an E-collar at 6mths too,


This is a bit misleading. I recommend that THE YOUNGEST that an Ecollar be used is six months. But they'll work on dogs that old and older. I've gone as young as ten weeks when a client was determined to use the Ecollar on her dog of that age. It worked out just fine. BTW this age is the recommendation of just about every Ecollar manufacturer too.



Sled dog hotel said:


> With a novice who has never had a dog, how do you expect them to know body language and behaviour and the difference between an over zealous pup/dog and one that is fearful and nervous. There is not a one size fits all approach to dog behaviour problems, using the wrong methods on the wrong dog can be detrimental and just cause more problems.


There are only so many things that a dog can do no matter what's going on with him. They're described on the site and what to do when they occur is also covered.



Sled dog hotel said:


> this by the way is from your newer website up to date "advice"


There's only been one website. Of course the articles are updated as I find better ways to explain things and people ask questions. Do you think it would be better if I never updated the articles?



Sled dog hotel said:


> Its a known fact the high pitched yelp, to evoke bite inhibition is dependant on being learnt in the litter, with mum and litter mates.


No, you're wrong. A loud noise is startling, and therefore aversive, with just about any puppy, whether he learned this _"in the litter"_ or not.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Mum only steps in to reprimand when the offending pup doesnt back off.


Actually _"Mum"_ only takes action if SHE'S the one being bitten. Otherwise she leaves it up to the _"littermates"_ to dispense justice.



Sled dog hotel said:


> If pup hasnt learned this vital lesson from mum, then its likely he has never encountered it before.


Didn't you just say that he can also learn it from his _"littermates?"_ Do you not remember what you wrote further back in your own paragraph? Take a look here, _"is dependant on being learnt in the litter, with mum *and litter mates."*_ [Emphasis Added]



Sled dog hotel said:


> In the case of a new pup thats likely to be stressed and nervous anyway and has to aclimatise to a new home and routine in a strange environment away from mum and littermates, is this really good responsible advice??


Yes, it's EXCELLENT advice that has helped HUNDREDS of puppy owners stop their dog from biting them. Perhaps you'd rather that they smack the puppy with their hand, a stick, or a rolled up magazine to get them to stop this? The yelp from the human is something that is recommended quite often by LOTS of trainers.

Earlier I wrote,


> Gonna have to say that this is extremely misleading. *First, IT'S NOT AS YOU'VE SAID, "in another part of the same website." * The article you cite IS NOT on my website.  It's on Dr. P's website.





Sled dog hotel said:


> Is on your web site Lou,


No, it's not.



Sled dog hotel said:


> its under the section LOU ON THE WEB, and it links you to it,


You said that the article was _"Yet in another part *of the same website * [Emphasis Added] "_ It's not. It's linked, but that's NOT what you wrote. As the saying goes, _the devil is in the details. _ Had you said that it was linked to you'd be right. But you didn't say that, and so, you're wrong.



Sled dog hotel said:


> might be Dr Ps website but its your stuff and acknowledged as yours


It's not that it _"might be Dr. P's website"_ *IT IS Dr. P's website. * He thought so much of that article (and two others, I might add) that he asked permission to host it on his site. Before that it was just on a couple of forums and/or email lists. There is a TON of dog training information on his site from various authors. You're not required to agree with ANY of it.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Dont do misleading Lou,


I'm not. YOU are the one who said that the article was _"in another part"_ of my website. It's not. You were wrong about the details. Don't you think that details are important?



Sled dog hotel said:


> None of its my words Lou yours, If any one wants to check or disbelieves me then they can go on your website cant they, and see for theirselves Im not misleading and lying.


Yes, you are. You told everyone that the article was on my website. It's not.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Its there Lou on the net section.


No it's not. There's *A LINK * to the article there.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Thought being ex old bill Lou you would know, I would assume you have read a few people their rights during your police career!! Hows it go something along the lines of, You dont have to say anything, but anything you do say may be used in evidence against You.


I'm perfectly happy to take responsibility for the EXCELLENT advice that's given on my website and that appears elsewhere on the Net as well. Thousands have taken it, used it and are very happy with their results.

Here's an email from one of them. Dede wrote me a detailed email asking for advice. I directed her to my website and suggested that she train the recall and the sit with the Ecollar.


> Two words: THANK YOU!!!!!
> 
> I have tried all kinds of training, which most of the time worked really well. It just didn't have any effect on the biting, nipping, crittering, etc. Sam was bred for police work and biting/nipping was her reaction to all kinds of excitement. including happiness.
> 
> ...


You can snivel and complain about Ecollars all you like, but the experiences of people who have ACTUALLY used my methods beats the heck out of your whining.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> There are no _"aversive frightening techniques"_ or _"bad experiences"_ in my methods for the use of an Ecollar. This is just the usual more of the scare tactics that you folks use. Since you seem to disagree, please tell us, in detail, where they are


Given the reliability of your stone wall blanket denial, without any qualification or recognition of issues; you are not credible.

Your website contradicted much of Adam Palmer's posts, but you showed no concern, just did not regard it as your problem.

Furthermore things like leaving out the shock collar dealership on the CV and therefore your financial interest in promoting shock collars on the net, also shows poor poor practice.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> I just said (in my last post) that I DID think that my advice was responsible.





> There are no _"aversive frightening techniques"_ or _"bad experiences"_ in my methods for the use of an Ecollar. This is just the usual more of the scare tactics that you folks use. Since you seem to disagree, please tell us, in detail, where they are.


You DID think your advice was responsible, doesnt neccessarily mean the whole population does or agree with the above statement, I just thought it might be a good idea for people to make up their own minds.



> This is a bit misleading. I recommend that THE YOUNGEST that an Ecollar be used is six months. But they'll work on dogs that old and older. I've gone as young as ten weeks when a client was determined to use the Ecollar on her dog of that age. It worked out just fine. BTW this age is the recommendation of just about every Ecollar manufacturer too.


Im trying to be Misleading?, In one paragraph you have contradicted yourself your responsible and say you reccomend THE YOUNGEST on a 6mth old and so do the manufacterers, then out your own mouth you say you used it on a 10 week old pup. Surely as the trainer has a reponsibility you should have advised your client not to use it on a 10 week old pup as its against you and the manufacturers reccomendations.



> There's only been one website. Of course the articles are updated as I find better ways to explain things and people ask questions. Do you think it would be better if I never updated the articles?


Then why leave older ones or sorry links to your older articles on there then.
That people can view and us



> Actually _"Mum"_ only takes action if SHE'S the one being bitten. Otherwise she leaves it up to the _"littermates"_ to dispense justice.
> Didn't you just say that he can also learn it from his _"littermates?"_ Do you not remember what you wrote further back in your own paragraph? Take a look here, _"is dependant on being learnt in the litter, with mum *and litter mates."*_ [Emphasis Added]





> Yes, it's EXCELLENT advice that has helped HUNDREDS of puppy owners stop their dog from biting them. Perhaps you'd rather that they smack the puppy with their hand, a stick, or a rolled up magazine to get them to stop this? The yelp from the human is something that is recommended quite often by LOTS of trainers.


Rolled up newspapers and smacking the Puppy is out of date too Lou. Yes trainers say try the yelp, but it doesnt always work, as stated before in fact in some dogs it can hype and overexcite them more. Mum actually doesnt only reprimand pup when he bites her too hard. The reason I mentioned mum and litter mates. Was because pup bites his litter mate too hard - Pup yelps-
ideally pup should cease - pup doesnt cease - mum steps in and reprimands him. Dont tell me I dont know what Im taking about because Ive seen it with my own eyes!!! plus its common knowledge in dog behaviour anyhow.
Earlier I wrote,



> You said that the article was _"Yet in another part *of the same website * [Emphasis Added] "_ It's not. It's linked, but that's NOT what you wrote. As the saying goes, _the devil is in the details. _ Had you said that it was linked to you'd be right. But you didn't say that, and so, you're wrong.


What was that about Moi whining and snivelling. OK I didnt spell it out, If you go to Lous website, there is a section LOU ON THE WEB, If you click on Lou on the web, You will find exactly what I Copied and pasted. It is Dr Ps training, but it was before Lou had his lovely glossy website, but it is linked and it is Lous training article, written by Lou for Dr Ps Website. Its actully accessible via Lous website. FACT remains it was written by Lou and its one of Lous articles, Not Dr Ps articles. Is that clear enough Now Lou.
The Devil is in the details. This is in reply BTW to your quotes below too.



> It's not that it _"might be Dr. P's website"_ *IT IS Dr. P's website. * He thought so much of that article (and two others, I might add) that he asked permission to host it on his site. Before that it was just on a couple of forums and/or email lists. There is a TON of dog training information on his site from various authors. You're not required to agree with ANY of it.
> 
> I'm not. YOU are the one who said that the article was _"in another part"_ of my website. It's not. You were wrong about the details. Don't you think that details are important?
> 
> ...


Might be an idea to watch the Blood Pressure levels. Think they might be rising slightly, by the above quotes!!


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

> Actually, The European arm of Dogtra is a member of ECMA. The US branch is not. You are correct, I'm a dealer of their Ecollars, but I don't ship the Europe.





> Yes, and? Not sure what this has to do with ANYTHING that's being discussed. I've discussed this issue several times here and it's discussed on my website. Do you have a point in bringing this up?


One reply I forgot to make, You dont see the point, when an Association formed by the Manufacturers of E-collars, puts a statement on their own website stating that Any collar receiver worn for extended periods can cause a condition similar to bedsores known as pressure necrosis!!!!!

Then accuse me and others of being scare mongerers.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Can I just say that the most successful method I have had with stopping puppy nipping is to just keep perfectly still until he gets bored?

There is no smacking, grabbing or (shudder) forcing the pup's teeth into his lips. Just calm nothing. It has worked for me in lots of situations and in only a few seconds.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> You can thank your governments for those prices. They've placed all sorts of taxes on products imported into your country. Here the most expensive single dog collar is $380 but my prices are deeply discounted. Most people spend about $270.


Or you could spend £1 to £2.00 on a bag of training treats and a course at a CAPBT training class, which would come to nowhere near that and the dog would probably be a lot happier too!!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Given the reliability of your stone wall blanket denial, without any qualification or recognition of issues; you are not credible.


You too, like Sled dog hotel, are invited to show us where the _"aversive frightening techniques"_ or _"bad experiences"_ are in my methods for the use of an Ecollar. Your assessment of my credibility is laughable. As someone who has repeatedly made vacuous statements, one after the other about Ecollars (all the while knowing next to nothing about modern use of modern versions of the tool), as someone who had to be hammered for MANY posts before he'd admit an obvious error, as someone who has evaded DOZENS of my questions, YOU ARE THE ONE who is not credible.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Your website contradicted much of Adam Palmer's posts, but you showed no concern, just did not regard it as your problem.


As always with this tack of yours, I have no idea what' posts of Adam's you're talking about. If you'd show them to me, perhaps I might have some idea. Since you refuse to do so, YOU are the one who looks the fool. And you're right, it's NOT my problem. It seems to be yours.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Furthermore things like leaving out the shock collar dealership on the CV and therefore your financial interest in promoting shock collars on the net, also shows poor poor practice.


What nonsense. Perhaps you just don't understand what a CV is and what it's supposed to tell the readers? Here it's a lengthened resume to show people my qualifications. The fact that I sell Ecollars has nothing to do with my expertise in dog training. Lots of people (and stores) sell Ecollars and they are NOT dog trainers. And so It's hardly a _"poor practice"_ NOT to include it in my CV. It has nothing to do with my quals as a trainer and so I didn't include it.

There's never been any secret that I sell Ecollars. It's mentioned a couple of times on my website. It looks as if you've never bothered to actually read the article on the site. I guess it's easier to imagine what I do than to actually read some articles, so you really have little idea what's there. This is just ANOTHER example of you grasping at straws in your pathetic attempts to discredit me. As before, all you do is diminish yourself!

As the saying goes, if you don't have a cogent argument against the facts, attack the person. BTW, I didn't notice you jumping in when Ms. Kalnajs somehow managed to omit the fact from her CV the fact that she does seminars. There's that hypocrisy again!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> There are no "aversive frightening techniques" or "bad experiences" in my methods for the use of an Ecollar. This is just the usual more of the scare tactics that you folks use. Since you seem to disagree, please tell us, in detail, where they are.





Sled dog hotel said:


> You DID think your advice was responsible, doesnt neccessarily mean the whole population does or agree with the above statement,


Of course not! No one is required to agree with me. It's interesting though that people WHO HAVE ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLES AND USED THEM write things as Andy did,


> I finally had an opportunity to try out an E-Collar last week, and *the results were stunning. *
> 
> Two weeks ago I inherited a 9 month old Lab mix "puppy" that had been severely neglected at his previous home. He had been tied up on someones porch for several months, and was very thin and emaciated. He had been tied up with a piece of twine that had grown into the skin of his neck. My sister adopted him on a whim, and quickly found out that he was too much to handle for her two young kids. He's not agressive at all, just very hyper, and a bit behind the behavioral learning curve for his age....and obviously very thankful to be off that rope!
> 
> ...





Sled dog hotel said:


> I just thought it might be a good idea for people to make up their own minds.


I think that's an EXCELLENT idea. I'm ALWAYS happy to let forum members make up their own minds; especially if they've educated themselves. But for that to happen people have to have open minds and there are always some, like you and a few others, who have their minds made up and don't want to be confused by the facts.

I notice that you didn't accept the opportunity I offered for you to _"tell us, in detail"_ where the _"aversive frightening techniques and bad experiences"_ were. Hmmm. I think that tells us a lot.

Earlier I wrote,


> This is a bit misleading. I recommend that THE YOUNGEST that an Ecollar be used is six months. But they'll work on dogs that old and older. I've gone as young as ten weeks when a client was determined to use the Ecollar on her dog of that age. It worked out just fine. BTW this age is the recommendation of just about every Ecollar manufacturer too.





Sled dog hotel said:


> Im trying to be Misleading?


Yes, you are. It's quite obvious. But perhaps you have some other reason for saying that something was on my website when it was not. Dying to hear the explanation!



Sled dog hotel said:


> In one paragraph you have contradicted yourself


No, you're just incapable of reading what has been written.



Sled dog hotel said:


> your responsible and say you reccomend THE YOUNGEST on a 6mth old and so do the manufacterers, then out your own mouth you say you used it on a 10 week old pup.


I wrote, _"I've gone as young as ten weeks when a client *was determined * to use the Ecollar on her dog of that age."_ it's clear that it wasn't my idea to use the collar, it was HER IDEA.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Surely as the trainer has a reponsibility you should have advised your client not to use it on a 10 week old pup as its against you and the manufacturers reccomendations.


I did make that recommendation and she responded that she was going to use it whether or not I helped. To prevent trauma to the puppy, I agreed to help. Had the puppy shown any excess stress I would simply have taken, the collar AND THE PUPPY and left.

Earlier you wrote,


> this by the way is from your newer website up to date "advice"


And I responded,


> There's only been one website. Of course the articles are updated as I find better ways to explain things and people ask questions. Do you think it would be better if I never updated the articles?





Sled dog hotel said:


> Then why leave older ones


I don't leave older ones up. I change the articles as they're updated. I simply do a rewrite of the pages. For example, just a few days ago I added a myth to the page where I collect them. I added the myth and changed the articles section to note that a new myth had been added.



Sled dog hotel said:


> or sorry links to your older articles on there then.
> That people can view and us


I WANT the link to the articles there. They show that other dog training experts think enough of my articles to host them.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Rolled up newspapers and smacking the Puppy is out of date too Lou.


Yes, I know that's why I don't use them. And when you decried my use of the "yelp" I ASKED YOU if you thought they were better. I never said that I used them. (Wait, is this yet ANOTHER attempt by you to mislead?)



Sled dog hotel said:


> Yes trainers say try the yelp,


Yes, we do. Because it's easy, it's natural to do, it's something that has probably happened to the puppy, the timing is good because it's instinctive to make a noise when something hurts AND it usually works. Do you advise against using it? If so, why?



Sled dog hotel said:


> but it doesnt always work,


Guess what SDH - NOTHING "*always *works."



Sled dog hotel said:


> as stated before in fact in some dogs it can hype and overexcite them more.


I've never had this happen. If you do, then it's because you're not applying the method properly. More than likely it's because you've let the puppy get too excited before trying to stop the biting.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Mum actually doesnt only reprimand pup when he bites her too hard.


Yes, I know. Moms reprimand the puppies for all sorts of things she doesn't like. This is just one of them.



Sled dog hotel said:


> The reason I mentioned mum and litter mates. Was because pup bites his litter mate too hard - Pup yelps-ideally pup should cease - pup doesnt cease - mum steps in and reprimands him. Dont tell me I dont know what Im taking about because Ive seen it with my own eyes!!! plus its common knowledge in dog behaviour anyhow.


Really? If you can show us some video tape that shows a mother puppy disciplining a puppy for biting one of his littermates, I'll be happy to admit my error. Failing that, I'll say that you're working in Disneyland and imagining that this goes on. Dog moms let their puppies work these things out. They don't get involved.



Sled dog hotel said:


> What was that about Moi whining and snivelling. OK I didnt spell it out,


No, it's not that you _"didn't spell it out."_ it's that you said that something was there (on my website) when it's not. You just got it wrong. But, like some others here, you won't simply admit it and move one. Instead you're going to keep playing this game and so I'll continue to show that you were wrong, The article you quoted is NOT, as you said, _"in another part"_ of my website.



Sled dog hotel said:


> If you go to Lous website, there is a section LOU ON THE WEB,


Here's the link folks. You'll see that it's EXACTLY as SDH NOW describes it. But that's NOT WHAT SHE ORIGINALLY SAID. Back then she said that the article she quoted was _"in another part"_ of my website. Linking to something is NOT the same as hosting it on my site.



Sled dog hotel said:


> If you click on Lou on the web, You will find exactly what I Copied and pasted. It is Dr Ps training,


No, you're wrong again. It's NOT Dr. P's training. It's MY training. Dr. P just hosts the article on his website. Can you ever get this straight?



Sled dog hotel said:


> but it was before Lou had his lovely glossy website,


Dr. P. asked to host it (and got permission to do so) around 1998 (the copyright date on the article). I linked to it when I put up my site 7-10 years later.



Sled dog hotel said:


> but it is linked and it is Lous training article, written by Lou for Dr Ps Website.


AGAIN you're wrong. It was NOT written for Dr. P's website. I wrote it during a discussion on either a forum or an email list. It was posted in a couple of places. Dr. P found the articles, wrote to me and asked if he could put them on his site. Please stop making assumptions about things you know nothing about. It does not bode well for your credibility.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Its actully accessible via Lous website. FACT remains it was written by Lou and its one of Lous articles, Not Dr Ps articles. Is that clear enough Now Lou.


THIS SENTENCE IS ACCURATE! But it's about the only one that is, in your entire post.



Sled dog hotel said:


> The Devil is in the details. This is in reply BTW to your quotes below too.
> 
> Might be an idea to watch the Blood Pressure levels. Think they might be rising slightly, by the above quotes!!


You're kidding right? Playing with you like this, discrediting your statements, showing people that details are not important to you, revealing that you make assumption after assumption and then jump to conclusions based on those faulty assumptions − LOWERS my BP, which BTW is EXCELLENT, according to my Doctor.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> One reply I forgot to make, You dont see the point, when an Association formed by the Manufacturers of E-collars, puts a statement on their own website stating that Any collar receiver worn for extended periods can cause a condition similar to bedsores known as pressure necrosis!!!!!


No I don't see the point. Especially when it's so easily avoided. There are several fixes that COMPLETELY eliminate this issue. You can take the collar off the dog when you're not training him. You can get an SCG (Surface Contact Grid) that spreads the pressure out over a larger area. Or you can simply move the collar around on the dog's neck every couple of hours.

People should be aware of the potential problems, that's why I mention them on my site and that's why ECMA mentions this, as well.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Then accuse me and others of being scare mongerers.


You're scare mongers when you make vague, meaningless statements with the intent to scare people, such as the first one asked just below. And then when asked pointblank what you're referring to, you pretend not to see the question.

I've asked you several very simple questions. Are you ever going to answer them? Or are you like the rest who avoid and evade them because you know that the answer will discredit your argument? To make is easier for you, I'll put them right here so you don't have to go search for them.

Referring to your statement that Ecollars cause _"more harm and problems could be caused"_​

Ecollars cause _"more harm [more harm than what?]"_ 
[P]lease tell us what _"harm"_ and _"problems"_ might result.

Referring to your statement that the article on poisonproofing was _"in another part of the same [meaning another part of my] website."_

I wonder why you said that this was on my website, when it's clear that it is not. 
I also wonder why you failed to show links for the articles you cited? 
Don't you think that details [like this]are important?

Referring to your statement _"this by the way is from your newer website up to date 'advice' "_

Do you think it would be better if I never updated the articles?

Referring to this statement you made, _"Its a known fact the high pitched yelp, to evoke bite inhibition is dependant on being learnt in the litter, *with mum and litter mates."*_ [Emphasis Added]

And then a few sentences later you write this, _"If pup hasnt learned this vital lesson from mum, then its likely he has never encountered it before."_

Didn't you just say that he can also learn it from his _"littermates?"_ 
*Do you not remember what you wrote further back in your own paragraph?

Referring to your statements that _"trainers say to try the yelp."_

Do you advise against using it? If so, why?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Or you could spend £1 to £2.00 on a bag of training treats and a course at a CAPBT training class, which would come to nowhere near that and the dog would probably be a lot happier too!!


If these training methods gave effective results, I'd be all for them. But they don't work for all dogs for all things and as quite a few of my testimonial letters have shown, often don't give acceptable results for some dogs AT ALL.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Earlier I wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> If these training methods gave effective results, I'd be all for them. But they don't work for all dogs for all things and as quite a few of my testimonial letters have shown, often don't give acceptable results for some dogs AT ALL.


They do for most of the basics, yet on your website you have to apparently to use an E-collar to get a dog to sit!!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

correcting a few bracket-errors, which mess up the "quote" function -



Lou Castle said:


> Dr. P. asked to host it (and got permission to do so) around 1998 (the copyright date on the article). I linked to it when I put up my site 7-10 years later.
> 
> AGAIN you're wrong. It was NOT written for Dr. P's website. I wrote it during a discussion on either a forum or an email list. It was posted in a couple of places. Dr. P found the articles, wrote to me and asked if he could put them on his site. Please stop making assumptions about things you know nothing about. It does not bode well for your credibility.
> 
> ...


since Sled-Dog-Hotel appears to be doing excellently, :thumbup: i shall leave U to carry on. 
_Excelsior!... banners aloft, into the fray... _


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

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

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


> The Stake Out Test
> for Police Service Dogs
> Copyright 1998 - Sgt. Lou Castle
> Past President of the Los Angeles County Police Canine Assoc.
> ...


"stressful situation, Break the spirit of every dog you test" I think thats a starter for one of the reasons I wouldnt use your methods or consider them harmful.

Its not just this though is it Lou? From the most basics of teaching a sit or down, for every single exercise you evoke the use of an E-collar. Its not needed and its uneccesary. Thousands of people every day teach these basics simply and efficiently with using treats and praise, not E-collars and "pushing the dogs Butt down" into position as you feel the need too.

Yet every single thread and link to reward based training, thats when you appear, slating it and trying to belittle the people who use these methods successfully daily.

Well you wanted an answer and thats mine, Training with E-collars is uneccessary, its not a matter or using when every other, method has failed,
Its used routinely by some stuck in a time warp, because this is the only method they Know.

Its pointless trying to have any sort of conversation with you Lou, all you know is to belittle and insult. You in fact called me a Liar, when all I was doing was reproducing stuff you had written.

Would I let you or any trainer using the same methods as you near my dogs,
not in a million. Thats me personally though.

Ive said my peace, like I said there is no point trying to enter a sensible conversation with you, you dont want to talk about any other methods, dog behaviour, unless its someone with the same ideas as you, everybody else is wrong unless they slap you on the back agree and tell you what a fantastic clever trainer you are.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Sled dog hotel said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


My God! Isn't that what children do when they are trying to get a dog to sit, because they don't know any better? And in a growing puppy, that sort of treatment can cause hip damage.

It was a good 25 years ago I called on a trainer who, although spouting about pack leader stuff back then, used nothing but reward based training. She explained to me that if you hold a treat over a dog's nose, he will raise his nose which he cannot do unless he also sits. When he does you say sit and give him the treat. It is natural and there is no pushing or manhandling involved. I still use this method to this very day, and when I want my dogs to sit I simply say sit, or just hold my hand over their nose if I want to do it without the words.

Never tried any other method as this always works. It has to, when you think about it.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Ok, here is where I get confused by Lou / his methods / his claims and ideals / his questions etc....

He has made a HUGE big deal out the fact he doesn't use the collar on a high setting to punish unwanted behaviours. He emphasises that he uses the collar at the lowest setting a dog can feel, as negative reinforcement, alongside physical coercion (ie pushing the dogs bum down), in order to train new comands. He gives the impression that this is his standard training method for all dogs, even pups of 6 months and younger. All the emphasis is on the "modern use" of "modern collars" (ie his own methods using the collars he sells).

However, he goes on about R+ training as not working on all dogs, not being fast or effective enough, not working to train all types of behaviour etc. He plugs the question "what do you do when your methods don't work". 

Now, while these two are not mutually exclusive, they don't match up too well either. Lou doesn't use shock collars only where other methods have failed, or the dogs life is at stake. He uses them routinely, even on pups, even for the most basic behaviours that almost anyone can train easily without aversives.

Lou also continues to demand evidence of the harm done by shock collars, and when any is presented he claims that this is only true of "other" methods, or "other" collars - not the ones he uses.

But that is part of the point. Just because Lou (claims he) uses shock collars on the lowest setting the dog can feel, many trainers / owners do not. 
There are plenty of folk out there shocking dogs in such a way that IS terrifying, IS painful, IS stressful. 
And in many cases the results speak for themselves - dogs that wet themselves, scream, leap three feet in the air, drop to the floor and shake etc. The longer term results include chronic stress, and further behaviour problems, from aggression to depression and learned helplessness to impaired learning ability and fear of trying novel behaviours.

But despite all the emphasis on how HIS methods are so great, its the others that are bad, when we hear from / of someone who uses those other shock collar methods where is Lou? Certainly not denouncing or criticising them!

He will gladly come on here, criticise the owners / trainers / behaviourists who favour reward based methods, crticise the methods themselves, etc but won't say so much as one word against the people using shock collars in the cruelest of ways. One might have thought he would be the first to comment, seeing as it supposedly those trainers giving shock collars a bad name!

Last but not least, despite all the claims, I still do not believe Lou's methods to be humane. 
More humane than zapping the hell out of a dog as positive punishment? Perhaps - but perhaps not.
I'm sorry, I just can't see how it is ok to deliberately cause ANY level of pain / discomfort / distress to a dog that does not understand what is required of it. It is totally unfair, and totally unnecessary, and thus to my mind totaly inexcusable. Funnily enough, I think this may be the one thing I agree with the Leerburg guy about!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Can I just say that the most successful method I have had with stopping puppy nipping is to just keep perfectly still until he gets bored?
> 
> There is no smacking, grabbing or (shudder) forcing the pup's teeth into his lips.


I guess the thought of puppy's mother doing this drives you to distraction? lol



newfiesmum said:


> Just calm nothing. It has worked for me in lots of situations and in only a few seconds.


That's great. Your breed is not known for having a hard mouth so it's relatively easy to _"keep perfectly still"_ when the puppies bite. But many puppies bite hard enough to draw blood and won't be stopped by this method. People with those puppies need more advice than you've just given. Nothing wrong with it if it works. But it rarely does, unless you're willing to be cut to shreds until it takes effect.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Why then on every thread that is put up On training methods that do not agree with yours do you, have to come on and slate them.


Because they include in their posts gratuitous comments that attack some of the methods that I use. I NEVER start these back and forths. I ONLY respond in kind.



Sled dog hotel said:


> You accuse "people like me" of having their minds made up, and expect us to have open minds, when it is obvious that you have a closed mind only to your methods.


I'm not sure how you folks keep saying this. I can only guess you aren't reading my responses to your posts, either that or cognitive dissonance stop you from seeing it. I've said it repeatedly but you folks keep making the same statement over and over. I USE THE SAME METHODS THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING. And so it should be obvious that I don't have a closed mind to them. I just don't use them exclusively. I realize that they are not suitable for every dog and for every behavior. YOU FOLKS are the ones that won't consider other methods, not me.



Sled dog hotel said:


> You may have the testimonials which incidently Andy and the others you have quoted could in fact be anyone, they are only typed out on your site if you want to look at it that way.


Almost every one of the folks who has written a testimonial has given permission to be contacted to verify that they exist and that they're written the post. Unless you take the absurd position that I've got a huge conspiracy going on with dozens of email addresses from dozens of ISP's one is going to realize that each and every one of them is genuine. Pick one out, PM me for the author's contact information and I'll send it along. But realize that after you contact them, you have an obligation to report back to the forum what they said.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Yet when I mentioned I have seen the way mum acts with her pups with my own eyes that isnt good enough apparently


If this was as common as you claim there would already be dozens of videos on YouTube to support your comment. I've observed many litters of many breeds of dogs and of mixed breeds as well. NEVER have I seen a mother come to the aid of one of her pups in the fashion you describe. When you've already posted things that are not true and been caught, you should not expect to be believed just because you said so.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Why this repeated obsession about your website


I don't have an obsession about my website. I do have an obsession with the truth. It's very simple really, you stated something that was not true. And rather than simply say that you were wrong, you keep making excuses.



Sled dog hotel said:


> the fact remains it is your article and you can assess it and its marked quite clearly on your website. You wrote it its there, whatever way you look at it. Your going on like it was some figmant of my imagination and I made it up


Not at all. I take full credit for the article now and before, that's very obvious. What I have an issue with is that you didn't include the links that I've supplied for obvious reasons. I have no idea why you said that the article was on my site. I think that's a big disservice to any forum member who went looking for it. it would have been very simple to include the link and a correct statement that I'd linked to it but instead you chose to be dishonest and inaccurate.

Earlier I wrote,


> I wrote, "I've gone as young as ten weeks when a client was determined to use the Ecollar on her dog of that age." it's clear that it wasn't my idea to use the collar, it was HER IDEA.
> I did make that recommendation and she responded that she was going to use it whether or not I helped. To prevent trauma to the puppy, I agreed to help. Had the puppy shown any excess stress I would simply have taken, the collar AND THE PUPPY and left.





Sled dog hotel said:


> So you think thats a good enough reason to go against the manufacturers instuctions then. and your supposedly reccomendations of 6mths.


Are you daft? The owner said that she was going to use the Ecollar whether or not I helped. I was there to ensure that the dog did not suffer through her inexperience. I was the safety net! Perhaps you'd prefer that I'd just turn my back on her and allowed her to do whatever she liked to the puppy? I think that would have been irresponsible.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Maybe if these techniques were not openly pushed and novices and those with no dog training experience were not encouraged in the first place it might not happen.


You're wrong AGAIN. This happened decades ago, long before the Net existed. Back then _"these techniques were not openly pushed."_ If only you'd ask questions instead of thinking that you know all about something when you don't have a clue.

Earlier I wrote,


> I don't leave older ones up. I change the articles as they're updated. I simply do a rewrite of the pages. For example, just a few days ago I added a myth to the page where I collect them. I added the myth and changed the articles section to note that a new myth had been added.





Sled dog hotel said:


> Then how comes I found them and they are still accessible then!!! and why put a link on your website.


Oh now I get it. You think that when I talked about updating an article I somehow meant that the older version or older form of the article no longer had any value. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just find better ways to make the articles clear, to get the points across, to answer questions that people have asked about them. The link is on my website because it shows that other expert trainers think enough of my articles, my theories and my methods that they've asked to host them on their own websites. That carries quite a bit of weight among real dog trainers and dog owners.



Sled dog hotel said:


> But I thought you had enough testimonials with out this or so you keep telling us.


Whatever are you talking about?



Sled dog hotel said:


> I didnt decribe your use of the yelp, I said a lot of trainers, use it but it doesnt always work, which is true, so dont see how thats misleading tbh.


Oh you went far beyond this obvious statement that we all already know, that it doesn't always work. You made the absurd claim that this was dependent on being _"learned in the litter with mum and litter mates."_ of course just a few sentences later you forgot that you'd written this and claimed that if Mom didn't do this then the puppy would not learn it, completely forgetting that you'd just said that it could be learned from Mom AND the littermates. But even if he hasn't learned it from Mom or the littermates it's still part of his instinctive behavior.

You also conveniently forgot that for most puppies, a loud noise of any kind is aversive and will probably stop, at least for the moment, the behavior. When it's interrupted, an appropriate chew toy can be substituted for the owner's hand. This is clearly detailed in the article I've written on this that DOES appear on my site.



Sled dog hotel said:


> I never said I didnt use it, in fact it you ask a lot of people on here Ive reccomended to try it, but stated it doesnt always work, which it doesnt, then give alternatives to try.


There's been an article on how to stop a puppy from biting on my site for about three years. Before then I was either writing suggestions or doing a cut and paste with the article as the question came up on various websites.

Earlier I wrote,


> I've never had this happen. If you do, then it's because you're not applying the method properly. More than likely it's because you've let the puppy get too excited before trying to stop the biting.





Sled dog hotel said:


> Again your assuming, I know about excitement and hyper behaviour


I've assumed nothing here. YOU are the one who stated _" ... as stated before in fact in some dogs it can hype and overexcite them more."_

Mom doesn't care how _"overexcite[ed]"_ a puppy is. She demands that he stop biting her. If he fights the bite, she bites down harder until the puppy shows submission by becoming motionless and passive. A human can do a similar thing.



Sled dog hotel said:


> and least I dont reccomend slapping a collar and stimmming a pup, as I think you give instructions to do.


It's really disgusting that you persist in making assumptions and then telling the folks that I do something when you really have no idea whether I do or whether I don't do it. I think you do this intentionally as a debate technique to try and discredit me. * It's a lie * I have NEVER advocated stimming a puppy for biting. NEVER.

Earlier I wrote,


> Really? If you can show us some video tape that shows a mother puppy disciplining a puppy for biting one of his littermates, I'll be happy to admit my error. Failing that, I'll say that you're working in Disneyland and imagining that this goes on. Dog moms let their puppies work these things out. They don't get involved.





Sled dog hotel said:


> Of course you have to be correct,


It's not that I _"have to be correct."_ it's that I am most of the time. When I'm not and I get shown this, I have always quickly admitted my error. You OTOH have been shown several times that (just in this exchange) you've been wrong several times. I have yet to see you retract anything or to make this simple admission. It would seem that YOU are the one with the need to be right all the time.

But this is just another evasion. This time you're avoiding my request for a video to show that what you claim happens does happen; that a mother interferes if two puppies are playing too roughly. If it was _"common knowledge"_ (as you wrote) it would be commonly occurring and there'd already be videos on YouTube showing it. But SOMEHOW, you've not shown us a single one of them!



Sled dog hotel said:


> another reason there is no way, you are open to any type of discussion.


Nonsense. Of the two of us, *I'm the one * with the open mind. If not I'd never had learned about what I call the so−called "kinder gentler methods." My initial training was in corrections and then the Ecollar. But I heard about these methods and investigated because I wanted to learn all there was about dog training. You OTOH are completely closed to the possibilities that the Ecollar opens. It's a combinations of cognitive dissonance, fear of the unknown and a fear that you may be wrong about them. We've already seen that you can't admit when you're wrong until you're painted into a corner and even then it only comes out grudgingly.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Its Lous way or the highway, Thats why you come on and slate every single thread.


A gross exaggeration. I hardly slate _"every single thread."_ If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate! Lol

I ONLY get involved like this when someone starts slating my methods or my tool of choice. In this thread had Ms. Kalnajs not slammed Ecollars I'd not have gotten involved. Had the rest of you not continued it, I'd have gotten out after my first post. The TRUTH is that YOU FOLKS start and continue these arguments EVERY TIME. I'm just responding to your (and others') posts. It's inconceivable to me that you folks can't see this when the evidence, heck the PROOF, is staring you right in the face. All it would take is a look at the very first post in this thread. She's slamming Ecollars right from the start. Here's a hint, it's not necessary to slam the methods/tools used by other to sell your own. But you folks do it again and again.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Of course no one else can have any other methods apart from E-Collar training.


WRONG AGAIN. I don't use the Ecollar for everything and often recommend against its use.



Sled dog hotel said:


> What is this freakin obsession with the website, thought we had established this previously, What is that about admitting it and moving on!!!!!!


I have yet to see you write, the simple statement that you were wrong and that I was right about this. You've talked all around it and we know that this is the plain and simple truth but I have yet to see you write that you were wrong.

Earlier I wrote,


> No, you're wrong again. It's NOT Dr. P's training. It's MY training. Dr. P just hosts the article on his website. Can you ever get this straight?





Sled dog hotel said:


> I didnt say it was dr ps training Ive said all along its yours


Here are your words on this, _"If you click on Lou on the web, You will find exactly what I Copied and pasted. *It is Dr Ps training, *but it was before Lou had his lovely glossy website, but it is linked and it is Lous training article, written by Lou for Dr Ps Website."_ [Emphasis Added]

It's clear that you wrote BOTH that it was _"Dr Ps training"_ and that it was my training article. BOTH cannot be correct. The TRUTH is that it's Dr. P's website that is hosting my training article.

And AGAIN you've made an assumption that is WRONG. You said that the article was _"written for Dr Ps Website."_ Actually I'd posted the article on a couple of forums and emails lists when a question had been asked about this. Dr. P saw the article and asked if he could put it on his site. It WAS NOT written for his site.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Not doing a lot for your credibility either, going on about the technicalities of a link either. Or is that the best you can come up with smoke and mirrors.


YOU are the one who made the error, stating that the article was on my website. YOU are the one who claimed that the article was _"Dr Ps training."_ YOU are the one who claims that Mom's interfere when their puppies play too roughly. YOU are the one who said that I stim puppies for biting. You are the one jumping to conclusions, making assumptions telling untruths, one after the other. And you think it's MY credibility that is suffering? ROFL.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> If these training methods gave effective results, I'd be all for them. But they don't work for all dogs for all things and as quite a few of my testimonial letters have shown, often don't give acceptable results for some dogs AT ALL.





Sled dog hotel said:


> They do for most of the basics,


Then why do we see post after post from people who can't get these basic results? Any forum that's populated by people who use these methods have post after post that begin with something like "HELP, Fido chased some deer and would not come back!" Or "Fluffy ran into the street and nearly got hit by a car!" Or "Spot keeps running out the door!"

Perhaps these folks are simply incapable of applying these methods or perhaps those methods are just ineffective on those dogs for those behaviors. Either way, it's not working for them. Take a look at Ecollar lists and forums. YOU NEVER see these kinds of posts. Instead you see people talking about "perfecting their heel," asking "how long they should work on the recall before moving on" and talking about their successes.



Sled dog hotel said:


> yet on your website you have to apparently to use an E-collar to get a dog to sit!!


ANOTHER LIE. I can get a dog to sit with several methods. But doing it with the Ecollar has MANY advantages. It's not just about getting the dog to put his butt on the ground as it is with other methods. There's far more to it than this, but you'll never know. One has to have an open mind to get it. But lots of people have just what it takes. There aren't many on this forum, but there are a few.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> since Sled-Dog-Hotel appears to be doing excellently, i shall leave U to carry on.


Since you're here l4l, I've asked you a series of 30+ questions that you've been avoiding and evading in another thread. Think you might get around to them sometime in the near future?  Here's the link to the post to make it easier for you to find and respond.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

SDH AGAIN quotes from one of my articles. Why she persists in this, even though I've handed her head to her over and over (to put it politely) when she's done it before, is a mystery. But OK, let's play again. NOTICE THAT AGAIN, she fails to provide a source for her quotation. HERE's the full article Note that it's ANOTHER article that's hosted, not on my website, but on Dr. P's. He thought the article was so good that it's been up there for well over a decade. The article has been used by hundreds of people who are selecting dogs for police work.



> The Stake Out Test
> for Police Service Dogs
> Copyright 1998 - Sgt. Lou Castle
> Past President of the Los Angeles County Police Canine Assoc.
> ...





Sled dog hotel said:


> "stressful situation, Break the spirit of every dog you test" I think thats a starter for one of the reasons I wouldnt use your methods or consider them harmful.


It's quite clear that I DO NOT BREAK THE SPIRIT OF ANY DOG THAT I TEST. It says quite clearly, _"*I will, of course, not break the dog down completely. When a dog shows some weakness, I apply a bit more pressure to confirm what I am seeing. I will then flee and give him some agitation to bring him back up."*_ 

Why SDH can't see this is another mystery.

It's also VERY interesting that someone with no knowledge (admittedly an assumption, but one based on the complete absence of any interest or experience in this from her profile) on the selection, training or handling of police dogs thinks that it's appropriate for her to critique an article that has allowed me to test and then train quite a few police dogs without EVER having one wash out of the program. Not many police dog trainers can make that claim.

At the end of the test you say that you consider that my methods are _"harmful."_ You made such a statement once before but when asked what harm was done you ran and hid from the question. I have little doubt that you'll do so again but I'll ask anyway ... What harm comes from this test?

Using a dog for police work is critical. The dog can't ever let the handler down and so, during the testing phase I put pressure on him to see the level and balance of his drives. I do this mostly with body language, as the article clearly states. I'd rather have a dog fail during this test than when on the street with his handler.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Its not just this though is it Lou? From the most basics of teaching a sit or down, for every single exercise you evoke the use of an E-collar.


Do you ever get tired of telling lies? Here is another one. You've assumed, perhaps based on reading my site, that I only use the Ecollar. I've said that this is not the case BUT AGAIN, you pretend that I've not made such a statement.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Its not needed and its uneccesary.


Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Department. LOL. I've said MANY TIMES that no one needs an Ecollar. We trained dogs for thousands of years before they came along. But they're here now and they're out of the box. They're not going to go back in. Your methods have been shown repeatedly not to work all the time for all things on all dogs. I've yet to have the Ecollar fail. I'm sure that somewhere out there is a dog that won't respond, I've just not come across him yet. I've worked with well over 3,000 dogs.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Thousands of people every day teach these basics simply and efficiently with using treats and praise, not E-collars and "pushing the dogs Butt down" into position as you feel the need too.


I guess that "pushing the dog's butt down" is just too horrible for you to even think about. ROFL. The fact is that many of those folks encounter so many problems that they just give up on it and take their dogs to the shelter. I've never heard of this happening with someone who uses an Ecollar, particularly if they're using my methods.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Yet every single thread and link to reward based training, thats when you appear, slating it and trying to belittle the people who use these methods successfully daily.


ANOTHER lie. I ONLY enter the fray when these folks slam my methods. If they only give their own advice without doing this I will sometimes give the advice (to the effect) "I'd suggest that you try all the methods suggested by others here. If they don't give the desired results or don't do so in a timely manner then you might think about using an Ecollar." I then give a link to my site. ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION this miniscule bit of advice draws the ire of the anti−Ecollar crowd and they start with their nonsense. It's obvious that if their methods and the suggestions they were making were effective, then people WOULD NEVER GET TO THE ECOLLAR. But they know that those methods are fraught with difficulties for the owners. They require far better timing, an ability to read the dog and much more.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Well you wanted an answer and thats mine,


What question of mine do you think that you're responding to? I've never asked anything that would draw this answer. I HAVE asked you several questions, most of which you've hidden from and pretended that they'd never been asked. In my post #98 I asked you nine questions, none of which you've answered. Again, this goes to YOUR credibility.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Training with E-collars is uneccessary, its not a matter or using when every other, method has failed,
> Its used routinely by some stuck in a time warp, because this is the only method they Know.


Perhaps that's the case with some. It's not with me. I'm familiar with, and use, when appropriate, just about EVERY tool/method that exists in dog training. The difference is that I KNOW that sometimes they're not appropriate. Sometimes it's the dog. Sometimes it's what the owner wants to train and sometimes it's the owner.

As to your time warp statement, modern methods used with modern versions of Ecollars as applied to pet dogs is THE MOST MODERN FORM OF DOG TRAINING that exists.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Its pointless trying to have any sort of conversation with you Lou, all you know is to belittle and insult. You in fact called me a Liar, when all I was doing was reproducing stuff you had written.


You said that an article was on my website when it was not. You repeated this several times. It's not on my site. It never has been and it never will be. It's *linked * on my site but that's not the same, no matter how many times you try to get people to believe that it is; no matter how many times you try to twist it to your own end. As I've said, dog training is often about details. You got this one wrong. And you keep bringing it up allowing me to show it again. You'd be far better off to just let it go.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Would I let you or any trainer using the same methods as you near my dogs, not in a million. Thats me personally though.


Thank GOD for the sake of the dogs that thousands of people have let me have a hand in training their dogs. I've saved hundreds, perhaps thousands, from the shelter and being killed.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Ive said my peace, like I said there is no point trying to enter a sensible conversation with you, you dont want to talk about any other methods, dog behaviour, unless its someone with the same ideas as you, everybody else is wrong unless they slap you on the back agree and tell you what a fantastic clever trainer you are.


WRONG AGAIN. The problem is that you don't like being shown to be wrong AGAIN and AGAIN. Im happy to have any number of discussions about dog training. But as can be seen from just this one thread, you people are incapable of, or unwilling to discuss dog training without bashing the methods/tools of others. This occurred *IN THE VERY FIRST POST IN THE THREAD. * Denying this is absurd. Blaming me for the way these discussions go is a denial of reality. My posts in these matters are RESPONSES to the bashing that some of you folks, and you are included in this, can't or won't stop.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> My God! Isn't that what children do when they are trying to get a dog to sit, because they don't know any better? And in a growing puppy, that sort of treatment can cause hip damage.


Good grief. As my article SO CLEARLY STATES, _" ... press gently on his hips to push his butt towards the ground."_ Notice the _"gently?"_ In any case, please show us some support for this nonsense, even if it's NOT done gently. Perhaps to prevent such ignorant statements from being made you should actually read what I've written, rather than take the word of someone who's shown to favor a lack of truth already?



newfiesmum said:


> It was a good 25 years ago I called on a trainer who, although spouting about pack leader stuff back then, used nothing but reward based training. She explained to me that if you hold a treat over a dog's nose, he will raise his nose which he cannot do unless he also sits. When he does you say sit and give him the treat. It is natural and there is no pushing or manhandling involved. I still use this method to this very day, and when I want my dogs to sit I simply say sit, or just hold my hand over their nose if I want to do it without the words.
> 
> Never tried any other method *as this always works. It has to, when you think about it. [Emphasis Added] *




I've come across dogs who, when you do this, just back up. I guess it does not _"always work."_


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> Ok, here is where I get confused by Lou / his methods / his claims and ideals / his questions etc....


Your _"confusion"_ is due to the fact that instead of simply asking me about what I do, you, as many others here have done, have assumed that I do things a certain way. I have no idea why you folks persist in this. It leads you down the wrong path almost every time, but you keep doing it.



Colette said:


> He has made a HUGE big deal out the fact he doesn't use the collar on a high setting to punish unwanted behaviours. He emphasises that he uses the collar at the lowest setting a dog can feel, as negative reinforcement, alongside physical coercion (ie pushing the dogs bum down), in order to train new comands.


Yep I've said these things. Except that I've also mentioned +P, but lets allow that to slide for the moment.



Colette said:


> He gives the impression that this is his standard training method for all dogs, even pups of 6 months and younger. All the emphasis is on the "modern use" of "modern collars" (ie his own methods using the collars he sells).


I have not given that impression. But you have picked it up. The TRUTH, if you care  I've mentioned it many times, is that the overwhelming majority of my work is with problem dogs that have had other methods used on them. These "other methods" range from the so−called "kinder gentler methods" to methods that use horrible amounts of punishment, sometimes climbing to the level of using a cattle prod on the dogs.

FOR THOSE DOGS, knowing that these other methods have failed it would be stupid to try the same methods again. And so FOR THOSE DOGS, I go right to the Ecollar, used with my methods. Sometimes I'm working with dogs that others have spent years in trying to get their results, and they've failed. I show them that results can be obtained very quickly, sometimes in a matter of minutes. Does that clarify anything for you?



Colette said:


> However, he goes on about R+ training as not working on all dogs, not being fast or effective enough, not working to train all types of behaviour etc. He plugs the question "what do you do when your methods don't work".
> 
> Now, while these two are not mutually exclusive, they don't match up too well either. Lou doesn't use shock collars only where other methods have failed, or the dogs life is at stake. He uses them routinely, even on pups, even for the most basic behaviours that almost anyone can train easily without aversives.


No, you're wrong. On puppies younger than six months (most often my own puppies) I use treats, toys and praise exclusively, except for biting. There I use something that similar to what the puppy's mother would do. I do little work with dogs for whom the so−called "kinder gentler methods" work well. I have no need. I allow others to train them. I prefer to stick with the hard cases, the ones that are in danger of being put to death or taken to the shelter. Often they're dogs that many other trainers have failed with and I'm their last stop before the shelter or the needle.



Colette said:


> Lou also continues to demand evidence of the harm done by shock collars, and when any is presented he claims that this is only true of "other" methods, or "other" collars - not the ones he uses.


I'm sorry but that's the way it is. If I were to punch you in the stomach I'd probably cause great distress. But if someone knowledgeable gave you a massage in that area, it would be quite welcome. It might cure some ill that you were suffering from. Pretending that massive pain and minor discomfort give the same results is simply beyond common sense and any reasonable intelligence.



Colette said:


> But that is part of the point. Just because Lou (claims he) uses shock collars on the lowest setting the dog can feel, many trainers / owners do not. There are plenty of folk out there shocking dogs in such a way that IS terrifying, IS painful, IS stressful.


SO WHAT?! There are many who are stomping their dogs to death. Many who are setting fire to their dogs. Many who are overfeeding to the point of causing heart and lung problems. SO WHAT?! This has NOTHING to do with anything that's being discussed here, yet you folks bring it up repeatedly. I'm against any abuse perpetrated on a dog, no matter what method is used. Doing these things is (gee isn't this redundant) ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW IN EVERY MODERN COUNTRY ON THE PLANET. When you see it call the proper authorities. Report them, testify against them. Help in putting them in jail. I've done it and may do it again.

But citing these things HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A DISCUSSION ABOUT DOG TRAINING. It's a bit like going on a carpentry forum and decrying hammers because some people have used them to commit murders.



Colette said:


> And in many cases the results speak for themselves - dogs that wet themselves, scream, leap three feet in the air, drop to the floor and shake etc. The longer term results include chronic stress, and further behaviour problems, from aggression to depression and learned helplessness to impaired learning ability and fear of trying novel behaviours.


You know what's coming don't you. *OF COURSE, none of these things occur with my methods. * They DO occur with some dogs when Ecollars are used at very high levels of stim. Since I don't do that, it's a non-issue. But you folks want everyone to believe that they're unavoidable and occur EVERY TIME an Ecollar is in use. That's beyond common sense.



Colette said:


> But despite all the emphasis on how HIS methods are so great, its the others that are bad, when we hear from / of someone who uses those other shock collar methods where is Lou? Certainly not denouncing or criticising them!


As long as they're not causing the issues that you mention, I have no problem with them. As you should know, there's more than one way to train a dog. I allow for any of them that are humane and give good results.

If you can show me where someone has advocated such methods here, please do so. Otherwise I have no idea what (or who) you're talking about.



Colette said:


> He will gladly come on here, criticise the owners / trainers / behaviourists who favour reward based methods, crticise the methods themselves, etc but won't say so much as one word against the people using shock collars in the cruelest of ways.


Bullsh!t. Show me one person who has done what you are now claiming.



Colette said:


> One might have thought he would be the first to comment, seeing as it supposedly those trainers giving shock collars a bad name!


Show me the posts. I have NOT SEEN EVEN ONE AS YOU DESCRIBE!



Colette said:


> Last but not least, despite all the claims, I still do not believe Lou's methods to be humane.


Going to go cry myself to sleep now. Someone who has never seen my work, someone who probably has NOT read my articles thinks my work is inhumane. NOT ONE PERSON who has actually seen it, and there have been thousands, has said this. Often I've been teaching at a seminar and working with a dog when someone from the audience has asked "when I was going to start using the Ecollar." Fact is, I'd been using it from the first moment I'd started working the dog. If my work was inhumane, especially as vocal as I am, there would be dozens of threads from people who had seen it, blasting me for it. Yet you folks won't be able to find even one! What you will find it quite a few people who have used my methods and are completely happy with their results.

So while you're entitled to your opinion, it's based on air. You're welcome to it but folks with open minds will realize that you have no basis for it.



Colette said:


> I'm sorry, I just can't see how it is ok to deliberately cause ANY level of pain / discomfort / distress to a dog that does not understand what is required of it. It is totally unfair, and totally unnecessary, and thus to my mind totaly inexcusable.


Except that this is nonsense. When you hold up a treat in front of your dog, but don't give it to him immediately, you are causing some level of pain/discomfort, the very thing you just told us you don't think it's OK to do. If you did not cause some discomfort, the dog would not be willing to work to get the treat. He's trying to escape the discomfort of NOT having it. You will probably deny this but it's a fact of life. It's simply the other side of the same coin but some have closed minds and don't want to see this.



Colette said:


> Funnily enough, I think this may be the one thing I agree with the Leerburg guy about!


You may want to take a look at "the Leerburg guy's" video on using the Ecollar. He's one of those who causes the horrorshow that you earlier described. He's shown in that video zapping a puppy. A banner comes on the screen that says "stim too high" but he just keeps zapping away. The dog shows every submission signal in the book but it doesnt slow him down at all. AND BTW the "darling" of the moment for him is Michael Ellis who uses Ecollars EXTENSIVELY in his work. Our methods are quite similar.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> It was a good 25 years ago I called on a trainer who, although spouting about pack leader stuff back then


The two pet dog commercial trainers of 25 years ago who spouted that was APBC founder John Rogerson, he especially engineered making the concept widespread by his book & video of the same name The Dominant Dog, to a lesser extent John Fisher APBC founder used it. It was around mid 90s I heard pet dog owners using the word Alpha, I had never heard the word used before then

It's hardly surprising both APBC & APDT are in rapid decline & disuse by pet owners over this past few years, APBC is down to only 49 members in UK & APDT was down to only 509 last Dec from 660 3 years ago with a potential UK client base of 10.5 million dogs (Britol Uni survey).

.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Because they include in their posts gratuitous comments that attack some of the methods that I use. I NEVER start these back and forths. I ONLY respond in kind.





> I'm not sure how you folks keep saying this. I can only guess you aren't reading my responses to your posts, either that or cognitive dissonance stop you from seeing it. I've said it repeatedly but you folks keep making the same statement over and over. I USE THE SAME METHODS THAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING. And so it should be obvious that I don't have a closed mind to them. I just don't use them exclusively. I realize that they are not suitable for every dog and for every behavior. YOU FOLKS are the ones that won't consider other methods, not me.





> You also conveniently forgot that for most puppies, a loud noise of any kind is aversive and will probably stop, at least for the moment, the behavior. When it's interrupted, an appropriate chew toy can be substituted for the owner's hand. This is clearly detailed in the article I've written on this that DOES appear on my site.





> There's been an article on how to stop a puppy from biting on my site for about three years. Before then I was either writing suggestions or doing a cut and paste with the article as the question came up on various websites.





> It's really disgusting that you persist in making assumptions and then telling the folks that I do something when you really have no idea whether I do or whether I don't do it. I think you do this intentionally as a debate technique to try and discredit me. * It's a lie * I have NEVER advocated stimming a puppy for biting. NEVER.





> WRONG AGAIN. I don't use the Ecollar for everything and often recommend against its use.


Above are quotes in response to my post. You say you are using the same methods we are supporting. That we are the ones who havent got open minds.You say you just dont use our methods exclusively, we wont consider other methods not you. Your discusted I make assumptions, that you dont use the E-Collar exclusively and sometimes reccomend against it
Your main repeated attack on me is about a petty technicality over a website/link, which I have already corrected in detail, and still you are harping on about it. You have called me a Liar on several occasions. Your other main constantly repeated gripe is about the pups/bite inhibition/litter mates/mum telling me Im wrong when I know what I have seen. Ive lived with pack dogs for 20 years, I have a friend with a large pack who has bred, Ive seen it with my own eyes. Yet because you say im wrong then of course it has to be correct.

Just had another look on your website Lou, All I can see is E-Collar. No you dont seem to reccomend stimming pups for biting, but you reccomend other pretty strong aversive technique instead. Maybe I just got that confused with
the use of the E-collar that you reccomend on a 6mths plus, which in my book is still a puppy. You still used one on a 10 week old too. The fact remains you did it.

Below is excerpts from your website. They seem to contradict imo the quotes above. As you are so fond of your own voice, Ill live you to argue with yourself.



> There are many sites that give instructions on how to use other tools but this one is about the Ecollar. Here you'll find many articles that describe in detail, in a step-by-step fashion, exactly how to use the latest techniques to train your dog using the fastest, safest, most humane methods available with the Ecollar. The methods can be used on most any dog, no matter his breed, his previous training, his age (once he's six months old) and no matter what his job is; even if his job is just to lay at your feet while you pet him.
> © 2007 Lou Castle





> The articles do not mention praising the dog except for a few situations in the training where it's specifically necessary. This is not the place to learn to give praise to your dog. This is where you can learn to use the Ecollar.
> 
> © 2007 Lou Castle





> I advocate that when you are playing with your puppy and he bites too hard, you should immediately engulf his head with your hand, come in from the top of his head, not from the nose. Slowly increase the pressure of your hand, squeezing HIS lips into HIS teeth until he stops moving and becomes passive. Hold that level of pressure for just a few seconds and then release the puppy.
> 
> Don't yell, unless it's involuntarily, as a result of the pain from the puppy's bite. Don't scold, don't shake the puppy. His mother does not do any of these things and she manages to get him to stop biting too hard in short order.
> 
> Sometimes this needs to be done with each family member so that the puppy learns not to bite every one of them. If this involves small children who don't understand how this is done, an adult can supply the lip pinch when the puppy bites the child too hard. Sometimes this needs to be done with a visitor to the home as well. The owner should do this, rather than relying on a novice visitor to get it right.


© 2008 Lou Castle



> The Sit
> 
> At one point during this training you're going to do four things at once. I recommend that you practice this before you actually go do it so you can get the timing and coordination down perfectly before you start working with the dog. The four things that you'll do at once are:
> Say the word "sit."
> ...





> Put the Ecollar on your dog along with the leash and buckle collar and take the dog to your training location. You're going to use a bit of food to lure him into a sit position from a stand. Give the command "sit" and show the treat to the dog. Then move it slowly back over the top of his head in the direction that his head moves when he sits. It's back and slightly up. Don't let him grab the treat out of your hand. If he tries, you can make a fist so that he can't get to it. When his butt hits the ground give him the treat and praise him verbally. Make sure that he sits straight, rather than on one hip. If he's a young puppy, he may not be able to do this so take his age and bone structure into account. After doing this four to five times you're ready to add the Ecollar stimulation to the mix.
> 
> I prefer to hold the leash and transmitter in my right hand. I put the leash across my palm and then put the transmitter on top of it, helping to hold the leash there. Walk the dog around a bit and then stop. If he's had some OB training, out of habit he may try to sit. Just place your hand in his groin area to keep him standing. Don't give any commands at this point. After a few seconds do the four actions described above all at once. Say the word "sit." Press the button on the Ecollar. Move the leash straight up over the dog's head to pull him gently into a sit. And press gently on his hips to push his Btt towards the ground. As soon as his butt hits the ground release the button on the transmitter.





> If he resists, just keep up the pressure of your hand on his hips. You might move the pressure of the leash from straight up to back a little bit to help him get into the sit position. Whatever you do, don't release the pressure on the button until he's in the sit.





> Some dogs will try to rear up to get away from the stimulation. This is also OK. Gently allow him to come back to the ground but maintain the straight up leash pressure and the pressure on his hips to guide him into the sit.





> When he does go into the sit remember to release the button.


Close this page to return to the article index

© 2007 Lou Castle


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Lou, you have more than 200 posts on this forum, most of which I have read. I have been on your website. My confusion stems not so much from any "assumption" but the constant contradictions, hypocrisy, the way you rapidly change tack, etc.



> I do little work with dogs for whom the so−called "kinder gentler methods" work well. I have no need. I allow others to train them. I prefer to stick with the hard cases, the ones that are in danger of being put to death or taken to the shelter. Often they're dogs that many other trainers have failed with and I'm their last stop before the shelter or the needle.


But here's the thing....

There are also plenty of owners, trainers and behaviourists working with dogs like this, literally saving lives, WITHOUT resorting to methods like yours.

In some cases "kinder gentler methods" may have been tried previously and failed - often because they were not done properly. In other cases harsher methods have been tried, and either failed or in fact made things worse. In many cases however, the problem is a lack of consistent training of any method.

If some people can and do work very successfully with "hard cases" without using prongs / chokes / shocks / physical coercion etc - why can't you?



> I have not given that impression. But you have picked it up.


I think SDH has answered that - its all over your website, and the imprssion clearly given from your posts.



> SO WHAT?! There are many who are stomping their dogs to death. Many who are setting fire to their dogs. Many who are overfeeding to the point of causing heart and lung problems. SO WHAT?! This has NOTHING to do with anything that's being discussed here, yet you folks bring it up repeatedly. I'm against any abuse perpetrated on a dog, no matter what method is used. Doing these things is (gee isn't this redundant) ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW IN EVERY MODERN COUNTRY ON THE PLANET. When you see it call the proper authorities. Report them, testify against them. Help in putting them in jail. I've done it and may do it again.
> 
> But citing these things HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH A DISCUSSION ABOUT DOG TRAINING. It's a bit like going on a carpentry forum and decrying hammers because some people have used them to commit murders.


Wrong again Lou, or perhaps not so much wrong as naieve. A huge amount of abuse is carried out in the name of training, and the perpetrators almost always get away with it on that very basis.

Back in the 90s, we had an incident with a police dog Acer dying as a result of the abusive training methods employed by a particular force. He had been strung up on his choke chain and punched and kicked in the stomach. In this case those involved were prosecuted - but this was not a one off. The incident occured during a training session - the dog handlers were under instruction at the time. What happened in that class was normal dog training for them. It only got publicised and prosecuted because they couldn't cover up the fact a dog died as a result.

That's an extreme example, but there are many more. There are plenty of people (owners and trainers alike) who routinelly use excessive force, causing pain and distress, and get away with it - despite doing much of it in public. Hell, we even have celeb-trainers on TV whose actions are not only visibly harsh but result in dogs showing some of the signs I mentioned previously - including wetting themselves, screaming, jumping, cowering, shaking, and aggressing. This is on camera - being shown to the world as the proper way to train a dog!

My point is that this is a very grey area. You may not be causing such harm, but many folk are, are despite your claims that they are acting illegally and can be stopped this just doesn't happen.

The use of physical aversives IS high risk. You'd be hard pressed to cause pain, fear, or extreme stress or distress using a clicker / treats / toys / praise / negative punishment / extinction etc. Yet it is incredibly easy to do physical or emotional damage using physical means that poke, choke, shock, etc.



> If you can show me where someone has advocated such methods here, please do so. Otherwise I have no idea what (or who) you're talking about.


There was a debate not long back - I believe you were asked at the time (not by me) why you defended the individual in question, despite his methods seeming at odds with your own (and clearly harsher). I believe one was the trainer from the website Grandad posted about.



> So while you're entitled to your opinion, it's based on air. You're welcome to it but folks with open minds will realize that you have no basis for it.


No, my opinion is based on one fundamental ethical belief - that causing unnecessary suffering is morally abhorent.
It is very simple. Using any more force / causing any more suffering / taking any more risks than necessary is unethical.
No need to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut as they say.

To use your own method to explain this - you deliberately use the collar on the lowest setting the dog can feel. Why would you whack the level up unnecessarily? You wouldn't.

The same principle applies to me, across the board. If I can train a dog without causing pain, I will do so. If I can train a dog without causing "mild discomfort" I will do so. Always use the least invasive, least risky, least offensive (to the dog) means possible.

So, no doubt you will be up in arms at the your method being described as unnecessary suffering,but lets analyse that.

Is it necessary?
No. We know that from the fact people have trained dogs perfectly well for thousands of years without your method. Plus, as mentioned above, all the owners, rescue workers, trainers and behaviourists who still do get the results without your method / without a shock collar.

Does it cause suffering?
Perhaps only to a lesser degree, but ultimately the answer must be yes. Causing an unpleasent sensation, that we already know to be a universal aversive, will cause the dog discomfort / irritation / mild distress.
(Of course, at higher levels the level of suffering will be far greater).

So, even if your method is _more_ humane than some of the alternatives, it is _less_ humane than others.

Last but by no means least:


> Except that this is nonsense. When you hold up a treat in front of your dog, but don't give it to him immediately, you are causing some level of pain/discomfort, the very thing you just told us you don't think it's OK to do. If you did not cause some discomfort, the dog would not be willing to work to get the treat. He's trying to escape the discomfort of NOT having it. You will probably deny this but it's a fact of life. It's simply the other side of the same coin but some have closed minds and don't want to see this.


PMSL, Lou you should have taken up a career in comedy, that is pecious.

I've addressed this claim before (I think in response to SleepyBones although I can't really remember) but I'll do so again for your benefit.

Quite frankly the claim is laughable. There are two obvious ways the dog could be caused discomfort in this scenario.

1) Discomfort caused by hunger.

This has nothing to do with training. Certainly if a dog has not been fed and is uncomfprtably hungry then using food lures could well be a form of negative reinforcement (taking away the hunger to reinforce the correct response). But in any dog that is not particularly hungry this does not apply.

2) Frustration at not being able to get the treat.

This would be a training error. Luring a dog into position should take a couple of seconds at most. With some behaviours, it takes almost no time at all. It is NOT as some might suggest a long drawn out process. If it is taking too long and the dog can't get the treat, then the handler is simply teasing the dog.

This is also avoidable, using two variation of the method. Capturing a behaviour rather than luring it avoids the issue completely. The second alternative would be using targetting. Rather than using a food lure to position the dog, use the target stick. Genius eh?



> If you did not cause some discomfort, the dog would not be willing to work to get the treat. He's trying to escape the discomfort of NOT having it.


Seriously though, when you get to the point that you claim the dog is in discomfort simply because it doesn't have a treat in its mouth at that precise moment - your arguments start to look pretty ridiculous. 
Having a treat is nice. There is a reason those treats are "special", rather than the dogs usual dry food. They taste better, are more highly valued.
But there is no discomfort / cruelty / aversive or whatever involved in not having a treat at a given moment. Quite frankly, I would be ina permantent state of distress if that were the case - my god, I don't have a mouthful of chocolate, the world is ending, I'm so hard done by......


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

Hello 

Obviously people can train their dogs using a variety of different methods, every trainer can have a slice of the cake if you like 

Can you please just agree to disagree instead of bombarding each other continually throughout every thread, the constant bickering of "my method is better, kinder, more effective, quicker results" is extremely tiresome.

Going to consult with the other mods to see what more can be done, cos this section of the boards is going downhill fast


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Above are quotes in response to my post. You say you are using the same methods we are supporting. That we are the ones who havent got open minds.You say you just dont use our methods exclusively, we wont consider other methods not you. Your discusted I make assumptions, that you dont use the E-Collar exclusively and sometimes reccomend against it


Yes to all.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Your main repeated attack on me is about a petty technicality over a website/link, which I have already corrected in detail, and still you are harping on about it.


Ya see I don't consider this to be petty, you do. You very clearly said that something is on my website when it's not. The link is but to think that's the same thing is wrong. I have yet to see you post something of the nature of a simple statement that you were wrong in saying that the article was on my site. Instead you've tried various methods to get around the fact. Stop bringing it up and I'll stop talking about it.



Sled dog hotel said:


> You have called me a Liar on several occasions.


I don't think so. I've said that some of the things you've said are lies when you have deliberately said something that you knew, or should have known, was untrue. But I've not gone the extra step of actually calling you a liar. MANY times when I was sure that you were lying I wrote it off as simply an error. It's only when it's egregious that I call it a lie. Here are the times that I've said that you were lying.


When you said that I _"recommend slapping a collar a stimming a pup for biting."_ I've never said that and in fact in my article on stopping biting with a puppy, I don't even mention the Ecollar. 
 When you said that I _"have to apparently ... use an Ecollar to get a dog to sit."_ I use many methods to get a dog to sit. 
When you said _"for every single exercise you evoke the use of an Ecollar."_ I use many methods to get results other than the Ecollar. 
When you said that _"every single thread and link to reward based training, thats when you appear, slating it and trying to belittle the people who use these methods successfully daily."_ Fact is I don't appear in these thread until and unless those folks start slating Ecollars. 



Sled dog hotel said:


> Your other main constantly repeated gripe is about the pups/bite inhibition/litter mates/mum telling me Im wrong when I know what I have seen. * Ive lived with pack dogs * for 20 years, I have a friend with a large pack who has bred, Ive seen it with my own eyes. Yet because you say im wrong then of course it has to be correct. [Emphasis Added]


More words, still no proof. You called this _"common knowledge."_ Yet you've provided no support for it. Since you've told lies AT LEAST five times before (there were more but as I said, I wrote them off as errors) I see no reason to believe this. BTW what is a _"pack dog?"_ All dogs are pack animals.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Just had another look on your website Lou, All I can see is E-Collar.


There are MANY websites that give instructions for the so−called "kinder gentler methods." They don't include instructions on the Ecollar. And so on my website, that was set up to help people with the Ecollar, I don't give instructions on other methods. This makes as much sense as saying that a book about cooking pasta is insufficient because it doesn't talk about cooking steak!



Sled dog hotel said:


> No you dont [/b]seem to [/b]reccomend stimming pups for biting, [Emphasis Added]


Well there's a subtle admission that you were wrong. It's one of the egregious things that I said was a lie when you made the statement that I do recommend this. But it's still not an apology for deliberately trying to mislead people about me. It was a rather obvious attempt to discredit me and now, by way of making it up all you do is say that I _"don't seem to recommend"_ it. This is nothing but ANOTHER (albeit subtle) form of lying! If you can find anyplace that I recommend this, show it to us. Otherwise simply admit that you were completely wrong.



Sled dog hotel said:


> but you reccomend other pretty strong aversive technique instead. Maybe I just got that confused with the use of the E-collar that you reccomend on a 6mths plus, which in my book is still a puppy.


Now you're trying to minimize your lie. The truth is NOT that I _"don't seem to recommend it,"_ the truth is that * I DO NOT recommend it! * This is just another form of lying.

I can't help that you can't read what is clearly written. Your _"confusion"_ is your failure, not mine. I don't think that you were confused in the slightest. I think that your lie was purposeful and malicious in your campaign to try to discredit me.

But now let's discuss the _"other pretty strong aversive technique"_ that you claim that I _"recommend."_ I can only think of snakeproofing which is lifesaving training. Is it extreme? Yes, without a doubt. That's because getting bitten by a poisonous snake can be deadly and even if it's not, the results are usually extremely painful and often debilitating for the rest of the dog's life. Please tell us what you consider these _"other pretty strong aversive techniques"_ to be. I'll bet that they're ONLY for instances where life is at risk. I consider that to be pretty extreme and so some of the methods match up to that.

This is an excellent debate technique BTW, but dishonest on its face. You make a general statement like this but there's nothing specific. Let's talk about the specifics and others (those with open minds) will see (I doubt that you will) that this is just more of your nonsense.



Sled dog hotel said:


> You still used one on a 10 week old too. The fact remains you did it.


Yes I did and I'm damn proud that I did. NOT to have assisted that owner would have been the wrong thing to do. I did so to protect the dog. THAT was the right thing to do.



Sled dog hotel said:


> Below is excerpts from your website. They seem to contradict imo the quotes above. As you are so fond of your own voice, Ill live you to argue with yourself.


If you're not able to point out where you think the contradictions are, I'll not bother to comment. In fact there are no such contradictions. There's only your lack of understanding because you mind is locked shut so tightly.

And AGAIN you've failed to supply links so that people can see if you're quoting accurately or not. LOL


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Colette said:


> Lou, you have more than 200 posts on this forum, most of which I have read. I have been on your website. My confusion stems not so much from any "assumption" but the constant contradictions, hypocrisy, the way you rapidly change tack, etc.


I'll say that there are no _"contradictions, hypocrisy, [or] change of tack."_ There's only your lack of understanding, due in part, to your closed mind. Since you disagree, please show us that what you claim exists. Feel free to quote my posts, my website and posts I've written elsewhere. I'll be happy to prove you wrong in every case. People in your position seem to LOVE to make such accusations but like many lies that have been told, in just this thread, about me, they mean nothing without support for them.

Earlier I wrote,


> I do little work with dogs for whom the so−called "kinder gentler methods" work well. I have no need. I allow others to train them. I prefer to stick with the hard cases, the ones that are in danger of being put to death or taken to the shelter. Often they're dogs that many other trainers have failed with and I'm their last stop before the shelter or the needle.





Colette said:


> But here's the thing....
> 
> There are also plenty of owners, trainers and behaviourists working with dogs like this, literally saving lives, WITHOUT resorting to methods like yours.


That's great. More power to them.



Colette said:


> In some cases "kinder gentler methods" may have been tried previously and failed - often because they were not done properly. In other cases harsher methods have been tried, and either failed or in fact made things worse. In many cases however, *the problem is a lack of consistent training of any method. * [Emphasis Added]


I'll disagree. SOMETIMES the problem is a lack of consistent training. SOMETIMES it's the method that's just not effective and SOMETIMES it's the owner that is not capable of applying the method correctly. It really makes no difference which of the two latter issues are at work.



Colette said:


> If some people can and do work very successfully with "hard cases" without using prongs / chokes / shocks / physical coercion etc - why can't you?


If those methods have already failed I see no reason to repeat the failure. I know that the Ecollar used with my methods is very low impact. You've never seen it so you have another opinion, but one that's based on imagination not reality.



Colette said:


> Back in the 90s, we had an incident with a police dog Acer dying as a result of the abusive training methods employed by a particular force. He had been strung up on his choke chain and punched and kicked in the stomach. In this case those involved were prosecuted - but this was not a one off. The incident occured during a training session - the dog handlers were under instruction at the time. What happened in that class was normal dog training for them. It only got publicised and prosecuted because they couldn't cover up the fact a dog died as a result.


I'm well familiar with the incident. I don't consider that to be training and think that anyone who does is an idiot.



Colette said:


> That's an extreme example, but there are many more. There are plenty of people (owners and trainers alike) who routinelly use excessive force, causing pain and distress, and get away with it - despite doing much of it in public. Hell, we even have celeb-trainers on TV whose actions are not only visibly harsh but result in dogs showing some of the signs I mentioned previously - including wetting themselves, screaming, jumping, cowering, shaking, and aggressing. This is on camera - being shown to the world as the proper way to train a dog!


Not sure what this has to do with me or this discussion.



Colette said:


> My point is that this is a very grey area.


I don't think so. This is a bit like a statement made by a US Supreme Court Judge about pornography, "I know it when I see it." the fact that some don't know it has nothing to do with this discussion.



Colette said:


> You may not be causing such harm, but many folk are, are despite your claims that they are acting illegally and can be stopped this just doesn't happen.


It happens. I've done it and I've assisted a few others in these endeavors.



Colette said:


> The use of physical aversives IS high risk.


This is determined by what you call _"high risk."_ There's NO RISK when these methods are used properly. Again we have the situation where you folks discuss your methods when they're used properly and get good results and you discuss other methods when they're used improperly and fallout results. You COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact that often your methods fail. It's a case of cognitive dissonance.



Colette said:


> You'd be hard pressed to cause pain, fear, or extreme stress or distress using a clicker / treats / toys / praise / negative punishment / extinction etc. Yet it is incredibly easy to do physical or emotional damage using physical means that poke, choke, shock, etc.


No you're wrong. ANY tool can be abused. ANY tool can be misused. NO TOOL is idiot-proof to the right idiot. The TRUTH IS that ANY TOOL can cause _"pain, fear or extreme stress or distress using a clicker / treats / toys / praise / negative punishment / extinction etc."_ THE TRUTH is that abuse and misuse is in the person doing the training NOT in the tool/method itself.

Earlier I wrote,


> If you can show me where someone has advocated such methods here, please do so. Otherwise I have no idea what (or who) you're talking about.





Colette said:


> There was a debate not long back - I believe you were asked at the time (not by me) why you defended the individual in question, despite his methods seeming at odds with your own (and clearly harsher). I believe one was the trainer from the website Grandad posted about.


Sorry this is still vague. Perhaps a link to the discussion you're talking about would refresh my memory. But based on just this, I can't comment. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Earlier I wrote,


> So while you're entitled to your opinion, it's based on air. You're welcome to it but folks with open minds will realize that you have no basis for it.





Colette said:


> No, my opinion is based on one fundamental ethical belief - that causing unnecessary suffering is morally abhorent.


The part that's based on air is the part that brings you to think that using an Ecollar is _"causing unnecessary suffering."_ there are those who think that when you hold up a treat but don't immediately give it to the dog, you're _"causing unnecessary suffering."_ I'm sure that you won't agree with this, but that lack of agreement hardly means that you're right.



Colette said:


> It is very simple. Using any more force / causing any more suffering / taking any more risks than necessary is unethical.


Fact is, it's not _"necessary"_ to train a dog at all. You could never allow them out of the back yard and then you wouldn't have to train the recall. The rest of the behaviors that we teach, the sit, the down, not peeing in the house is not necessary in that case. THE TRUTH is that you've made an unconscious decision, (at least I HOPE that it's made unconsciously) that your methods DON'T cause this _"unnecessary suffering"_ when in fact there are many who would disagree. PETA, for example says that any ownership of any animal is slavery and should not be allowed. Your opinion is not the only one.



Colette said:


> No need to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut as they say.


It's common sense to realize that if the nutcracker has failed to crack the nut, that one moves to other tools.



Colette said:


> To use your own method to explain this - you deliberately use the collar on the lowest setting the dog can feel. Why would you whack the level up unnecessarily? You wouldn't.
> 
> The same principle applies to me, across the board. If I can train a dog without causing pain, I will do so. If I can train a dog without causing "mild discomfort" I will do so. Always use the least invasive, least risky, least offensive (to the dog) means possible.


You are judging _"pain"_ and _"mild discomfort"_ from YOUR standpoint. What YOU think constitutes pain or minor discomfort is of no consequence. It ONLY matters how the dog perceives it. You may think that a quiet "ah ah" is not pain at all, but your dog may think that it's horrendous. I've seen dogs that completely shut down from hearing this from their owners. Yet, I've trained many of these dogs with the Ecollar. They didn't think that the stim was nearly as bothersome as the "ah ah."



Colette said:


> So, no doubt you will be up in arms at the your method being described as unnecessary suffering,but lets analyse that.


No, not at all. Im used to hearing this bit of nonsense. And I'm used to shooting it down.



Colette said:


> Is it necessary?
> No. We know that from the fact people have trained dogs perfectly well for thousands of years without your method.


Fact is _"people have trained dogs perfectly well for thousands of years without YOUR method."_ as well. YOUR METHOD is also not "necessary." Similarly we might say that cars, trains and automobiles "are not necessary." People walked for MILLIONS of years without those methods of transportation. But no one is advocating (well no one sane that is) that we should junk all the hardware that makes modern transportation possible.



Colette said:


> Plus, as mentioned above, all the owners, rescue workers, trainers and behaviourists who still do get the results without your method / without a shock collar.


You can cite all the successes you like but you conveniently forget about all the failures. I see them regularly. People with the best of intentions who have tried, some of them for years, to get results with those methods only to have them fail.



Colette said:


> Does it cause suffering?
> Perhaps only to a lesser degree, but ultimately the answer must be yes. Causing an unpleasent sensation, that we already know to be a universal aversive, will cause the dog discomfort / irritation / mild distress.


Withholding a treat from a dog that wants it is also a _"causing an unpleasant sensation, that we already know to be a universal aversive."_ Doing so _"will cause the dog discomfort / irritation / mild distress. "_ In your mind this is acceptable. You simply dismiss it. Cognitive dissonance at work again.



Colette said:


> (Of course, at higher levels the level of suffering will be far greater).


_"Of course,"_ if the dog is VERY hungry, _"the level of suffering will be far greater."_



Colette said:


> So, even if your method is _more_ humane than some of the alternatives, it is _less_ humane than others.


And when those other methods fail? Let's not pretend that this never happens OK?! The majority of my work comes from these failures. And I get more work than I want. "More humane? Less humane?" We're about to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and I won't waste my time with that.



Colette said:


> Last but by no means least:


Earlier I wrote,


> Except that this is nonsense. When you hold up a treat in front of your dog, but don't give it to him immediately, you are causing some level of pain/discomfort, the very thing you just told us you don't think it's OK to do. If you did not cause some discomfort, the dog would not be willing to work to get the treat. He's trying to escape the discomfort of NOT having it. You will probably deny this but it's a fact of life. It's simply the other side of the same coin but some have closed minds and don't want to see this.





Colette said:


> PMSL, Lou you should have taken up a career in comedy, that is pecious.


As I knew would be the result. You're great at pointing out the _"unnecessary suffering"_ of my method but are perfectly blind to the exact same thing in yours.



Colette said:


> I've addressed this claim before (I think in response to SleepyBones although I can't really remember) but I'll do so again for your benefit.
> 
> Quite frankly the claim is laughable. There are two obvious ways the dog could be caused discomfort in this scenario.
> 
> ...


The dog wants the treat. *Not having *the treat is an aversive ... something the dog is willing to work to avoid. HOW AVERSIVE IT IS, is up to the dog to decide, not you. Your opinion matters not even a little.



Colette said:


> 2) Frustration at not being able to get the treat.
> 
> This would be a training error. Luring a dog into position should take a couple of seconds at most.


How frustrating it is, is AGAIN, up to the dog. *Not having it *is aversive and something he'll work to avoid. Some dogs will be VERY frustrated, some not at all. If it only takes _"a couple of seconds at most"_ that's a couple of seconds of _"unnecessary suffering."_ The stim from an Ecollar with my methods lasts for less than that.



Colette said:


> With some behaviours, it takes almost no time at all.


LOL. _"almost no time at all"_ is something that you're judging by your standards. You have no idea how the dog perceives time. A couple of seconds could be an eternity to him.



Colette said:


> It is NOT as some might suggest a long drawn out process.


Time is relative. Your concept of a few seconds is AGAIN judging things by the human standard and we know that it's ONLY the dog's standard that is important.



Colette said:


> If it is taking too long and the dog can't get the treat, then the handler is simply teasing the dog.


Perhaps it's just that the handler's timing is poor or they're uncoordinated?!



Colette said:


> This is also avoidable, using two variation of the method. Capturing a behaviour rather than luring it avoids the issue completely. The second alternative would be using targetting. Rather than using a food lure to position the dog, use the target stick. Genius eh?


Not really. When this is done the dog knows, based on prior training, that you have treats. He's STILL denied them causing even more _"unnecessary suffering."_



Colette said:


> Seriously though, when you get to the point that you claim the dog is in discomfort simply because it doesn't have a treat in its mouth at that precise moment - your arguments start to look pretty ridiculous.


What's really ridiculous is your denial that this is the case. It's both simple and obvious. If the dog was not uncomfortable he'd not want the treat. Yet, he's willing to work to avoid that discomfort. GETTING the treat brings comfort. NOT getting it brings *DIS*comfort.



Colette said:


> But there is no discomfort / cruelty / aversive or whatever involved in not having a treat at a given moment.


AGAIN, your opinion and we know that what you think about this means nothing. Its ONLY what the dog thinks about it that is important.



Colette said:


> Quite frankly, I would be ina permantent state of distress if that were the case - my god, I don't have a mouthful of chocolate, the world is ending, I'm so hard done by......


Still thinking like a human and conveniently ignoring what the dog may be thinking. Not unusual for the anti crowd.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

westie~ma said:


> Hello
> 
> Obviously people can train their dogs using a variety of different methods, every trainer can have a slice of the cake if you like
> 
> Can you please just agree to disagree instead of bombarding each other continually throughout every thread, the constant bickering of "my method is better, kinder, more effective, quicker results" is extremely tiresome.


I couldn't agree more.



westie~ma said:


> Going to consult with the other mods to see what more can be done, cos this section of the boards is going downhill fast


I suggest that you take a look at the very first post in this thread. There l4l quoted another trainer who slammed Ecollars. If you're going to allow that then it's only fair and reasonable that we be allowed to reply and supply evidence to support our claims.

The attacks are quite unbalanced. The antis call names and commit personal attacks repeatedly. We only respond to their posts and so far, haven't returned that behavior.

Thanks for looking into this.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> The attacks are quite unbalanced. The antis call names and commit personal attacks repeatedly. We only respond to their posts and so far, haven't returned that behavior


That is not the truth, one just has to read the forum to see many recent posts by SleepyBones making blatant falsehoods & ludicrous conspiracy claims and repeated in very many threads. Furthermore as concerned governments tend to ban this method of training, Lou's goal is to suppress the majority voice and furthermore promote shock collars, which he deals in.

Furthermore Lou Castle did not just use "modern" collars but has form, dating back to 2001, where he claims experience and advises others on these. This is a matter of verifiable record using Google.



westie~ma said:


> Obviously people can train their dogs using a variety of different methods, every trainer can have a slice of the cake if you like
> ...
> Going to consult with the other mods to see what more can be done, cos this section of the boards is going downhill fast


Considering what they are promomotinug is a criminal offence in Wales, and not legal in other European Countries, with further legilsation under consideration, the simple answer is to do what other dog forums have done.

That is ban Lou Castle, SleepyBones, arlow & grandad if they promote shock collars, it is not realistic to expect decent people to ignore what is unacceptable.

It is unreasonable of the moderators to expect concerned dog trainers and pet owners to suffer the platform given to these people here, by a well meant but misinformed and misguided moderator decision, when Adam Palmers "Remote Collar" thread was permitted.

Finally, for those who did not hear, MPs voted for a ban on Wild Animals in circuses for welfare reasons, despite Government position advising against. Lou et al, asked for some evidence of what is obvious to anyone who follows such things here. Simply enter "mp vote circus wild animal ban" into google.co.uk and see for yourselves.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

westie~ma said:


> Hello
> 
> Obviously people can train their dogs using a variety of different methods, every trainer can have a slice of the cake if you like
> 
> ...


I agree it would be a good idea to have a look at most of the threads that degenerate into name calling. However to be able to learn more about dog behaviour and training it is inevitable that heated debate will occur. In this instance i am all for it, however I am wary of the in-accurate points that people put across. Points without evidence or back up in any way and revert to blogs or articles but not scientific proof. During the debate, the credibility of members and their opinions is also brought to the forefront, so one can make a decision as to whether their advice should be given credence. I have stated before that relating one life experiences to other members that are having problems is one thing, but to set your self up as an forum/internet behaviourist/trainer without any qualifications and to spout methods that most do not seem to know about in my book is mis leading and dishonest. If you have qualifications then lets see them. If not then leave it to the experts. But those experts have to understand that subjective matter is not for debate and discussion, not without evidence. If we stick to facts, and give supporting evidence to back those facts, surely that, is the correct way to debate.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

> Since you disagree, please show us that what you claim exists.


I did that in my earlier post when I first stated this is where I was getting confused. I included a number of paragraphs on what I found contradictory etc. I didn't feel it necessary to quote every example.



> SOMETIMES the problem is a lack of consistent training. SOMETIMES it's the method that's just not effective and SOMETIMES it's the owner that is not capable of applying the method correctly. It really makes no difference which of the two latter issues are at work.


Actually I agree with almost all of that. My only disagreement here is when it comes to the capabilities of the owner, as these can often be changed.

Many owners do indeed start out using "kindler gentler methods" but find it difficult / make common mistakes etc, causing the method to fail. Many of these can be given appropriate instruction, guidance, demonstration etc on how to implement the method properly.

Indeed you have pretty much said the sme thing yourself, when you commented that some of the dogs you treat have already been tried on aversive methods (presumably inc shock). If someone brought a dog to you, having already tried a shock collar in a manner you deem incorrect, you would presumably teach them how to use it correctly in order to succeed.



> I don't think so. This is a bit like a statement made by a US Supreme Court Judge about pornography, "I know it when I see it." the fact that some don't know it has nothing to do with this discussion.


It has everything to do with this discussion. It is VERY easy to abuse a dog with a shock collar. Many people do, both deliberately and accidentally. The problem is very few are ever challenged over it, let alone prosecuted. 
Hence the examples I gave. People who are clearly using the shock as an extreme aversive, causing pain, and eliciting signs of extreme pain / fear distress are getting away with it every day, even being celebrated for it.

It is clearly not black and white. Does the law state at exactly what point a shock becomes abuse? If the dog shows appeasement signals? If it yelps? If it screams and pi$$es itself then lies shaking on the floor? The law frequently turns a blind eye, and a great many dogs suffer as a result.



> No you're wrong. ANY tool can be abused. ANY tool can be misused. NO TOOL is idiot-proof to the right idiot. The TRUTH IS that ANY TOOL can cause "pain, fear or extreme stress or distress using a clicker / treats / toys / praise / negative punishment / extinction etc." THE TRUTH is that abuse and misuse is in the person doing the training NOT in the tool/method itself.


I agree in principle to a point. Certainly any tool can be misused.

However, can you not see that when you train with a method that relies of positive reinforcement, using tools designed to be rewarding (ie "nice") for the dog, it is fairly difficult to cause pain, fear or distress.
On the flip side, when you use a method that relies on using negative reinforcement, using tools designed to be aversive and in some cases capable of inflicting physical pain, it is far easier to cause pain, fear or distress.

I accept that some noise sensitive dogs may find the clicker aversive. However, this is easily overcome by muffling the noise, desensitising the dog to it, or simply using a different marker, eg a verbal one.
Using a shock collar on the other hand relies on the fact the shock is an aversive.



> when you hold up a treat but don't immediately give it to the dog, you're "causing unnecessary suffering





> If the dog was not uncomfortable he'd not want the treat. Yet, he's willing to work to avoid that discomfort. GETTING the treat brings comfort. NOT getting it brings DIScomfort.


I honestly can not believe you are making this claim.

Please, please explain to me exactly how "not having a treat" is aversive / causes discomfort?
I have already said that hunger is not the issue, because the dog does need to be hungry in order to work for treats. Just as I do not eat chocolate only when I'm hungry.

With treat training the dog is not working to avoid something, he is working to gain something.

By your thinking, dogs are suffering almost every minute of every day because they do not a morsel of food in their mouths. The idea is simply ludicrous.
The dog in training is not suffering, he is perfectly fine. In a neutral state. He may in fact be in a very positive (in the sense of "happy") state of mind. But he will still work for a treat, because hey that's an added bonus.

Again, please try to explain exactly what is aversive about being without a treat at a given moment.

Westie-ma,

Please, please look into this. Every time someone starts a thread (particularly leashed for life for some reason who seems to be the object of a number of vendettas) relating in some way to positive reinforcement, a number of people immediately trash the thread and bring the debate back to shock collars, and start throwing the sarcasm / personal insults etc around.


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> I suggest that you take a look at the very first post in this thread. There l4l quoted another trainer who slammed Ecollars. If you're going to allow that then it's only fair and reasonable that we be allowed to reply and supply evidence to support our claims.
> 
> ...


Everyone is now very aware of your stance on these methods, you've made that clear several times.

I realise you make your living by using these methods, so you need to defend them but I fail to understand why you can't just accept that other people have differing methods to yourself and let everyone get on with enjoying the forum.

I'm sure I'm not alone with the thought that it all boils down to _tolerance_ and mine is running thin with this section atm


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> That is not the truth, one just has to read the forum to see many recent posts by SleepyBones making blatant falsehoods & ludicrous conspiracy claims and repeated in very many threads. Furthermore as concerned governments tend to ban this method of training, Lou's goal is to suppress the majority voice and furthermore promote shock collars, which he deals in.
> 
> Furthermore Lou Castle did not just use "modern" collars but has form, dating back to 2001, where he claims experience and advises others on these. This is a matter of verifiable record using Google.
> 
> ...


*Rob* ~ considering I live in Wales, I'm trying to be impartial here  
These collars aren't banned everywhere yet and until they are people will continue to use them.

I just think, enough with the defending of methods that all the trainers in here do!!

Sometimes, I wonder if its squeaky wheel syndrome ... that people who come here will only listen to who is making the most noise about their chosen method of training a dog 

Just accept people have differing methods and move on .....


----------

