# I swear people drive me up the wall..They upset me...



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Scotland are debating banning shock collars, and there is a link posted on a friends wall about it, I rather stupidly followed the link to the comments on the KC FB Page  I am trying to live by the "not my circus not my monkey's" rule but I swear some of the posts on there make me want to cry..

A guy has a dog with SA, and thinks using a collar is okay to stop it barking when alone :crying: . A woman as a JRT who chases cars and thinks a collar is okay, a woman has a springer who chase live stock who she's can't keep on a lead so uses a shock collar........... :mad5:

Why do people seem to always think about there wants and needs before the dogs?


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Because they're clueless, unknowledgeable, living in the past, stupid, lazy..


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

In some cases I think it's also a case of denial. If they acknowledge that shock collars are cruel and unnecessary, then they have to also acknowledge that THEY have been cruel to their dog. So, rather than live with that, they put their heads in the sand and refuse to consider that they'd done anything wrong. 

Not everyone of course, but with some people I think this places a part.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Alice Childress said:


> In some cases I think it's also a case of denial. If they acknowledge that shock collars are cruel and unnecessary, then they have to also acknowledge that THEY have been cruel to their dog. So, rather than live with that, they put their heads in the sand and refuse to consider that they'd done anything wrong.
> 
> Not everyone of course, but with some people I think this places a part.


I was rather reasonable for me for once, and tried to explain the guy why using it on a dog with SA was really not good, then got accused for trying to stir and that I didn't know what I was talking about ( often I don't) but how can anyone think this situation is okay, this one I found incredibly sad.

I hope the bloody things are banned, purely to stop the numpties getting their names on them, there will always be those who use the " if I hadn't used it the dog would have been PTS" or " it's only a tool it doesn't hurt if used correctly" but sometimes my heart just breaks for the dogs..


----------



## Fluffster (Aug 26, 2013)

Some of the comments are unbelievable. Did you see the woman who said she wouldn't use one, but then said she gives her daughter's dog a smack when it barks instead?! What is wrong with these people?!?!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Fluffster said:


> Some of the comments are unbelievable. Did you see the woman who said she wouldn't use one, but then said she gives her daughter's dog a smack when it barks instead?! What is wrong with these people?!?!


Yep  How do people think this is okay?


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

Meezey said:


> I was rather reasonable for me for once, and tried to explain the guy why using it on a dog with SA was really not good, then got accused for trying to stir and that I didn't know what I was talking about ( often I don't) but how can anyone think this situation is okay, this one I found incredibly sad.
> 
> I hope the bloody things are banned, purely to stop the numpties getting their names on them, there will always be those who use the " if I hadn't used it the dog would have been PTS" or " it's only a tool it doesn't hurt if used correctly" but sometimes my heart just breaks for the dogs..


Absolutely. I can't bare to think about some the things dogs are put through under the heading of "training". It's truly heart breaking.

If they get banned it also sends a message that they are not considered acceptable which hopefully will then seep into the general populations unconscious.


----------



## shirleystarr (Mar 22, 2009)

All I can say is thank goodness they are banned in South Wales


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

Banning these collars is excellent, however I do wonder if it might cause long term problems in people only using them 'behind closed doors', not admitting they are using them and potentially causing more problems with their dog?

I don't know just a thought.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Oh nothing surprises me any more.

I used to walk two dogs who's owners used e-collars. Why? one ate poo and the other humped other dogs.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Animallover26 said:


> Banning these collars is excellent, however I do wonder if it might cause long term problems in people only using them 'behind closed doors', not admitting they are using them and potentially causing more problems with their dog?
> 
> I don't know just a thought.


They can just buy them from a shop now, not sure what more long term problems they can cause if someone thinks putting one on a dog with SA to stop it barking is a solution..


----------



## Hagrid (Dec 10, 2014)

Its horrible to think about!


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

A friend was telling me about how his daughter's boyfriend's parents came for Christmas dinner (not this one just gone, the one before). They brought their dog, a nice Staffy, who was young and bouncy. They used a shock collar on her. Worst thing was, the more they had to drink, the more they shocked the dog until they were doing it for entertainment and laughing when the dog yelped. He lured the dog out into the kitchen and took the collar off. It was a difficult position for him as he hates confrontation and has a strong ethic of hospitality, but came to the point he couldn't let it go on. He banned them from ever coming back.

Must say, I would never have let it get that far - but I have a very weak ethic of hospitality and really enjoy a good barney. if it had been me, the collar would have had a short, sharp confrontation with my sledge hammer.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I've been lurking on an american forum for a while and it's oh my dog blew a recall once, better get the shock collar. And someone who proudly said they trained their dog pretty much solely with the shock collar with little positive reinforcement . There are positive trainers on there as well but it just seems so normal.

I can see maybe using them to proof an essential command like recall once the dog already knows it, there was someone who used them on their dogs because one of their working labs blew a recall and died in their arms from being shot. But the dogs were taught the beep on the collar meant come back with treats first. To boast that you've only ever shocked your dog to get it to do what you want :frown2:


----------



## Sarah H (Jan 18, 2014)

I flippin' well do hope they ban the things!!!



Burrowzig said:


> A friend was telling me about how his daughter's boyfriend's parents came for Christmas dinner (not this one just gone, the one before). They brought their dog, a nice Staffy, who was young and bouncy. They used a shock collar on her. Worst thing was, the more they had to drink, the more they shocked the dog until they were doing it for entertainment and laughing when the dog yelped. He lured the dog out into the kitchen and took the collar off. It was a difficult position for him as he hates confrontation and has a strong ethic of hospitality, but came to the point he couldn't let it go on. He banned them from ever coming back.
> 
> Must say, I would never have let it get that far - but I have a very weak ethic of hospitality and really enjoy a good barney. if it had been me, the collar would have had a short, sharp confrontation with my sledge hammer.


I'm afraid that (like you Burrowzig), I would never have let it get that far. Although I'm not one for confrontation, the shock collar would have been banned in my house, and if they said no? They'd be out the door, and the collar would have been in pieces anyway.


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Think I want to go to the bookies and lay bets on why the guy used it on a Vizsla.....


----------



## Amelia66 (Feb 15, 2011)

the man who states his dog goes in the road so he uses one

buy a bloody lead!!!

cant read too many of the comments as people on there were just irritating me


----------



## Shikoku (Dec 16, 2013)

I hope they do get banned, I recently watched a youtube video where two people shocked each other with a shock collar for a 'fun challenge' video, they put it on their arms, legs and even their neck  (video is here for any people who are curious - 



) and it really saddened me that people actually use these on their Dogs!

But I do wonder if many people use them simply for the apparent 'quick' results or they don't have the knowledge, patience or time to train using kinder methods.


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

Meezey said:


> They can just buy them from a shop now, not sure what more long term problems they can cause if someone thinks putting one on a dog with SA to stop it barking is a solution..


At least people will admit they use them at the moment so hopefully someone can explain why it is so wrong to use one, and hopefully change the owners mind. Whereas if they were banned someone might have problems with their dog due to using the collar, but the real reason isn't found out because they won't admit to using the collar.

And before anyone thinks otherwise, I hate the collars and would be delighted if they were banned, just not sure how it would stop those who already use them from not using them.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Shikoku said:


> I hope they do get banned, I recently watched a youtube video where two people shocked each other with a shock collar for a 'fun challenge' video, they put it on their arms, legs and even their neck  (video is here for any people who are curious -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That and there are a couple of very convincing trainers roaming the internet convincing people that the treat trainers are the evil ones and all you have to do to teach a dog a command is shock it until it does it then stop shocking :frown2:. I actually think there's only a couple of them but one in particular is quite well respected, the other well he's made about 3 million accounts on another forum over about 7 years. He's persistent if nothing else .

People just want the quick fix it's why shock collars and people like CM are so popular.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

This is a convo I got into before christmas
the OP had asked about a 1 year old rescue that wasnt toilet trained [she knew this on rehoming him] and how to help him

After I had spoken to her regarding treating him like a puppy and out every 20 mins after play after sleep after food etc
someone else chimed in with this, now you will see I definitely AM the same everywhere

xxxxx the best training tool I've found so far are E-collars, used properly, they'll work better and be much easier to teach with.

Me Please don't use e collars they are NOT a training tool they are a punishment tool
All you will be doing is electrocuting your dog who will have no idea why as they won't associate the shock with peeing dogs dont think like that
Positive re enforcement works quicker and strengthens the bond between you both

xxxxx They can be bought on ebay quite easily and are a collar operated by remote control up to 300 metres. They have three settings, the first is a simple "beep" to distract the dogs attention, the second is a "vibration" much like on your mobile phone and is more distracting, and the third setting is a "minor shock like sensation" similar to the "tens machine which is used for pain relief" and acts as a firmer distraction. The beep is generally enough, and the shock only for emergencies. There are a few people around with negative attitudes to these collars, but as with all things, education and motive are the key

Me As a fosterer of dogs for over 25 years and a qualified and accredited trainer/behaviourist i have heard this over and over again
Yet when challenged to use one on themselves people baulk everytime
I have yet to find an animal (including humans ) that react to negative training in a positive way

xxxx if you throw it hard enough, a Mars bar can be used as a punishment, it's about education and motives. If they were sold as a means of punishment, they would rightly be banned; if bread knives were sold as a means of protection, they would be banned too. I've owned dogs for about 30yrs and wish these had been available years ago.

Me The op,im sure, is intelligent enough to make her own choice in the matter
Hence im not getting into it with you
After all its pointless trying to educate someone who makes stupidity a life choice

with which she flounced

I dont know why they arent banned everywhere :confused5:


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

mrs phas said:


> xxxx if you throw it hard enough, a Mars bar can be used as a punishment, it's about education and motives.


Why would you throw a Mars Bar at a dog ? Doesn't the fool know chocolate is poisonous to dogs ? Use Fruit Pastilles or Starburst instead.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Alice Childress said:


> ...
> If they're banned, it also sends a message - that [shock isn't] considered acceptable - which hopefully
> will then seep into the general population's *unconscious*.


i agree that the general public is often unconscious. :lol:

However, i think U meant to say U hoped it would seep into their *consciousness*?, perhaps.

Thanks for the giggle. :thumbup1: Loved the image! :biggrin:
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

mrs phas said:


> ...
> 
> xxxx
> if you throw it hard enough, a Mars bar can be used as a punishment, it's about education and motives.
> ...


Well, the uninformed numpty doesn't seem to know that 30-yrs ago - IOW, *1985*, in the mists of prehistory -
:lol: shock-collars WERE "available", & had been for over 50-years, by that time.

The earliest USA-patent i could find was from approx 1929; the sketch showed the handler holding
a rectangular briefcase-type bag, a bit thicker than a briefcase, but similar in size; that was the battery.

The leash carried the wires to the collar, & thence to the electrodes on the collar.

The ONLY big changes in shock-collars have been adjustable intensity of the shock [rather than 'on' & 'off'],
the distance they can transmit - given relatively level terrain - & the ability to switch from continuous to pulse.
Otherwise, they are much the same; batteries, of course, are much tinier now, as are electronic parts.

If they do ban them, they will have to ban their import, as well as parts that can be used to make them.
That will be the much-harder thing.
.
.


----------



## Alice Childress (Nov 14, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> i agree that the general public is often unconscious. :lol:
> 
> However, i think U meant to say U hoped it would seep into their *consciousness*?, perhaps.
> 
> ...


 I actually did mean unconscious  - although yes, their conscious would be useful too! I meant 'unconscious' in the sense that although they do not consciously consider it (as the average Joe on the street doesn't seem to), somewhere in their unconscious they'll have the negative association that comes from the banning of such tools, and as a result this will turn into a conscious wariness/aversion to shock collars without any real active consideration happening!


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I actually bought one of these on a car boot sale for £2. I thought it was a tracking device for my daughters ferrets but really struggled to work out how to put it on the ferret etc. It was as new and in the box but no instructions etc.

My husband worked it out...I must have been having a blonde moment that day.

I have never seen them for sale but I suppose ebay is open to all.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I thought shock collars were not allowed to be discussed.

If it is going to be then I will put the other side forward. I know a lot of people who use them so their dogs can have freedom. I have used them on two dogs in the past. I have had to shock both dogs twice - end of story. Neither dog could have had freedom on the farm without them. I only know people who have used them for that reason and I do not know any dogs that have been upset by them. I hope anyone that uses them sensibly would not put them on just any dog. I know I would not - but they have their place as a training tool with the right dog and right handler in the right situation.

It will be a sad day in Scotland if they get banned. After all the people that want to use them cruelly will still carry on, those that genuinely use them to give their dog a better life will stop using them so dog suffering will be increased not decreased.

I have only put this on because others have started the discussion - if anyone has a go at me over it hopefully the thread will be deleted.


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

Meezey said:


> I was rather reasonable for me for once, and tried to explain the guy why using it on a dog with SA was really not good, then got accused for trying to stir and that I didn't know what I was talking about ( often I don't) but how can anyone think this situation is okay, this one ..


You don't know what you are talking about? That comment is a joke isn't it coming from a person who has to resort to giving his dog electric shocks to get it to do what he want it to! Some people!


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I thought shock collars were not allowed to be discussed.
> 
> If it is going to be then I will put the other side forward. I know a lot of people who use them so their dogs can have freedom. I have used them on two dogs in the past. I have had to shock both dogs twice - end of story. Neither dog could have had freedom on the farm without them. I only know people who have used them for that reason and I do not know any dogs that have been upset by them. I hope anyone that uses them sensibly would not put them on just any dog. I know I would not - but they have their place as a training tool with the right dog and right handler in the right situation.
> 
> ...


Double post..........


----------



## Meezey (Jan 29, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I thought shock collars were not allowed to be discussed.
> 
> If it is going to be then I will put the other side forward. I know a lot of people who use them so their dogs can have freedom. I have used them on two dogs in the past. I have had to shock both dogs twice - end of story. Neither dog could have had freedom on the farm without them. I only know people who have used them for that reason and I do not know any dogs that have been upset by them. I hope anyone that uses them sensibly would not put them on just any dog. I know I would not - but they have their place as a training tool with the right dog and right handler in the right situation.
> 
> ...


Yeah and on that note might be best it is deleted!!!!!!!!!! Wasn't aware we weren't allowed to discuss them! You are having a laugh aren't you? So you want to be able to make a case for using them but if anyone say anything about you using them your going to expect the thread to be deleted? Doesn't work that way, rather underhand I think, if they are not allowed to be discussed you should have reported the thread rather than post a comment you know will annoy people! Then again if I'd had to lay money on who had used them and supported there use I'd of bet large sums of money that you would be top of the list....


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Meezey said:


> Yeah and on that note might be best it is deleted!!!!!!!!!! Wasn't aware we weren't allowed to discuss them! You are having a laugh aren't you?* So you want to be able to make a case for using them but if anyone say anything about you using them your going to expect the thread to be deleted?* Doesn't work that way, rather underhand I think, if they are not allowed to be discussed you should have reported the thread rather than post a comment you know will annoy people! Then again if I'd had to lay money on who had used them and supported there use I'd of bet large sums of money that you would be top of the list....


no, he didnt say that.
he said if anyone has a go at him for _saying on pf he uses shock collars_, and then bases having a go at him on the idea its against the rules to discuss shock collars on pf, then hopefully the thread will be deleted.

in other words, he is saying he is happy to pay the consequences if he broke the rules

maybe he knows something about the rules we dont?


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

Oh geez....

You know, Im not a fan of shock collars. I AM a fan of humane, effective training. And Im an even bigger fan of dogs.

No one ever put down a shock collar by being guilted, harassed, attacked, etc.
People put down shock collars when you approach them with kindness, understanding, engage in genuine conversation, and show them effective, doable alternatives.

Positive reinforcement works on humans too


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

Tails and Trails said:


> no, he didnt say that.
> he said if anyone has a go at him for _saying on pf he uses shock collars_, and then bases having a go at him on the idea its against the rules to discuss shock collars on pf, then hopefully the thread will be deleted.
> 
> in other words, he is saying he is happy to pay the consequences if he broke the rules
> ...


Blitz is a she.

Which just goes to show you cant always trust your perceptions.
Just because someone uses or has used a shock collar doesnt make them a sadistic dog hater, any more than all clicker trainers are all sweetness and light who love their dogs better than anyone else.

Except me. Im always sweetness and light - because Im a clicker trainer obviously :aureola:


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Oh geez....
> 
> You know, Im not a fan of shock collars. I AM a fan of humane, effective training. And Im an even bigger fan of dogs.
> 
> ...


ive been saying that for years

i have been using your last sentence for years too

great minds think alike


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

Tails and Trails said:


> ive been saying that for years
> 
> i have been using your last sentence for years too
> 
> great minds think alike


Yeah, like I said, you cant always trust your perceptions :lol:


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Blitz is a she.
> 
> Which just goes to show you cant always trust your perceptions.
> Just because someone uses or has used a shock collar doesnt make them a sadistic dog hater, any more than all clicker trainers are all sweetness and light who love their dogs better than anyone else.
> ...


you're adddressing the wrong person

this is meezey's expressings, not mine


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

Tails and Trails said:


> you're adddressing the wrong person
> 
> this is meezey's expressings, not mine


Meezey is a she also 

The multiple spaces after the Blitz is a she was meant to convey that I was responding to the thread in general, not you, or anyone personally.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Meezey is a she also
> 
> The multiple spaces after the Blitz is a she was meant to convey that I was responding to the thread in general, not you, or anyone personally.


i know meezey is a she :huh:

you had quoted my post instead of meezey


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Blitz is a she.
> 
> Which just goes to show you can't always trust your perceptions.
> Just because someone uses or has used a shock collar doesn't make them a sadistic dog hater, any more than all clicker trainers are all sweetness and light who love their dogs better than anyone else.
> ...


Completely agree. I am considered using one when I was unable to curb Roxy's chasing behaviour. It was not a 'quick fix' as I had worked on ths for over 2yrs, been on courses, read books, implemented the training exercises yet she still would chase.

The trainer I see now has used them on dogs before for this behaviour but he doesn't use them on all dogs & advised against using one for Roxy.

I know of a few people who have used these collars & their dogs do not chase wildlife anymore ... but then I also know of dogs that still do despite having a shock collar used.

It is ridiculous that we are only allowed to discuss something if we all agree that something is a terrible idea, surely we are alowed to have different opinions .... or are we?!


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

Tails and Trails said:


> i know meezey is a she :huh:
> 
> you had quoted my post instead of meezey


I quoted your post where you referred to Blitz as "he" to let you know that Blitz is a "she".

I had no intention of quoting Meezey nor was I responding to any posts of hers.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

Cleo38 said:


> Completely agree. I am considered using one when I was unable to curb Roxy's chasing behaviour. It was not a 'quick fix' as I had worked on ths for over 2yrs, been on courses, read books, implemented the training exercises yet she still would chase.
> 
> The trainer I see now has used them on dogs before for this behaviour but he doesn't use them on all dogs & advised against using one for Roxy.
> 
> ...


Shock collars were never on the table for Bates mainly because of my own biases, but also, when I asked people whos opinions I trust about them, they said he was not a good candidate. Apparently there is such a thing as a dog who doesnt give a $hit about being shocked - mine would be one of them.
Lucky me, I got to learn different lessons with this dog 

Just to clarify, that would be people who had used shock collars successfully telling me not to use one - another shocking revelation - not everyone who uses a shock collar pushes them on everyone else


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I quoted your post where you referred to Blitz as he to let you know that Blitz is a she.
> 
> I had no intention of quoting Meezey nor was I responding to any posts of hers.


well, you confused me then

you made a post about the worst ways of discouraging people from using shock collars (of which i agree with you), which related to the things said by meezey, but not by me, then prefaced it with quoting my entire post


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Shock collars were never on the table for Bates mainly because of my own biases, but also, when I asked people whos opinions I trust about them, they said he was not a good candidate. Apparently there is such a thing as a dog who doesnt give a $hit about being shocked - mine would be one of them.
> Lucky me, I got to learn different lessons with this dog
> 
> Just to clarify, that would be people who had used shock collars successfully telling me not to use one - another shocking revelation - not everyone who uses a shock collar pushes them on everyone else


It was never something I ever thought I would consider but after she b*ggered off for an hour I did start to think that maybe this was an option.

As you say, not everyone who uses them uses them on all dogs for all behaviours. The trainer I saw, (I still go to his club now) didn't think it was a good idea due to her being quite anxious at times & felt that as she didn't have a strong charater it might be damaging. Tbh I trusted this opinion far more than someone just telling me that they were 'wrong' & 'cruel'

Regardless of the right's & wrongs of these though I do find it laugable that we are only allowed to discuss a topic such as this as long as everyone agrees ..... bet this will now be closed


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

Cleo38 said:


> It was never something I ever thought I would consider but after she b*ggered off for an hour I did start to think that maybe this was an option.
> 
> As you say, not everyone who uses them uses them on all dogs for all behaviours. The trainer I saw, (I still go to his club now) didn't think it was a good idea due to her being quite anxious at times & felt that as she didn't have a strong charater it might be damaging. Tbh I trusted this opinion far more than someone just telling me that they were 'wrong' & 'cruel'
> 
> Regardless of the right's & wrongs of these though I do find it laugable that we are only allowed to discuss a topic such as this as long as everyone agrees ..... bet this will now be closed


Im all about knowledge is power.
If we can talk about them as unemotionally as possible with an understandably emotive topic, I feel like most people would indeed be discouraged from using them.
The way I figure though, some people are going to use them no matter what - not because theyre sadists who enjoy frying a dogs neck, but because theyre desperate. So for those who are going to use them no matter what, Id much rather they get qualified help from someone knowledgeable than go underground so-to-speak.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Cleo38 said:


> Regardless of the right's & wrongs of these though I do find it laugable that we are only allowed to discuss a topic such as this as long as everyone agrees ..... bet this will now be closed


a bit like immigration and religion 

but what are the rules on pf?

only allowed to discuss ecollars if we oppose them, or not allowed to discuss ecollars ever, at all?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Tails and Trails said:


> a bit like immigration and religion
> 
> but what are the rules on pf?
> 
> only allowed to discuss ecollars if we oppose them, or not allowed to discuss ecollars ever, at all?


We are not allowed to discuss them full stop .... but some threads aren't closed as long as everyone agrees 

I asked ages ago if we could discuss citronella collars & was told yes .... when I asked why we could discuss them but not shock collars then thread was closed.

I don't understand how something like a citronella collar that continues punishing still long after the dog has 'offended' is ok but not an e-collar which is instant ..... I love to know


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

This is the rules

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-and-behaviour/176581-e-collars-associated-products.html


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Cleo38 said:


> We are not allowed to discuss them full stop .... but some threads aren't closed as long as everyone agrees
> 
> I asked ages ago if we could discuss citronella collars & was told yes .... when I asked why we could discuss them but not shock collars then thread was closed.
> 
> I don't understand how something like a citronella collar that continues punishing still long after the dog has 'offended' is ok but not an e-collar which is instant ..... I love to know


seems like a silly rule

someone will always have an @I dont think we should say that/speak about [email protected] agenda.
what we have seen in france this week, if anything, teaches us that

so if your are gonna have a rule, you should just have the rule.
so close all the ecolllar threads ASAP....not my cup of tea, but.....


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Blitz said:


> This is the rules
> 
> http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-training-and-behaviour/176581-e-collars-associated-products.html


Ridiclulous!!

Whilst I agree we should not be promoting the use of these, I do not agree that banning discussion is good for anyone


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Im all about knowledge is power.
> If we can talk about them as unemotionally as possible with an understandably emotive topic, I feel like most people would indeed be discouraged from using them.
> The way I figure though, some people are going to use them no matter what - not because theyre sadists who enjoy frying a dogs neck, but because theyre desperate. So for those who are going to use them no matter what, Id much rather they get qualified help from someone knowledgeable than go underground so-to-speak.


In all honesty I don't see how we (as dog lovers) can have a discussion about something that is fundamentally cruel to dogs without that discussion becoming emotional. Just like if I wondered onto Mumsnet and started talking about slapping or giving electric shocks to kids I'd be shouted down and hounded (no pun intended) out of there.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> In all honesty I don't see how we (as dog lovers) can have a discussion about something that is fundamentally cruel to dogs without that discussion becoming emotional. Just like if I wondered onto Mumsnet and started talking about slapping or giving electric shocks to kids I'd be shouted down and hounded (no pun intended) out of there.


I was trying to think of something similar to say, but couldn't word it as well.

I think the banning of even the discussion of them is a wise idea considering the nature of how these kinds of threads descend.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> In all honesty I don't see how we (as dog lovers) can have a discussion about something that is fundamentally cruel to dogs without that discussion becoming emotional. Just like if I wondered onto Mumsnet and started talking about slapping or giving electric shocks to kids I'd be shouted down and hounded (no pun intended) out of there.


But an e-collar is available for anyone to purchase & is legal to use so regardless of it being 'right' or 'wrong' I think we should at least be able to discuss them.

As I said in an earlier post citronella collars are allowed to be discussed, I would consider them worse .... but they are ok apparently 

Dogloverlou - Threads regardling halal meat, muslims, immigration, etc all go in similar ways ..... do we ban those as well?


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> In all honesty I don't see how we (as dog lovers) can have a discussion about something that is fundamentally cruel to dogs without that discussion becoming emotional. Just like if I wondered onto Mumsnet and started talking about slapping or giving electric shocks to kids I'd be shouted down and hounded (no pun intended) out of there.


Yeah... Ive made statements on here against corporal punishment against children, hell, even out and out child abuse, and got a good shouting down for daring to say something in defense of children. It was pretty brutal actually. *shrug*

Shock collars dont have to be fundamentally cruel.
I have a lot of friends/contacts in the deaf dog community. Many dogs find vibration collars far too aversive for them to be a humane tool, but a good quality shock collar set on the lowest settings (that many humans cant even perceive) is a godsend for these dogs and their owners.

Its not a simple black and white issue. Sharing of knowledge, information, and experiences cant be a bad thing can it?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Cleo38 said:


> But an e-collar is available for anyone to purchase & is legal to use so regardless of it being 'right' or 'wrong' I think we should at least be able to discuss them.
> 
> As I said in an earlier post citronella collars are allowed to be discussed, I would consider them worse .... but they are ok apparently
> 
> Dogloverlou - Threads regardling halal meat, muslims, immigration, etc all go in similar ways ..... do we ban those as well?


No, but they quickly turn sour and resort to personal attacks and a padlock to boot. Which then kind of defeats the object of 'discussing' these controversial subjects because once locked you can't even find the thread again....so kind of pointless.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Dogloverlou said:


> No, but they quickly turn sour and resort to personal attacks and a padlock to boot. Which then kind of defeats the object of 'discussing' these controversial subjects because once locked you can't even find the thread again....so kind of pointless.


But then surely it's the people who resort to personal attacks or insults that need banning rather than the subject itself


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> ...
> 
> only allowed to discuss e-collars if we oppose them, or not allowed to discuss e-collars ever, at all?


Some time ago, we had a slew of ill-natured folks haunting Training & Behavior, all of whom USED
shock-collars, & whenever someone made any slighting remark about the use of aversives in general, shock in
specific, or traditional training tools [choke AKA infinite-slip collars, prong collars, leash jerks, et al], they'd
pile onto the thread & drown it with vitriol.

Their behavior was very-reminiscent of certain nasty legendary figures, who were supposed to loiter in wait
for some innocent passerby, set upon her or him, rob, murder, & sometimes consume their sinless victims...
under bridges was one of their most-popular, traditional hangouts. 

BECAUSE of their collective rude, confrontational, aggro behavior, shock-collars as a topic were banned.
Some of those ppl were subsequently banned, also. At least 1 of them had multiple aliases / user-names
on PF-uk, & has been a come-&-go presence here for years on end; s/he has been banned from most EU &
UK forums for a long time, for flaming diatribes & personal nastiness. :huh:

I don't know if the current membership is more adult / polite / restrained than the PF-uk roster was, then.
.
.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Yeah... Ive made statements on here against corporal punishment against children, hell, even out and out child abuse, and got a good shouting down for daring to say something in defense of children. It was pretty brutal actually. *shrug*
> 
> Shock collars dont have to be fundamentally cruel.
> I have a lot of friends/contacts in the deaf dog community. Many dogs find vibration collars far too aversive for them to be a humane tool, but a good quality shock collar set on the lowest settings (that many humans cant even perceive) is a godsend for these dogs and their owners.
> ...


No its not a bad thing to share knowledge, information and experiences but I think its highly unlikely on a pet loving forum that any discussion on this subject will remain unemotional. Just like if I posted on training & behaviour with a problem such as my dog keeps peeing indoors and I've been smacking its nose to try and teach it not to will elicit an emotional response from most members. I guess some owners out there genuinely think smacking the dog on the nose is no problem and isn't cruel but to most of us its not acceptable. and we would find it hard not to tell the person why its not.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> Some time ago, we had a slew of ill-natured folks haunting Training & Behavior, all of whom USED
> shock-collars, & whenever someone made any slighting remark about the use of aversives in general, shock in
> specific, or traditional training tools [choke AKA infinite-slip collars, prong collars, leash jerks, et al], they'd
> pile onto the thread & drown it with vitriol.
> ...


Wonder if that's the same person I'm thinking of. The same person who was 'invited' to another forum I'm on for one of these so called 'discussions'. It stayed fairly civil for a while and even I was involved, but the attitude of this 'professional' truly left alot to be desired and his claims that 'any' and 'all' dogs can be trained with a shock collar quickly lost any further interest I had in hearing what he had to say. A total jerk.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Dogloverlou said:


> Wonder if that's the same person I'm thinking of. The same person who was 'invited' to another forum I'm on for one of these so called 'discussions'. It stayed fairly civil for a while and even I was involved, but the attitude of this 'professional' truly left alot to be desired and his claims that 'any' and 'all' dogs can be trained with a shock collar quickly lost any further interest I had in hearing what he had to say. A total jerk.


It was the same person I think, utterly charming individual .

I do think they should be allowed to be discussed, I think they were banned because some people were taking over the threads and causing arguments. Same with designers dogs for a while with some people convinced any mention of crossbreeds was a personal attack on their dogs. We now manage to have a reasonably civil discussion over those, I'm sure we could manage it with shock collars.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

labradrk said:


> Oh nothing surprises me any more.
> 
> I used to walk two dogs who's owners used e-collars. Why? one ate poo and the other humped other dogs.


If I used one on Ferdie every time he tried to hump another dog, he would be dead of electrocution by now! He gets 'that look' about him and I know he is thinking about it; I also know what sort of dog he is likely to try to hump, so if I see one coming I make sure he is either on a lead or I have hold of his collar. It is easily prevented and managed if not cured, but would it be a better idea to make him think the other dog is causing him pain?

My daughter found a 'trainer' who told her to get one of these things to stop her spaniel running away. Luckily she had it sent to my address, and warned me it was coming whereupon I told her if I see it I will put it straight in the bin. I persuaded her to try it on herself before she used it on the dog, which she did. She never used it on the dog.

Suffice it to say, anything that either hurts or frightens the dog is unacceptable.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> It was the same person I think, utterly charming individual .
> 
> I do think they should be allowed to be discussed, I think they were banned because some people were taking over the threads and causing arguments. Same with designers dogs for a while with some people convinced any mention of crossbreeds was a personal attack on their dogs. We now manage to have a reasonably civil discussion over those, I'm sure we could manage it with shock collars.


As Terry says, discussion of these instruments of torture was banned from this forum for a while, thanks to some disgusting individuals whose description of their so-called training of innocent puppies was genuinely distressing pf members, including myself a lowly newbie back then Discussing the things is important, especially since most pf discussions come up in a google search and might make people think again about using one. What we don't want are videos of the things being used and we most certainly don't want them being promoted.:crying:


----------



## Tishy (Mar 30, 2014)

Tails and Trails said:


> ive been saying that for years
> 
> i have been using your last sentence for years too
> 
> great minds think alike


I suppose it comes down to whether you want to educate / train the desired behaviour. For me aside from what I percieve as an inhumane method - I don't think the dog learns anything. The behaviour is just suppressed.

I even fel bad ignoring my dog when she displays unwanted behaviour but i know I am teaching her what not to do.

If you actually ask yourself do I want to educate my dog or shock / scare it into not doing something then it's a no brainier for me:blush:


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Tishy said:


> I suppose it comes down to whether you want to educate / train the desired behaviour. For me aside from what I percieve as an inhumane method - I don't think the dog learns anything. The behaviour is just suppressed.
> 
> I even fel bad ignoring my dog when she displays unwanted behaviour but i know I am teaching her what not to do.
> 
> If you actually ask yourself do I want to educate my dog or shock / scare it into not doing something then it's a no brainier for me:blush:


My quote you just posted wasn't about the training of dogs.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

I never heard of a shock collar before I found PF...then it was a prong collar...and now, something totally new...a citronella collar?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> As Terry says, discussion of these instruments of torture was banned from this forum for a while, thanks to some disgusting individuals whose description of their so-called training of innocent puppies was genuinely distressing pf members, including myself a lowly newbie back then *Discussing the things is important, especially since most pf discussions come up in a google search and might make people think again about using one*. What we don't want are videos of the things being used and we most certainly don't want them being promoted.:crying:


I agree & that was my point, as I said, I don't believe they should be promoted by surely freedom to discuss is a good thing.

We are allowed to discuss other aversives so why not e-collars? The initial post regarding stifling discussion was years ago on the assmuption that they would be banned - they weren't so why is the subject still banned? 

People do all sorts of things to their dog that I don;t personally agree with & I am surprised at how many people I have met who claim to be 'positive only' (impossible claim anyway!) yet resort to aversives .... they just don't tell anyone! Why not be honest?

I admite Blitz for posting that she has used one, am sure other people here might have considered using one (or have done so), but fear posting due to the comments they would receive regarding how they are 'abusive'


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> I never heard of a shock collar before I found PF...then it was a prong collar...and now, something totally new...a citronella collar?


A citronella collar squirts citronella up the dogs nose instead of administering a shock as an e-collar does. Am not sure if the amount can be controlled (as the punishment level can on an e-collar)

These are ok to be discussed though apparenly (from past comments) but IMO are worse than shock collars as the citronella effect will last for hours rather than be over in a second or so.

Tbh I think it's the terminology that if more offensive for the e-collar as the word 'shock' sounds abusive but 'citronella' doesn't


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

My brother has a shock collar for his Thai Ridgeback. He said he has tried everything and this was the last resort for a dog whose hunting instinct made hunting far more rewarding than anything he could do. He said he would either have to keep her on the lead at all times or use this collar. He said he only used it a couple of times and she doesn't run off now.

What would you have said to my brother? I rarely see him, this was at a family 'do' so I said nothing. What advice would you have given him?


----------



## bingolitle (Dec 6, 2014)

I'd never heard of shock collars before I started coming on here - and I'd never heard of citronella collars either. 

Any tool in stupid hands is a bad idea - but a collar that sprays a potent oil? That's just unbelievably stupid!!! Just because it's a natural product doesn't mean it can't cause allergic reactions, skin burns and asthma attacks!! (My horse is allergic to citronella - you try getting a fly spray for horses that doesn't contain it!!!! grrrrr!)


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

lilythepink said:


> I never heard of a shock collar before I found PF...then it was a prong collar...and now, something totally new...a citronella collar?


The effect is because dogs have thousands of times more sense of smell that we do. I was advised to use one by Ferdie's breeder to stop him humping and not knowing any different I tried it. I had never heard of one and it didn't work. When I joined pf I realised I had it on the wrong way round and the spray was on his neck, not up his nose!



Cleo38 said:


> I agree & that was my point, as I said, I don't believe they should be promoted by surely freedom to discuss is a good thing.
> 
> We are allowed to discuss other aversives so why not e-collars? The initial post regarding stifling discussion was years ago on the assmuption that they would be banned - they weren't so why is the subject still banned?
> 
> ...


The problem was it all got completely out of hand and people were getting really upset, not just angry. I think it is ok to discuss them sensibly, as we are doing here. I did point this out before once and nobody objected.



luvmydogs said:


> My brother has a shock collar for his Thai Ridgeback. He said he has tried everything and this was the last resort for a dog whose hunting instinct made hunting far more rewarding than anything he could do. He said he would either have to keep her on the lead at all times or use this collar. He said he only used it a couple of times and she doesn't run off now.
> 
> What would you have said to my brother? I rarely see him, this was at a family 'do' so I said nothing. What advice would you have given him?


I would tell him to train it out of him I have seen many breeds off lead who people have said can never be off lead because of they hunting instinct - huskies, beagles, all sorts. As to Ridgebacks, I don't think I've ever seen one on lead.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> I would tell him to train it out of him I have seen many breeds off lead who people have said can never be off lead because of they hunting instinct - huskies, beagles, all sorts. As to Ridgebacks, I don't think I've ever seen one on lead.


He tried to train it out of her. He said he tried everything but couldn't stop her. He said it is more cruel to have a dog on lead all it's life than to give it a couple of shocks then be able to let her run, knowing she will come back. How many *Thai* Ridgebacks have you seen? They are very rare.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

luvmydogs said:


> He tried to train it out of her. He said he tried everything but couldn't stop her. He said it is more cruel to have a dog on lead all it's life than to give it a couple of shocks then be able to let her run, knowing she will come back. How many *Thai* Ridgebacks have you seen? They are very rare.


in these discussions, people always use the phrase "tried everything".
But its hard to get them to specify what they did,

I have seen about 20 ridegebacks in my area last couple years,
I am a dog trainer,
I trained a client's ridegback including recall. 
which was straightforward, of avrage difficulty, and successful
i still walk him 3 times a week- of-lead in the woods and countryside


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> in these discussions, people always use the phrase "tried everything".
> But its hard to get them to specify what they did,
> 
> I have seen about 20 ridegebacks in my area last couple years,
> ...


That's what I thought actually lol. So what would you have advised him to do? Just 'don't use the shock collar' wouldn't work. So what advice do you give people for recall with these type of dogs?
PS - were they Thai or Rhodesian Ridgebacks?


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

luvmydogs said:


> That's what I thought actually lol. So what would you have advised him to do? Just 'don't use the shock collar' wouldn't work. So what advice do you give people for recall with these type of dogs?
> PS - were they Thai or Rhodesian Ridgebacks?


rhodesian

before i reply, what training did your brother actually try


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> rhodesian
> 
> before i reply, what training did your brother actually try


Thai Ridgebacks are nothing like Rhodesian Ridgebacks.

I don't know, he said she finds hunting far more rewarding than anything he has tried. OH - he did say he used a long line for a while too. But as soon as the line came off, she was off.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Thai Ridgeback


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

labradrk said:


> Oh nothing surprises me any more.
> 
> I used to walk two dogs who's owners used e-collars. Why? one ate poo and the other humped other dogs.


If that was the case with my 2, they would have been fried a long time ago!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> As Terry says, discussion of these instruments of torture was banned from this forum for a while, thanks to some disgusting individuals whose description of their so-called training of innocent puppies was genuinely distressing pf members, including myself a lowly newbie back then Discussing the things is important, especially since most pf discussions come up in a google search and might make people think again about using one. What we don't want are videos of the things being used and we most certainly don't want them being promoted.:crying:


So it is ok to discuss them so long as everyone agrees they are dreadful, cruel and the work of the devil - that is hardly a discussion is it. Maybe videos showing how happy dogs are when they see the collar coming out because it means a walk and some training would show others that they are not in fact the work of the devil and have a place with SOME dogs, SOME handlers and SOME situations. The problem comes in that they can be very easily abused and can become an instrument of torture in more of a way that other training aids.



luvmydogs said:


> My brother has a shock collar for his Thai Ridgeback. He said he has tried everything and this was the last resort for a dog whose hunting instinct made hunting far more rewarding than anything he could do. He said he would either have to keep her on the lead at all times or use this collar. He said he only used it a couple of times and she doesn't run off now.
> 
> What would you have said to my brother? I rarely see him, this was at a family 'do' so I said nothing. What advice would you have given him?


I would say that that is the most common use by responsible dog owners and when used correctly has a magical affect and a happy dog for the rest of its life instead of one that is on the lead or being constantly nagged for showing natural behaviour that is going to end up in running off.
Putting one on a puppy to teach recall initially would be just stupid but in the exceptional cases where normal pet training does not work then it can make a huge difference to the dog's quality of life to quickly and easily stop it running off.

I think maybe they are kinder than the spray collars. I have a friend who used an e collar on her dog for barking inappropriately and it worked very quickly and the problem went away. She then got a pup who was a breed that barks and I dissuaded her from doing the same with him as it was not the same situation as the other dog and he was far too young. She got a spray collar and the hiss it made terrified her other dog so she had to stop using it. Can I say that I do not agree with a lot of her methods of training but she has happy obedient dogs so I would never say anything.

Incidentally - many years ago I wanted to try out an e collar. I hired one (yes you can do that!) and I invited the local SSPCA inspector to come round and see it being used. Neither he nor I could see anything cruel in the way it worked but we both agreed it was totally useless on that particular dog so it went back to where it came from.

I would never ever recommend that someone used an e collar because they are too easily used wrong or abused on purpose but if someone has used one successfully then that is a different matter.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

luvmydogs said:


> Thai Ridgebacks are nothing like Rhodesian Ridgebacks.
> 
> I don't know, he said she finds hunting far more rewarding than anything he has tried. OH - he did say he used a long line for a while too. But as soon as the line came off, she was off.


i can appreciate the prey drive

but objectively speaking, we therefore do not know that your brother tried all available training options which compelled him to turn to an ecollar. (one of the available options could be to hire a professional dog trainer)

there are many breeds with high prey drive that can still learn recall thru long line, food, whistle, voice, pre-emption and graduation, timing, managing the dog's levels, managing the environment, etc.

and of course it depends upon what ones means by free to run.
which _should be_ contingent upon time and place for *all* dogs anyway, dependent upon circumstances?
eg, successfully recall trained shih-tzu, relax more, let him flit about the woods are bit more loosely out of sight, call back every now and then just to make sure he's still alive and kicking
eg, successfully recall trained prey drive breed, relax a bit, let him dart out his hearts content in a big wide open full visibility field with no woods or wildlife, but perform a recall intermittently so he does not reach hormonal overload and loose cognition upon his environment and his human.
eg, successfully recall trained prey drive breed, be alert more; in the woods, find a section with good relative visibility with no blind spots and no signs of immediate prey - which, you the owner, should have detected by your own observations of the environment and thru heightened reading of your own dog's body language - at a point time you dog isnt "on one", then a slow release to off-lead with slow managed by you off-lead time which means constant verbal engagement with your dog as he runs about, including proactive practice of your recall, then back on lead prior to dog's over-arousal point, then further 'time-out' calming/focusing on-lead walk and work for a period, such as sits and downs and practicing the recall on a loose long line you can feed as the need, then back off lead again repeating above, so on so forth - a fluid instinctive management of the loose dog.

all the better started at 8 weeks old, of course


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

See this is the problem for many with dogs who have high prey drive. They are told that an e-collar will sort it (and it DID, for my brother) but they are not told what else will work. So, they go with the e-collar.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

luvmydogs said:


> See this is the problem for many with dogs who have high prey drive. They are told that an e-collar will sort it (and it DID, for my brother) but they are not told what else will work. So, they go with the e-collar.


you must have been typing and posting same time as me 
as i just did that


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> you must have been typing and posting same time as me
> as i just did that


Oh you edited your post, thank you. I also think many people want a quick fix unfortunately.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

Meezey said:


> Scotland are debating banning shock collars, and there is a link posted on a friends wall about it, I rather stupidly followed the link to the comments on the KC FB Page  I am trying to live by the "not my circus not my monkey's" rule but I swear some of the posts on there make me want to cry..
> 
> A guy has a dog with SA, and thinks using a collar is okay to stop it barking when alone :crying: . A woman as a JRT who chases cars and thinks a collar is okay, a woman has a springer who chase live stock who she's* can't keep on a lead *so uses a shock collar........... :mad5:
> 
> Why do people seem to always think about there wants and needs before the dogs?


I usually find when someone says there dog is better off-lead (it usually isn't behaviour wise they still can't stop it running up to people) that they just haven't trained it to walk on a lead and takes too much effort cos it pulls, lunges.

I saw the guy that JJ doesn't like the other day (with his white husky) he's now started walking with another woman who has a young Husky can tell its a pup its dragging her up the road she's hanging onto it for dear life so it doesn't go for whoever's passing at the time


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

luvmydogs said:


> My brother has a shock collar for his Thai Ridgeback. He said he has tried everything and this was the last resort for a dog whose hunting instinct made hunting far more rewarding than anything he could do. He said he would either have to keep her on the lead at all times or use this collar. He said he only used it a couple of times and she doesn't run off now.
> 
> What would you have said to my brother? I rarely see him, this was at a family 'do' so I said nothing. What advice would you have given him?


Keep his dog on a lead? Some behaviours are not fixable even with the best of intentions.

If we apply that logic than surely all these Husky owners have to do is stick a shock collar on their dog and they can then have free running dogs too.


----------



## luvmydogs (Dec 30, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> Keep his dog on a lead? Some behaviours are not fixable even with the best of intentions.


Well, he reckons it's more cruel to keep this type of dog on a lead than it is to give it a couple of shocks and then she can run free.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

luvmydogs said:


> He tried to train it out of her. He said he tried everything but couldn't stop her. He said it is more cruel to have a dog on lead all it's life than to give it a couple of shocks then be able to let her run, knowing she will come back. How many *Thai* Ridgebacks have you seen? They are very rare.


I think his problem is in the 'tried everything'. That is the mistake many people make when trying to train a dog; they give up on one method before the dog has had a chance to learn what is wanted of them and move on to something else. The result is one very confused dog.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

luvmydogs said:


> Well, he reckons it's more cruel to keep this type of dog on a lead than it is to give it a couple of shocks and then she can run free.


Perhaps better research into his chosen breed wouldn't go amiss next time. If it can't naturally go off lead then why force the situation? Doesn't make sense to me. Lots of people prove here that dogs on lead isn't cruel. Not something I'd ever want in a dog so I'd avoid potentially challenging off lead dogs in the first place


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2015)

Cleo38 said:


> I agree & that was my point, as I said, I don't believe they should be promoted by surely freedom to discuss is a good thing.
> 
> *We are allowed to discuss other aversives so why not e-collars?* The initial post regarding stifling discussion was years ago on the assmuption that they would be banned - they weren't so why is the subject still banned?
> 
> ...


We are allowed to discuss other aversives that have the potential to cause a lot more harm than an e-collar.
No dog ever broke his neck and died as a result of an e-collar, but there was a member here who actually recommended the use of a long line with a head halter.  
And I believe some of us were accused of bullying when we adamantly opposed that recommendation!

None of that is to say I think e-collars are good and head halters are bad. I dont think any tool is inherently good or bad. Some I would reach for more often than others, some I would never reach for, but just because that tool is not right for me and my needs, doesnt mean its wrong for every dog owner out there.

Bottom line, ALL tools need to be honestly scrutinized.

And when we scrutinize those tools, we have to take the dogs opinion in to account as well. Something we have a hard time with because of so many pre-conceived biases. 
I know dogs who are genuinely happier wearing an evil prong collar than wearing a head halter, but if the owner is railroaded in to thinking prong collar = bad, head halter = good, the dog gets no choice in the matter, and thats not cool either. 
Sure, ideally the dog would need neither a prong, nor a head halter, but since the dog would not be walked without some sort of control tool, why not let the dog have a say also?
There are deaf dogs out there on vibration collars they hate, who would be much happier on an e-collar set on a low setting, but whos owners have been railroaded in to thinking vibration is okay, shock is not.

Dogs are just as individual as humans. When I was a kid I was horse crazy. And I got hurt - a lot. But I would rather get to ride hurt than not ride. And when I was riding, I enjoyed it so much, that I didnt hurt. (No, Im not suggesting allowing dogs to work when hurt, just illustrating a point.)

Plenty of dogs are like that too. There was a study done on high drive working dogs where they measured cortisol levels for a short shock collar correction vs. removal of the reward (tug toy). For this set of dogs (none of which were pet-type dogs I might add), losing the reward opportunity was MORE stressful than being shocked. 
You see the same sort of thing with invisible fences here in the US. The dog sees a squirrel on the other side of the boundary, and the reward of the chase is rewarding than the punishment of the collar, so the dog goes for it despite knowing its going to hurt.

So what does all this mean in terms of the tools we use on our dogs? 
Well, first of all, we need to constantly remember that just because a tool is designed to cause pain doesnt mean its actually painful to the dog. And just because a tool is not designed to be painful doesnt mean it isnt.
An incorrectly fitted body harness can be painful even though its not designed to be. A correctly fitted harness that pinches and pulls at fur can be painful. Then there are some dogs who will be very sensitive to pinched/pulled fur, and other dogs who will end up with bald spots and not even notice.

Related to the above, we need to really learn our dogs, hone our observation skills and figure out what that dog needs, what motivates that dog, what will influence behavior (pain will not with many dogs) and from there, figure out what will work best for that individual dog. And that may mean taking off our blinders about some tools - both the blinders about them being humane and the blinders about the stigma some tools carry.



luvmydogs said:


> My brother has a shock collar for his Thai Ridgeback. He said he has tried everything and this was the last resort for a dog whose hunting instinct made hunting far more rewarding than anything he could do. He said he would either have to keep her on the lead at all times or use this collar. He said he only used it a couple of times and she doesn't run off now.
> 
> What would you have said to my brother? I rarely see him, this was at a family 'do' so I said nothing. What advice would you have given him?


Since he has already used the collar successfully, and no longer needs to use it, what is there to say? I could say that e-collars are cruel and I cant believe he would use such an instrument of torture, but thats not going to accomplish anything other than alienating him from asking me anything the next time he has an issue with this dog or a future one. Thats where you practice a good noncommittal grunt and ask about his dog outside of the training context. Oh, how old is he now? Such an unusual breed isnt he, do you get a lot of comments? That keeps the conversation open, lets him know youre interested in his dog, and you dont get his back up about anything.

If he had asked BEFORE reaching for the e-collar, I would ask him what he has tried. Specifics. Based on that I would ask him if he has considered __, __, or __ (whatever suggestions he has not tried - no owner has tried *everything*).
I would let him know what I know about prey drive and e-collars and the odds of it curing the problem, the potential fall-out. But then ultimately its his dog and his choice, and I have to step back. And keep the conversation open, because if the e-collar doesnt work, I want him to come back to me to talk about it, not the guy who sold him the e-collar. Does that make sense?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Great post Ouesi!! :thumbup:

I agree, there are all sorts of tools that can be misused. We have had many a discussion regarding headcollars on here & people have insisted to me they are not aversive at alll .... tell that to Roxy! 

People do tend to mock those of us who say we have 'tried everything' but for some of us we believe we have. I am not the best handler in the world, I have made many mistakes but I did try my best to sort Roxy's chasing ...... every day for years .... not a quick fix!!

Instead I worked more on her obedience, learnt to recognise signs she was going in to hunting mode & changed my idea of a walk & for us it has worked to an extent (she would still chase if given a chance) but I accept this. 

I don't understand why it is better (or the dog) to suggest keeping it on a lead for the rest of it's life if there is a possibility that an aversive may work. Some people might be willing to take the risk, doesn't mean they are sadists or cruel to their dog but they are trying find a solution to a problem.

I honestly don't really care if people think that my considering using an e-collar is cruel or that I don't put any effort in to training them but I do get annoyed when others are jumped on immediately for admitting they considered using or did use something like this especially by those who don't really have an experience of these


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> ...
> 
> I'd tell him to train [hunting response to scent or sight] out of him;
> 
> ...


 the poster referred to a Thai Ridgeback, a very rare breed used for hunting, or as an uncued guard;
Thai RBs are super-turfy & bite w/o alerting - they don't ask for help. In Thailand's rural areas, anyone
who owns one may expect the dog to help feed her- or himself by hunting solo.

Rhodies are far-more biddable & partner with ppl; Thai RBs are self-willed & extremely independent.

Obviously, any Rhodie-owner will already know that a Rhodie is far-more independent & opinionated than
a GSD or most Rotties; they're all guarding breeds, but a spectrum of biddability across the breeds.

Personally, i'd put a Thai RB or any other determined hunter on a long-line outside a fence, & only leave the dog
off-leash entirely [OR POSSIBLY ON A DRAG clipped to a front-clip H-harness] when inside an escape-proof fence.

if that meant playing fetch inside a tennis-court, so be it; whatever works. 

.
.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> the poster referred to a Thai Ridgeback, a very rare breed used for hunting, or as an uncued guard;
> Thai RBs are super-turfy & bite w/o alerting - they don't ask for help. In Thailand's rural areas, anyone
> who owns one may expect the dog to help feed her- or himself by hunting solo.
> 
> ...


I confess, I didn't know there were different makes of Ridgeback, so I bow to your superior knowledge. Being uncomfortable myself with having to keep my dog on a lead all the time, my own choice would have been to avoid a breed with that much prey drive.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> the poster referred to a Thai Ridgeback, a very rare breed used for hunting, or as an uncued guard;
> Thai RBs are super-turfy & bite w/o alerting - they don't ask for help. In Thailand's rural areas, anyone
> who owns one may expect the dog to help feed her- or himself by hunting solo.
> 
> ...


love the bit about the dog going catching my dinner....nice smooth coat, fit and athletic and obviously intelligent breed....can see why they would be attractive.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

newfiesmum said:


> I confess, I didn't know there were different makes of Ridgeback, so I bow to your superior knowledge. Being uncomfortable myself with having to keep my dog on a lead all the time, my own choice would have been to avoid a breed with that much prey drive.


Exactly. For me it's like getting a Border Collie and shocking it every time it shows herding interest/stalking sheep etc because it's a trait I *must* fix and don't want. Like, why the hell would anyone get a Collie and not expect those traits? Same with a dog with a high prey drive.

But as we're all to aware many people get totally unsuitable breeds for their lifestyle/expectations


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> Exactly. For me it's like getting a Border Collie and shocking it every time it shows herding interest/stalking sheep etc because it's a trait I *must* fix and don't want. Like, why the hell would anyone get a Collie and not expect those traits? Same with a dog with a high prey drive.
> 
> But as we're all to aware many people get totally unsuitable breeds for their lifestyle/expectations


If someone gets a border collie and shocks the dog for herding behavior, thats not a shock collar issue, thats a stupid human issue.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> If someone gets a border collie and shocks the dog for herding behavior, thats not a shock collar issue, thats a stupid human issue.


I'd consider the same stupid human error in those who use shock collars for breeds with inherent strong prey/chase instincts. To me that's not a behaviour issue. But trying to essentially change the breed itself.

No one is saying it's a shock collar issue either....the very problem is the amount of stupid people allowed access to such devices and the potential for serious injury/and or mental damage a person can inflict with such tools.

But anyway, I've said my piece. I don't really have anything else to add.


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> I'd consider the same stupid human error in those who use shock collars for breeds with inherent strong prey/chase instincts. To me that's not a behaviour issue. But trying to essentially change the breed itself.
> 
> No one is saying it's a shock collar issue either....the very problem is the amount of stupid people allowed access to such devices and the potential for serious injury/and or mental damage a person can inflict with such tools.
> 
> But anyway, I've said my piece. I don't really have anything else to add.


Stupid people are allowed access to head halters that they clip to flexi leads.
At what point are you going to draw the line? 
Banning solves nothing. Didnt the UK ban certain breeds so they wouldnt end up in the hands of stupid people? And we all know how well that worked out....

If there wasnt such a stigma with being associated with shock collars, those who have used them knowledgeably could tell you that shock collars (or any major aversive) dont always work well for instinctual drives. Michael Ellis talks about the lessons they have learned over the years - the dogs they ruined, what they didnt understand, and what they have learned from all this.

If an owner is seriously considering using a shock collar, who do you think is going to be more persuasive? The person saying I have never used one of those barbaric devices and never will! or the person saying I have used them, I know how they work, and I know from experience that its a really bad idea to use a shock collar to punish instinctual drives.?
Except the person who has used one isnt going to pipe up (or has already been run off the forum).


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> ...
> [My brother] said [his Thai Ridgeback] finds hunting far-more rewarding than anything [else] he's tried.
> 
> ... he did say he used a long line for a while, too. But as soon as the line came off, she was off
> [& running or hunting, & would not return when he called].


He didn't phase-out the long-line while proofing the dog's recall.

CRITERIA: 
Proof under specific training criteria until the dog can comply reliably 4 times of 5,
on a 1st cue; then *raise the criterion* - ONE variable, please! - to the next small step, proof
to 80% reliable compliance on 1st cue, proof, raise, proof, etc...

*Reward heavily at EVERY stage -* don't be cheap, use high-protein, high-value treats, a Super-Tug toy
that's been obsessively conditioned, warm sincere praise - yes, even for coming when called on leash
when the dog is just 4-ft away. RETURNING must be the most-incredibly rewarding thing to do, ever.
U're re-training a very practiced runaway; also, *CHANGE * THE * CUE*. For God's sake, don't say 'Come!'
when 'come' now means, _"run like H*** the other way!"..._

The process is:
- start inside the house; proof recalls to 80% *on leash*, within 6-ft or less, on the 1st cue.

- long light-line inside house, ditto: move from 6-ft to 10-ft, proof to 80% plus.

- go from 10-ft to 15-ft, still on the light line; repeat proofing.

- wearing the 15-ft light line as a drag, repeat proofing - within the same visual space, but U are
not HOLDING the line; proof to 80% reliable, & move to next step.

- move to calling from ANOTHER space, just out of sight; dog wears the 15-ft drag.
[i-e, stand in hallway, call dog from lounge; in kitchen, call dog in from hall; etc.] Proof to 80%.

- move to a DIFFERENT floor when the dog is 80% or better reliable when just out of sight,
on the same floor - if this is possible. Proof to 80% on 1st cue, still wearing drag.

- reduce 15-ft drag to 6-ft long; proof to 80% reliable on 1st cue.
- remove the drag; proof to 80% reliable on 1st cue, inside the house, at large.

OUTDOORS:
- from indoors off-leash, 80% reliable on 1st cue, no drag, to garden ON LEASH [within 6-ft].
Repeat entire process: 
6-ft to 10-ft to 15-ft to 20-ft, all within the garden, all proofed to 80% reliable recalls on 1st cue
before moving to the next step. After the dog is 4 times of 5 returning on a 1st cue, on a 20-ft long line,
drop the line, use it as a drag, begin that sequence: from 80% reliable on a 20-ft drag to 15-ft to 10-ft to
6-ft drag to 4-ft drag to 2-ft drag to an 18-inch hang-tab to a 12-inch hang-tab to a 6-inch hang tab,
every single step proofed to 80% reliable [4 of 5 times] on a 1st cue.

- Finally, proof the dog in the garden WITHOUT a drag [no hang-tab, either] to 80% reliable on 1st cue.

- Move outside the garden, back on the 6-ft leash, no distractions; DON'T CALL THE DOG when distractions
[other dogs, a cat, a bird, a squirrel, a bicyclist...] are present. Start proofing to 80% reliable / 1st-cue.

- repeat the whole sequence:
6-ft leash to 10-ft to 12-ft to 15-ft to 20-ft long-line, even 30-ft long-line, each proofed to 80% reliable
on 1st-cue before moving to the next.

- SLOWLY add low-level distractions during recall: a *distant* dog, 50-or more ft away; a VERY distant
squirrel, more audible than visible; a bird on the ground, far off; a bird that's 60-ft up & 20-ft away; etc.
Start on-leash, to long-line, each time proofing to 80% reliable on a 1st cue.

- If the dog is now 80% reliable on a 1st cue with nearby distractions on a 30-ft long-line, i'd consider moving
to the next step: a 30-ft drag, & begin proofing without distractions as much as possible; *if i couldn't get to
an 80% reliable recall on a 1st cue while on a 30-ft long-line, clipped to a front-clip H-harness & with
nearby distractions, i would NOT try to progress to a 30-ft drag-line.*

Some dogs cannot be off-leash outside a fence; some dogs can wear a drag, & be walked down if they won't
recall on one cue; some dogs cannot even be on a 30-ft drag, as they'll head for the next county wearing it.
Those dogs, for their own safety, stay on a long-line. It's not heartbreaking; they can be exercised inside fences,
jogged with a bike, swim on a long-line & harness, pull a cart, play fetch inside a fence, romp with another dog,
& so on & so forth.

Highly-predatory dogs don't belong off-leash or off a drag if they cannot be reliably recalled, OR walked-down.
Walking up on a dog wearing a drag isn't complex; call once, they don't come in, walk after, TREAD on the drag
to lock it down with both feet, bend, pick up the drag, bring the dog in hand-over-hand with NO comment, *reward
the dog just as if s/he had flown in like a bullet to a target, *& the dog is again on the long-line
for the next 48- to 72-hours, then try again - or don't.

*If U don't have the patience* to proof, raise criterion, proof, raise, proof... *then MANAGE the dog.*
Use a long-line outside of fences, & don't take chances by letting the dog drag the long-line.
Everybody, including the dog & the farmers' stock or the game animals or the roaming cats & wildlife,
are safe - & U won't be fined, Ur dog won't be picked up stray, no damages be assessed, etc. :thumbup:

There are *worse things* than being on a long-line or a drag, outside of fences.  It's not Doom.
Dogs aren't suffering agonies of denial when they're on a long-line or a drag!
.
.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Stupid people are allowed access to head halters that they clip to flexi leads.
> At what point are you going to draw the line?
> Banning solves nothing. Didnt the UK ban certain breeds so they wouldnt end up in the hands of stupid people? And we all know how well that worked out....
> 
> ...


enough with your reasoned out psychologically based human nature common sense 'non politically correct' constructivism upon this subject

i dont think i can be expected to hear and read such things outside of the accepted check box. its offensive


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2015)

leashedForLife said:


> He didn't phase-out the long-line while proofing the dog's recall.
> 
> CRITERIA:
> Proof under specific training criteria until the dog can comply reliably 4 times of 5,
> ...


Just out of curiosity, what kind of compliance do you get out of clients?
Cause thats also a big issue. Most trainers worth their salt have all sorts of great tricks and tools that we know work and we know work well.

But getting owners to actually do what youve laid out for them to do, consistently, is just about near impossible. And theyre still going to have a dog who doesnt recall with the added ammunition of I tried the positive training route and it didnt work.
So do you just shrug and let the client go off to the local SitMeansSit franchise, or do you become the lesser of the two evils and recommend your trainer friend who does use shock collars but is smarter and more humane about it than the CM wannabe?

(SitMeansSit is a national dog training franchise here in the US that uses e-collars exclusively.)


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

I don't understand why these advocates of aversive methods don't see that all dogs are not the same. I have never used one of these things, or any other aversive, but I know my dogs, and I know their personalities extremely well. If you were to shock Diva, I am convinced she would be a quivering nervous wreck for every more; that girl will do anything for love. If you were to use one on Ferdie, I am quite convinced he would bite you. He will do anything for the right dog treat, but he is very much his own person and cannot be forced or bullied into doing anything. I once asked my son to hold him down so I could trim the fur under his tail and he bit him. So much for the 'pinning the dog down' method.:nonod:


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

They treat them all the same, while accusing clicker trainers of doing so . And of course clicker training is the real punishment, not as one advocate says using the collar as a shaping tool by shocking the dog until it sits/recalls etc and then removing the shock.

Although many are also from the country that most gundog people feel the need to torture er force their dogs to retrieve :wink:. And all wear shock collars as normal as well.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't understand why these advocates of aversive methods don't see that all dogs are not the same. I have never used one of these things, or any other aversive, but I know my dogs, and I know their personalities extremely well. If you were to shock Diva, I am convinced she would be a quivering nervous wreck for every more; that girl will do anything for love. If you were to use one on Ferdie, I am quite convinced he would bite you. He will do anything for the right dog treat, but he is very much his own person and cannot be forced or bullied into doing anything. I once asked my son to hold him down so I could trim the fur under his tail and he bit him. So much for the 'pinning the dog down' method.:nonod:


But surely that's the point .... for some dogs one aversive may not work, for some it may frighten them but for some it might work. Some dogs don't give a stuff if you shout at them, but some will worry even at a tut, some dogs hate loud noises, but for some it doesn't bother them ....

I train with a woman who used an e-collar on her Doberman bitch (chasing deer), it took 2 sessions & the dog no longer chases. The dog is confident, friendly & in no way fearful .... but I was warned against using one (by the trainer) as Roxy wasn't a confident, self assured dog


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't understand why these advocates of aversive methods don't see that all dogs are not the same. I have never used one of these things, or any other aversive, but I know my dogs, and I know their personalities extremely well. If you were to shock Diva, I am convinced she would be a quivering nervous wreck for every more; that girl will do anything for love. If you were to use one on Ferdie, I am quite convinced he would bite you. He will do anything for the right dog treat, but he is very much his own person and cannot be forced or bullied into doing anything. I once asked my son to hold him down so I could trim the fur under his tail and he bit him. So much for the 'pinning the dog down' method.:nonod:


Only an idiot would use an e collar on a dog that would end up a quivering wreck. And Ferdie would not bite you because you do not use it when the dog is near you and the dog has no idea you have had anything to do with it.



Nicky10 said:


> They treat them all the same, while accusing clicker trainers of doing so . And of course clicker training is the real punishment, not as one advocate says using the clicker as a shaping tool by shocking the dog until it sits/recalls etc and then removing the shock.
> 
> Although many are also from the country that most gundog people feel the need to torture er force their dogs to retrieve :wink:. And all wear shock collars as normal as well.


The whole point is that any thinking dog trainer will know you do NOT treat all dogs the same. Why would you use an e collar for anything but a final resort. Why on earth would you shock a dog to teach it to sit


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Blitz said:


> Only an idiot would use an e collar on a dog that would end up a quivering wreck. And Ferdie would not bite you because you do not use it when the dog is near you and the dog has no idea you have had anything to do with it.
> 
> The whole point is that any thinking dog trainer will know you do NOT treat all dogs the same. Why would you use an e collar for anything but a final resort. Why on earth would you shock a dog to teach it to sit


It's how one of the trainers does recommend teaching a dog anything. Shock it until it sits without even any guidance on what it's to do, shock it until it comes within a certain area around you etc. I can understand using it to proof known commands that are essential like recall but that just seem cruel :nonod:


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2015)

So yeah... when the discussion again veers of in to ad hominem attacks instead of actually discussing the tool, thats when I bow out.

If you really want to educate people on shock collars, educate. 
Talk about how they work, and thus why they wont work in which situations, the potential for for very serious consequences if not used carefully and knowledgeably. 

When it becomes a conversation of shock collar trainers are ______ and do ______", we loose all purpose and it just becomes general bashing for the sake of bashing, which however good it may make you feel, doesnt do dogs a damned bit of good.

For any American gun-dog aficionados reading this thread, who are interested in training without force, Robert Milner of Duckhill Kennels is worth a look-see. <-- see, this is an example of finding solutions and helping dogs, not just empty bashing.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> It's how one of the trainers does recommend teaching a dog anything. Shock it until it sits without even any guidance on what it's to do, shock it until it comes within a certain area around you etc. I can understand using it to proof known commands that are essential like recall but that just seem cruel :nonod:


I agree with you. Even if it is not actually cruel it is pointless and uncomfortable for the dog and a very back to front way of doing it. Mind you it is not any different in some ways as a training method than clicking or treating when the dog sits without guidance which seems as nuts to me though obviously is not causing the dog any discomfort. I prefer to show the dog what is wanted then praise - but there is more than one way to train and it is as important to find the method the owner is comfortable with as much as the dog.

Do people really do basic training with a shock collar


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Tails and Trails said:


> enough with your reasoned out psychologically based human nature common sense 'non politically correct' constructivism upon this subject
> 
> i dont think i can be expected to hear and read such things outside of the accepted check box. its offensive


Was that a serious comment or tongue in cheek. I might be being obtuse but I dont quite understand it.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Dogloverlou said:


> Exactly. For me it's like getting a Border Collie and shocking it every time it shows herding interest/stalking sheep etc because it's a trait I *must* fix and don't want. Like, why the hell would anyone get a Collie and not expect those traits? Same with a dog with a high prey drive.
> 
> But as we're all to aware many people get totally unsuitable breeds for their lifestyle/expectations


Its not always quite that simple though. When we took Arthur on we had no idea he would be as bad for prey drive and hunting as he is. We've had two GSPs before him and knew a couple of pointer breeders around here and have walked with a few on a regular basis in the past so we thought we knew what we were taking on. It was only afterwards when we run in to no end of problems and then started to talk to other pointer owners online that we realised its a problem many pointer owners have. One chap who runs an active blog about working his pointers said the top thing people put in their search engines to get to his site was "pointers running off".

We had no end of gun dog people advising us to shock him but it just wasn't something we would have been comfortable doing even if he had spent the rest of his life on a long line. We have reached a compromise solution with him now but personally I could never break the trust my dogs have in me by shocking them whether they would know it was me or not, I would.


----------



## 2Hounds (Jun 24, 2009)

A lady I homechecked told me when they lived in America a shock collar was used to train the dogs to steer clear of snakes, I guess brief discomfort is better when alternative is likely a painful death but can't imagine many situations that would necessitate their use & don't think should be available for general use to those that haven't a clue what their doing.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

2Hounds said:


> A lady I homechecked told me when they lived in America a shock collar was used to train the dogs to steer clear of snakes, I guess brief discomfort is better when alternative is likely a painful death but can't imagine many situations that would necessitate their use & don't think should be available for general use.


I've seen programmes for training snake avoidance without shock collars and those seem to work as well. But I can see why people would use them if they lived where very deadly snakes do.

The only time I've seen shock collars being used for it was on a certain dog trainer's programme but that was after his friend's dog nearly die from a snake bite. It seemed to work after a couple of times and is better than the alternative.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

luvmydogs said:


> See this is the problem for many with dogs who have high prey drive. They are told that an e-collar
> will [fix the issue], & it DID, for my brother - but *they're not told what else will work.*
> So, they go with the e-collar.


Or they are told - but it's too much bother, all that proofing & training & what-not, so they buy the shock
collar, don't ask a trainer for help, go DIY, & either succeed in suppressing the behavior - or fail.

In either case, the dog has been the Guinea-pig for this little experiment, & if it goes wrong [which is common -
most buyers can't be arsed to read the G__-D___ directions, either  ], the dog suffers the consequences -
often being surrendered to a shelter, or re-homed via an ad.

Or, if U live in the Southeastern USA, just dump the dog somewhere without their tags, & they're not chipped -
it's a tradition, there. :nonod: Happens to deer-hunting dogs every fall, every year.


Tails and Trails said:


> i can appreciate the prey drive
> 
> but objectively speaking, we therefore do not know that your brother tried all available training options which
> compelled him to turn to an e-collar. (one of the available options could be to *hire a professional dog trainer*)
> ...


 CLICK! - Rep for U! :thumbup:


luvmydogs said:


> ...
> I also think many people want a quick fix, unfortunately.


Yes - & shock-collars are specifically sold as being "speedy", simple, efficient, modern, etc. 

PUNISHMENT - the correction after the fact of behavior we DON'T want - is actually much-more complex
than is REWARDING behavior we do want; but it's been my experience that folks who feel "the rod" is manda-
tory & praise or rewards are bribes, will never listen or learn how to use punishment properly, anyway.

They just start dishing out unhappy consequences willy-nilly, because they KNOW what they're doing.
Except they don't; timing, intensity, which particular consequence for which dog, etc, are not things they
even consider, but they're crucial.


IncaThePup said:


> I usually find when someone says "my dog is better off-lead", s/he usually isn't better-behaved, off leash; they still
> can't stop their dog running up to people -- that they just haven't trained the dog to walk on a lead, & it takes
> too much effort [to walk their dog ON leash], cos s/he pulls, lunges, etc.
> 
> ...


yup; i've seen both many times, the owner who couldn't be bothered to teach LLW to their pup or adoptee,
& now has thrown in the towel & just lets the dog go, run uncontrolled, p*ss anywhere, pester leashed dogs
without so much as a word of reproof, stool any-old-where & the owner NEVER picks it up because
s/he "didn't see it", yadda-yadda.  


Dogloverlou said:


> *Keep his [Thai Ridgeback] on a lead?*
> Some behaviours are not fixable even with the best of intentions.


:thumbup: CLICK! - got it in one, brilliant - altho i'd also suggest a long-line for open areas, not just a 6-ft lead.

Rep for U! - Love it.


Dogloverlou said:


> If we apply that logic, than surely *all these Husky owners have to do is stick a shock collar on their dog,
> and they can then have free-running dogs, too.*


Sure! - no worries, easy-peasy, anyone can do this.
.
.
.
.
[/sarcasm] um - that's not true, actually. 


luvmydogs said:


> Well, he reckons *it's more cruel to keep this type of dog on a lead than it is to give her a couple of shocks
> & then she can run free.*


*
A-huh. :huh:
And does he now let her run WITHOUT the shock-collar, now that she's so well-trained?... [i doubt it.]

What if it hadn't been "a couple of shocks"? - If it was weeks or months of escalating-intensity shocks?
Having seen this done many times by pet-owners, that's a much-more likely pattern than 'a few shocks',
particularly a few LOW-intensity shocks; generally, it's not low-intensity, & it's not "a couple".


newfiesmum said:



I think his problem is [the phrase] 'tried everything'.

That's the mistake many people make when trying to train a dog; they give up on one method before the dog
has had a chance to learn what's wanted... & [they try] something else. The result is one very confused dog.

Click to expand...

YES - proofing is simple, but it's not speedy, intuitive, or commonly seen.
Most owners start it, then quit, or do it half-a$$ed & say "it doesn't work", or fail to break tasks into steps
that are SMALL & achievable - they take great leaps, not 'a step'.

They change cues, change criteria, forget that dogs don't speak English & expect dogs to be logical,
& so on & so on. They switch methods as often as i change my socks [daily, BTW], & wonder why their
stoopid dog doesn't get it. 


lilythepink said:



love the bit about the dog going [to catch] my dinner...
nice smooth coat, fit and athletic and obviously intelligent breed...
I can see why they'd be attractive.

Click to expand...

 Umm - sorry to disappoint, but that would be the dog catching the DOG's dinner.
IOW, wild-hunting unaccompanied, & killing small game to eat it - not "bring it home to share". :lol:

Sharing isn't high on their priority list; they're self-sufficient & self-directed, owners must work to grow
their Thai RB's congenial or social impulses; they're scanty, & they're not automatic.
.
.*


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> I've seen programmes for training snake avoidance without shock collars and those seem to work as well. But I can see why people would use them if they lived where very deadly snakes do.
> 
> The only time I've seen shock collars being used for it was on a certain dog trainer's programme but that was after his friend's dog nearly die from a snake bite. It seemed to work after a couple of times and is better than the alternative.


Again I suppose it depends on the dog & how intent they are on getting the snake (or whatver animal they hunt/chase). Obviously we don't have such venomous snakes in this country but even an adder bite can be pretty painful. A friends dogs used to constantly hunt for snakes despite being bitten 3 times now (in the face). I doubt a shock collar would work if 3 painful snake bites didn't deter the dog.

They only managed to solve the problem by moving to an area where there weren't adders!


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

Blitz said:


> Was that a serious comment or tongue in cheek. I might be being obtuse but I dont quite understand it.


being ironic. check out my other posts on thread


----------



## 2Hounds (Jun 24, 2009)

Blitz said:


> I agree with you. Even if it is not actually cruel it is pointless and uncomfortable for the dog and a very back to front way of doing it. Mind you it is not any different in some ways as a training method than clicking or treating when the dog sits without guidance which seems as nuts to me though obviously is not causing the dog any discomfort. I prefer to show the dog what is wanted then praise - but there is more than one way to train and it is as important to find the method the owner is comfortable with as much as the dog.


Isn't that free shaping & the click marks the action you liked to the dog & it knows there's a reward on its way, then handler would link to a hand/voice command. I taught my greyhound to bow with that method, just waited for her to stretch on her own & clicked ,was actually easier than trying to show her by luring it somehow. The dog has to use its brain to work out what it was doing when clicked that was liked, but its not punished in way a electric collar would, noo got that wrong buzzz!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Just out of curiosity, *what kind of compliance do you get* out of clients?


The usual: p*ss-poor, mostly, with long-term processes like this one.
Much-better with highly-motivated clients who have very serious issues to resolve - 
such as a dog with bites to multiple persons, & who must be DS/CC'd to other dogs or a muzzle,
so they can have the dog out in public & not worry.

getting owners to consistently use ONE cue for ONE action is pretty straightforward; getting owners to
keep a highly-reactive dog under threshold?... Usually they're bad about that, then get better as they see
what a change it makes, & how it works - what's a low-level of stress look like, in THEIR dog?, etc.

Most improve; as they get better, the dog gets better, & they are reinforced for their own skills / care
in following the protocol. :thumbsup:


ouesi said:


> Cause thats also a big issue. Most trainers worth their salt have all sorts of great tricks and tools that
> we know work and we know work well.
> 
> But getting owners to actually do what youve laid out for them to do, consistently, is just about near
> ...


Neither - answer D. 

I tell them how to manage the issue successfully - retire their ambition to have a perfectly-compliant dog
who can run free anywhere, be recalled anytime from every distraction, & deal with their actual dog, & their
own actual limits - their stock of patience, time, skill with the dog, desire to be their own trainer, & so on.

Many owners have both low estimations of what dogs CAN do, & simultanous unrealistic expectations of what
THEIR dog -*should*- do. I try to get them back to the possible.
.
.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Cleo38 said:


> Again I suppose it depends on the dog & how intent they are on getting the snake (or whatver animal they hunt/chase). Obviously we don't have such venomous snakes in this country but even an adder bite can be pretty painful. A friends dogs used to constantly hunt for snakes despite being bitten 3 times now (in the face). I doubt a shock collar would work if 3 painful snake bites didn't deter the dog.
> 
> They only managed to solve the problem by moving to an area where there weren't adders!


I can't imagine it working either. Both of my boys have been bitten by adders, both yelped when it happened so I'm assuming it hurt. Both will avoid snakes if they actually see them but each time they have been bitten its been by accident - they either trod on the snake not knowing it was there or one time Arthur stuck his head in some heather for a sniff and got more than he bargained for. No way of teaching them to avoid that type of encounter.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I can't imagine it working either. Both of my boys have been bitten by adders, both yelped when it happened so I'm assuming it hurt. Both will avoid snakes if they actually see them but each time they have been bitten its been by accident - they either trod on the snake not knowing it was there or one time Arthur stuck his head in some heather for a sniff and got more than he bargained for. No way of teaching them to avoid that type of encounter.


I worked so hard with Roxy regardng chaisng of the local wildlife ... (which is amazing where I live but no so if you have a dog that chases!!! ) & was getting somewhere but she still had a bit of a thing for swans. That is until one attacked her one day 

It was awful, I thought I was going to have to jump n to the river to help her out. The irony was that she wasn't even bothering them that day but one just flew at her from one part of the river right up to where we were.

However it taught her a lesson, her desire to annoy them obviously wasn't that strong & she has never gone near one since.

Since then I have curbed her desire to chase most animals but the deer asre still her faves .... I've said before that I just need an angry deer & we'll be sorted


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I agree with you. Even if it is not actually cruel it is pointless and uncomfortable for the dog and a very back to front way of doing it. Mind you it is not any different in some ways as a training method than clicking or treating when the dog sits without guidance which seems as nuts to me though obviously is not causing the dog any discomfort. I prefer to show the dog what is wanted then praise - but there is more than one way to train and it is as important to find the method the owner is comfortable with as much as the dog.
> 
> *Do people really do basic training with a shock collar*


Yes, there is a trainer that comes to mind that advocates even young puppies being shock collar trained and learning general obedience with it. This guy is a professional in his field and to be honest if you have people like him promoting their use for all and sundry, the average pet owner is hardly going to listen to the other pet owners who insists they shouldn't be used in X,Y, Z situations.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

2Hounds said:


> A lady... told me when they lived in America, a shock collar was used to train the dogs to steer clear of snakes.
> I guess brief discomfort is better when alternative is likely a painful death but can't imagine many situations
> that would necessitate their use & don't think should be available for general use to those that haven't a clue
> what their doing.


Precisely -
plus, even with trainers who are admittedly highly-experienced & very careful, even then, shock may
or may not succeed.

There are dogs who've had snake-proofing via shock who went on to harass every snake they saw or smelled,
or bolted for miles on the 1st-whiff of snake, or attacked snakes, or followed them along... results are never
'guaranteed'.

One fellow member of USA-apdt had her 3 Aussies go thru the same training with the same person, in L-A,
Calif, using shock collars set for each dog on the level he felt apropos for each dog; she witnessed all the
training, & all 3 dogs had entirely-different reactions, in their later encounters with snakes.

One bitch met a snake by scent, & fled for over 3-miles across country, paying no attn to recalls, terrain,
or for that matter, possible SNAKES along the way. She only found her dog using the other 2 dogs' noses; she'd
gone to ground in a 4-ft diameter storm culvert, under a road - & the owner had to get in there, & duck-walk
the whole way in, among spiders & scorpions & God-knows-what, quite possibly including snakes - who go
in & out of sun & shade to thermoregulate, constantly -- & drag her poor petrified dog out, & practically
carry her home.
She bolts at the sight or scent of ANY snake, now - even a garter snake in a terrarium, a pet of a neighbor's
kid; she's completely off her head & in a blind panic.

The other 2?... one will harass & tease, provoking the snake, & the 3rd will stalk them at a distance;
neither will readily recall, which they DID prior to the shock-training under virtually any distraction - 
quail busting underfoot, pronghorn pronking, jackrabbits, whatever.

So she got 3 results, & none of them was the desired one. Same trainer, same methods; drabbit.


Nicky10 said:


> I've seen programmes for training *snake avoidance without shock collars* & those seem
> to work as well.


Yes - most of them teach the dog to "go fetch Mum / Dad", & show the human where the snake is - then,
it can be monitored, removed [if it's in the garage, garden, etc], or simply avoided, & the dogs are rewarded
for finding & telling.


Nicky10 said:


> But I can see why people would use them, if they lived where very deadly snakes do.
> 
> The only time I've seen shock collars... used for [snake-proofing] was on a certain dog trainer's programme
> but that was after his friend's dog nearly died from snakebite. It seemed to work after a couple of times
> & is better than the alternative.


Venomous snakes are rarely all THAT 'deadly' - dangerous, of course, but most dogs survive a 1st-bite,
*unless* they're toy-sized, pups, or the snake is huge / hasn't eaten in a while [just out of hibernation?...
very potent bite!], etc.

Copperheads & rattlers are not nearly as dangerous as coral-snakes, who are small & vividly colored -
they are neurotoxic, & much-more dangerous. Luckily, they are also shy & not widespread - they're subtropical.

Cottonmouths / water-moccasins are pugnacious, & when breeding meet in the water in large numbers.
A water-skier fell in the midst of a mating group, & got multiple bites - I don't remember if s/he did
or didn't survive, it was a rare event & years ago.

IMO if U live in snake-country [venomous, that is] then getting the dog a preventive anti-venin is a safe,
worthwhile precaution; it buys TIME to get the dog to care, which usually isn't just round the corner.

I'd skip the shock-training - & i lived, & hiked, in venomous-snake country for years on end - with my dogs.
[Pennsy]

Australia is an entirely-different set of snakes, many highly-venomous - but H***, what about the risk of
my dog treading on a blue-ringed octopus in a tide-pool on the beach, or swimming into a Portuguese
man'o'war's tentacles, or disturbing an Africanized bees' nest, or walking across a fire-ant colony?...

those are also highly venomous critters; i ran afoul of fire-ants 3 separate times in ONE year, in Norfolk,
VA; it's part of the reason i was so determined to get out of Tidewater, i'm allergic to beestings & the dam*
fire-ants sent me to the ER.  I really don't like urgent trips to hospital; maybe i'm just picky, but drama
just doesn't appeal to me. 
.
.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

That dog was, if I remember rightly, an elderly malamute mix. It didn't kill him but did weaken him significantly and I think they said he died after they filmed it. Training them to go fetch a human sounds like a good idea. I'm just glad there's no snakes, venomous or otherwise, here.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> ...
> Being uncomfortable myself with having to keep my dog on-lead all the time, my own choice would [be]
> to *avoid a breed with that much prey drive*.


A perfectly reasonable choice, too. :thumbup:

Many dog-owners set themselves, as well as their dog, up to fail - & fail big.
:nonod: They put the wrong breed or wrong individual in the wrong setting, & wonder why it doesn't work.

They get "too much dog", just like a novice horse-rider who can just manage a quiet large pony who's a placid,
co-operative, babysitting type, & what do they buy?... A highly-excitable, twitchy, hard-to-handle Arab stud.
:yikes: ... WHY? He's a randy ladies' man with a beef against every gelding in the world - why get *this* horse?
_"...he's so beautiful."_ Oh - well, that explains it. :mad2:

there is nothing wrong with concluding that the dog U'd LOVE simply isn't the dog for U, right now.
There's nothing wrong with a maybe-someday dream, & right now, a sweet dog who can be happy with U,
& U with them, is perfect. Knowing what U can tackle & what's out of Ur skill set, or what setting this breed
would thrive in, & where they'd be OK but require a tremendous amount of compensation & enrichment,
is a Really Good Thing.

If U're living in a side-by-side townhouse with a shared interior wall, for God's sake don't get a *Finnish
Spitz* & be surprised when the next-door neighbor threatens to kill U first, for getting that dam*ed dog,
& then they'll kill the bl**dy dog.
That was a completely predictable, indeed inevitable, outcome. :001_tongue:

Don't get an LGD for an apartment - unless the dog is an adult adoptee who was raised in that setting,
& did just fine, there. There are those few.

Don't get a guarding-breed & skip socialization. Don't expect a guarding breed to suffer fools, either.

Don't get a classic terrierrrist & expect the dog to take up a life of lounging on a chaise, eating bon-bons.

DoG bless us, before U get a dog, THINK - get a breed or an individual who will be happy with U, in Ur home.
If U live in a densely-packed city, a hard-running Foxhound won't easily fit in; if U mind young children in Ur home,
a self-willed, cool, stoic, hands-off breed won't "enjoy" the toddler invasion, & may decide to snack on them.
If so, don't blame the dog. :lol:
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

2Hounds said:


> Isn't that free shaping?...
> 
> the click marks the action you liked [for] the dog [to know what's wanted], & the dog knows there's a reward
> on its way; then the handler links [the action to a label, which later becomes a] hand-signal /voice cue.
> ...


Yep. :thumbup:

Actually, U described CAPTURING - which simply & purely marks a desired behavior that's offered
spontaneously, & by marking it to distinguish it as 'desired' & rewarding the person for offering it,
the behavior happens more often.
I-e, the horse lies down & rolls-over, once, twice, 3 times; U click & reward, once, twice, 3 times.
The horse lies down & rolls over more often [good exercise].

Or... the dog sneezes; click, reward. Later the dog sneezes; "Bless U!", click, reward. After a dozen or two
spontaneous sneezes, with the label added, all marked & rewarded, U say, "Bless U!...", & the dog sneezes. :biggrin:

FREE-SHAPING involves marking & rewarding a series of actions that 1st begin the process that will
culminate in the desired goal behavior, & then more & more closely approximate that goal behavior.

I-e, U want the dog to spin counter-clockwise; the dog must first turn their head to the LEFT, & shift their
weight onto the left forefoot /pick-up the right foot. As the dog gets closer & closer to the ultimate behavior,
s/he gets more fluent in the action, & the awkward hitches & bobbles smooth out.
.
.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

hang on a minute folks?

we havent got a constructive ecollar related thread going on here that doesnt require censoring, have we


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Tails and Trails said:


> hang on a minute folks?
> 
> we havent got a constructive ecollar related thread going on here that doesnt require censoring, have we


Ssssshhhhh ...... They may notice & close it down!!!!


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2015)

Cleo38 said:


> I worked so hard with Roxy regardng chaisng of the local wildlife ... (which is amazing where I live but no so if you have a dog that chases!!! ) & was getting somewhere but she still had a bit of a thing for swans. That is until one attacked her one day
> 
> It was awful, I thought I was going to have to jump n to the river to help her out. The irony was that she wasn't even bothering them that day but one just flew at her from one part of the river right up to where we were.
> 
> ...


LOL @ the angry deer 

Bates came to us missing a canine from having his face bashed in by a hoof chasing horses. It didnt stop him, he just learned to duck.
He also impaled himself on a tree branch racing through the woods after something.









Nope, that didnt stop him either. 
Bates is actually the kind of dog who finds the prey fighting back encouraging. He likes it. 
So the horse that kicked him became even more fun to chase. Which is part of the reason we ended up with him. Actually the reason he ended up with us can be summed up in one sentence said by his previous owner who is still a friend of mine. Bates just didnt care, (current dog) is way more afraid of me than Bates ever was.

Again, goes back to really taking the time to get to know the dog, know what influences that dog, and know how to motivate that dog. Pain was never going to motivate Bates to stop doing anything, and has a lot of potential for making the problem worse.

Then there are dogs like my friends great dane who just dont suffer fools and tell you exactly where you can shove that correction. She tried an e-collar with him, with a very knowledgeable trainer. First zap (set fairly low) the dog noticed, and then you could see the wheels start to turn. Second zap the dog is definitely paying attention. Third zap the dog bee-lined straight for the remote and the man holding it, and he wasnt messing around either. 
My friend got between them and probably saved the man a nasty bite. He said hed never seen a dog do that.

Well... danes are guard dogs, theyre really good at noticing the smallest detail thats out of place, and as molossers theyve been bred for centuries to not back down from a threat. The dog probably figured out the only thing different in this picture was the remote and he was going to stop that threat. Know your breed traits.... 
And read the dog. What this trainer probably saw as interested was not the kind of interested he should have been encouraging.

But there are trainers out there who will do all these things and either tell you might be worth a shot or nope, bad idea with this dog, and this is why, but we *can* try this, this, and this. 
And any good trainer worth their salt also knows when to raise the white flag and say something is beyond them.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Blitz said:


> Only an idiot would use an e collar on a dog that would end up a quivering wreck. *And Ferdie would not bite you because you do not use it when the dog is near you and the dog has no idea you have had anything to do with it. *
> 
> The whole point is that any thinking dog trainer will know you do NOT treat all dogs the same. Why would you use an e collar for anything but a final resort. Why on earth would you shock a dog to teach it to sit


I realise that, but he would bite anything that happened to be close by, possibly an innocent dog walker just walking past and where would that lead us? I know that he once went too close to an electric fence which was put around sheep, he thought I had somehow hurt him and the look in his eyes was really scary. That was when he was just an overgrown puppy; it would be downright dangerous now. I keep them well away from electric fences.

My own opinion is that any *thinking* dog trainer wouldn't use one at all.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

newfiesmum said:


> I know that he once went too close to an electric fence which was put around sheep, he thought I had somehow hurt him and the look in his eyes was really scary. That was when he was just an overgrown puppy; it would be downright dangerous now. I keep them well away from electric fences.
> 
> .


how do you know he was thinking that? how do you know what he was thinking?
if you have never put a ecollar on his neck, logic would dictate that he more likely thought he got hurt by something he just approached - electric fence - as opposed you hurt him. 
my akita x accidentally got zapped by an electric fence.
after that, she was very suspicious of all fences that looked the same - i didnt even need to keep her well away from electric fences. she just worked out for herself that when we walked down the tracks with the electric horse fencing, to stop running, walk slowly, keep a beady eye, and watch where she
going. she was anxious, but not of me, or the horses, or other dogs, or any people, for that matter


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Tails and Trails said:


> how do you know he was thinking that? how do you know what he was thinking?
> if you have never put a ecollar on his neck, logic would dictate that he more likely thought he got hurt by something he just approached - electric fence - as opposed you hurt him.
> my akita x accidentally got zapped by an electric fence.
> after that, she was very suspicious of all fences that looked the same - i didnt even need to keep her well away from electric fences. she just worked out for herself that when we walked down the tracks with the electric horse fencing, to stop running, walk slowly, keep a beady eye, and watch where she
> going. she was anxious, but not of me, or the horses, or other dogs, or any people, for that matter


Because I was standing next to him at the time and he ran off. I couldn't get him to come back to me, it was as though he was frightened of me. That is how I know.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

ouesi said:


> LOL @ the angry deer
> 
> Bates came to us missing a canine from having his face bashed in by a hoof chasing horses. It didn't stop him, he just learned to duck.
> He also impaled himself on a tree branch racing through the woods after something.
> ...


Ouch! See I think Roxy would back down if the deer turned on her as it's the thrill of the chase for her rather than catching the animal. I've seen her do this previously (she went to chase a hare, it stopped then turned & ran at her).

The problem is the deer do look very exciting when they run, even I watch them & think 'wow'. They are also very easy to chase here; lots of flat fields so you can see them running for miles .... & their white tails against the ploughed fields makes this even easier!!

The doberman I was training with today was the same so the e-collar was used & was successful .... but I understand that she was a different dog to Roxy.

She still remembers her 'best day' (when she b*ggered off chasing for an hour) as every time we get to the spot she starts to get very excited so she is never off a long line now at that point, I just don't take a chance there any more.

But, would I have used an e-collar if my trainer had thought it suitable & effective for Roxy's chasing? Yes, I would have. It was somthing I had thought alot about, read alot of articles & asked alot of people who had used them (unsuccessfully as well as successfully). It's not something I am ashamed of admitting tbh


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

newfiesmum said:


> Because I was standing next to him at the time and he ran off. I couldn't get him to come back to me, it was as though he was frightened of me. That is how I know.


thats just the action of a sentient being that got a shock (literally in his case)
quite natural really

you must have heard that animals including humans will run off in a panic if they get a fright, even if their loved ones are calling?
not to forget, of course, when one is in such a heightened state of fear, humans take over, cognition reduces down to severe single state focus on the one thing (the fear stimulus), and the senses deteriorate, thus often the person will not see or hear things properly until they have calmed down again

its stands to reason of any animal rubs up against an electric fence, then gets a shock, they are gonna suspect the electric fence. thats what they were invented for, and how they work. which is why a horse can get zapped once, you can turn the fence off, and the horse still wont go near it and try and get out the field,


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> Ouch! See I think Roxy would back down if the deer turned on her as it's the thrill of the chase for her rather than catching the animal. I've seen her do this previously (she went to chase a hare, it stopped then turned & ran at her).
> 
> The problem is the deer do look very exciting when they run, even I watch them & think 'wow'. They are also very easy to chase here; lots of flat fields so you can see them running for miles .... & their white tails against the ploughed fields makes this even easier!!


Last year we did meet up with a 'cross' deer that didn't back down and Isla was very scared.
We were walking along a footpath in heath and woodland when I became aware that a red deer hind was walking parallel to me on the other side of some bushes. I stopped, it stopped. I moved on, it moved on. When we came to a path crossroads, she came up the path towards us, so I stood still. Everytime I tried to move forward, the deer moved to block my way and gradually came closer. It dawned on me that she probably had a calf hidden close by, so we swung off left and she watched us leave. I felt very vulnerable as red deer are large and she wasn't afraid of Isla who was barking. Turning away and exposing my back didn't seem like a good idea, but luckily she just wanted us to leave.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Tails and Trails said:


> thats just the action of a sentient being that got a shock (literally in his case)
> quite natural really
> 
> you must have heard that animals including humans will run off in a panic if they get a fright, even if their loved ones are calling?
> ...


If a dog is looking at you, when he brushes his back end against an electric fence and gets a shock, he is going to think it is the thing or person he is looking at that caused it. He is not going to think 'oh, there's a fence behind me' - that stands to reason. I have had dogs for thirty years in addition to growing up with them - allow me to know my own dogs better than you.


----------



## Tails and Trails (Jan 9, 2014)

newfiesmum said:


> If a dog is looking at you, when he brushes his back end against an electric fence and gets a shock, he is going to think it is the thing or person he is looking at that caused it. He is not going to think 'oh, there's a fence behind me' - that stands to reason. I have had dogs for thirty years in addition to growing up with them - allow me to know my own dogs better than you.


You didn't mention before he was looking at you

Length of dog ownership or personal bond with your dog wouldn't be relevant contingencies in this analysis
For me too

I know my dog whom ran to a fence got shocked then was suspicious of similar fences. This is how it works for horses

I know another dog that did the same whilst horse was poking head thru then was suspicious of similar fences and horses

I know another dog that didn't see the fence was looking at owner then touched fence then got shock so was suspicious of owner

The analyses and conclusions depend upon precise observation and communication of the events


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2015)

Blitz said:


> Why would you use an e collar for anything but a final resort. Why on earth would you shock a dog to teach it to sit


Using an e-collar to teach a dog to sit is silly IMO too, but the technique itself is not. 
Its basically negative reinforcement, yielding to pressure like we teach horses. Pull on the rein until the horse yields in to the rein, then release the pressure on the bit. Except the rein is the shock collar set on a very low setting - low enough to not be hugely upsetting to the dog, but high enough to be noticeable and annoying enough that the dog is motivated to do something to make it stop. You would not do it without giving the dog any direction either, you usually teach the dog to give in to leash pressure first, then use that to guide the dog in to what he needs to do to make the shock collar pressure stop.

Negative reinforcement is a valid quadrant of learning theory. We use negative reinforcement with dogs all the time, on purpose and unknowingly. 
It IS based on an annoying/punishing stimulus and thus you have all the similar fall-out as you would any time you use punishment - namely that the dog gets habituated and you have to up the ante every time. Just like a horse who ends up with a hard mouth from being yanked on too much, or the dog who initially stopped pulling with a head halter but then the head halter stopped working. Thats not the tool not working, thats the dog habituating to the head halter. Punishment callous.

Personally I simply find behaviors taught with positive reinforcement are just stronger behaviors than those taught with negative reinforcement, so though Ive seen it done successfully, Im not sold on using e-collars as negative reinforcement.



newfiesmum said:


> My own opinion is that any *thinking* dog trainer wouldn't use one at all.


Thats kind of unfair considering how folks like Cleo38 have posted how they did nothing but think long and hard before considering a shock collar.

Not every owner has the same dog nor has had the same experiences. Not every dog comes to you as a puppy that we can train right from the start.
We dont all end up with prey driven dogs because were idiots who didnt know how to choose the right breed. Some of us end up with other peoples messes and end up doing the best we can with the dog we ended up with and the tools we have.

I so sympathize with owners who are desperate. What if your dog was ending up looking like Bates? There are dogs all over who are like Bates and worse, and owners are desperate. Getting impaled again or worse vs. a few quick corrections with a shock collar makes the shock collar not look so bad anymore.

I was lucky. I have access to top-notch trainers who held my hand through tough spots, an environment where I can safely practice recall daily, a dog who has a long list of reinforcers, and, because Bates had no prior associations with me (negative or positive) I didnt have to undo any damage I may have done to the relationship. 
Many owners who have been training ineffectively before they go to get help, will have to first undo the damage to the relationship caused by the dog being confused and frustrated with the owner - or even punished by the owner. Its hard to be the cookie as Susan Garrett says when the dog views you as the mouse trap holding the cookie. And that happens a lot.

Oh, just a quick note about shock collars and snake avoidance - dont do it. Over and over its been proven to be a very unreliable way to make dogs snake-proof, with very unreliable results. Dogs are funny about how they make associations and we just cant guarantee that theyll make the connections we want them to.

The truth is, *most* US snakes that a dog will encounter are not going to be deadly to the dog. Around here, dogs get bitten by copperheads all the time, and while it is vet-worthy, and youll end up with a sick dog for a few days, most dogs will recover just fine. 
If anything, I think Id use positive reinforcement to turn the snake in to a cue to come running back to the owner.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

The trainer I see is very well respected, I am very lucky to live so nearby & have learnt such alot since attending his classes. So much so that I now have one of his pups & am aiming to compete in IPO .... & even if we don't we are having lots of fun!

I think the biggest mistake I made when taking Roxy in was trying to fix her (reactivity towards other dogs/people, etc) rather than building a relationship with her. Most of our walks (initially) were very stressful as she was very anxious & I was so worried we would come across another dog & she would kick off. Not very enjoyable at all tbh. 

It seems so obvious now that I should have just taken time to be with, play with her & build my relationship that way. I saw behaviourists, etc & they all concentrated on behaviour modifictaions rather than strenghtening our relationship. 

Tbh the trainer I see now was the first I met who really stressed the importance of this & made me see how actual training should be fun so the dog wants to do things & wants to be with it's owner & nothing else should matter. I have this with Archer (& it has been easy) but then he came to me at 9wks old, is a different dog & I have learnt alot more since getting Roxy.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2015)

Cleo38 said:


> The trainer I see is very well respected, I am very lucky to live so nearby & have learnt such alot since attending his classes. So much so that I now have one of his pups & am aiming to compete in IPO .... & even if we don't we are having lots of fun!
> 
> I think the biggest mistake I made when taking Roxy in was trying to fix her (reactivity towards other dogs/people, etc) rather than building a relationship with her. Most of our walks (initially) were very stressful as she was very anxious & I was so worried we would come across another dog & she would kick off. Not very enjoyable at all tbh.
> 
> ...


That relationship piece is so important isnt it? 
Its hard to teach because its so unique to each dog, and so hard to fix when it goes cattywampus. I really thing a lot of what worked with Bates was simply because he was in a new home with new people and no pre-established associations with us - positive or negative. We had no history together.

I think if his previous owners had done the exact same recall training they would not have been as successful simply because of his already established history with them - a long history of non compliance, associations of anxiety and punishment, all of that can build an insurmountable wall between dog and owner. When his former owner said he just doesnt care, it was 100% true. He didnt give a flip what they thought. With us, he very much cares. Sometimes too much as I get anxious in the ring and that shuts him down too.

I love this article and have posted it often - its about dogs who wont work for food, but there are some really good examples in there of how we owners slowly chip away at that connection with our dogs, poison cues, and simply make the work of training much more difficult for ourselves, most of the time completely unwittingly. Lots of food for thought in here:
LIFE AS A HUMAN â Some Dogs Won't Work For Food


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Cleo38 said:


> The trainer I see is very well respected, I am very lucky to live so nearby & have learnt such alot since attending his classes. So much so that I now have one of his pups & am aiming to compete in IPO .... & even if we don't we are having lots of fun!
> 
> I think the biggest mistake I made when taking Roxy in was trying to fix her (reactivity towards other dogs/people, etc) rather than building a relationship with her. Most of our walks (initially) were very stressful as she was very anxious & I was so worried we would come across another dog & she would kick off. Not very enjoyable at all tbh.
> 
> ...


For me that is the biggest reason not to use a shock collar though - the relationship. We all make mistakes as we go along and learn something new with each dog (hopefully) and of course times change and new ideas replace old ones but shocking a dog seems like such a retrograde step. It feels like going back decades to the days when children should be seen and not heard and dogs should fear/respect/obey their master. Surely things have moved on from those days.

When Arthur first came and we began to realise what a major problem we had on our hands which was I think made worse by him having lived as a stray and being pretty independent plus he was shut down from his time in rescue and having been moved about a lot we decided to back off completely. We spent 6 months just leaving him be pretty much, on a lead or long line just getting to know us and the other dogs. For a few months whenever we stopped anywhere for a sit down he would go to the end of the line and sit with him back to us scanning the horizon and it wasn't until he started to show interest in us and come and join us more that my OH really started to work on the training side and built their relationship. I couldn't have Arthur off lead as he doesn't have that same bond with me but I do strongly believe that bond would be undermined by shocking him.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> For me that is the biggest reason not to use a shock collar though - the relationship.


Depends on how you use it...
One of the potential benefits of shock collars is that you can use them in a way where the dog does not associate you with the punishment.

Of course dogs are not stupid and many figure out that the collar is where the pain/annoyance comes from, and who puts that collar on.
Sad story: a gal with a lovely spaniel was having drop on recall issues. The local shock jock told her "oh we can fix that right up". She put a shock collar on the dog, corrected the dog for not dropping fast enough, dog responded well to the training, everyone was happy. 
A few days later the owner went to switch out collars, took one collar off, went to put another one on, and the dog savaged her hand. Dog was PTS.

Sure, you could argue the dog was unstable to begin with, might not have had anything to do with the shock collar, who knows. All I know is that if I was that owner, I'd have a really hard time forgiving myself.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Depends on how you use it...
> One of the potential benefits of shock collars is that you can use them in a way where the dog does not associate you with the punishment.
> 
> Of course dogs are not stupid and many figure out that the collar is where the pain/annoyance comes from, and who puts that collar on.
> ...


Thats so very sad and is kinda what I'm getting at. Even if the dog didn't know it was me shocking it I would know and I would feel I was letting my dog down and not being genuine (like stabbing a friend in the back) if that makes sense.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thats so very sad and is kinda what I'm getting at. Even if the dog didn't know it was me shocking it I would know and I would feel I was letting my dog down and not being genuine (like stabbing a friend in the back) if that makes sense.


I understand but then I felt I was letting my dog down by keeping her on a lead all the time.

For me, it may not have been something I actually wanted to do but if it worked then it would have been worth it for her to have been allowed more freedom.

I do think that because she has not got a strong character & is stressy then this would have not been a good move, as my trainer advised me. It has been proved (sort of) right as she recently had surgery from a prolapsed disc & whilst she has recovered really well physically she is nervous of certain activities (& places) as she now associates them with pain. I am having to gradually re-introduce play as she is quite wary now. Whereas Toby was exactly the same after his ops (ruptured crucitaes) Roxy is not & the anxiety has sort of crept back in again


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thats so very sad and is kinda what I'm getting at. Even if the dog didn't know it was me shocking it I would know and I would feel I was letting my dog down and not being genuine (like stabbing a friend in the back) if that makes sense.


That is very sad. I wonder if some people that use e collars do it in a very dominant way - like 'ha ha, I have got you now , let's put this collar on and stop you misbehaving' in which case a dog might be tense over the whole collar thing.

With both the dogs I have used one on I have made a big thing of them going out for a walk, training, great fun, they are wonderful dogs and the collar is just a part of that routine. With the current one I was not managing to get on with anything if she was with me as literally one second she was there , the next she was gone. My aim was for her to think that following a rabbit scent was uncomfortable, to be with me was wonderful. I had to use the thing for shocking twice and both times I could see her clearly, let her run so that the rabbit bit hopefully would sink in. Both times she stopped, looked puzzled and sloped back to me get the biggest fuss I could give her. I would not say that she would never chase a rabbit but she is much more trustworthy and to me and I believe for her it was well worth a few moments of discomfort or even slight pain to be allowed a lot more freedom. Of course I would much rather not have to do it and it would never be something I would plan to do with a young dog or suggest that anyone else did it as the timing has to be very accurate and the dog has to be the right dog to do it with.

It is great that this discussion is a proper discussion. It seems a good few people on here have experience, both good and bad , rather than just the knee jerk action that it has to be the spawn of the devil.

I would agree that they should not be necessarily so freely available (though a good one is expensive) to anyone to get one as there is no doubt they can be abused.

The other thing I just thought of, the good collars come with a dummy collar so the dog gets so used to wearing the dummy before the shock collar goes on it really is very unlikely it would think of the collar as the culprit. So again bad use of a not necessarily bad tool can cause problems.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Blitz said:


> That is very sad. I wonder if some people that use e collars do it in a very dominant way - like 'ha ha, I have got you now , let's put this collar on and stop you misbehaving' in which case a dog might be tense over the whole collar thing.
> 
> With both the dogs I have used one on I have made a big thing of them going out for a walk, training, great fun, they are wonderful dogs and the collar is just a part of that routine. With the current one I was not managing to get on with anything if she was with me as literally one second she was there , the next she was gone. My aim was for her to think that following a rabbit scent was uncomfortable, to be with me was wonderful. I had to use the thing for shocking twice and both times I could see her clearly, let her run so that the rabbit bit hopefully would sink in. Both times she stopped, looked puzzled and sloped back to me get the biggest fuss I could give her. I would not say that she would never chase a rabbit but she is much more trustworthy and to me and I believe for her it was well worth a few moments of discomfort or even slight pain to be allowed a lot more freedom. Of course I would much rather not have to do it and it would never be something I would plan to do with a young dog or suggest that anyone else did it as the timing has to be very accurate and the dog has to be the right dog to do it with.
> 
> ...


It is :thumbup1:

I think it's important people are able to feel they can discuss all training aspects without worry they will be judged harshly


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Hello, first post here. 

I was banned from a UK GSD forum for discussing my use of an ecollar. Actually, to be fair, it was more like discussing my successful use of an ecollar. You may not agree with them, however, there are times when they can be invaluable.

I used the vibrate function to rectify my nephews boxer bitch attacking every other dog on sight. The bitch, which he rescued from a breeder who was going to have her destroyed because she could no longer be bred from, is a beautiful 4 year old boxer named 'Ruby'. 

The collar rectified her aggressive behaviour in less than 90 seconds. It was used after many other training attempts at socialising the dog were exhausted.

Here's a video I made of the dog socialising with my own dog shortly after the ecollar was introduced to her. Ten minutes earlier we had to drag her away from trying to savage him. After using the ecollar, she can now run freely in the park and is no threat to other dogs anymore.


I use the bleeper function for recall on my own dog. It's good for when near traffic or if he's the other side of a river searching, crowded places and so on.


Sometimes they can be the difference between life and death. Certainly for Ruby, that was the case.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> Hello, first post here.
> 
> I was banned from a UK GSD forum for discussing my use of an ecollar. Actually, to be fair, it was more like discussing my successful use of an ecollar. You may not agree with them, however, there are times when they can be invaluable.
> 
> ...


Um... yeah... Not impressed at all, sorry 

Your boxer looked about to pass out and you kept going despite her clearly needing a break 

The beeper collar is stupid. If all you're doing is beeping to cue the dog to come, why not a whistle that costs pennies by comparison to the e-collar?
I didn't like how the dog seemed confused either, teasing him with the "in" cue? Not cool, not my thing.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> Hello, first post here.
> 
> *I was banned from a UK GSD forum for discussing my use of an ecollar. *Actually, to be fair, it was more like discussing my successful use of an ecollar. You may not agree with them, however, there are times when they can be invaluable.
> 
> ...


Well, good for them. I am sorry to reply like this to your first post, but we have a rule against the promotion of shock collars on this forum. Calling them e-collars doesn't make them any more humane. I have deleted your links as we do not want to see how your dog was trained by cruelty. It is clear from your post that the speed with which this worked was your priority, when a few weeks of reward based training would have had a better result. Your dog should not be on the other side of the river or near traffic on his own in the first place, he should be on lead near these dangerous places.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

I'm not promoting them and taking it off topic doesn't change the story or the facts.

I'm also not trying to impress either. Just merely showing the successful side of their use.


----------



## Pawscrossed (Jul 2, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> I'm not promoting them and taking it off topic doesn't change the story or the facts.
> 
> I'm also not trying to impress either. Just merely showing the successful side of their use.


I don't read anything successful in your actions for your dog.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Bumping up an old thread for your first post on a controversial subject? Yeah, because you're not trolling of course not!  

You might want to take your 'love' of e-collars elsewhere where people share your view on your 'success'.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Pawscrossed said:


> I don't read anything successful in your actions for your dog.


I read that she's no longer aggressive to other dogs and, to this day, she still is.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> I read that she's no longer aggressive to other dogs and, to this day, she still is.


To clarify, dogs are not aggressive, behavior is. Behavior can often be modified, dogs inherent traits cannot. You will not make a sighthound not a sighthound with training. You can teach a sighthound impulse control and a solid recall with training.

That your dog is no longer aggressive towards other dogs suggest that the behavior was trainable and thus any effective method would have worked.

Effective training is effective training. Tools do not make training effective. And IMHO what you posted on those videos was not effective or successful training. It was good enough training, that anyone can accomplish with any tools. Thus, I am not impressed


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> I'm not promoting them and taking it off topic doesn't change the story or the facts.
> 
> I'm also not trying to impress either. Just merely showing the successful side of their use.


It is not off topic; it is very much on topic. There is no successful side to using painful and barbaric aversive in the name of training. That is not training. Why? Because take away the painful collar and the dog has learned nothing. Try leaving it off and see what happens.



LeighPing said:


> I read that she's no longer aggressive to other dogs and, to this day, she still is.


Do you know anything at all about dogs? This poor dog sounds as though she has had a lousy life, bred half to death then dumped into the hands of someone who thinks it's great to shock her to make herself look good. It is obvious to me why the dog is aggressive to other dogs - because the only dogs she has met before were male dogs humping her. She has had no socialisation and is scared to death. That is why dogs are aggressive, because they are scared. Do you imagine getting a painful shock when she meets another dog is going to make her less scared? She needed a few months of briefly meeting other dogs, on lead, and lots of treats and fuss when she did not react. Instead she is being punished for behaviour caused by selfish humans, the first one wanting to make money from her suffering, the second wanting to make herself feel important and clever from her suffering.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> Your dog should not be on the other side of the river or near traffic on his own in the first place, he should be on lead near these dangerous places.


Maybe if you had left the video link up, some of your other adult members could have judged this for themselves.

Or, do you assume that everyone must have the same opinion as you?

Here's another of my videos.


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

I watched the video of the boxer supposedly "cured" of her aggressive behaviour by use of the shock collar.

It wasn't comfortable viewing at all and it's distressing to think that both you and presumably her owner think that a few shocks have made her perfectly happy in the company of other dogs :nonod:


----------



## Pawscrossed (Jul 2, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> I read that she's no longer aggressive to other dogs and, to this day, she still is.


My dog is not aggressive to any other dog because I use techniques that are kind to him, reward him for great things instead of causing him pain for something he does not understand. My dog knows that other dogs mean good things. He knows never to run away from me as I offer lots more fun.

Good luck with the future - you haven't actually taught your dog anything but fear as there is no connection.

I saw the video link before it was removed and there wasn't anything in that which is not to be found in your words. What I absolutely know is that my dog and I have a bond that can only be gained through him trusting me to do the right thing. There is absolutely nothing that you can show or write here that would ever convince me to change my training tools from positive to negative and inflict agony on my dog. The fear in your dog is inhumane.

Perhaps you should look at positive methods and see how you can learn from those? It seems a better way to use this thread than attempting to tell seasoned dog owners and trainers that pain is good.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

SingingWhippet said:


> I watched the video of the boxer supposedly "cured" of her aggressive behaviour by use of the shock collar.
> 
> It wasn't comfortable viewing at all and it's distressing to think that both you and presumably her owner think that a few shocks have made her perfectly happy in the company of other dogs :nonod:


Yes, she's cured of it now and the ecollar only needed to be used for around 90 seconds. Remarkable isn't it. Now she no longer needs it and is very well behaved when in the company of other dogs.

Demonising me won't change that fact. It's just a shame that you fail to accept that they can have any positive use at all.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Pawscrossed said:


> My dog is not aggressive to any other dog because I use techniques that are kind to him, reward him for great things instead of causing him pain for something he does not understand. My dog knows that other dogs mean good things. He knows never to run away from me as I offer lots more fun.
> 
> Good luck with the future - you haven't actually taught your dog anything but fear as there is no connection.
> 
> ...


Well said. Who wants to control their dog by making it suffer and scaring it? Not me and obviously not you, not anyone else on this forum. Our dogs do what we want without even being told because they have that bond.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> Yes, she's cured of it now and the ecollar only needed to be used for around 90 seconds. Remarkable isn't it. Now she no longer needs it and is very well behaved when in the company of other dogs.
> 
> Demonising me won't change that fact. It's just a shame that you fail to accept that they can have any positive use at all.


So do you now take her out and among other dogs without that collar on? Or is it still there as a threat, just in case? There are not many on this forum who would agree that these things have any positive use whatsoever and if they had, I doubt the Welsh government would have banned them. Now what is needed is to ban the people who use them.


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> Now she no longer needs it and is very well behaved when in the company of other dogs.


Going by that video she may appear well behaved but she's certainly not happy.

Can you honestly not see all the stress indicators she's giving out? The lip licking, the panting, the tense face, the pinned ears, the avoidance (both head turning and physically moving away) of the other dog?


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

LeighPing said:


> Yes, she's cured of it now and the ecollar only needed to be used for around 90 seconds. Remarkable isn't it. Now she no longer needs it and is very well behaved when in the company of other dogs.
> 
> Demonising me won't change that fact. It's just a shame that you fail to accept that they can have any positive use at all.


Lazy 'trainers' train by fear. I admire your ability to ignore the link and that you can sleep at night knowing you have inflicted pain.

I had the displeasure of meeting a trainer who thinks that pain is the correct way to treat a dog. When I asked him to put on the ecollar he laughed. I insisted and suggested that I wear it then. He refused completely unsurprisingly. I wonder if you have ever worn an ecollar and can tell me how painful it is?

The point is that I know that rewarding works but I was curious about how something that causes pain can help a dog. I mean if I hit you for posting crap on this thread, you'd fight back because that's wrong isn't it? You're fighting back now because we're basically saying it's all ut: If you posted great stuff and I repped you for that and fed you cake you'd be a lot happier and would post sensible, good stuff? Basically dogs aren't daft, but some humans certainly are.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> So do you now take her out and among other dogs without that collar on? Or is it still there as a threat, just in case? There are not many on this forum who would agree that these things have any positive use whatsoever and if they had, I doubt the Welsh government would have banned them. Now what is needed is to ban the people who use them.


Yes. She is fine with other dogs now and even my nephews wife and children are a lot more relaxed with her around other dogs.



LeighPing said:


> The collar rectified her aggressive behaviour in less than 90 seconds. It was used after many other training attempts at socialising the dog were exhausted.


Have I stated anywhere that a shock collar was used on these two dogs? No.

As for banning them. Good luck with that.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> Yes, she's cured of it now and the ecollar only needed to be used for around 90 seconds. Remarkable isn't it. Now she no longer needs it and is very well behaved when in the company of other dogs.
> 
> Demonising me won't change that fact. It's just a shame that you fail to accept that they can have any positive use at all.


Im not arguing that e-collars dont have a legitimate use in dog training, what Im arguing is that the videos you posted do not demonstrate an effective use of this training tool.

The boxer bitch was physically distressed in that video. Failing to tend to a dogs physical needs is not good training no matter what tools youre using. I would say the same thing to a clicker trainer training their dog to the point of exhaustion.
And as Ive already said (and you failed to respond to), that her aggressive behavior was modified through training doesnt prove the effectiveness of the tool, it just proves that the behavior can be modified.

The black dog (GSD?) was confused and offering displacement behaviors, your cues were confusing, and you teased him with something he dislikes (the in cue). I did not see effective training here.
Plus I just think it is totally unnecessary to spend the expense on an e-collar if youre just beeping the dog to a come. Why not simply use a whistle if all youre doing is using a sound cue?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

SingingWhippet said:


> Going by that video she may appear well behaved but she's certainly not happy.
> 
> Can you honestly not see all the stress indicators she's giving out? The lip licking, the panting, the tense face, the pinned ears, the avoidance (both head turning and physically moving away) of the other dog?


Judging by her posts, I don't think she cares if the dog is happy. Do you honestly imagine she has any idea about stress indicators or any other dog body language? If she did she would not be telling us how wonderful a shock collar is. Or she might consider the dog has no right to put her point of view by using stress indicators.

It was this sort of rubbish which got the subject banned from this forum in the first place; so far we've been able to have a sensible discussion. I hope that is not going to be spoilt.


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> Have I stated anywhere that a shock collar was used on these two dogs? No.


Yup, right here:



LeighPing said:


> *The collar rectified her aggressive behaviour in less than 90 seconds.* It was used after many other training attempts at socialising the dog were exhausted.
> 
> *Here's a video I made of the dog socialising with my own dog shortly after the ecollar was introduced to her.* Ten minutes earlier we had to drag her away from trying to savage him. *After using the ecollar*, she can now run freely in the park and is no threat to other dogs anymore.


Calling it an "e-collar" doesn't change what it is and regardless of whether it was on a shock setting or a vibrate one it's only use is still as an aversive and the results, as seen in that video, are still the same; a stressed out dog.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Im not arguing that e-collars dont have a legitimate use in dog training


Thanks for your observations.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

Oh, blergh.... never mind... :thumbdown: :thumbdown: 

This idiot has a video of a young child locked in a crate WITH the black dog and the kid is bragging about stepping on the dogs tail as he is IN the crate with the dog. Dammit.... Why?! :mad5:


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

SingingWhippet said:


> Yup, right here:
> 
> Calling it an "e-collar" doesn't change what it is and regardless of whether it was on a shock setting or a vibrate one it's only use is still as an aversive and the results, as seen in that video, are still the same; a stressed out dog.


This is what I actually said..



> *I used the vibrate function* to rectify my nephews boxer bitch attacking every other dog on sight. The bitch, which he rescued from a breeder who was going to have her destroyed because she could no longer be bred from, is a beautiful 4 year old boxer named 'Ruby'.


Try not to twist that to suit your own agenda please.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

double post


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

LeighPing said:


> This is what I actually said..
> 
> Try not to twist that to suit your own agenda please.





LeighPing said:


> Thanks for your observations.


Did you read the rest of the comment? I do think you need a better 'look at me' and recall yourself.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> Yes. She is fine with other dogs now and even my nephews wife and children are a lot more relaxed with her around other dogs.
> 
> Have I stated anywhere that a shock collar was used on these two dogs? No.
> 
> As for banning them. Good luck with that.


Had your nephew and his wife learned about properly rehabilitating a rescue dog before getting her, they would have been more relaxed around her anyway and the dog would never have picked up their anxiety and been aggressive.

What two dogs? No idea what you are talking about. As for banning them, THEY ARE ALREADY BANNED IN WALES. I thought I made that clear. Not only shock collars, but electric fencing which is connected to a collar or anything else of that nature is banned in Wales - that means it is banned, already, not allowed to be sold or used. Get it?


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

MollySmith said:


> Did you read the rest of the comment? I do think you need a better 'look at me' and recall yourself.


Yes, I read it. That's why I thanked you. Thanks again.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

LeighPing said:


> Yes, I read it. That's why I thanked you. Thanks again.


To quote yourself



LeighPing said:


> Try not to twist that to suit your own agenda please.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

> MollySmith said:
> 
> 
> > Did you read the rest of the comment? I do think you need a better 'look at me' and recall yourself.
> ...


Yeah, you didnt thank Molly, you thanked me.

Work on those observation skills there dude. You could definitely use them in dog training and keeping your dog and child safe


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> Had your nephew and his wife learned about properly rehabilitating a rescue dog before getting her, they would have been more relaxed around her anyway and the dog would never have picked up their anxiety and been aggressive.
> 
> What two dogs? No idea what you are talking about. As for banning them, THEY ARE ALREADY BANNED IN WALES. I thought I made that clear. Not only shock collars, but electric fencing which is connected to a collar or anything else of that nature is banned in Wales - that means it is banned, already, not allowed to be sold or used. Get it?


I'm not in Wales and I really have no intention of going there. I also said this..



LeighPing said:


> The collar rectified her aggressive behaviour in less than 90 seconds. It was used after many other training attempts at socialising the dog were exhausted.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Yeah, you didnt thank Molly, you thanked me.
> 
> Work on those observation skills there dude. You could definitely use them in dog training and keeping your dog and child safe


It's sometimes hard to keep up. But thanks to you too. I'm glad you watched the video and I'm happy to read all your opinions.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Lucky Wales


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> I'm not in Wales and I really have no intention of going there. I also said this..


That is your problem, right there: After many other attempts...I wonder how long that went on for before you found you could bully her into behaving in 90 seconds. I've tried everything usually means a day or two then decide it doesn't work. I wouldn't call that exhausted. You obviously know sweet sod all about dogs and I doubt they would have you in Wales anyway. You are missing the point: Governments do not make laws like this without a lot of pressure from the general public and your flippant comment that it doesn't matter because you won't be going there, is laughable.

We were having a sensible discussion until you came along.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> That is your problem, right there: After many other attempts...I wonder how long that went on for before you found you could bully her into behaving in 90 seconds. I've tried everything usually means a day or two then decide it doesn't work. I wouldn't call that exhausted. You obviously know sweet sod all about dogs and I doubt they would have you in Wales anyway. You are missing the point: Governments do not make laws like this without a lot of pressure from the general public and your flippant comment that it doesn't matter because you won't be going there, is laughable.
> 
> *We were having a sensible discussion until you came along.*


Yes we were....


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Yes we were....


Until someone with a sensible opinion on the positive use of an ecollar came along you mean?

I'm just demonstrating that they can be used successfully. I'm sorry that you can't accept that, despite the facts. Clearly you won't consider that ever being a possibility.


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

You know what, never mind.

I've better things to do than waste my time arguing with someone who can post a video like that as evidence of the success of shock collar use.

There's none so blind as those who will not see.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> Until someone with a sensible opinion on the positive use of an ecollar came along you mean?


Nope, thats not what I mean. Your opinion is not sensible (you still havent responded to the point of an expensive collar that beeps as opposed to a good old whistle), and you have not demonstrated any sort of effective use of the e-collar.



LeighPing said:


> I'm just demonstrating that they can be used successfully. I'm sorry that you can't accept that, despite the facts. Clearly you won't consider that ever being a possibility.


No, youre really not demonstrating that they can be used successfully. There are people who can and do use e-collars humanely and successfully, you dont appear to be one of these people.
Clearly you have no idea what I will and wont consider.

But this is a good example of why these discussions are so hard to have, because there are so many people like you out there that make it impossible to discuss effective, humane use of e-collars in very specific instances (deaf dog who finds the vibration function aversive is a good example).


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> Yes, she's cured of it now and the ecollar only needed to be used for around 90 seconds. Remarkable isn't it. Now she no longer needs it and is very well behaved when in the company of other dogs.
> 
> Demonising me won't change that fact. It's just a shame that you fail to accept that they can have any positive use at all.


But at what expense is the behaviour 'cured'? At the dog's mental welfare? You may have fixed the behaviour but I can bet that dog is not happy when in the presence of other dogs. But I believe that is the goal of most shock collar trainers, to fix the behaviour and sod the 'emotional' aspect of training and the welfare of the dog's mental state in how it perceives the 'threat' of other dogs. 
That's what ultimately makes you a poor trainer, not a successful one.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Honest opinion?...

Trying to claim that *90-seconds* of aversive stimuli "cured" a long-standing, fluent,
well-rehearsed behavior, & *eliminated* a previous CER / Conditioned Emotional-Response,
is ridiculous.

Habits become habitual by being done over & over & over & over & over & ov... And U can't simply QUASH 
a fluent, habitual behavior, let alone REMOVE an underlying emotional-response! - in _*90-seconds of shock!*_

It takes a human - a theoretically-rational being, who's capable of abstract thought & understands spoken 
language - an average of a *month* to establish a new behavior, that replaces a former habit.

& here U claim that 1.5-minutes of electrical shock "cured" Ur dog of aggro behavior toward other dogs,
& that now, this formerly-aggro dog adores all other dogs, greets them joyfully, plays with them, is highly
sociable & incredibly-tolerant.

Have U spoken to King Tut, using Ur Ouija board, too?... Or discovered that U were Cleopatra in a past life?
:blink: Or that U can produce cold-fusion in a recycled water-bottle on Ur kitchen table, & light Ur own
neighborhood, a 5-square-kilometer area, with that energy?...

Any one of those 3 sounds more-likely, to me. 
.
.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

LeighPing said:


> Yes, I read it. That's why I thanked you. Thanks again.


I don't want any thanks from someone who thinks it's okay to have a child step on a dogs tail and boast about it. Both are far too precious to let down by the actions of your deluded 'methods' :frown2:



LeighPing said:


> It's sometimes hard to keep up. But thanks to you too. I'm glad you watched the video and I'm happy to read all your opinions.





LeighPing said:


> Until someone with a sensible opinion on the positive use of an ecollar came along you mean?
> 
> I'm just demonstrating that they can be used successfully. I'm sorry that you can't accept that, despite the facts. Clearly you won't consider that ever being a possibility.


Hurrah for PF not accepting your theories. What did you expect!

I get the feeling that if you were a dog and you needed to learn recall, you'd be running around the field with not a single clue who said what and where you'd find the nice piece of metaphorical cake. You said in your post that you had 'exhausted' any other way to teach poor Ruby to recall. From your posts and your replies here which are either the workings of a very confused person or a shoddy attempt at manipulation, it's clear that your dog is being failed by a poor ownership. Your vague attempts at directing that frankly terrified dog were inconstant, vague and clumsy so no wonder you've failed in the past. Vibrate is a patch up job and will only last so long (I dearly wish that Ruby will run away to a nice family) as you have taught her nothing.

So much of training is about the human being. It's been seen on PF numerous times that when a dog still refuses to do something it's almost always caused by the human not being consistent in sticking to a method. Your answer to use a vibrate function makes no sense. There is no science.

You haven't explained any science and you certainly haven't given any facts. I saw no facts in your video beyond you really shouldn't own a dog.

So what facts?


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> That is your problem, right there: After many other attempts...I wonder how long that went on for before you found you could bully her into behaving in 90 seconds. I've tried everything usually means a day or two then decide it doesn't work. I wouldn't call that exhausted. You obviously know sweet sod all about dogs and I doubt they would have you in Wales anyway. You are missing the point: Governments do not make laws like this without a lot of pressure from the general public and your flippant comment that it doesn't matter because you won't be going there, is laughable.
> 
> *We were having a sensible discussion until you came along. *


My comments are sensible. You just don't agree with them. That doesn't make me an idiot either. Those dogs aren't bullied and I think that I'm maybe not the one with the flippant comments around here.

As for pressuring govt. Like I said, good luck with that.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> My comments are sensible. You just don't agree with them. That doesn't make me an idiot either. Those dogs aren't bullied and I think that I'm maybe not the one with the flippant comments around here.
> 
> As for pressuring govt. Like I said, good luck with that.


Deluded as well as ignorant. I'm yet to see a shock collar trainer who isn't one or both....

You're not Lou Castle or one of his dreadful cronies are you by any chance? :huh:


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

MollySmith said:


> I don't want any thanks from someone who thinks it's okay to have a child step on a dogs tail and boast about it. Both are far too precious to let down by the actions of your deluded 'methods' :frown2:
> 
> I get the feeling that if you were a dog and you needed to learn recall, you'd be running around the field with not a single clue who said what and where you'd find the nice piece of metaphorical cake. You said in your post that you had 'exhausted' any other way to teach poor Ruby to recall. From your posts and your replies here which are either the workings of a very confused person or a shoddy attempt at manipulation, it's clear that your dog is being failed by a pi$$ poor owner. Your vague attempts at directing that frankly terrified dog were inconstant, vague and clumsy so no wonder you've failed in the past. Vibrate is a patch up job and will only last so long (I dearly wish that Ruby will run away to a nice family) as you have taught her nothing.
> 
> ...


It's lasted quite a while so far. Got a theory on that?

My theory was that the dog feared all other dogs, so it attacked them. Maybe that's the lesser of the two evils now. Either way, she is behaving right now. Clearly that's inconvenient for you. I just don't understand why.

Explaining science? Pavlovs dog. There you go. But realistically, I just pressed a button and she stopped doing nasty stuff to other dogs. That's all the science I needed tbh.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> Deluded as well as ignorant. I'm yet to see a shock collar trainer who isn't one or both....
> 
> You're not Lou Castle or one of his dreadful cronies are you by any chance? :huh:


No I'm not and to reiterate;- I didn't use any shocks on any dog. Try not to be too offensive in giving it out. You might get it back one day.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> My comments are sensible. You just don't agree with them. That doesn't make me an idiot either. Those dogs aren't bullied and I think that I'm maybe not the one with the flippant comments around here.
> 
> As for pressuring govt. Like I said, good luck with that.


No, you are an idiot. The video I just watched of your grandson in the cage with the dog proves it.

Please keep the kid away from the dog and the dog away from the kid. If that were my child you had done that with I would report you for child endangerment.

And dont tell me the dog is not aggressive. I dont care, he doesnt deserve to be treated like that either. You sat there filming while the child stepped on his tail and grabbed his leg. Had the dog objected youd have NO way of intervening with them both crammed in the crate like that.

Im so pissed right now, I should probably log off for a while before I get myself banned. :mad5: :mad5:


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

ouesi said:


> No, you are an idiot. The video I just watched of your grandson in the cage with the dog proves it.
> 
> Please keep the kid away from the dog and the dog away from the kid. If that were my child you had done that with I would report you for child endangerment.
> 
> ...


You too can keep your offensive comments down if you would please.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

LeighPing said:


> It's lasted quite a while so far. Got a theory on that?
> 
> My theory was that the dog feared all other dogs, so it attacked them. Maybe that's the lesser of the two evils now. Either way, she is behaving right now. Clearly that's inconvenient for you. I just don't understand why.
> 
> Explaining science? Pavlovs dog. There you go. But realistically, I just pressed a button and she stopped doing nasty stuff to other dogs. That's all the science I needed tbh.


So you say, long can be a day, two weeks, a year. We only have your word for that and 'so far' speaks volumes about the 'security' of the method and that you do not understand the methodology behind what the button does. Or indeed body language of your dog.

May I suggest you read leashedForLife's post above.

So let's try again - what are the facts you wish us all to know?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> It's lasted quite a while so far. Got a theory on that?
> 
> My theory was that the dog feared all other dogs, so it attacked them. Mabe that's the lesser of the two evils now. Either way, she is behaving right now. Clearly that's inconvenient for you. I just don't understand why.
> 
> Explaining science? Pavlovs dog. There you go. But realistically, I just pressed a button and she stopped doing nasty stuff to other dogs. That's all the science I needed tbh.


Pavolvian science says she made a connection other dogs= pain. You know like white lab coat meant food, disc pressing against the hand meant a sweet was going to fall from the tube. Using aversives to try to fix aggression can backfire, after all if you associated something with getting a shock you might react aggressively to it as well.

They did an experiment where they put a lot of monkeys in a room with a ladder. When one went on the ladder all the others got a shock. Eventually they all attacked any monkey who went near the ladder.

Shock collars can have a place in proofing known commands that are important like recall but they have no place in this.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> No I'm not and to reiterate;- I didn't use any shocks on any dog. Try not to be too offensive in giving it out. You might get it back one day.


Funny, you sound an awful lot like him and his lot. Quick to doll out a lot of drivel and get uppity when you're challenged....

So you didn't use an electric shock collar then?


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> You too can keep your offensive comments down if you would please.


You offend me by endangering children and animals and getting a kick out of it.
So I guess were even.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

In case you need it, here is a nice and easy link to body language in dogs. Perhaps you and your child can spend a little while spotting how many of these you can find in your videos. You may need a large sheet of paper for this one.

The.Bouncy.Mutt: Doggy Body Language...Know It Before Assuming What You Think How Your Dog Feels


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> Until someone with a sensible opinion on the positive use of an ecollar came along you mean?
> 
> I'm just demonstrating that they can be used successfully. I'm sorry that you can't accept that, despite the facts. Clearly you won't consider that ever being a possibility.


I am still waiting for the sensible opinion. You have demonstrated only that they can be used to terrify a dog into doing what you want. There is no success in that.



LeighPing said:


> My comments are sensible. You just don't agree with them. That doesn't make me an idiot either. Those dogs aren't bullied and I think that I'm maybe not the one with the flippant comments around here.
> 
> As for pressuring govt. Like I said, good luck with that.


I think perhaps your English is a little lacking as this will be the third time I have said it: Government was already pressured; Wales has already banned them. Pay attention, please.



Dogloverlou said:


> Deluded as well as ignorant. I'm yet to see a shock collar trainer who isn't one or both....
> 
> You're not Lou Castle or one of his dreadful cronies are you by any chance? :huh:


Don't give her ideas, please. She will be looking him up to join his fan club.



LeighPing said:


> It's lasted quite a while so far. Got a theory on that?
> 
> My theory was that the dog feared all other dogs, so it attacked them. Maybe that's the lesser of the two evils now. Either way, *she is behaving right now. Clearly that's inconvenient for you. I just don't understand why.*Explaining science? Pavlovs dog. There you go. But realistically, I just pressed a button and she stopped doing nasty stuff to other dogs. That's all the science I needed tbh.


Of course she is behaving; she is scared to death to do anything else. If you don't understand why a whole forum of dog lovers think you are an animal abuser, then there is little hope.



ouesi said:


> No, you are an idiot. *The video I just watched of your grandson in the cage with the dog proves it. *
> 
> Please keep the kid away from the dog and the dog away from the kid. If that were my child you had done that with I would report you for child endangerment.
> 
> ...


Grandson? I thought we were dealing with a pre pubescent teenager.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> Pavolvian science ..
> 
> Shock collars can have a place in proofing known commands that are important like recall but they have no place in this.


Pretty much. Wearing the collar will now suffice to bring about the desired behaviour.

@Ouesi, had a child been endangered, I'd have been apprehended by now I'm sure. 

@MollySmith, thanks. But that dog's just a pet. A bit of twitchiness won't effect his status in the home.


----------



## steveshanks (Feb 19, 2015)

We should put them on the humans and give the dog the controller, I swear the human race is getting stupider by the day ;o(.........Steve


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

I know this is an old thread, but I have a question and finally registered in order to get it answered.

I've always had a theory that if a dog knows what it IS NOT supposed to do, as well as what it IS supposed to do, it will be more reliable, confident, self-assured and less likely to mess up big time (i.e by biting a person). 


How do positive trainers teach dogs what they aren't allowed to do?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> Pretty much. Wearing the collar will now suffice to bring about the desired behaviour.
> 
> @Ouesi, had a child been endangered, I'd have been apprehended by now I'm sure.
> 
> @MollySmith, thanks. But that dog's just a pet. A bit of twitchiness won't effect his status in the home.


Ah selective quoting what fun . Ok given everything with a backbone responds the same way, if everytime you saw something it caused you pain how would you react?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

dogsaintdumb said:


> I know this is an old thread, but I have a question and finally registered in order to get it answered.
> 
> I've always had a theory that if a dog knows what it IS NOT supposed to do, as well as what it IS supposed to do, it will be more reliable, confident, self-assured and less likely to mess up big time (i.e by biting a person).
> 
> How do positive trainers teach dogs what they aren't allowed to do?


You teach an incompatible behaviour. You don't want a dog jumping up, teach it to sit to greet people for example.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> Of course she is behaving; she is scared to death to do anything else. If you don't understand why a whole forum of dog lovers think you are an animal abuser, then there is little hope.


Does there have to a negative aspect in their use? Must I be labelled with your negativity?

If I were an animal abuser, would I even be here trying to show the positive side to these types of collar?

Perhaps someone else can also benefit in rectifying extremes of behaviour where all else has failed.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

dogsaintdumb said:


> I know this is an old thread, but I have a question and finally registered in order to get it answered.
> 
> I've always had a theory that if a dog knows what it IS NOT supposed to do, as well as what it IS supposed to do, it will be more reliable, confident, self-assured and less likely to mess up big time (i.e by biting a person).
> 
> How do positive trainers teach dogs what they aren't allowed to do?


By clarifying the criteria for the dog of what the desired behavior is.

Clear criteria and effective motivation - i.e.: good training, eliminates the need to punish.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> Ok given everything with a backbone responds the same way, if everytime you saw something it caused you pain how would you react?


Once more, I have used no shocks on any dog.

However, to answer the question. I would stop doing whatever it is I was doing, for sure. You?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> Pretty much. Wearing the collar will now suffice to bring about the desired behaviour.
> 
> @Ouesi, had a child been endangered, I'd have been apprehended by now I'm sure.
> 
> @MollySmith, thanks. But that dog's just a pet. A bit of twitchiness won't effect his status in the home.


'Just a pet' what does that even mean?


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> 'Just a pet' what does that even mean?


It means that I don't work this dog.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> Pretty much. *Wearing the collar will now suffice to bring about the desired behaviour.*
> @Ouesi, had a child been endangered, I'd have been apprehended by now I'm sure.
> 
> @MollySmith, thanks. But that dog's just a pet. A bit of twitchiness won't effect his status in the home.


Just as I asked, but got no reply. You will leave it on as a threat, just as my dad had only to pick up a newspaper for our dog to cower down. That is not training. Were your dog trained, you would be confident in taking the collar off completely. Obviously you are not so your dog is not trained and you know it.



steveshanks said:


> We should put them on the humans and give the dog the controller, I swear the human race is getting stupider by the day ;o(.........Steve


That is a great idea. My daughter ordered an electric collar on the advice of a self styled 'trainer' as a recall device for her spaniel. I persuaded her to use it on herself before putting it on the dog. She did; the dog never got to wear it.



dogsaintdumb said:


> I know this is an old thread, but I have a question and finally registered in order to get it answered.
> 
> I've always had a theory that if a dog knows what it IS NOT supposed to do, as well as what it IS supposed to do, it will be more reliable, confident, self-assured and less likely to mess up big time (i.e by biting a person).
> 
> How do positive trainers teach dogs what they aren't allowed to do?


It very much depends on the situation. For instance, my male newfoundland is 12 stone and his head comes up to my waist. Where we used to live I wanted to keep him away from the sideway where the cats ate, so when I opened the door to go out there I would teach him stay and I would block him from following. I still use the body block to keep him out of cupboards and stuff if necessary. You have to distract the dog away from the bad behaviour with a treat or toy and show him the right way. It is hard work and doesn't work in 90 seconds, but then the dogs are happy and enjoy life, they don't go around terrified all the time.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

LeighPing said:


> Pretty much. Wearing the collar will now suffice to bring about the desired behaviour.
> 
> @Ouesi, had a child been endangered, I'd have been apprehended by now I'm sure.
> 
> @MollySmith, thanks. But that dog's just a pet. A bit of twitchiness won't effect his status in the home.


Eh - 'look at me' and pay attention - your recall is shocking isn't it? To remind you I asked nothing about the home...



MollySmith said:


> So you say, long can be a day, two weeks, a year. We only have your word for that and 'so far' speaks volumes about the 'security' of the method and that you do not understand the methodology behind what the button does. Or indeed body language of your dog.
> 
> May I suggest you read leashedForLife's post above.
> 
> So let's try again - what are the facts you wish us all to know?


Just a pet? You're the one who protests loudly on here, I do think you're just a human.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> It means that I don't work this dog.


I don't work my dogs; what has that got to do with anything?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I must say newfiesmum, I understand totally why you don't really allow the discussion of e-collars. Because unfortunately you get trolls like this joining to promote their use and stir up a whole host of controversy. It's all well and good having 'sensible' discussion, but it leaves the door open to less then genuine debate.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

leashedForLife said:


> *& here U claim that 1.5-minutes of electrical shock "cured" Ur dog of aggro behavior toward other dogs,
> & that now, this formerly-aggro dog adores all other dogs, greets them joyfully, plays with them, is highly
> sociable & incredibly-tolerant.*


Not shocks, vibrations. I do, yes. I made a video to show you all. I posted the link here. The moderator took it down and threatened to ban me if I posted another. Sorry about that.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

steveshanks said:


> We should put them on the humans and give the dog the controller, I swear the human race is getting stupider by the day ;o(.........Steve


Yes agree. I mentioned that a few pages back but the mere human Leighping's recall is so bad, it didn't notice it and refused to respond.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> It means that I don't work this dog.


So....what has that got to do with using e-collars or in reference to the link that MollySmith provided??


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Dogloverlou said:


> I must say newfiesmum, I understand totally why you don't really allow the discussion of e-collars. Because unfortunately you get trolls like this joining to promote their use and stir up a whole host of controversy. It's all well and good having 'sensible' discussion, but it leaves the door open to less then genuine debate.


The ban came about because you had one very fanatical shock collar trainer running around telling everyone that shock collars were the only way to train anything and that treat trainers were the real punishment trainers. He took over so many threads and got so nasty when questioned that it was banned.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> It means that I don't work this dog.


Interesting that the argument often goes the other way. This isn't some silly froo froo pet dog this is a dead 'ard macho working dog that I need to be 'ard to or it won't listen to me.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> I must say newfiesmum, I understand totally why you don't really allow the discussion of e-collars. Because unfortunately you get trolls like this joining to promote their use and stir up a whole host of controversy. It's all well and good having 'sensible' discussion, but it leaves the door open to less then genuine debate.


I'm not protesting about anything. Nor am I being loud about anything either. My debate is genuine too.

I'll gladly answer all questions, when I catch up with them. Just saying that for me, this was a great aid in sorting out an extreme behavioural flaw.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> Interesting that the argument often goes the other way. This isn't some silly froo froo pet dog this is a dead 'ard macho working dog that I need to be 'ard to or it won't listen to me.


Did I say that? No.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> Did I say that? No.


I was only pointing out the contrast between the usual argument for these collars


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> I was only pointing out the contrast between the usual argument for these collars


Oh I see. Sorry about that then.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> I'm not protesting about anything. Nor am I being loud about anything either. My debate is genuine too.
> 
> I'll gladly answer all questions, when I catch up with them. Just saying that for me, this was a great aid in sorting out an extreme behavioural flaw.


Ok, well going back to my original question then, at what expense is the behaviour 'cured'? Was the ultimate goal of having your dog 'cured' outweighed by the potential mental effect the collar had on the dog? Did you choose to ignore signs your dog was uncomfortable for the long term 'benefit'? 
Can you have that dog off lead...off collar, and totally under your control and happy in the presence of other dogs? And by happy I mean 'genuine' happiness, not what you feel looks like happiness now your dog is 'cured'. How about posting a video of your dog bounding around with other dogs in delight, no collar on and obviously happy?


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> @Ouesi, had a child been endangered, I'd have been apprehended by now I'm sure.


If you dont see how that is dangerous to the child and the dog, you dont deserve to have either in your care.

Fellow members I apologize for my behavior. I do not agree with aversive tactics on humans either, but this person has a video (that I refuse to share and bump up views) of a child locked in a crate with the lovely black GSD from the ecollar post, and the child deliberately steps on the dogs tail and then grabs the dogs leg when the dog tries to get away. This all happens within the small space of a closed up crate while the adult films.

Needless to say, it kind of has sent me over the edge....


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> Just as I asked, but got no reply. You will leave it on as a threat, just as my dad had only to pick up a newspaper for our dog to cower down. That is not training. Were your dog trained, you would be confident in taking the collar off completely. Obviously you are not so your dog is not trained and you know it.


That the dog is trained or not, in your point above, is debatable.



newfiesmum said:


> My daughter ordered an electric collar on the advice of a self styled 'trainer' as a recall device for her spaniel. I persuaded her to use it on herself before putting it on the dog. She did; the dog never got to wear it.


Did you make a video? :biggrin:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> Does there have to a negative aspect in their use? Must I be labelled with your negativity?
> 
> *If I were an animal abuser, would I even be here trying to show the positive side to these types of collar?*
> Perhaps someone else can also benefit in rectifying extremes of behaviour where all else has failed.


Being an animal abuser doesn't stop the Dog Whisperer from broadcasting on telly about his barbaric methods, so yes you would.



LeighPing said:


> Once more, I have used no shocks on any dog.
> 
> However, to answer the question. I would stop doing whatever it is I was doing, for sure. You?


I would bite the b***ard with the remote control.



Dogloverlou said:


> I must say newfiesmum, I understand totally why you don't really allow the discussion of e-collars. Because unfortunately you get trolls like this joining to promote their use and stir up a whole host of controversy. It's all well and good having 'sensible' discussion, but it leaves the door open to less then genuine debate.


It was me that talked the other moderators into allowing discussion again, but I'm sure they will change their minds if we can't find peace.



LeighPing said:


> I'm not protesting about anything. Nor am I being loud about anything either. My debate is genuine too.
> 
> I'll gladly answer all questions, when I catch up with them. Just saying that for me, this was a great aid in sorting out an extreme behavioural flaw.


But it isn't sorted out, is it? When you can leave the collar off and know the behaviour will never be repeated, then it is sorted out. Until then, all you have done is to terrify a dog who has known the worst kind of life already. Are you in the UK? I would like to know what rescue shelter allowed people like you to have a poor dog like this.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Thanks for the replies, I've read them.

What about in instances where the bad behaviour will be more fulfilling than the other option? 

In the recent past (2009-2013) I've used positive methods on three of my dogs right from the word "go". I had terrible results and I'm wondering if it's because I don't understand it properly. I simply removed the correction element from my normal training method, which included praise, redirection and correction.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

ouesi said:


> If you dont see how that is dangerous to the child and the dog, you dont deserve to have either in your care.


You can never fully trust anything really. You can only plan for the worst and hope for the best. That plan includes training dogs to behave in the company of humans. Even when the humans are a bit annoying.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

To my mind if the dog has to have some kind of training collar on or you have to have food or a toy to get the dog to listen to you then it doesn't know the behaviour that you're trying to teach. If your dog has to have the collar on to get it to ignore other dogs then it isn't trained surely?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> If you dont see how that is dangerous to the child and the dog, you dont deserve to have either in your care.
> 
> Fellow members I apologize for my behavior. I do not agree with aversive tactics on humans either, but this person has a video (that I refuse to share and bump up views) of a child locked in a crate with the lovely black GSD from the ecollar post, and the child deliberately steps on the dogs tail and then grabs the dogs leg when the dog tries to get away. This all happens within the small space of a closed up crate while the adult films.
> 
> Needless to say, it kind of has sent me over the edge....


Oh god...I just saw.

The child swearing like it was says it all really and that's without watching the poor dog being provoked too.....


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

dogsaintdumb said:


> Thanks for the replies, I've read them.
> 
> What about in instances where the bad behaviour will be more fulfilling than the other option?


This is where management and setting the dog up for success comes in. And conditioning motivators, building your relationship etc....



dogsaintdumb said:


> In the recent past (2009-2013) I've used positive methods on three of my dogs right from the word "go". I had terrible results and I'm wondering if it's because I don't understand it properly. I simply removed the correction element from my normal training method, which included praise, redirection and correction.


If all you did was remove the correction element from your training program then no, you probably didnt apply R+ correctly. And no, that wouldnt be effective.

Id start by reading some good books on R+ based training and how dogs learn. Maybe there is a good trainer nearby who could help you also?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ouesi said:


> If you dont see how that is dangerous to the child and the dog, you dont deserve to have either in your care.
> 
> Fellow members I apologize for my behavior. I do not agree with aversive tactics on humans either, but this person has a video (that I refuse to share and bump up views) of a child locked in a crate with the lovely black GSD from the ecollar post, and the child deliberately steps on the dogs tail and then grabs the dogs leg when the dog tries to get away. This all happens within the small space of a closed up crate while the adult films.
> 
> Needless to say, it kind of has sent me over the edge....


You are not the one who should apologise.



LeighPing said:


> That the dog is trained or not, in your point above, is debatable.
> 
> Did you make a video? :biggrin:


No, it is not debatable. It is bleedin' obvious. I don't make videos to show off on the internet.



dogsaintdumb said:


> Thanks for the replies, I've read them.
> 
> What about in instances where the bad behaviour will be more fulfilling than the other option?
> 
> In the recent past (2009-2013) I've used positive methods on three of my dogs right from the word "go". I had terrible results and I'm wondering if it's because I don't understand it properly. I simply removed the correction element from my normal training method, which included praise, redirection and correction.


Please start a new thread with your questions. Thanks.



LeighPing said:


> You can never fully trust anything really. You can only plan for the worst and hope for the best. That plan includes training dogs to behave in the company of humans. Even when the humans are a bit annoying.


But you are not planning for the worst are you? You are completely forgetting that a dog is an animal who reacts on instinct, and he has every right to do so. If an animal is hurt, he will retaliate and then you will wonder why. I also noticed that the dog in the cage with the child did not look very happy to me; he looked intimidated.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> Being an animal abuser doesn't stop the Dog Whisperer from broadcasting on telly about his barbaric methods, so yes you would.
> 
> *I would bite the b***ard with the remote control.*
> 
> ...


You're very aggressive aren't you? 

Just kidding. Thanks for allowing free speech. I fought for it more than once. 

Almost all dogs wear a collar 24/7. The dog is happy, judge from the video yourself. It's certainly not terrified.



dogsaintdumb said:


> What about in instances where the bad behaviour will be more fulfilling than the other option?


That's not been encountered. If it happens then I'll let you know.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

ouesi said:


> If you dont see how that is dangerous to the child and the dog, you dont deserve to have either in your care.
> 
> Fellow members I apologize for my behavior. I do not agree with aversive tactics on humans either, but this person has a video (that I refuse to share and bump up views) of a child locked in a crate with the lovely black GSD from the ecollar post, and the child deliberately steps on the dogs tail and then grabs the dogs leg when the dog tries to get away. This all happens within the small space of a closed up crate while the adult films.
> 
> Needless to say, it kind of has sent me over the edge....


No apologies required. I haven't seen that and have no wish to delude this poster into thinking it popular.You're expressing what so many of us would feel about it too.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> You can never fully trust anything really. You can only plan for the worst and hope for the best. That plan includes training dogs to behave in the company of humans. Even when the humans are a bit annoying.


My dogs are bomb-proof with kids. They didnt have to be locked in a crate with them in order to learn to be trustworthy with kids.

Your methods betray a serious lack of understanding of how dogs learn, how desensitization works (as opposed to sensitization) and a serious lack of logical thinking.

And you STILL havent responded to my question of what is the point of an expensive, battery-run e-collar when all youre using is a beep. Why not just use a whistle then?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Leighping, you haven't answered any of my questions. And, more importantly, can the DA dog that was 'cured' be off collar, happy, playful, and trusted around other dogs?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> You're very aggressive aren't you?
> 
> Just kidding. Thanks for allowing free speech. I fought for it more than once.
> 
> ...


My dogs don't wear any sort of collar 24/7. It is not safe to leave a dog with a collar on all the time, especially when they are left alone as it can get caught and dogs have been known to strangle like that. As for almost all, well I think a majority of owners on this forum would not leave a collar on their dogs.

As to the bit in bold, she wasn't talking to you, she was asking about positive reward based training, so why would she ask you? Oh, yes, I can be very aggressive, just like any animal who is being hurt.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> ...*[Ferdie might] bite anything that happened to be close by [if he were shocked]* - possibly an innocent dog walker,
> just walking past, & where would that lead us?
> 
> I know that *once Ferdie went too close to an electric fence - put around sheep; he thought I'd somehow hurt him,
> ...





Tails and Trails said:


> how do you know Ferdie thought that? - *how do you know what Ferdie was thinking?*
> 
> if you've never put a shock-collar on him, logic would dictate that he more likely thought he was hurt by something
> he'd just approached - that electric fence - as opposed to "you hurt him".
> ...





newfiesmum said:


> *Because I was standing next to Ferdie when he was shocked, & he ran off. I couldn't get him
> to come back to me, it was as though he was frightened of me. *
> That is how I know.


This particular sequence is a very-common sequel to any applied physical-aversive: *the DOG selects something
that seems salient* - that is, "significant" or "related" - to the aversive event.

It's not likely to be a directly-related thing; the dog won't connect the remote in Ur hand to the shock from the collar,
for instance, as we hold remote-like objects ALL THE TIME: t.v.-remotes, cell-phones, tablets, radio remotes,
CD-controls, the hand-held control for a radio-helo or plane, whatever.

The dog just picks out something PRESENT that s/he ASSOCIATES with the aversive stimulus; might be the kid
passing by on a bike or skateboard, might be the bicyclist approaching U, the fella in the poncho on a rainy day -
who knows what? It's not CAUSATIVE, it's merely associated by coincidence.

It's these random problematic associations that are among the most-difficult behavioral-fallout that results from
the use of shock, or any other aversive stimulus / event, in training or B-Mod. We cannot predict them before
they develop, & once they are established, uprooting them is often incredibly difficult. Memories paired with pain,
fear, etc, are deeply, deeply dyed - a ONE-time event can leave powerful, permanent learning.

In contrast, low-stress, happy learning takes repeated events to be well-learned; that's why the puppy needs
to meet many friendly strangers to decide that humans are Good Things, mostly. ONE nasty person who hurts
the puppy can undo weeks or months of patient work.

Evolution does this for a reason. Things that deeply frighten us or are painful, are probably DANGEROUS.
We don't want to forget them; we need to remember them. Things that AREN'T painful & AREN'T scary,
aren't dangerous or threatening; it's not critical that we remember them.So to make them memorable, they
need to be experienced many times.

Odds are good that if U had NOT been standing close to Ferdie when he touched the shock-fence, he would
have "blamed" something else, most-likely the fence; shock-fences are avoidable, visible barriers.
Shock COLLARS are not avoidable, & seem to strike at random - the dog may have a very difficult time finding
any pattern to the punishment, depending upon how busy the environs are & the person's skill who's pushing
that shock-button / vibrate-button, as it's easy for that person to use lousy timing, poor criterion, etc.

Make sense? - Scary / hurts, MEMORABLE. Not at all scary, no pain?... Not memorable.

Big *rewards* are also memorable - not "big" in value, but very-happy events.
Pup at vet's, standing on slippy S/S table, gentle handling, nice treat?... Memorable. Not intense & instant,
unlike a terrifying or painful event, but more-memorable than just patient handling & friendly chatter, at least.
A few strokes & nice chatter isn't a vivid encounter. 
.
.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

ouesi said:


> My dogs are bomb-proof with kids. They didnt have to be locked in a crate with them in order to learn to be trustworthy with kids.
> 
> Your methods betray a serious lack of understanding of how dogs learn, how desensitization works (as opposed to sensitization) and a serious lack of logical thinking.
> 
> And you STILL havent responded to my question of what is the point of an expensive, battery-run e-collar when all youre using is a beep. Why not just use a whistle then?


Mine's bombproof too, as you can plainly see. 

Do they?

Ecollars are 16 quid. 25 for a fully waterproof one. You can see that my dog likes to swim a lot.

I don't have a whistle. I don't need one because I use a bleeper collar.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> This particular sequence is a very-common sequel to any applied physical-aversive: *the DOG selects something
> that seems salient* - that is, "significant" or "related" - to the aversive event.
> 
> It's not likely to be a directly-related thing; the dog won't connect the remote in Ur hand to the shock from the collar,
> ...


We used to live near a field where I regularly took Ferdie and Joshua to walk off lead. The path led behind a row of back gardens and they loved all the attention they got from the residents of those houses. One day we were walking in there when a couple of teenage boys came into the field with one of those bloody noisy quad bikes which scared the life out of Ferdie, who hates loud noises. After that he refused to go in the field at all, just sat his massive weight down and refused to move and if I took his lead off, he exited the field and started back toward the house. He associated the noise with the field, not with the teenage boys or even with me loudly telling them to shut the damned thing off.


----------



## IncaThePup (May 30, 2011)

There was a post in deaf dog group "my dog chases cars what do you suggest?" kind of post 

Well I said try a lead and pointed out its against the law and they could be prosecuted if the dog caused a serious accident by being off-lead (yes it was off-lead and deaf near a road!! )  

I was told I was being negative!! ..for pointing out the blindingly obvious.. and her wasn't her fault because the dog didn't run after cars before when it was in field!! ..it had apparently ignored her signs & ran over several fields to get to this road of cars that it couldn't hear!  :frown2: 

Seems common sense are just beyond some people's capabilities! :001_huh:


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

IncaThePup said:


> There was a post in deaf dog group "my dog chases cars what do you suggest?" kind of post
> 
> Well I said try a lead and pointed out its against the law and they could be prosecuted if the dog caused a serious accident by being off-lead (yes it was off-lead and deaf near a road!! )
> 
> ...


Blindingly.. boom boom. Nice one! :biggrin:

I hear (pun not intended) that vibrating ecollars are used much in the deaf dog community. Is that true?


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

leashedForLife said:


> This particular sequence is a very-common sequel to any applied physical-aversive: *the DOG selects something
> that seems salient* - that is, "significant" or "related" - to the aversive event.
> 
> It's not likely to be a directly-related thing; the dog won't connect the remote in Ur hand to the shock from the collar,
> ...


A personal example I can share, Breez was shaking a toy and managed to clonk her head hard on the corner of the coffee table in the process. It hurt, Im sure. She stood there dazed for a moment, looked up, and the first thing she saw was the ceiling fan. For about 3 weeks after the incident, she gave that fan a hard look every time she came in to the living room. It was kind of funny, but also a good reminder of how those superstitious behaviors can happen.

Michael Ellis who has used e-collars on many dogs, (and is now using them less and less), has often noted that e-collars tend to lend themselves to these superstitious behaviors more than any other tool, and that we should be very careful using them for this reason - and many others.

But just as importantly, we have to look at Maslows hierarchy of needs when working with any animal (including humans). The theory being that animals will put all their efforts in to meeting those needs in the hierarchy in which they exist. So if physical needs (food, water, health) are at the bottom, a dog who is starving, will put everything in to finding food, even if it violates his other needs. (Which is why the physically distressed boxer was NOT an example of effective training.) 
Next in importance is safety, and we violate dogs need for safety all the time! Dogs who do not feel safe are not in a place to learn anything any more than a dog who has a fever and diarrhea is in any shape to be on a training field.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> A personal example I can share, Breez was shaking a toy and managed to clonk her head hard on the corner of the coffee table in the process. It hurt, Im sure. She stood there dazed for a moment, looked up, and the first thing she saw was the ceiling fan. For about 3 weeks after the incident, she gave that fan a hard look every time she came in to the living room. It was kind of funny, but also a good reminder of how those superstitious behaviors can happen.


Thai has actually given me a clear reminder of this recently too.
He was chewing on a knuckle bone quite happily until he yelped and jumped away from the bone 
I checked him over to see what caused the yelp but couldn't see anything so thought that maybe he had jabbed himself in the gum and been a wuss about it all so thought no more of it.

When he leapt away he must have glanced at the paper shredder that the OH was using at the time - 2 weeks later and he still slinks past that paper shredder 

As for the "I used an e-collar and looks it works" dude - Well I have two things to say:

1. Just because something works, it does not make that something right.

2.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

My comment: Using shock/ e-collars on a dog and call it training is excatly the same as hitting a child and call it teaching. Try it on your self and see how it imroves your character and builds up trust to the person delivering the pain. I am utterly disgusted that there still exist people promoting both. But then, we do have people believing earth is flat e.g.. At least they are only stupid, not cruel.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Just because something works, it does not make that something right.


Very funny and point taken. :biggrin:

Right is subjective though. It's legally right where I live. I bought it quite legally too. Is that right? 

I think that the outcome of it's use was right in a phenominally good way.



MrsZee said:


> My comment: Using shock/ e-collars on a dog and call it training is excatly the same as hitting a child and call it teaching. Try it on your self and see how it imroves your character and builds up trust to the person delivering the pain. I am utterly disgusted that there still exist people promoting both. But then, we do have people believing earth is flat e.g.. At least they are only stupid, not cruel.


All opinions aside for a moment. Right or wrong. They're big business. Does anybody dispute that statement?

I don't see any disclaimers, on the sites that sell them, stating that they're illegal for use in Wales or elsewhere. I wonder why that is?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Fact; E collars are painful.

Fact; People have a tendency to misuse them.

Have you ever tried one on for size yourself?

How long can you hold the terminals of the enclosed to your tongue?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

LeighPing said:


> ...
> As for 'pressuring govt'... good luck with that.


Actually, the UK Kennel Club is supporting a bill to ban shock-collars in the UK; whether a bill has been written,
introduced, voted upon - I don't know, I'm in the US. But KC support has been published, & is well-known.

The Kennel Club, via DARBA, was very interested by the results of an experiment conducted using either
a shock-collar, -or- reward-based training, to fix a particular problem-behavior that's often labeled a very
"good" problem-behavior for shock-use in B-Mod: dogs chasing game species, who cannot be called back.

The study was, if anything, biased in favor of the shock-collar trainers. They were selected from graduates of
a shock-collar course, run by the Assoc of shock-collar manufacturers in Europe. They got to train 2 sets of
dogs, 1 group using rewards to reinforce desired behavior, the other using shock to punish chasing game.

Meanwhile, a group of reward-based trainers did the B-Mod on another group of dogs, for the same problem:
chasing game, won't leave off.

DARBA concluded that there was absolutely no advantage to using shock; it didn't work faster, it didn't work
better, & lasted no longer than reward-based training - which didn't use any painful stimulus. 
The owners of all the dogs involved in the study were all equally satisfied with the B-Mod results, whether
they were achieved by using rewards to build desired behavior, or using shock to punish undesired behavior.

So using pain became un-ethical, as it was unnecessary & no more effective; it became a moral issue,
not a training issue. The study - numbers, ages of dogs, selection criteria, procedure, outcome, & their
conclusions - is available in full on the DARBA website.
.
.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> *My dogs don't wear any sort of collar 24/7. It is not safe to leave a dog with a collar on all the time, especially when they are left alone as it can get caught and dogs have been known to strangle like that. As for almost all, well I think a majority of owners on this forum would not leave a collar on their dogs.*
> 
> As to the bit in bold, she wasn't talking to you, she was asking about positive reward based training, so why would she ask you? Oh, yes, I can be very aggressive, just like any animal who is being hurt.


I think that most people leave their collars on their dogs myself. They're not underpants now are they?

@Zaros. Yes. I tested this on my wife before putting it on the dog. I'm not some kind of animal you know! :biggrin:


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> All opinions aside for a moment. Right or wrong. They're big business. Does anybody dispute that statement?
> QUOTE]
> 
> That is the bottom line here, isn´t it, for you. Business at the expense of an animal. Slavery used to be big legal business. So was keeping wild animals in small cages for fun. What is big business does not make something right. But I guess you know that. You are just using this thread for your own purpose, which can be anything from finding excuses for your way to treat both your dog and child, promoting a business or just trolling.
> ...


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

I would love to see people who use these things wear one for 24 hrs ...I can't read peoples comments promoting them because I know I will say what I really think and end up arguing the toss with everyone which only makes me angry and wound up.Think about one of the worst behaved dogs you now and times it by 10...well that was probably Molly when I got her...she's loads better now but even if she stayed like that for the rest of her life I couldn't use a shock collar/prong collar or any other barbaric 'training' aids on the market...who passes them for sale god only knows


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> Very funny and point taken. :biggrin:
> 
> Right is subjective though. It's legally right where I live. I bought it quite legally too. Is that right?
> 
> I think that the outcome of it's use was right in a phenominally good way.


I mentioned nothing about legality, legality is irrelevant to this conversation...Legal or not I am not willing to risk the fall out.

As to your last statement that is in your opinion. I did not watch the video you posted because the link was taken down (cheers Newfiesmum  ) but I have the general gist from the comments and as far as I am concerned you haven't fixed much in MY opinion.

Answer this if you will.
What would have happened if your dog had done some crazy association thing when you were using the collar?
What would have happened if at the time you clicked for the "correction" your dog had spotted a child walking around the corner and associated his "correction" with all small children?

This is the problem I have with aversive training...dogs don't automatically associate any "correction" with what we want them too, they can associate it with ANYTHING that happens to catch their eye at the time, as both myself and Ouesi have shown - so why risk that?

What many people don't get is that it isn't us as owners/handlers or trainers that decides what is aversive to a dog, the dog gets to decide that all for himself. So although you say you do not use the shock option and only use vibrate you dog could still very much view that as aversive and that in itself could mentally harm the dog!

* general statement coming, not directed at anyone:
One of the main issues I have with e-collars being on sale to the general public is that the vast majority of the general public has very little knowledge of dog body language so can't tell a stressed dog from a "good" dog...maybe if people had to pass some kind of proficiency test to prove they understand what their dog is telling them then I may change my mind.

But for now I would much rather see the things off the shelves...


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> Very funny and point taken. :biggrin:
> 
> Right is subjective though. It's legally right where I live. I bought it quite legally too. Is that right?
> 
> ...


What the hell does it matter if they are big business? I believe ball clamps are big business but that doesn't mean they don't hurt.



LeighPing said:


> I think that most people leave their collars on their dogs myself. They're not underpants now are they?
> 
> @Zaros. Yes. I tested this on my wife before putting it on the dog. I'm not some kind of animal you know! :biggrin:


What the hell has underpants got to do with anything? You said earlier you weren't an idiot so stop behaving like one.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

MrsZee said:


> LeighPing said:
> 
> 
> > All opinions aside for a moment. Right or wrong. They're big business. Does anybody dispute that statement?
> ...


It's not the bottom line for me. Although, it might be for government coffers.

As for using this thread for my own purpose.. My purpose has been stated. To show their positive use, despite the unqualified opinions to the contrary. The negativity and abuse directed at me and my family on a personal level can be handled.

Right, is not just your opinion. Mine may differ in that. I'm not asking you or anyone else to like that.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> I think that most people leave their collars on their dogs myself. They're not underpants now are they?
> 
> @Zaros. Yes. I tested this on my wife before putting it on the dog. I'm not some kind of animal you know! :biggrin:


I've added a poll to this thread; let's see what everyone thinks.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> What the hell does it matter if they are big business? I believe ball clamps are big business but that doesn't mean they don't hurt.
> 
> What the hell has underpants got to do with anything? You said earlier you weren't an idiot so stop behaving like one.


I make a joke and I'm an idiot. What about your one liners Margaret?

My question is 'How do you know that they hurt?'

The ball clamps, not the shock collars. :biggrin:


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Leighping, you say you didn't use shocks, just the vibrating function, so how did you teach your dog to return to the vibration/bleeper in the first place?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> I make a joke and I'm an idiot. What about your one liners Margaret?
> 
> My question is 'How do you know that they hurt?'
> 
> The ball clamps, not the shock collars. :biggrin:


If they didn't they would be fairly useless for the purpose, which is s & m. A better question would be: how do you know my name? Are you a returning banned member, here to wind people up?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

newfiesmum said:


> If they didn't they would be fairly useless for the purpose, which is s & m. *A better question would be: how do you know my name?* Are you a returning banned member, here to wind people up?


That's the first thing I wondered too


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

LeighPing said:


> Not shocks, vibrations. I do, yes. I made a video to show you all. I posted the link here. The moderator took it down and threatened to ban me if I posted another. Sorry about that.


I would like to know please at what point does 'vibration' become 'shock'?
Who decides?
How? 
How do you know where the pain threshold is for the dog mentally and physically?
Is it when they yelp?


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> Leighping, you say you didn't use shocks, just the vibrating function, so how did you teach your dog to return to the vibration/bleeper in the first place?


I call him back over a short distance and bleep at the same time.

Later, over a much longer distance or in a noisy enviorment, I just use the bleeper and he returns to me. It doesn't bother him. You can see that he seems happy enough in my 'Ecollar bleeping dog recall' video.

Well, he seems that way to me anyhow.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

LeighPing said:


> I think that most people leave their collars on their dogs myself. They're not underpants now are they?
> 
> @Zaros. Yes. I tested this on my wife before putting it on the dog. I'm not some kind of animal you know! :biggrin:


That you would even think this is funny just about sums you up


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> Had your nephew and his wife learned about properly rehabilitating a rescue dog before getting her, *they would have been more relaxed around her anyway and the dog would never have picked up their anxiety and been aggressive.*
> 
> What two dogs? No idea what you are talking about. As for banning them, THEY ARE ALREADY BANNED IN WALES. I thought I made that clear. Not only shock collars, but electric fencing which is connected to a collar or anything else of that nature is banned in Wales - that means it is banned, already, not allowed to be sold or used. Get it?


I absolutely do not agree with the use of e collars but also fail to understand the bolded newfiesmum - are you suggesting that the dog was only aggressive because the new owners may have been anxious? How could we know why the behaviour was displayed - maybe it was due to the dog's past experiences and maybe the behaviour is what landed the dog in rescue in the first place? That the original owners found it hard to deal with.

I have skipped through quite quickly so apologies if that had been suggested by Leighping as the cause for this dog's aggressive behaviour already. I am a little lost .


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> A better question would be: how do you know my name? Are you a returning banned member, here to wind people up?


Because of your nasty offensive comments about my grandson and his family on youtube.



> Margaret Brazear
> 
> Share my thoughts? I don't think you want me to share my thoughts on this stupidity, not really. If an animal is hurt, it will retaliate; that is normal and is the dog's right and had he turned on the child no one would have got to him in time to save him. That is a nice dog and doesn't deserve to be treated like this by this brat and its parents. Some people are too stupid to live.﻿


Reply



> LeighPing -
> You raise some good points. However, the verbal abuse of my grandson wasn't really necessary. There's no need for him to be called a 'brat'. No need to refer to 'it's' parents, like he's inhuman and no need to say that 'Some people are too stupid to live.'
> 
> You be very careful my good lady. My son is a man of action where that boy's concerned. I think that you may need a bigger dog if you upset him like that.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Ummm you can't claim to be offended whilst then threatening someone :lol:


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> I call him back over a short distance and bleep at the same time.
> 
> Later, over a much longer distance or in a noisy enviorment, I just use the bleeper and he returns to me. It doesn't bother him. You can see that he seems happy enough in my 'Ecollar bleeping dog recall' video.
> 
> Well, he seems that way to me anyhow.


But what if he didn't comply straight away?

And also, if you use the bleeper continually throughout teaching recall wouldn't he just learn to ignore those bleeps?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

LeighPing said:


> Because of your nasty offensive comments about my grandson and his family on youtube.
> 
> Reply


And I think you are some kind of nut job stalker who should stick his e collar up the nearest available orifice and sizzle off back where you came from. Have a nice day :thumbup1:


----------



## speug (Nov 1, 2011)

We once went on holiday and stayed next to a field. The first half of the week it was empty, then the farmer moved some cows in and turned the electric fence on. There was a fault and the fence discharged into a puddle on the road shocking our dog. He wasn't stupid, he knew it was the cows that hurt him and couldn't be trusted anywhere near cows after that as he'd try to get his retaliation in first.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

MollySmith said:


> *In case you need it*, here is a nice & easy link to body language in dogs.
> 
> Perhaps you & your child can spend a little while, spotting how many of these you can find
> in your videos. *You may need a large sheet of paper for this one.*
> ...


"In case"...? I'd say there's no question the link is needed; the OP either can't see or doesn't recognize
symptoms of stress, or signals to desist, back off, reduce the pressure, give me space, etc.

SIGNS are unconscious & involuntary; SIGNALS are deliberate & volitional.
A dog's wide pupils when terrified aren't a 'signal', as the dog doesn't do this on purpose.

Along with that "large sheet of paper" to list the stress AKA calming signals, U'll need a pen.
If U try to use crayons or markers, the list will never fit - unless U are writing on print-free
newspaper sheets, or an artist's roll of 30-inch wide paper.

With a ballpoint pen, the list might fit on both sides of a sheet of legal paper - standard ruled.
If it's unlined paper & U write a broad hand, U'll need another sheet. :huh:
.
.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

LeighPing said:


> I'm not protesting about anything. Nor am I being loud about anything either. My debate is genuine too.
> 
> I'll gladly answer all questions, when I catch up with them. Just saying that for me, this was a great aid in sorting out an extreme behavioural flaw.


Well, you haven't 'sorted out' an extreme behavioural flaw.

You haven't taught this dog anything positive, all you've done is reinforced her fear of other dogs.

She starts out being afraid of other dogs, (probably because she's been mated many, many times), you then proceed to shock her every time she sees another dog, so her fears are trebled. You most likely now have a bitch who would be twice as aggressive if she weren't wearing the collar. It's like saying "Oh, my dog ate rubbish off the ground on every walk, so I kicked all his teeth out. Now, he can't eat rubbish, so my methods work".

To sum up, you've made it worse, not better, so you can stop congratulating yourself.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

LeighPing said:


> ...
> 
> @Ouesi,
> *had a child been endangered, I'd have been apprehended* by now, I'm sure.
> ...


There are hundreds if not thousands of videos from the UK alone, of parents endangering their children or grandkids
by taking asinine risks with kids & pets; UTube doesn't prosecute stoopidity. Worldwide, there are millions of videos
of insane risk-taking that endangers minors - posted by parents, grandparents, pet-owners, whoever -
relatives, neighbors, friends, coaches, even trainers - dog trainers.

That U haven't been arrested or charged isn't "proof" of any sort that Ur video is not evidence of very dangerous
risk to the child - who, had the dog decided to retaliate in such crazy close-confinement, would have been severely
hurt, before U even got the crate-door open.

Dogs can deliver 9 full-mouth, full-force bites in 3 to 5 seconds. The difference between a whole body
& multiple severe injuries is that short a time.

Dogs punish puppies by snapping at their faces - this is a hard-wired, instinctive behavior, not some twisted
malicious nastiness. A bite that wouldn't leave a bruise on a pup's tight-skin over boney foreface, with multiple at-
tachments to their skull, can result in severe injury to any child's plump, thin-skinned, fatty tissue, poorly attached
to the underlying cartilaginous structure.

If Ur dog makes headlines any time in the next decade, do be sure to let us know? -
I hope it doesn't involve Ur grandchild, but certainly wouldn't bet against it, as he apparently enjoys poking,
treading on, or otherwise harassing or hurting dogs.
Good luck with that.
.
.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Sorry for the delay. I'll try to answer all the posts and queries, directed at me, in good time. 

I had to take Muttley for a walk. You know how it goes. Hey, I was pretty close to a main road at one point too. The dog was off leash, walking at heel. Perhaps you could quote me some more stats on dogs being run over at some point.

Woulda, shoulda, coulda, just doesn't do it for me. The dog has been well trained to behave, he knows the score.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

What a stupid risk to take..not clever :skep:


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

So, no dog is entirely predictable, apart from Leighping's dog. Who knew?

Yet more self-congratulation for doing something stupid and highly risky with her dog but, if it were to go wrong, the dog would pay the price, so that's okay then.

Why, Leighping, do you persist in holding yourself up as having superior handling skills? You're nothing short of a fool and, apparently, the only person you're impressing is yourself.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> Sorry for the delay. I'll try to answer all the posts and queries, directed at me, in good time.
> 
> I had to take Muttley for a walk. You know how it goes. Hey, I was pretty close to a main road at one point too. The dog was off leash, walking at heel. Perhaps you could quote me some more stats on dogs being run over at some point.
> 
> Woulda, shoulda, coulda, just doesn't do it for me. The dog has been well trained to behave, he knows the score.


You do realise it's illegal to have your dog off lead along side a road, right? Who am I kidding! Of course you do, and I suspect that's the 'thrill' for you. The big 'I am' with your supposedly well behaved dog


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Dogless said:


> I absolutely do not agree with the use of e collars but also fail to understand the bolded newfiesmum - are you suggesting that the dog was only aggressive because the new owners may have been anxious? How could we know why the behaviour was displayed - maybe it was due to the dog's past experiences and maybe the behaviour is what landed the dog in rescue in the first place? That the original owners found it hard to deal with.
> 
> I have skipped through quite quickly so apologies if that had been suggested by Leighping as the cause for this dog's aggressive behaviour already. I am a little lost .


Ruby was due to be destroyed as she could no longer reproduce. My nephew found her on fb and fell in love with her. However, due to her lack of socialising, she had a bad habit of piling onto every other dog she came across.

My nephews wife couldn't handle her behaviour at all and she could never be let off the lead on her walks. They took her to several dog trainers, the least expensive being £60, to no avail.

So, I went over with my dog (7months old to the day) and she even tried to pound him to dust. No greets or sniffing, straight for the throat.

I put the ecollar on her and commanded her "NO!" whilst pressing the vibrating function button. I did this every time she went for my dog. 3 times over 90 seconds or so. Then I just said "NO!" It worked.

So, we took them for that walk in the video I linked up. No issues. We walked around the park and came across other dogs. "No!" was enough for her to not attack. So we let her run around with the other dogs. She was cured of this extreme aggressive behaviour.



StormyThai said:


> Ummm you can't claim to be offended whilst then threatening someone :lol:


I've not threatened anyone. I warn people who are offensive.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> Ruby was due to be destroyed as she could no longer reproduce. My nephew found her on fb and fell in love with her. However, due to her lack of socialising, she had a bad habit of piling onto every other dog she came across.
> 
> My nephews wife couldn't handle her behaviour at all and she could never be let off the lead on her walks. They took her to several dog trainers, the least expensive being £60, to no avail.
> 
> ...


So do you have a video of Ruby happily frolicking with other dogs, without the collar on, now?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

LeighPing said:


> I call him back over a short distance and bleep at the same time.
> 
> Later, over a much longer distance or in a noisy enviorment, I just use the bleeper and he returns to me. It doesn't bother him. You can see that he seems happy enough in my 'Ecollar bleeping dog recall' video.
> 
> Well, he seems that way to me anyhow.


Well, never mind, keep working at it.

You see, I recall my bitch and she comes. I don't need the bleeper.

Hopefully, you'll get there one day.


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> So, we took them for that walk in the video I linked up. *No issues.*


If you honestly think the video you posted shows a dog with no issues then you really, _really_ need to educate yourself on dog body language.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> You do realise it's illegal to have your dog off lead along side a road, right? Who am I kidding! Of course you do, and I suspect that's the 'thrill' for you. The big 'I am' with your supposedly well behaved dog


Is it really.. if he gets run over you can say you told me so eh. 

Yes, my dog does behave near roads. Why is that also a subject for your irony?
I've deliberately trained him to be that way. That doesn't mean that I'm 'the big I am' now does it?

We live in an urban environment. Heel and recall are paramount. It's common sense.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

LeighPing said:


> I put the ecollar on her and commanded her "NO!" whilst pressing the vibrating function button. I did this every time she went for my dog. 3 times over 90 seconds or so. Then I just said "NO!" It worked.


Why do you think what you did here worked? The collar isn't magic, so why did you pressing the vibrate function on the collar work?


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

LeighPing said:


> Ruby was due to be destroyed as she could no longer reproduce. My nephew found her on fb and fell in love with her. However, due to her lack of socialising, she had a bad habit of piling onto every other dog she came across.
> 
> My nephews wife couldn't handle her behaviour at all and she could never be let off the lead on her walks. They took her to several dog trainers, the least expensive being £60, to no avail.
> 
> ...


Thanks for clarifying Ruby's history a little more for me.

I am another who simply cannot condone the course of action you took though I am afraid . I can only imagine what that would do to my reactive dog; shut him down entirely I would think. He would be more afraid of what may happen than of the dog in close proximity I would have thought meaning that he no longer showed signs of fear of dogs as that was overridden by fear of what may happen should he react. But what I would in reality have sentenced him to is a life in extreme fear.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> So do you have a video of Ruby happily frolicking with other dogs, without the collar on, now?


Ruby's not my dog. She's my nephews dog. I'll make one for you next time I'm over there.



Sweety said:


> Well, never mind, keep working at it.
> 
> You see, I recall my bitch and she comes. I don't need the bleeper.
> 
> Hopefully, you'll get there one day.


Lucky you. Mine comes first time too. 

I use the bleeper because it's associated with the recall. I use it at distance or in noisy environments. It helps. The dog understands the spoken word too of course.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

LeighPing said:


> *Is it really.. if he gets run over you can say you told me so eh. *
> 
> Yes, my dog does behave near roads. Why is that also a subject for your irony?
> I've deliberately trained him to be that way. That doesn't mean that I'm 'the big I am' now does it?
> ...


Unfortunately its not just your poor dog's life you are putting at risk though is it? Don't suppose you give a toss if you cause an accident though. "Big I am" "Macho" "Control Freak" "Bully" take your pick.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> Is it really.. if he gets run over you can say you told me so eh.
> 
> Yes, my dog does behave near roads. Why is that also a subject for your irony?
> I've deliberately trained him to be that way. That doesn't mean that I'm 'the big I am' now does it?
> ...


No..it makes you a fool for not realising that a dog is a sentient being that can and does make mistakes on occasions...

Could I walk my dog off leash next to a road?
Yep, but the thing is I have no reason to take that risk...the only reason I can see for following through with such a lack of comon sense is to do the "Look at me, aren't I awesome"

Bit like that video of the shut down GSD's walking next to a road!

Interesting how you only pick up on certain comments yet other valid concerns are ignored 

You have no interest in a discussion, you just want to sit there and preen yourself :skep:


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Dogless said:


> Thanks for clarifying Ruby's history a little more for me.
> 
> I am another who simply cannot condone the course of action you took though I am afraid . I can only imagine what that would do to my reactive dog; shut him down entirely I would think. He would be more afraid of what may happen than of the dog in close proximity I would have thought meaning that he no longer showed signs of fear of dogs as that was overridden by fear of what may happen should he react. But what I would in reality have sentenced him to is a life in extreme fear.


You're welcome and I'm not here for permission or consenting opinions. It's what I did, on a particular dog, and it worked. Ruby is no more the aggressive dog she once was because of that course of action. My nephew says she's a pleasure to own and walk now.

It's nothing to do with your dog.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> Is it really.. if he gets run over you can say you told me so eh.
> 
> Yes, my dog does behave near roads. Why is that also a subject for your irony?
> I've deliberately trained him to be that way. That doesn't mean that I'm 'the big I am' now does it?
> ...


You're failing to see the point that it's illegal!

What you have trained your dog to do is irrelevant. Would you allow your child to drive without a license even if they knew how to drive? The law is the law.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

LeighPing said:


> Ruby's not my dog. She's my nephews dog. I'll make one for you next time I'm over there.


Good. I'm more than intrigued to see how happy and friendly she is now.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

It can be quite dangerous to use a small golf? ball as a retrieve toy especially for a large dog like yours. He could easily choke on it. A ball on a rope would be better. Be careful with sticks too. Many dogs are injured playing fetch with sticks.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

LeighPing said:


> You're welcome and I'm not here for permission or consenting opinions. It's what I did, on a particular dog, and it worked. Ruby is no more the aggressive dog she once was because of that course of action. My nephew says she's a pleasure to own and walk now.
> 
> It's nothing to do with your dog.


It is everything to do with our dogs. Because what you still fail to see some 4 hours since, that your 'fix' to a dog you do not own is a temporary one. It is a fix that many dogs on here bear the brunt of when the fix fails. We are the ones who have to employ behaviourists because of deluded people who think that alternative methods and a ninety second burst works and fix our dogs, because your dog has learned nothing from you.

And it's your nephew's dog. Have you thought for one second that your nephew might be struggling and doesn't want to say. I simply cannot believe that ninety seconds of cruelty can do anything more than cause confusion and agony.

I don't even need to read over the past hour or so's post to know that you will have provided absolutely no concrete evidence to support your 'facts'.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> You're failing to see the point that it's illegal!
> 
> What you have trained your dog to do is irrelevant. Would you allow your child to drive without a license even if they knew how to drive? The law is the law.


No I'm not. I see your point entirely. The rest is ridiculous.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Unfortunately its not just your poor dog's life you are putting at risk though is it? Don't suppose you give a toss if you cause an accident though. "Big I am" "Macho" "Control Freak" "Bully" take your pick.


I'll take "Control freak" please. The dog's trained that way for good reason. The rest, you suppose incorrectly.



StormyThai said:


> Interesting how you only pick up on certain comments yet other valid concerns are ignored


I'll try and answer them all in due course.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Dogloverlou said:


> Good. I'm more than intrigued to see how happy and friendly she is now.


May I come along? I think that's about the most useful suggestion that the OP has made, I would love to meet Ruby.

I thought that the Dogs Trust might be interested in using the other video with the child in the crate as evidence for their latest campaign on how children should _not_ behave around dogs.  A nice donation to a charity that has to unpick all these mistakes.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

LeighPing said:


> Ruby's not my dog. She's my nephews dog. I'll make one for you next time I'm over there.
> 
> Lucky you. Mine comes first time too.
> 
> I use the bleeper because it's associated with the recall. I use it at distance or in noisy environments. It helps. The dog understands the spoken word too of course.


Why does he need to wear the collar then?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

MollySmith said:


> May I come along? I think that's about the most useful suggestion that the OP has made, I would love to meet Ruby.
> 
> I thought that the Dogs Trust might be interested in using the other video with the child in the crate as evidence for their latest campaign on how children should _not_ behave around dogs.  A nice donation to a charity that has to unpick all these mistakes.


They'd have to edit out the swearing first


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Dogloverlou said:


> They'd have to edit out the swearing first


Leave that for a social worker


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

MollySmith said:


> It is everything to do with our dogs. Because what you still fail to see some 4 hours since, that your 'fix' to a dog you do not own is a temporary one. It is a fix that many dogs on here bear the brunt of when the fix fails. We are the ones who have to employ behaviourists because of deluded people who think that alternative methods and a ninety second burst works and fix our dogs, because your dog has learned nothing from you.
> 
> And it's your nephew's dog. Have you thought for one second that your nephew might be struggling and doesn't want to say. I simply cannot believe that ninety seconds of cruelty can do anything more than cause confusion and agony.
> 
> I don't even need to read over the past hour or so's post to know that you will have provided absolutely no concrete evidence to support your 'facts'.


To date, it's been permanent. So, you're just surmising for now. Time will tell. Is vibration cruelty? I'd like to check your bedrooms for WMD please. :biggrin:

What concrete evidence would you accept?



Elles said:


> It can be quite dangerous to use a small golf? ball as a retrieve toy especially for a large dog like yours. He could easily choke on it. A ball on a rope would be better. Be careful with sticks too. Many dogs are injured playing fetch with sticks.


It stops him chewing the beer tins that he finds in the park.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Not an e-collar, but I noticed that Leighping 'liked' this video which genuinely is awful to watch.



Some people really don't deserve dogs when they treat them like s*** for their own entertainment 

Sorry newfiesmum if you feel the need to delete the vid. Just wanted to point out that if he finds that entertaining then there really is no hope for his own dogs is there?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

LeighPing said:


> To date, it's been permanent. So, you're just surmising for now. Time will tell. *Is vibration cruelty? I'd like to check your bedrooms for WMD please. :biggrin:*
> 
> What concrete evidence would you accept?
> 
> It stops him chewing the beer tins that he finds in the park.


You really are an offensive individual. Tell me do you actually love your dog or is he just a penis extension.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Dogless said:


> I absolutely do not agree with the use of e collars but also fail to understand the bolded newfiesmum - are you suggesting that the dog was only aggressive because the new owners may have been anxious? How could we know why the behaviour was displayed - maybe it was due to the dog's past experiences and maybe the behaviour is what landed the dog in rescue in the first place? That the original owners found it hard to deal with.
> 
> I have skipped through quite quickly so apologies if that had been suggested by Leighping as the cause for this dog's aggressive behaviour already. I am a little lost .


Not the only reason, no, but I doubt that it helped. They have a dog with no socialisation from rescue, take it out with other dogs which it is not used to and it is scared so it aggresses. Next thing they're anxious taking her out and that anxiety transfers itself to the dog, who thinks she must really have something to be scared of. That is how I see it anyway.



LeighPing said:


> Because of your nasty offensive comments about my grandson and his family on youtube.
> 
> Reply


Nothing nasty or offensive. All kids are brats to me, as anyone on this forum will tell you. I don't like them; I much prefer dogs.



LeighPing said:


> Sorry for the delay. I'll try to answer all the posts and queries, directed at me, in good time.
> 
> I had to take Muttley for a walk. You know how it goes. Hey, I was pretty close to a main road at one point too. The dog was off leash, walking at heel. Perhaps you could quote me some more stats on dogs being run over at some point.
> 
> Woulda, shoulda, coulda, just doesn't do it for me. The dog has been well trained to behave, he knows the score.


Walking a dog off leash near a main road is just stupid. There is nothing more to be said.



LeighPing said:


> Ruby was due to be destroyed as she could no longer reproduce. My nephew found her on fb and fell in love with her. However, due to her lack of socialising, she had a bad habit of piling onto every other dog she came across.
> 
> My nephews wife couldn't handle her behaviour at all and she could never be let off the lead on her walks. *They took her to several dog trainers*, the least expensive being £60, to no avail.
> 
> ...


Bolded: Did you give one of these trainers time to achieve anything before you gave up and went elsewhere? Probably not. They were looking for a quick fix, which you think you have supplied.



Sweety said:


> Well, never mind, keep working at it.
> 
> You see, I recall my bitch and she comes. I don't need the bleeper.
> 
> Hopefully, you'll get there one day.


When I was out with my two a woman walking along beside the common took one look at them and started running away so of course they thought 'good game' and started towards her. I called them both and they turned around and came running back to me and all I did was call their names. Imagine that.



LeighPing said:


> Is it really.. if he gets run over you can say you told me so eh.
> 
> Yes, my dog does behave near roads. Why is that also a subject for your irony?
> I've deliberately trained him to be that way. That doesn't mean that I'm 'the big I am' now does it?
> ...


Someone on another forum kept boasting about how she could rely on her dog off leash among busy traffic, wouldn't listen to warnings. Guess what? Dog is now dead because of that one time something caught his attention and he tried to cross the road. It was the driver's fault of course.



StormyThai said:


> No..it makes you a fool for not realising that a dog is a sentient being that can and does make mistakes on occasions...
> 
> Could I walk my dog off leash next to a road?
> Yep, but the thing is I have no reason to take that risk...the only reason I can see for following through with such a lack of comon sense is to do the "Look at me, aren't I awesome"
> ...


Yep. See above.



Elles said:


> It can be quite dangerous to use a small golf? ball as a retrieve toy especially for a large dog like yours. He could easily choke on it. A ball on a rope would be better. Be careful with sticks too. Many dogs are injured playing fetch with sticks.


Golf balls are made by pressuring the filling into them. If a dog sinks his teeth into it, it will burst and expand rapidly, faster than an airbag, and will kill a dog. That is if it doesn't get stuck in the dog's throat first.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

MollySmith said:


> Leave that for a social worker


Good luck with that too.



Dogloverlou said:


> Not an e-collar, but I noticed that Leighping 'liked' this video which genuinely is awful to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I won't take blame for a video that's not mine. Although, my own dog is also trained to a walkie talkie.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Dogloverlou said:


> Not an e-collar, but I noticed that Leighping 'liked' this video which genuinely is awful to watch.
> 
> Some people really don't deserve dogs when they treat them like s*** for their own entertainment
> 
> Sorry newfiesmum if you feel the need to delete the vid. Just wanted to point out that if he finds that entertaining then there really is no hope for his own dogs is there?


I shan't watch but if anyone wants it gone, just say.


----------



## LeighPing (Mar 21, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> You really are an offensive individual. Tell me do you actually love your dog or is he just a penis extension.


Maybe you should read your own posts, while I read that last big post above.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

LeighPing said:


> To date, it's been permanent. So, you're just surmising for now. Time will tell. Is vibration cruelty? I'd like to check your bedrooms for WMD please. :biggrin:
> 
> What concrete evidence would you accept?
> 
> It stops him chewing the beer tins that he finds in the park.


I'd like to check your head for evidence of a brain.

Evidence - a happy dog that's settled in her environment and respected, treated with kindness. In all the videos I can see of any dog linked to you I see fear, unhappiness and a moronic owner. Be that you or your even more bullish son or your dim nephew who lacks the care to train his own dog with kindness.

If you have to ask for concrete evidence then you clearly haven't a clue what it is.

My dog leaves pretty much everything in the park btw. She knows 'leave' and I managed to train that with a simply piece of plastic called a clicker. Wow, who knew :roll eyes:


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I shan't watch but if anyone wants it gone, just say.


Yes please, I think it'll encourage this idiot.

Sorry DLL, I know what you mean


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Well, that's him gone then! 

Shame coz I really wanted to see the happy, dog social, Ruby.....


----------



## SingingWhippet (Feb 25, 2015)

Awwwwwww, and I didn't have chance to break out this......


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Apparently his son is so protective of his child, I should be very careful and need a bigger dog. But he is not so protective as to keep the kid out of danger by sticking him in a cage with an anxious dog and allowing him to standing on his tail and pull his leg. How about that?

I am too old to know what a WMD is, but not too old to know a threat when I read it.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Dogloverlou said:


> Well, that's him gone then!
> 
> Shame coz I really wanted to see the happy, dog social, Ruby.....


I know me too. I fancied a road trip to see the son that apparently dishes it out. What a charming bunch. With any luck the dog has worked out how to build a killer vibrator to shove up the OP's tiny ar$e.

One nice piece of yummy warm chicken and Ruby will run. And I don't blame her.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Dogloverlou said:


> Well, that's him gone then!
> 
> Shame coz I really wanted to see the happy, dog social, Ruby.....





MollySmith said:


> I know me too. I fancied a road trip to see the son that apparently dishes it out. What a charming bunch. With any luck the dog has worked out how to build a killer vibrator to shove up the OP's tiny ar$e.
> 
> One nice piece of yummy warm chicken and Ruby will run. And I don't blame her.


He will be back; just don't like being threatened.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

Phew... it really does only take one rotten apple doesnt it?

This was such a good conversation up until the troll showed up. There were different views, but lots of sharing of ideas and a useful conversation happening. 

Ignorance can be educated but you just cant fix stupid....


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

dogsaintdumb said:


> ...
> 
> I've always [theorized] that *if a dog knows what... NOT... to do, as well as what... TO do,
> [s/he] will be more reliable, confident, self-assured, & less likely to mess up big time*
> ...


One Q re the blue bit -
Why would punishing a dog make her or him _"more reliable, confident, & self-assured"_...?
Punishment tends to suppress all behaviors, not merely the targeted behavior; confident, self-
assured animals tend to be exploratory & thus aren't afraid of novelty nor of erring - mistakes aren't
a big deal. Dogs who've been punished have their confidence shaken or eroded, & they are much-less
likely to be comfortable with novel experiences: new persons, tasks, places. They've been punished for
making mistakes, & thus don't OFFER unscripted behavior unless they know it's acceptable & won't be
punished - they wait to be TOLD to do something, or offer only actions from a list of "safe" behaviors.

Let's start with the simplest & most obvious:
Most of what humans want dogs to DO are "not" behaviors - DON'T bark, DON'T bite, DON'T pee indoors,
DON'T jump on humans, DON'T poop in the house, DON'T eat the furniture, don't, don't, don't...

The problem is that 'Dead Dog' behaviors are not trainable / teachable; anything a Dead Dog can do,
isn't something we can teach. :huh: Bummer. - However... we CAN teach a desired behavior to be performed
in any specific context: Meet a friendly stranger? - Sit to be petted. :thumbup1: E-Z.

Dead Dogs can 'not' anything: they DON'T bark, p*ss all over, jump on the furniture, chew on the stair-tread,
knock the kids down, leap all over Grandma, or raid the trash. :thumbup: Perfect dogs! - Except they stink,
attract flies, & decay, but U can't have everything. 

As more food for thought:
If U teach a child to read an analog clock, do U teach her or him to read it WRONG, first?... If not, why not?
Do U teach wrong ANSWERS in math or physics? - Teach kids to INcorrectly identify an unknown,
in chemistry?... [ hint: No. ]

Why do U think that's so? :001_huh: Could it be - because the wrong stuff is unnecessary & distracting?
It wastes time, that could be spent in learning right stuff? - It confuses the learner? -- All the above?

I can teach any dog what to DO - at which point, "what not to do" becomes completely irrelevant.
.
.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Phew... it really does only take one rotten apple doesnt it?
> 
> This was such a good conversation up until the troll showed up. There were different views, but lots of sharing of ideas and a useful conversation happening.
> 
> *Ignorance can be educated but you just cant fix stupid....*


Maybe we should stick e-collars on the stoopids?


----------



## cbcdesign (Jul 3, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Maybe we should stick e-collars on the stoopids?


You cant do that, they don't produce enough electricity!


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

I don't really want to get into the fray on this, just to say that I am opposed to aversives in the training of most dogs, regardless of whether it is a shock, a vibration or a rattle-can, etc. My girl is nervous in general and has the potential to be fear aggressive - using an aversive method, particularly around other dogs would be disastrous. It may take longer to teach her that she has nothing to fear from other dogs, but I'd rather have that than shut down and stressed.

RE the walking offlead by a road, this is from the Road Traffic Act 1988...



> 27 Control of dogs on roads.
> 
> (1)A person who causes or permits a dog to be on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead is guilty of an offence.
> 
> (2)In this section designated road means a length of road specified by an order in that behalf of the local authority in whose area the length of road is situated.


It's quite hard to find a definitive answer on how a road is designated, but it appears to be any public road that the local authority/council has specified a speed limit for - so the majority of urban roads. They appreciate, as you do not, that dogs are not automatons and any dog can break training and do something unexpected, and near a road that endangers not only your dog, but other road users too.

As for shutting your dog and small child together in a cage and allowing the child to pull around your very clearly uncomfortable dog, I truly don't have the words.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

LeighPing said:


> ...
> Perhaps *someone else can... benefit, [by using an electronic collar to shock a dog, or to vibrate as a signal,
> in order to] rectify extreme behaviors where all else has failed.*


Funny thing - that's not how they're marketed. :001_huh: They're sold as _'faster, better, stronger...'_ - all that hoo-hah.
They're more efficient - ACCORDING TO the maker, who of course, is a completely unbiased source.
The manufacturers would never, ever say something that wasn't true - would they? 

And - just as they are SOLD as a 1st-choice, not a "last resort" - they are USED as a 1st-choice. Owners & trainers
who use them, don't go thru the rigamarole of trying A, B, & C options, let alone W, X, & Y, before they grab Z -
the electronic collar, & use it as an aversive.

Speaking of _"extreme behaviors" -_ i do nothing but B-Mod, & that's been since 1985. If i can work with dogs
who have well-established, fluent, habitual un-wanted behaviors - which INCLUDE dogs with bite-histories -
& i don't use, & don't need, aversive tools or coercive methods ----- how much easier would it be, to teach any
desired behavior without using aversive tools or coercion?

I don't teach cued behaviors except as part of B-Mod for a presenting complaint, but again, i use reward
based methods, Mgmt to make right answers easy to inevitable, make "wrong" answers difficult to impossible,
& no physical aversives.

If i had a free hand, i'd ban the manufacture of any electronic collar that included electrodes, or could be
altered to install electrodes, post-manufacture. Anyone who wanted to BUY a shock-collar would be forced to
make their own, from cobbled parts. I'd also ban the manufacture or sale of choke-chains or infinite-slip collars
of any material whatever - metal, nylon webbing, synthetic tubes, leather, who cares. I'd ban the making &
sale of prong-collars, which are such a common cause of reactivity in dogs: Dog sees a dog, pulls to greet them,
collar tightens, pain results, association is made... over & over. Soon, Dog sees a dog - & barks like H*** to
make them go away, so the collar doesn't hurt. Simple action / reaction / association, bad outcome.

Ppl like to think that aversives are needed, justified, efficient, foolproof, & don't cause their own problems.

Problem is, we have research that says punishment is NOT needed, is NOT justified, is INefficient, is prone
to failure, & most of all, prone to fallout. Continuing to use it isn't "cutting edge", it's counter-productive.

Please do feel free to post links to studies published in peer-reviewed journals that SUPPORT the use
of aversive tools or coercive methods?... That explain, with data, how aversive tools SURPASS results
that are gotten by using reward-based methods?...
I'm all eyes - & ears. :thumbup1: But i doubt very, very much that U'll find any such research.
.
.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

McKenzie said:


> Why do you think what you did here worked? The collar isn't magic, so why did you pressing the vibrate function on the collar work?


Excellent question. Okay it worked. Why did it work? Because the dog found the sensation of the ecollar stim upsetting enough to not want to repeat it. Is that really what we want?



leashedForLife said:


> One Q re the blue bit -
> Why would punishing a dog make her or him _"more reliable, confident, & self-assured"_...?
> Punishment tends to suppress all behaviors, not merely the targeted behavior; confident, self-
> assured animals tend to be exploratory & thus aren't afraid of novelty nor of erring - mistakes aren't
> ...


Eggzactly 

If you set clear criteria, train the behavior with sufficient motivation, and proof is in all contexts, there really is no need for telling the dog "no".

Granted this is all *in theory*.

In practice, we humans screw up, we send conflicting signals, we don't clarify criteria, we up criteria too quickly, we frustrate the dog, we do all sorts of things that mess the dog up. 
Sometimes we're so unclear and frustrating to the dog that we end up punishing the behavior we're trying to teach!

And then we punish the dog for the mistakes we make 

I had one of those moments of clarity many years ago watching a fellow dog owner teaching her dog to back up. She had the dog in heel position against a wall and used her hand to pressure the dog in to backing up. The dog kept sitting instead of backing up. Every time the dog sat, she said "no, back." It was just a minor "no", not anything to raise any hackles, but this was a sensitive dog who also felt her owner getting frustrated every time she sat.

The dog did finally understand what the owner was asking and figured out to back up. She got praise and treats and pets and all seemed well.

But then, about 30 minutes later, after a break and some other exercises, the owner cued the dog to sit while in heel position. The dog hesitated, not sure if sitting was going to frustrate the owner. She got a collar pop for not sitting promptly enough. It was one of those moments of total clarity for me, when I suddenly "got it".

I'm human, I do screw up, and my screw-ups inadvertently do punish my dog. But I'll be damned if I'm going to punish on purpose.

And speaking of screwing up, I do need to apologize for my behavior on this thread. Especially since it also contributed to behavior I really don't want to be associated with 

Aversives are aversives are aversives. We lose credibility when we say it's not okay to punish dogs but then we turn around an use punishment on humans. There has to be a better way, and there IS a better way.
Legitimate questioning and keeping people and dogs safe doesn't require meanness.


----------



## Canine K9 (Feb 22, 2013)

I was super confused by the poll and just read the entire thread to discover why there was suddenly a poll :lol:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

LeighPing said:


> *Not shocks, vibrations.*
> ...


Oh, well, then! - I stand corrected.  That makes all the difference. :001_huh:

Except that it doesn't. An aversive is an aversive - if it's a prong collar poking the dog, an infinite-slip shutting
the airway, a bitey-hand poking the dog's neck, a shod foot kicking - excuse me, "tapping" the dog's loin or rump,
a shock on the dog's neck, a startling vibration - electric clippers, anyone?... --- they're all aversives.

ANYTHING A DOG DOESN'T LIKE - which causes discomfort or fear, whether it's physical or emotional - IS AN
AVERSIVE, & can be used to punish unwanted behavior.

I prefer to focus on teaching what i want, not punishing after the fact. It's less stress for all parties, much
more pleasant, & much-more efficient. As a crossover trainer, i know both sides; I have gotten better, faster,
much-more enthusiastic results with rewards than i ever achieved with aversives or coercion, & i've been
doing that for over 30-years, now.

And it's not "just trainers" or "just experts" who can train very effectively with rewards.
I've taught kids as young as 8-YO to train their family dog, on their own, no adult help needed - oversight,
of course; NO DOG is left with a child, without an adult present. If an 8-YO girl can train a honkin' big Lab,
a brainless goofball with zero cued behaviors when we began, then any adult with an IQ of 80 should be able to
easily duplicate her results - don't U think?

Disabled adults, novice owners who adopted dogs with serious issues, novice owners with inapropos breeds,
"hard to train" AKA "stubborn" breeds - all have successfully trained, using rewards & without aversives.

I don't hand a remote control to a 70-YO woman with rheumatoid arthritis, & then *criticize her* for failing to
get her finger ONTO & then OFF OF the button, fast-enuf. Yet a certain shock-collar trainer in Va Beach, VA, did
just that - & the 9-WO pup he inflicted this on, a GSD sold at just 5-WO, suffered for it. :mad5: I sincerely hope
there is a hot place awaiting his sorry carcass in H***, when this life is over; it seems only fair to me. :cursing:

There are choices; each of us makes our own.
I can comfortably state that no animal, not mine nor a client's, has suffered pain or fear at my hands, or my clients' -
nor my vets' hands, nor their staff's hands, as i won't patronize vets, groomers, etc, who use punitive or coercive
methods.

U'll do as U will - I'm sure of that.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> The ban [on discussing shock-collars] came about because *you had one very-fanatical shock-collar
> trainer* running around, telling everyone that shock collars were the only way to train anything, & that
> treat-trainers were the "real" punishment trainers.
> 
> He took over so many threads & got so nasty when questioned that [the subject] was banned.


Actually, he had help - there were 4 or 5, in toto, who would overwhelm any thread they targeted.
Anyone who objected was obliterated - I still have 2 points permanently deducted by a certain moderator,
because i had the sheer effrontery to label their behavior as trolling. :skep:

Apparently it was OK to *do* it - but not to call it what it was.  I call arsewipes as I see 'em; 
i don't say, *"Look, a butterfly!"* ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ when it's a bat, in point of fact.
.
.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> Actually, he had help - there were 4 or 5, in toto, who would overwhelm any thread they targeted.
> Anyone who objected was obliterated - I still have 2 points permanently deducted by a certain moderator,
> because i had the sheer effrontery to label their behavior as trolling. :skep:
> 
> ...


LC was the only one I remember clearly, he was also brought onto another forum by a very knowledgeable member to start a rational discussion on shock collars. It didn't go very well for him, which given it was a mostly US based forum was a surprise. I'm not surprised some other people joined in, he seems to have a whole group of people convinced the only way to train a dog is to shock it until it offers the behaviour you want with no idea of what you want.

As I said I can see the use of shock collars in proofing things like recall when the dog already knows the command. I just don't think it works for aggression.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

dogsaintdumb said:


> ...
> 
> *What about instances where a bad behaviour will be more-fulfilling than [another] option?*
> 
> ...


Self-rewarding behaviors can be dealt with in many ways; among them, Premack.

I'm not going to go on at length, as this sounds like the beginning of another, _*"Yes, but..."*_ -
& i don't deal with those clients, any more. :thumbup: Far too-much work for too little gain.
.
.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> LC was the only one I remember clearly, he was also brought onto another forum by a very knowledgeable member to start a rational discussion on shock collars. It didn't go very well for him, which given it was a mostly US based forum was a surprise. I'm not surprised some other people joined in, he seems to have a whole group of people convinced the only way to train a dog is to shock it until it offers the behaviour you want with no idea of what you want.
> 
> As I said I can see the use of shock collars in proofing things like recall when the dog already knows the command. I just don't think it works for aggression.


We have been able to have very rational debates on shock collars, quite recently ... I can't remember or be bothered to find the threads though  

I think that can only be a good thing. Too many people are worried about what others may think should they 'dare' to admit they have considered using them, there should be discusssion (rather than demonisation), I don't understand how a blanket ban helps anyone

I freely admit that I considered using one for Roxy's love of chasing deer (I probably said as much on this thread) & don't feel 'guilty' at all


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> We have been able to have very rational debates on shock collars, quite recently ... I can't remember or be bothered to find the threatds though
> 
> I think that can only be a good thing. Too many people are worried about what others may think should they 'dare' to admit they have considered using them, there should be discusssion (rather than demonisation), I don't understand how a blanket ban helps anyone
> 
> I feely admit that I considered using one for Roxy's love of chasing deer (I probably said as much on this thread) & don't feel 'guilty' at all


I agree it's a discussion that needs to happen. If the mods can handle some of the topics in gc then they can handle anything. The ban has been lifted anyway hasn't it?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> LC was the only one I remember clearly, he was also brought onto another forum by a very knowledgeable member to start a rational discussion on shock collars. It didn't go very well for him, which given it was a mostly US based forum was a surprise. I'm not surprised some other people joined in, he seems to have a whole group of people convinced the only way to train a dog is to shock it until it offers the behaviour you want with no idea of what you want.
> 
> As I said I can see the use of shock collars in proofing things like recall when the dog already knows the command. I just don't think it works for aggression.


I know that forum you speak of well  Even participated in the thread myself for a while until I could take no more BS.

I actually don't think I have seen rational or sensible discussion on the use of e-collars myself, and I really did try and remain open minded on that thread you talk about. Maybe it's because those who train with the collars are always on the defensive but they all come across as rude, ignorant and deluded, as a certain poster clearly demonstrated tonight.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> I know that forum you speak of well  Even participated in the thread myself for a while until I could take no more BS.
> 
> I actually don't think I have seen rational or sensible discussion on the use of e-collars myself, and I really did try and remain open minded on that thread you talk about. Maybe it's because those who train with the collars are always on the defensive but they all come across as rude, ignorant and deluded, as a certain poster clearly demonstrated tonight.


Several members of this forum have used or have considered using e-collars, and have discussed them rationally and politely on this very thread.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Dogloverlou said:


> I know that forum you speak of well  Even participated in the thread myself for a while until I could take no more BS.
> 
> I actually don't think I have seen rational or sensible discussion on the use of e-collars myself, and I really did try and remain open minded on that thread you talk about. Maybe it's because those who train with the collars are always on the defensive but they all come across as rude, ignorant and deluded, as a certain poster clearly demonstrated tonight.


A lot of clicker trainers come across that way as well though, fervour of the convert maybe? Some shock collar users are perfectly capable of a rational discussion on them those that aren't convinced it's the only, perfect way to train a dog anyway.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Several members of this forum have used or have considered using e-collars, and have discussed them rationally and politely on this very thread.


Must have missed the members who have used one then and don't think I was party to the discussion myself here and have no desire to sift through the whole thread!

I know many people elsewhere who used one, still doesn't change my mind though that they conduct themselves in a manner in which I really can't take them seriously.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Dogloverlou said:


> Must have missed the members who have used one then and don't think I was party to the discussion myself here and have no desire to sift through the whole thread!
> 
> I know many people elsewhere who used one, still doesn't change my mind though that they conduct themselves in a manner in which I really can't take them seriously.


But that can be said for anyone whose opinions are almost evangelical at times!

I am all for debates, I don't think anything can be gained by stifling discussion.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Does anyone have DownloadHelper as a browser-extension?
I'd copy & save that clip before it's removed or hidden by privacy-settings.
IOW - i'd do it *now*.

I can't even play it - my version of Flash won't update, for some reason. :nonod:



MollySmith said:


> ...
> 
> I thought Dogs Trust might be interested in using the other video - with the child in the crate - as evidence for
> their latest campaign, on how children should *not* behave around dogs.
> ...





Dogloverlou said:


> They'd have to edit out the swearing, first.


they could easily use it muted, as just watching the dog, the child's actions, & an occasional close-up
of the little charmer's mouth spitting venom - with the FACE fuzzed-out to protect the minor from being
recognized - would, I'm sure, be very illuminating & highly educational.
.
.


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

I missed the video but am concerned. Is this the video of a child locked in the crate with a dog?...


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Wilmer said:


> I don't really want to get into the fray on this, just to say that I am opposed to aversives in the training of most dogs, regardless of whether it is a shock, a vibration or a rattle-can, etc. My girl is nervous in general and has the potential to be fear aggressive - using an aversive method, particularly around other dogs would be disastrous. It may take longer to teach her that she has nothing to fear from other dogs, but I'd rather have that than shut down and stressed.
> 
> RE the walking offlead by a road, this is from the Road Traffic Act 1988...
> 
> ...


Any length of road which is likely to be used by any vehicle. It only takes one.



leashedForLife said:


> Speaking of _"extreme behaviors" -_ i do nothing but B-Mod, & that's been since 1985. If i can work with dogs
> who have well-established, fluent, habitual un-wanted behaviors - which INCLUDE dogs with bite-histories -
> & i don't use, & don't need, aversive tools or coercive methods ----- how much easier would it be, to teach any
> desired behavior without using aversive tools or coercion?
> ...


You are expecting someone like this to know what B-Mod means?



Canine K9 said:


> I was super confused by the poll and just read the entire thread to discover why there was suddenly a poll :lol:


That was to settle an argument with the poster who stated that all people leave their dogs' collars on all the time. I see I won.



Nicky10 said:


> I agree it's a discussion that needs to happen. If the mods can handle some of the topics in gc then they can handle anything. The ban has been lifted anyway hasn't it?


Yes, it is no longer against the rules to discuss the collars, only to promote them.


----------



## Delilahdog (Mar 2, 2014)

leashedForLife said:


> Self-rewarding behaviors can be dealt with in many ways; among them, Premack.
> 
> I'm not going to go on at length, as this sounds like the beginning of another, _*"Yes, but..."*_ -
> & i don't deal with those clients, any more. :thumbup: Far too-much work for too little gain.
> ...


I have a question, please no one yell if you think I am being stupid 
Shocking the dog for going for another might discourage it from going for THAT dog (wouldn't do it myself) but how does the dog then know it mustn't go for ANY dog?
When I was teaching Lyla not to eat poo (offering her something more tempting to eat instead as a reward for leaving it) it took a while for her to realise it wasn't just THAT poo she wasn't to eat.
She now responds to 'leave it' without reward but it took consistent patterning for this to take effect.
I don't see how you can be sure anything has worked in 90 seconds or that the message you intended is the message understood?
Sorry I've stuffed up with the quotes again. I quoted Leashed for Life because this is responding to a question further up the thread.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Delilahdog said:


> I have a question, please no one yell if you think I am being stupid
> Shocking the dog for going for another might discourage it from going for THAT dog (wouldn't do it myself) *but how does the dog then know it mustn't go for ANY dog?*
> When I was teaching Lyla not to eat poo (offering her something more tempting to eat instead as a reward for leaving it) it took a while for her to realise it wasn't just THAT poo she wasn't to eat.
> She now responds to 'leave it' without reward but it took consistent patterning for this to take effect.
> ...


Quick answer is it doesn't. That is why most dogs have to continue wearing the collar (just the threat of a shock or vibration (some dogs find the vibration just as aversive as a shock) collar is enough for some).

E-collars don't "fix" behaviours, they merely suppress behaviours 

I doubt our friend will answer for a while as they have been put on the naughty step


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I missed out on this yesterday so did not see the video and can't form an opinion but there is NO excuse for the way a moderator has spoken to this person. It is disgraceful and anyone else would be banned. It is not the first time either


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Delilahdog said:


> I have a question, please no one yell if you think I am being stupid
> Shocking the dog for going for another might discourage it from going for THAT dog (wouldn't do it myself) but how does the dog then know it mustn't go for ANY dog?
> When I was teaching Lyla not to eat poo (offering her something more tempting to eat instead as a reward for leaving it) it took a while for her to realise it wasn't just THAT poo she wasn't to eat.
> She now responds to 'leave it' without reward but it took consistent patterning for this to take effect.
> ...


It doesn't. It may not even know what it's been shocked for. It could very easily associate the shock (or other punishment used) with something completely unrelated to its own behaviour. Which is pretty damn dangerous imo.

I'm one of those who looked into using an ecollar with my previous dog. Not for his aggression but for his predatory behaviour. I wasn't prepared to give up and resign myself to him staying on lead his whole life without exploring every option, not when he couldn't even be off leash in the garden and I worried about having windows open in case he went out that way! I spoke to various ecollar trainers (Lou Castle was extremely helpful and informative for all he gets slated so often) and people who'd used ecollars alongside other methods. General consensus was that it was extremely unlikely to help my dog given his history. None of them guaranteed me a fix, especially not in one session! I was actually very surprised at the difference in attitude when I contacted certain ones privately instead of on open forums. Perhaps because they didn't feel the need to be defensive from the start?

Have I used one? Nope. And I can't see myself using one in the future either. But when looking into one I can say without a doubt that my dogs quality of life was why I looked into one as a possible option. Nor would I have gone into it blind. I know what they are, I know they inflict pain, there's no denial there from me and they will never be a "go to" tool for me as they are for so many. Would I have honestly caused my dog a few moments of pain if it meant he could have a better life? I don't know. I really can't say for sure. The fact it was highly unlikely to work made the decision easy.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Blitz said:


> I missed out on this yesterday so did not see the video and can't form an opinion but there is NO excuse for the way a moderator has spoken to this person. It is disgraceful and anyone else would be banned. It is not the first time either


You must be looking at a different forum if you think that people are banned for a disagreement...If you actually read you will see that this member threatened NM which is against forum rules...NM did not break any rules she just voiced her opinion (being a mod does not remove you of your opinions) as did everyone else...


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Blitz said:


> I missed out on this yesterday so did not see the video and can't form an opinion but there is NO excuse for the way a moderator has spoken to this person. It is disgraceful and anyone else would be banned. It is not the first time either


Seriously? the guy who posted the video admits he has already been banned by a GSD forum. He posts a video (which I missed also) but understand showed a child in a crate with a dog standing on its tail on purpose, he then makes threatening comments to the moderator using her full name. He also quoted something she had said elsewhere rather than on here (You tube) when commenting on his video.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I was extremely glad we had a mod on this thread.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I think newfiesmum acted accordingly and I too am glad she was fully involved in this thread.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

Blitz said:


> I missed out on this yesterday so did not see the video and can't form an opinion but there is NO excuse for the way a moderator has spoken to this person. It is disgraceful and anyone else would be banned. It is not the first time either


I think many of us behaved inappropriately towards a new member, myself included. Not only is it just not nice behavior, but its not going to do a thing to help those dogs, or encourage their owner to find better ways.

That owner is just going to walk away from this interaction thinking all people who are against using e-collars are nut jobs. Just as we walk away thinking that all people who use e-collars are like that poster.

Neither is true.

Blitz, one video showed a boxer wearing an e-collar running around with another dog. The boxer was a bit on the tubby side, and panting so hard I thought she was going to pass out from heat exhaustion. Every time she stopped she collapsed on to the ground and the person video-ing kept throwing a stick encouraging her to run some more. She was wearing an e-collar but I saw no use of it.

The second video showed a dog recalling (not a stellar recall either) to a beep on his ecollar. Which prompted me to ask, why not just use a far cheaper whistle if all youre doing is using the sound function?
The dog was also being given another cue (in) that he was responding to by moving away from the owner and looking worried, and the owner thought that was funny.

There was a third video where this same poster had put a very young child (3 maybe?) in a crate with the dog from the recall video. They were both in there with the door closed, being video-ed. The child at one point deliberately stepped on the dogs tail (not hard, but still), and then when the dog tried to move away (which he couldnt), the child grabbed the dogs leg and held on. The video then ended.

The kid & dog and crate one really upset me. The dog was clearly distressed and I could just see that kid getting hurt and the dog getting blamed. It really worried me, and still does. Granted, I know.... Kids every day are put in stupidly dangerous situations with dogs, and they need to be educated - as best we can.

I still contend though, that there are some people you just cant reach. Still doesnt excuse inappropriate behavior though.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

If you want debate then you must expect arguments for their use. If you expect arguments for their use then you must expect forum members who are pro their use. This does not necessarily make them trolls. I agree the poster in this case should have been banned for some of his other behaviour ( threats and naming people.. which I didn't see.. and I assume are removed ). If this is what's going to happen every time then it's better the way it was before.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

diefenbaker said:


> If you want debate then you must expect arguments for their use. If you expect arguments for their use then you must expect forum members who are pro their use. This does not necessarily make them trolls. I agree the poster in this case should have been banned for some of his other behaviour ( threats and naming people.. which I didn't see.. and I assume are removed ). If this is what's going to happen every time then it's better the way it was before.


I think this thread (at it's start) proved we *can* have this conversation respectfully, without promoting the use of e-collars, but discussing how they work and the potential fall-out from their use.

Then we lost it a bit, but I think the usual membership here is more than capable of having a productive conversation about e-collars.

I hope?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Yes the naming and the threats have been removed from the thread. 

I don't think this particular owner was remotely interested in hearing any one else's point of view. He came on here stating in his first post that he had already been banned from a GSD forum for promoting the use of e collars and posted videos that he knew would be inflammatory and continued to make inappropriate comments (such as checking what vibrating devices one female member had in her bedroom) and brag about walking his dog off lead next to a busy road. Prior to this poster appearing I think there was plenty of reasonable discussion going on. If I waded into a forum of CM followers and immediately stated that I thought his methods were wrong/cruel etc I wouldn't expect a particularly warm welcome but I certainly wouldn't be making threats to a lady about what my son might do to her :nono:


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I think this thread (at its start) proved we *can* have this conversation respectfully, without promoting the use of e-collars, but discussing how they work and the potential fall-out from their use.
> 
> Then we lost it a bit, but I think the usual membership here is more than capable of having a productive conversation about e-collars.
> 
> I hope?


To be honest I'm not sure I agree with the "rule". Regardless of the topic I don't see how you can call it a debate and then insist it's one-sided. It' not really a debate then. And I think it undermines the credibility of the arguments because it suggests they may not stand up under cross-examination.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

diefenbaker said:


> To be honest I'm not sure I agree with the "rule". Regardless of the topic I don't see how you can call it a debate and then insist it's one-sided. It' not really a debate then. And I think it undermines the credibility of the arguments because it suggests they may not stand up under cross-examination.


IDK...

Id rather this than not being able to discuss them at all.

If someone comes on with a fearful dog and is thinking about an ecollar, Id much rather be able to tell them how the collars work and why thats not a good idea for their dog, than tell them we cant discuss e-collars.

Or even if someone has a dog whos a better candidate, I still like being able to say what fall-out to watch out for and why it may not work, than give a non-informative answer that we cant discuss them.

But yeah, I really dont know....


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ouesi said:


> That owner is just going to walk away from this interaction thinking all people who are against using e-collars are nut jobs. Just as we walk away thinking that all people who use e-collars are like that poster.


He already did think that before he got here. He would not listen to anything anyone else had to say about the damage they do, nor about his lack of dog body language knowledge. I really don't think he cared if the dog was unhappy as long as it behaved. And I stand by my You Tube comments - any child who is allowed to stamp on a dog's tail and pull its leg is a brat.

Anyone who wants to watch the videos can put the user's name into You Tube.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> He already did think that before he got here. He would not listen to anything anyone else had to say about the damage they do, nor about his lack of dog body language knowledge. I really don't think he cared if the dog was unhappy as long as it behaved. And I stand by my You Tube comments - *any child who is allowed to stamp on a dog's tail and pull its leg is a brat.*
> 
> Anyone who wants to watch the videos can put the user's name into You Tube.


You said it though - *allowed to*. If a dog is allowed to jump up on people and not taught basic manners, is that dog a brat? Of course not. The child is not at fault for how he has been raised. Nor will it be the childs OR dogs fault if the kid gets injured by the dog. Its the caretakers responsibility to be, well... responsible.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> He already did think that before he got here. He would not listen to anything anyone else had to say about the damage they do, nor about his lack of dog body language knowledge. I really don't think he cared if the dog was unhappy as long as it behaved. And I stand by my You Tube comments - any child who is allowed to stamp on a dog's tail and pull its leg is a brat.
> 
> Anyone who wants to watch the videos can put the user's name into You Tube.


To be fair when a kid poke Penny with a balloon stick down the road a few months ago(whilst its mother was on her phone totally ignoring it) I called it more than a brat


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ouesi said:


> You said it though - *allowed to*. If a dog is allowed to jump up on people and not taught basic manners, is that dog a brat? Of course not. The child is not at fault for how he has been raised. Nor will it be the childs OR dogs fault if the kid gets injured by the dog. Its the caretakers responsibility to be, well... responsible.


I had a Labrador jump up me this morning actually, because she was excited and having a great time and I got in her way. The owner's reaction was to put her lead on, which to me was unfair as no one had taught her to not to dive on people. So I agree, it is not the child's fault it is a brat, but that doesn't make it less of a brat. No child is to blame for its own bad behaviour.



Clare7435 said:


> To be fair when a kid poke Penny with a balloon stick down the road a few months ago(whilst its mother was on her phone totally ignoring it) I called it more than a brat


Good for you. Careful though; one of the worst sins on this forum is to state that you don't like children, especially if you are a moderator because apparently that label stunts one's opinion.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

newfiesmum said:


> I had a Labrador jump up me this morning actually, because she was excited and having a great time and I got in her way. The owner's reaction was to put her lead on, which to me was unfair as no one had taught her to not to dive on people. So I agree, it is not the child's fault it is a brat, but that doesn't make it less of a brat. No child is to blame for its own bad behaviour.
> 
> Good for you. Careful though; *one of the worst sins on this forum is to state that you don't like children, especially if you are a moderator because apparently that label stunts one's opinion.*


See, I dont think comments like that are at all fair. Nor conducive to a respectful discussion.

Moderators are allowed opinions and express them all the time. 
Nor have I seen issues with folks saying they dont like children.

I have seen issues with people advocating abuse against children, but thats not the same thing is it?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I found the video with the child and dog in the cage really upsetting. The child seemed to think that deliberately standing on a pup's tail and trying to hurt him was something to be proud of, showing the adult videoing him how clever he was to do it. Very sad state of affairs, notwithstanding the dangers of locking a child in a cage with a dog, even if you don't permit them to deliberately hurt him.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> I had a Labrador jump up me this morning actually, because she was excited and having a great time and I got in her way. The owner's reaction was to put her lead on, which to me was unfair as no one had taught her to not to dive on people. So I agree, it is not the child's fault it is a brat, but that doesn't make it less of a brat. No child is to blame for its own bad behaviour.
> 
> Good for you. Careful though; one of the worst sins on this forum is to state that you don't like children, especially if you are a moderator because apparently that label stunts one's opinion.


I have 4 kids and 2 grandkids and I love them to bits, what I don't love is when people disrespect animals whether they are old young or children, This kid not sure whether it was a girl or a boy I didn't think to look at its gender all I saw was a little **** hurting my baby...hit her with the balloon, and because mummy was a total idiot and not looking what it was doing it then decided to poke her...I pulled penny away then the little sod purposely walked over to her and poked her and continued to do so till I had a go, now if someone had said what I did to one of my kids I would want to know why...but nope...stupid cow was still on her phone...I think the kid was crying too but I don't care....that was her baby, penny is mine. My Granddaughter is almost 3 and I know for a fact if she had done that she would have been on time out right there on the pavement because my daughter would never allow her to treat an animal like that. She has had respect for my dogs from the minute she could crawl.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I think that the banned member must be rubbing their hands with idiotic glee if they are viewing this, knowing they have created another argument.

The child is unfortunately born and raised in an environment that places little value on respect to animals, and judging from the comments of the idiot posting on here, people too. I think we all agree on that. 

And perhaps we can agree that seeing something so awful and having to listen to the posting of a crazy idiot is enough to make all of us feel strongly regardless of our roles on the forum. The best we can do is try to educate. I'm going to go to one of the Dogs Trust workshops on children and dogs if there is one near me, because I don't have children around that often, I think it's even more critical that I know what to look out for. That's the best we can do and outwit the idiots like that awful man and make him the minority.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Clare7435 said:


> I have 4 kids and 2 grandkids and I love them to bits, what I don't love is when people disrespect animals whether they are old young or children, This kid not sure whether it was a girl or a boy I didn't think to look at its gender all I saw was a little **** hurting my baby...hit her with the balloon, and because mummy was a total idiot and not looking what it was doing it then decided to poke her...I pulled penny away then the little sod purposely walked over to her and poked her and continued to do so till I had a go, now if someone had said what I did to one of my kids I would want to know why...but nope...stupid cow was still on her phone...I think the kid was crying too but I don't care....that was her baby, penny is mine. My Granddaughter is almost 3 and I know for a fact if she had done that she would have been on time out right there on the pavement because my daughter would never allow her to treat an animal like that. She has had respect for my dogs from the minute she could crawl.


I remember when Joshua was about five months. A growing giant breed is very delicate, but of course he was about the size of a full grown Labrador. There was this woman and her kid came up to us and the kid kept leaning on Joshua as he was walking along. I wouldn't have minded so much had it been Ferdie because he had no more growing to do, but I waited for the so-called mother to stop him and she did nothing so I told him not to lean on the dog or he would hurt him. He carried on doing it and the silly woman ignored it. I then asked her to stop him, but she did nothing, so I ended up turning round and going back the way I had come. What I wanted to do was to walk along leaning on him and see how he liked it.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

MollySmith said:


> I think that the banned member must be rubbing their hands with idiotic glee if they are viewing this, knowing they have created another argument.
> 
> The child is unfortunately born and raised in an environment that places little value on respect to animals, and judging from the comments of the idiot posting on here, people too. I think we all agree on that.
> 
> And perhaps we can agree that seeing something so awful and having to listen to the posting of a crazy idiot is enough to make all of us feel strongly regardless of our roles on the forum. The best we can do is try to educate. I'm going to go to one of the Dogs Trust workshops on children and dogs if there is one near me, because I don't have children around that often, I think it's even more critical that I know what to look out for. That's the best we can do and outwit the idiots like that awful man and make him the minority.


I've always encouraged children to fuss my dogs, with mum's permission of course, because I want them to be used to children for their own benefit. You could try asking when you are out with Molly if the child can interact with her.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

At the other end of the scale, hubby met a couple recently who have just bought their first dog. They have teenage children. They told him that they've never had a dog, nor had any of their family, hence they knew nothing about them, or how to look after them. So when they decided to get one they bought a health tested, ethically bred labrador pup on the advice of a trainer. The trainer has the dog during the week, they have him at weekends when they also get training themselves. The pup won't come to live with them totally until he is 6 months old. They were so worried about getting it wrong and ending up with a miserable, untrained dog they're probably spending more that I do on my horses. 

They've taken more care over acquiring a dog than they did making and raising their children I expect. 

I wonder how common it is? Not very I would have thought.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I've always encouraged children to fuss my dogs, with mum's permission of course, because I want them to be used to children for their own benefit. You could try asking when you are out with Molly if the child can interact with her.


Yes, agree. Molly often meets with my god daughters and the children I babysit for as it's great for all of them. I'm fairly certain that Molly is fab - she's always been really good at the Gogs with children and I know more than many parents I've encountered at the same place but there's no harm in doing a bit extra - I'm conscious that it is not 24/7 for her. We'd like to progress to being a PAT dog so it's all good.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Elles said:


> At the other end of the scale, hubby met a couple recently who have just bought their first dog. They have teenage children. They told him that they've never had a dog, nor had any of their family, hence they knew nothing about them, or how to look after them. So when they decided to get one they bought a health tested, ethically bred labrador pup on the advice of a trainer. The trainer has the dog during the week, they have him at weekends when they also get training themselves. The pup won't come to live with them totally until he is 6 months old. They were so worried about getting it wrong and ending up with a miserable, untrained dog they're probably spending more that I do on my horses.
> 
> They've taken more care over acquiring a dog than they did making and raising their children I expect.
> 
> I wonder how common it is? Not very I would have thought.


Oh dear  I feel that's abdicating all responsibility, part of the joy of having a dog is the milestone that you reach together and they're missing out. A bit like having kids and sending them to boarding school.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I think they were just frightened of getting it all horribly wrong and met a clever, persuasive trainer.  It'll only be for 3 or 4 months.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> I remember when Joshua was about five months. A growing giant breed is very delicate, but of course he was about the size of a full grown Labrador. There was this woman and her kid came up to us and the kid kept leaning on Joshua as he was walking along. I wouldn't have minded so much had it been Ferdie because he had no more growing to do, but I waited for the so-called mother to stop him and she did nothing so I told him not to lean on the dog or he would hurt him. He carried on doing it and the silly woman ignored it. I then asked her to stop him, but she did nothing, so I ended up turning round and going back the way I had come. What I wanted to do was to walk along leaning on him and see how he liked it.


I don't blame u one bit....I am a self confessed irritable bitch when it comes to the girls...guilty as changed I would have probably told the mum regardless of the kid being present that she was a stupid cow...can't help it it's just me, won't make any excuses for being me, why should you have to change your walk because of an irresponsible individual. I love my own kids/grandkids....but I have absolutely no interest in anyone else's so I have to say I do avoid them when we're out on walks....can't help the way I am


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

I'm wondering if LeighPing has ever heard of Ed Frawley. The fur saver collar that Jet is wearing is something Leerburg provides, and I think that e-collar was once upon a time on the Leerburg website. I have respect for Ed Frawley for what he does and hope that LeighPing isn't advertising Jet as a product of Cindy and Ed's training. 


I haven't been able to find the video everyone is talking about, but the videos I did watch were confusing. There's a video showing the dog wearing a Julius K9 harness with a "Security" patch and I'm not sure why. I have the same harness (10/10 for anyone looking for a harness!) and patch from when I was working with my dog for night security last year. I use the "Training" patches now. Never occurred to me to use the security patches when she's not security!

I might contact LeighPing elsewhere to see if he will answer some of my questions. I understand why he was banned.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

MollySmith said:


> Oh dear  I feel that's* abdicating all responsibility*, *part of the joy of having a dog is the milestone that you reach together and they're missing out.* *A bit like having kids and sending them to boarding school.*


Bit harsh really; it is better for some children to attend boarding school for various reasons.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

dogsaintdumb said:


> I'm wondering if LeighPing has ever heard of Ed Frawley. The fur saver collar that Jet is wearing is something Leerburg provides, and I think that e-collar was once upon a time on the Leerburg website. I have respect for Ed Frawley for what he does and hope that LeighPing isn't advertising Jet as a product of Cindy and Ed's training.
> 
> I haven't been able to find the video everyone is talking about, but the videos I did watch were confusing. There's a video showing the dog wearing a Julius K9 harness with a "Security" patch and I'm not sure why. I have the same harness (10/10 for anyone looking for a harness!) and patch from when I was working with my dog for night security last year. I use the "Training" patches now. Never occurred to me to use the security patches when she's not security!
> 
> I might contact LeighPing elsewhere to see if he will answer some of my questions. I understand why he was banned.


LOL fursaver collars are certainly not unique to the Leerburg site. Not by a long shot. And besides, just because someone buys a product from a website doesnt mean they have anything to do with the people who run the website. Weird logic there... 

Ed Frawley is controversial at best. I give him credit for bringing marker training to a large audience and listening to Mike Ellis, and, well... thats all Ill say  
Michael Ellis, Forrest Micke, Denise Fenzi, theyre amazing and doing amazing work


----------



## dogsaintdumb (Mar 21, 2015)

Each to their own in regards to liking/not liking Frawley (or anyone). 

I made the connection because there are different styles of fur saver collar and the collar Jet wears is the same one (style) that is referenced repeatedly in the articles on the Leerburg website (or it looks like it). 

Ed Frawley may be better known in the world that LeighPing comes from than somebody like Bill Koehler or Ruth Crisler, for example. 

It was just a connection I made on a whim. I hope his methods are "home made" and not influenced by an established trainer. I'm sure no (established) trainer, supporting any method, would agree that LeighPing is training the dog properly. What he's doing in the videos doesn't make much sense IMO. His posts are confusing, as well.

"If you can't explain it simply, then you don't know it well enough" seems like a fitting reminder for him.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

dogsaintdumb said:


> Each to their own in regards to liking/not liking Frawley (or anyone).
> 
> I made the connection because there are different styles of fur saver collar and the collar Jet wears is the same one (style) that is referenced repeatedly in the articles on the Leerburg website (or it looks like it).
> 
> ...


Im pretty sure LeighPing doesnt have any connections with any effective trainer regardless of methodology.

People who know who Ed Frawley is tend to know who Bill Koehler is.

Do I know you dogsaintdumb? Is your dobie a bitch? She looks familiar.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

MollySmith said:


> I think that the banned member must be *rubbing their hands with idiotic glee* if they're viewing this,
> knowing they have created another argument.


Let 'em; some ppl just adore spreading discord, around them & in their wakes. I'm not the least bit sorry
that he's been banned, as he behaved very badly.

Anyone who makes the effort to hunt U down from another website, then make personal threats, does
NOT deserve an opportunity to spread such poison - & that entirely ignores his incredibly irresponsible
behavior, with a toddler & a GSD in a closed crate.

U can only speak to willing ears; there's a chance that child will meet other adults, even other children,
who will teach him kindness, & he won't become a younger version of the toxic adult. We can hope.

Adults choose their actions & reactions, & are entirely responsible for their own decisions - & any of the
consequences that come from their decisions.

Mr Crate-the-Kid-&-the-Dog-&-Record-the-Action basically banned himself. If he'd behaved in a civil manner,
he'd still be here - but i doubt very much he'd be listening. He'd only be composing his next diatribe.
.
.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Dogless said:


> Bit harsh really; it is better for some children to attend boarding school for various reasons.


Just my opinion based on encounters. It obviously doesn't apply to everyone.


----------



## Snowdog (Mar 3, 2015)

"Mr Crate-the-Kid-&-the-Dog-&-Record-the-Action basically banned himself. If he'd behaved in a civil manner,
he'd still be here - but i doubt very much he'd be listening. He'd only be composing his next diatribe"

I agree with this. I lurk and read dog forums over the years, and your quote does some up these kinds of arguments, especially your the bit about only interested in composing diatribes instead of listening

I jus think 'yeh, yeh, yeh'. Read it hundred times before. ...numpty praises cesar milan or ecollars....not so 'positive' trainer just insults or gets personal, regardless......here we go again.

its like s/he is labour, s/he is tory, bitch ping pong.
its like pavlov's metronome, first signs of such comments, facial muscles sink, mouth sighs, eyes rolls, brain goes to sleep

I train dogs sometimes, and i never think about any of this crap. It doesnt really have anything to do with what Im doing, and the funny thing is, its actually human psychology - politicizing - which, when you think about, doesnt even relate to a dog. Weird really. Even if someone mentions cesar milan to me, i ever just ignore it and carry on training my dog, or just making a quick cursory passing comment and just bring it back to what im doing and why.
I dont need to talk about any other trainers, or give high falutin' lectures about operant conditioning or dominance or such gumph, i just need to talk to the person about their dog and how BOTH FEEL. Its just a normal easy going conversation I would be having anywhere anytime, it just happens to be whilst im training someone's dog. Im just coaching and guiding, thats all.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

That's what irks me more than anything I think with e-collar users ( or any other training method and their followers before I get jumped on....) that you get those so defensive and ignorant. They don't want to remain open minded or hear other ideas or training methods. Their way works and that's it, and they absolutely do join in discussions to stir the pot knowing that they will offer no sensible contribution to the discussion. I like to think I'm open minded, and am always learning about different styles of training and what motivates my dogs. I'll use a bit of everything with my lot, no one style fits all. And I'm not against aversives. I have used leash corrections, and taught Ty to walk nicely in a much 'rougher' fashion than is usually recommended here (pull and jerk kind of method ). I'm quite firm in some respects ( although often get told I'm not firm enough! ), and can be shouty at times :blush: But some of what I used to do was through simply not knowing any better. As soon as I joined various forums over the years I was opened up to a whole new way of doing things and getting the best from my dogs. I'm very thankful for places such as this. I'm all for education and agree that the gentler approach with some newbies is often the best way forward, but some people are just asking for a hostile reaction.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Dogloverlou said:


> That's what irks me more than anything I think with e-collar users ( or any other training method and their followers before I get jumped on....) that you get those so defensive and ignorant. They don't want to remain open minded or hear other ideas or training methods. Their way works and that's it, and they absolutely do join in discussions to stir the pot knowing that they will offer no sensible contribution to the discussion. I like to think I'm open minded, and am always learning about different styles of training and what motivates my dogs. I'll use a bit of everything with my lot, no one style fits all. And I'm not against aversives. I have used leash corrections, and taught Ty to walk nicely in a much 'rougher' fashion than is usually recommended here (pull and jerk kind of method ). I'm quite firm in some respects ( although often get told I'm not firm enough! ), and can be shouty at times :blush: But some of what I used to do was through simply not knowing any better. As soon as I joined various forums over the years I was opened up to a whole new way of doing things and getting the best from my dogs. I'm very thankful for places such as this. I'm all for education and agree that the gentler approach with some newbies is often the best way forward, but some people are just asking for a hostile reaction.


Am not sure I understand your point about 'ecollar users' .... as if they are all the same & use the same training methods .... that's quite narrow minded .... as well as being incorrect 

I posted a while ago that I was thinking of using an ecollar on Roxy (to curb her chasing) yet I still use clicker training & other positive based methods. I am not defensive about my methods & am always open to new ideas & training theories .... & am not the only one. It seems to be a misconception on this forum that ecollar users are almost demonic & sadistic 

The trainer I consulted (& still see for IPO training) uses them on certain dogs for certain behaviours ... but not all & advised me not to use one with Roxy ....


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

dogsaintdumb said:


> Each to their own in regards to liking/ not liking Frawley (or anyone).
> 
> ...


I had some personal dealing with Mr Frawley many years ago, & didn't enjoy the experience.

As a crossover trainer, I tried to explain that many of the things he suggested or recommended were not only
unnecessary, but even qualify as abuse, if they are witnessed by an ACO in the United States - such as his classic
description of how to hang a dog by the collar, to punish that dog for some serious transgression - aggro directed
at the handler or trainer, or another person; lunging at or snapping at another dog; etc.

He proceeded to reply by telling me that I was an ignoramus who knew absolutely nothing, & that
clicker-training was just another ridiculous fad - like Ouija boards in the 1930s, or 1900s seances, or any
other mass delusion - Hula-hoops, ducktail haircuts, Zoot suits.

Fast-forward over 20-years, & suddenly, Mr Frawley is selling DVDs to promote clicker-training. :001_huh:
His latest & greatest best-buddy & partner is a clicker-trainer, who also uses shock-collars to proof behaviors.

I'm not impressed.
The leopard hasn't changed his spots; he's only expanded into a new market-niche.
He still suggests hanging dogs - ONLY for severe infractions, of course.  He's a reasonable man.
.
.
Isn't he?... Listens to everyone, weighs the facts?... No. Not in my personal experience, he wasn't.
He ridiculed me & everything I said, & shut me down - just like any dog who did something he didn't like.
.
.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Cleo38 said:


> Am not sure I understand your point about 'ecollar users' .... as if they are all the same & use the same training methods .... that's quite narrow minded .... as well as being incorrect
> 
> I posted a while ago that I was thinking of using an ecollar on Roxy (to curb her chasing) yet I still use clicker training & other positive based methods. I am not defensive about my methods & am always open to new ideas & training theories .... & am not the only one. It seems to be a misconception on this forum that ecollar users are almost demonic & sadistic
> 
> The trainer I consulted (& still see for IPO training) uses them on certain dogs for certain behaviours ... but not all & advised me not to use one with Roxy ....


And I also said it applies for all trainers in whatever method they use. I know there was one member elsewhere who was a devout clicker trainer having crossed over from using aversive methods, but her general discussions didn't always go down well as she was very 'one minded' if that makes sense? I always found her posts informative and she helped me in regards to some of my issues with Missy but she was often called out for being dismissive and critical of those with different view points. But mentioning e-collar trainers was on topic with the thread, and to be honest has been my experience thus far in most similar discussions.

I would be interested to know what behaviours your trainer uses them for though, as I said I'm always open minded, and did contact him myself as you know.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Dogless said:


> Bit harsh really; it is better for some children to attend boarding school for various reasons.


Some yes but it also screws up a heck of a lot of kids who can find it hard to fit in with other kids in their own neighbourhoods and form close bonds with their parents/siblings. I would think it would be pretty confusing for a dog too.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point about *'electronic collar users'*, as if they are all the same
> & use the same training methods - that's quite narrow-minded, as well as being incorrect.


Users of electronic collars can be using:
- shock to punish
- shock to "mark" desired behavior
- vibration to punish
- vibration to "mark" desired behavior
- vibration to cue recall [on silent patrol, for tactical-K9s, or for deaf dogs]
- recent development:
collars with voice transmission, so U can give verbal cues at very-remote distances.

ALL of those are "electronic". Using 'e-collar' as a term is thus so vague as to be completely useless.
Nobody will know what version U are talking about without a paragraph of added explanation.

The *vast majority of users* use the classic version: shock to punish, via a remote.
We can't stipulate every doggone time that we're talking about this subset, so IMO & IME, for simplicity's sake,
i prefer to just cut the twaddle & simply refer to "shock-collar users". Users, trainers, handlers - owners,
pros, amateurs, frat-boys out for a fun afternoon who buy one & put it on a pledge, _________ .

But if they use SHOCK AS A MARKER - that's a different process. However, that doesn't make shock
as a sensory experience "nice" - shocks are still unpleasant & startling, most-especially when they're over the
deliberately-very-low setting the microprocessor uses to dole out the battery-stored electricity, so it lasts,
& also so that the dog receives the lowest-possible amperage that s/he can actually perceive.

Shock is still shock; the AMOUNT & CIRCUMSTANCES are the only differences.


Cleo38 said:


> ...
> It seems to be a misconception on this forum that e-collar users are almost demonic & sadistic.
> 
> ...


Some are - some aren't.
Mr Frawley - in my personal experience, & in my professional opinion - promotes outdated & often violent
techniques & tools, & was downright verbally-abusive when i contacted him on-line.

If i'd met him in person, I theorize that he'd swear a blue streak & use some choice epithets in that
same conversation, if we had it face to face. As it was, we had it via text, on a public forum, & as it was
HIS website, he restrained himself to rude, dismissive, sarcastic, patronizing, vilifying, etc.

He still thinks that if Ur dog is "bad enough", U should hang the dog.
If I were a pet-dog owner & did just that on his advice, & was charged by my local ACC with animal-abuse
after a neighbor filmed me throttling my dog, I'd tell the magistrate that Mr Frawley told me to.

I'm not excusing the pet-owner; I -AM- saying that we need to be willing to accept the consequences of our
own advice, to clients or to the public at large. At the same time, we must accept the consequences of our
own actions - if a trainer is caught doing incredibly-cruel things, as a certain "Dog Whisperer of Chicago" was,
some years ago, & charged, then acquitted on a technicality & goes right back to *'business as usual'*,
there's something seriously wrong with our criminal justice system.

The trainer in Q is - *IM personal & professional O* - at best, merely ignorant. But i doubt that;
I think they know precisely what they're doing, & are genuinely sadistic.

The ACC will not bring charges again; the 1st trial was enormously, even cripplingly, expensive.
So the trainer gets a tacit pass, & dogs continue to suffer. Nothing has changed.
.
.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

You explained that so much better than I managed to LFL :thumbsup:


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Some yes but it also screws up a heck of a lot of kids who can find it hard to fit in with other kids in their own neighbourhoods and form close bonds with their parents/siblings. I would think it would be pretty confusing for a dog too.


Depends on the dog, depends on the facility.

A trainer friend of mine takes in one or two training dogs to come live with her in a home environment. One such client was a cane corso pup whos owner realized after the sale that she had no clue what she was doing and needed help. My friend (the trainer) kept the dog for 3 months doing tons of outings and training during a key socialization period. The owner continued to work with the dog during this time (2 to 3 times a week) but the dog lived with my friend.

Many show owners/breeders send puppies off for sleep overs at with other friends who are responsible dog owners to get the pup used to being away from home and being handled by someone else.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Some yes but it also screws up a heck of a lot of kids who can find it hard to fit in with other kids in their own neighbourhoods and form close bonds with their parents/siblings. I would think it would be pretty confusing for a dog too.


TBH coming from the environment I did and hubby did going to boarding school is almost the norm for kids - parents away or continually moving around. Hubby went from a young age himself. I have seen some children who it suits down to the ground and some who it obviously doesn't  but I haven't seen children sent to boarding school simply because parents wish to abdicate responsibility for their upbringing which is what was suggested. Quite the opposite - some parents feel immensely guilty for sending them. I have never seen or spoken to any who send their kids simply because they can't be bothered to spend time with them.


----------



## Pawscrossed (Jul 2, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Some yes but it also screws up a heck of a lot of kids who can find it hard to fit in with other kids in their own neighbourhoods and form close bonds with their parents/siblings. I would think it would be pretty confusing for a dog too.


My partner is one such confused person. A complicated story with not an awful lot of love in it.

I am very pleased to see that the person who was posting has been banned. What a dreadful attitude. I feel so sorry for the dog.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Depends on the dog, depends on the facility.
> 
> A trainer friend of mine takes in one or two training dogs to come live with her in a home environment. One such client was a cane corso pup whos owner realized after the sale that she had no clue what she was doing and needed help. My friend (the trainer) kept the dog for 3 months doing tons of outings and training during a key socialization period. The owner continued to work with the dog during this time (2 to 3 times a week) but the dog lived with my friend.
> 
> Many show owners/breeders send puppies off for sleep overs at with other friends who are responsible dog owners to get the pup used to being away from home and being handled by someone else.


Thanks, that's interesting and useful to know. Better to do that then employ poor methods or dump a dog.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Dogless said:


> TBH coming from the environment I did and hubby did going to boarding school is almost the norm for kids - parents away or continually moving around. Hubby went from a young age himself. I have seen some children who it suits down to the ground and some who it obviously doesn't  but I haven't seen children sent to boarding school simply because parents wish to abdicate responsibility for their upbringing which is what was suggested. Quite the opposite - some parents feel immensely guilty for sending them. I have never seen or spoken to any who send their kids simply because they can't be bothered to spend time with them.


Welcome to my OH's family. Father wanted his routine back and wife to himself - youngest boy being a particularly "difficult" child was sent to boarding school aged 8 (my OH not until 12 as he was an easier child). They were both boarding less than 30 mins away from home and their parents. Older boy ran away from school several times but was not allowed to leave and come back to live at home as he was deemed too disruptive despite him not coping at all well with the life.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> Users of electronic collars can be using:
> - shock to punish
> - shock to "mark" desired behavior
> - vibration to punish
> ...


I have no real knowledge of Ed Frawley except an introduction to a Michael Ellis DVD I bought which I have found excellent .....

I just find it very amusing that so many people are quick to define certain trainers or dog owners simply by one piece of training equipment when they may use many.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Welcome to my OH's family. Father wanted his routine back and wife to himself - youngest boy being a particularly "difficult" child was sent to boarding school aged 8 (my OH not until 12 as he was an easier child). They were both boarding less than 30 mins away from home and their parents. Older boy ran away from school several times but was not allowed to leave and come back to live at home as he was deemed too disruptive despite him not coping at all well with the life.


That is immensely sad . I would like to think that families like that are the minority of those who choose a boarding school education .


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> I have no real knowledge of Ed Frawley except an introduction to a Michael Ellis DVD I bought which I have found excellent .....
> 
> I just find it very amusing that so many people are quick to define certain trainers or dog owners simply by one piece of training equipment when they may use many.


Have you heard of this odious lot - close to us? They only use one form of 'equipment' and are so terribly proud of it 
https://www.facebook.com/g3dogs?fref=ts



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Welcome to my OH's family. Father wanted his routine back and wife to himself - youngest boy being a particularly "difficult" child was sent to boarding school aged 8 (my OH not until 12 as he was an easier child). They were both boarding less than 30 mins away from home and their parents. Older boy ran away from school several times but was not allowed to leave and come back to live at home as he was deemed too disruptive despite him not coping at all well with the life.


I am sorry to hear that, how terribly sad.



Dogless said:


> TBH coming from the environment I did and hubby did going to boarding school is almost the norm for kids - parents away or continually moving around. Hubby went from a young age himself. I have seen some children who it suits down to the ground and some who it obviously doesn't  but I haven't seen children sent to boarding school simply because parents wish to abdicate responsibility for their upbringing which is what was suggested. Quite the opposite - some parents feel immensely guilty for sending them. I have never seen or spoken to any who send their kids simply because they can't be bothered to spend time with them.


Thanks for explaining, as I said in my experience that isn't the case (my ex, and a good friend) but as I said clearly that's not true of everyone - thank goodness for that. It's good to hear positive experiences


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

I may have missed where you've mentioned it before, but can I ask what the reason was why your trainer didn't think the collar would be a good idea in Roxy's case, Cleo? Out of all the reasons for use of the collar recall seems to be the biggest contender, so I'm genuinely interested as to why it wasn't seen as a good idea in your case. Also am interested in what behaviours your trainer does use the collars? I'd hope it's not to train behaviours for competition. I'm aware that does happen in some circuits, but was under the impression certain sports were moving away from using such aversives and favouring positive reinforcement and clickers.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> ...
> 
> so I'm vague about what collar I thought of using, yet you can lump all people who consider or use these
> as '*shock collar users*' to define them, rather than by any other method they use? Really? Hilarious.


Cleo,
there's a reason that U're on my ignore-list, & I very rarely even read Ur posts, let alone reply.
Please don't make me regret the attempt.

I use *shock-collar users* to specify the subset that use SHOCK to PUNISH - in training, or in B-Mod.
If U have a brilliant shorthand-label that will cover this contingency & be self-explanatory, please offer it?


Cleo38 said:


> ...
> I just find it very amusing that so many people are quick to define certain trainers or dog owners simply
> by one piece of training equipment, when they may use many.


I'm happy it amuses U - we all need something to laugh about.

meantime, when someone uses a shock-collar to punish a dog for unwanted behavior, they're a shock-collar user.

When - or "if" - they use a clicker or other marker to train or do B-Mod, they're a marker-trainer.

Personally:
I'd say they may be members of both those subsets of dog-owners or dog-trainers, but being utterly frank,
if they were better marker-trainers, they could save the money spent on the shock-collar, & buy better toys -
or fund a workshop, seminar, DVD-set, text, etc. All of that is purely my personal opinion, based upon
my personal & professional experience, & knowledge of many cases that were successfully resolved
without resorting to punitive, aversive, or coercive tools or methods.

I'm not even claiming that ONLY marker-training would work; there are other aversive-free, non-coercive,
rewarding means to train or do B-Mod. That's only one example.
.
.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

leashedForLife said:


> Cleo,
> there's a reason that U're on my ignore-list, & I very rarely even read Ur posts, let alone reply.
> Please don't make me regret the attempt.
> 
> ...


Why cant people just be people training their dogs as best they can in a way that makes the most sense for their unique situation?
Why the need to label at all?

There are some gawdawful trainers out there who use nothing but clickers, but do it so badly as to be aversive to the dog.
Hell whats his name clicker trainer with the border collies who abuses personal space and confuses and crowds dogs in to submission is a clicker trainer and hes *very* aversive to dogs IMO.
Meanwhile guys like Michael Ellis who do use e-collars judiciously have impeccable understanding of dogs and respect for them, and are a joy to watch working with their dogs.

I know who Id rather hand my dogs leash over to


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Just my personal opinion but I could never enjoy watching any one who trains their dogs using e collars/shocks. I wouldn't enjoy the BC guy with the clicker either by the sound of it so if they were the only two options available I wouldn't bother with either of them and would carry on doing my own thing.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Just my personal opinion but I could never enjoy watching any one who trains their dogs using e collars/shocks. I wouldn't enjoy the BC guy with the clicker either by the sound of it so if they were the only two options available I wouldn't bother with either of them and would carry on doing my own thing.


I think I feel the same way. I wouldn't enjoy either trainer.

I think I'd feel very uncomfortable if someone pushed the idea of an e-collar onto me, regardless of the reasoning behind it. Although, I DID have my moments back in the day when Missy's behaviour was at it's worst and I used to watch CM ( yep, I really did although not religiously ) wonder if an e-collar was the 'magic' tool it was/is made out to be and raised the topic with my parent's. As it happens I went on to use a spray collar instead, so am definitely not a saint who has never touched an aversive training tool in their life, but it was a heap of crap in the end anyway and we had no success with it.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Why can't people just be people training their dogs as best they can in a way that makes the most sense
> for their unique situation?
> 
> Why the need to label at all?


because if we need to refer to a GROUP, not an individual, we need a label for the group.


ouesi said:


> ....
> Hell, *What's his name* - the clicker trainer with BCs, who abuses personal space & confuses & crowds dogs
> into submission ... he's *very* aversive to dogs, IMO.
> ...





rottiepointerhouse said:


> Just my personal opinion -
> but I could never enjoy watching any one who trains their dogs using e collars/ shocks.
> 
> I wouldn't enjoy the BC guy with the clicker, either, by the sound of it - so if they were
> ...


I'm pretty sure the BC-owner who crowds dogs into obedience & intimidates them is Zak George.

He may USE a clicker, but IMO, he's not a clicker-*trainer*, as if he were, he'd not use coercion:
intimidation, confrontation, looming over, encroaching, are all threats. U don't have to smack someone
to intimidate or threaten them.

_"A man may smile & smile, & still be a villain..." _ - who said that?
.
.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Dogloverlou said:


> I think I feel the same way. I wouldn't enjoy either trainer.
> 
> I think I'd feel very uncomfortable if someone pushed the idea of an e-collar onto me, regardless of the reasoning behind it. Although, I DID have my moments back in the day when Missy's behaviour was at it's worst and I used to watch CM ( yep, I really did although not religiously ) wonder if an e-collar was the 'magic' tool it was/is made out to be and raised the topic with my parent's. As it happens I went on to use a spray collar instead, so am definitely not a saint who has never touched an aversive training tool in their life, but it was a heap of crap in the end anyway and we had no success with it.


G3 Dogs website is very persuasive when you've reached that bit when you think you have no more resources. They don't actually tell you what they do until you look at their FB page. That's how I went to see them - shock collars cure everything apparently including lead reactivity.

I'm with you and rottiepointerhouse, I'd hang onto the dog lead myself in the event of seeing anyone badly using a clicker or any form of powered device around my dog. But it's interesting to hear some discussion on the use.

I haven't seen anyone using a clicker dangerously but I have seen someone in a local park trying to teach recall to a dog by clicking each time it ran away and they were getting more and more upset. I gave them our trainer's leaflet.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

MollySmith said:


> G3 Dogs website is very persuasive when you've reached that bit when you think you have no more resources. They don't actually tell you what they do until you look at their FB page. That's how I went to see them - shock collars cure everything apparently including lead reactivity.
> 
> I'm with you and rottiepointerhouse, I'd hang onto the dog lead myself in the event of seeing anyone badly using a clicker or any form of powered device around my dog. But it's interesting to hear some discussion on the use.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone using a clicker dangerously but I have seen someone in a local park trying to teach recall to a dog by clicking each time it ran away and they were getting more and more upset. I gave them our trainer's leaflet.


I came across G3 dogs a few months ago and had my suspicions based off of their website and videos, but like you said there is no clear indication that is what they use. You also only get 'before and after' vids. But the real interest would be the 'in training' vids, in how they train the dog to accept the collar, how the dog reacts, what 'other' techniques do they use etc? It's all a bit cagey.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

MollySmith said:


> G3 Dogs website is very persuasive when you've reached that bit when you think you have no more resources. They don't actually tell you what they do until you look at their FB page. That's how I went to see them - shock collars cure everything apparently including lead reactivity.
> 
> I'm with you and rottiepointerhouse, I'd hang onto the dog lead myself in the event of seeing anyone badly using a clicker or any form of powered device around my dog. But it's interesting to hear some discussion on the use.
> 
> *I haven't seen anyone using a clicker dangerously but I have seen someone in a local park trying to teach recall to a dog by clicking each time it ran away and they were getting more and more upset. I gave them our trainer's leaflet.*


I have seen a few people madly clicking clickers when their dogs won't recall!


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Just my personal opinion but I could never enjoy watching any one who trains their dogs using e collars/shocks. I wouldn't enjoy the BC guy with the clicker either by the sound of it so if they were the only two options available I wouldn't bother with either of them and would carry on doing my own thing.


[youtube_browser]CsOGOmWhQZE[/youtube_browser]

I love watching Michael Ellis work with dogs. From puppies to adults...


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

leashedForLife said:


> I'm pretty sure the BC-owner who crowds dogs into obedience & intimidates them is Zak George.


Yep, thats the one. I wouldnt let him near either of my dogs, but Id put my dogs in the hands of Michael Ellis any day.

In real life I know trainers who have used e-collars and would again if the situation called for it, who are fantastic trainers, love dogs, get dogs, know what theyre doing, self-reflect, question themselves, and are constantly seeking to improve.

Some of these people are also my close friends, and I would gladly put my dogs in their care any day.

There are also some people I know who call themselves R+ trainers who are not that well versed in dogs, dont really know what theyre doing, confuse their dogs, stress their dogs, dont read their dog or the stress signals. I would not want these folks working my dogs or even caring for them TBH.

IOW, there are all kinds of trainers out there. Tools or methods used are not necessarily a very good measure of a trainers abilities, understanding of dogs, or empathy for dogs. I think it makes more sense to look at the whole picture.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

But I simply don;t understand (and its entirely possible I am being thick) how you can think someone who has empathy for their dogs can also shock them.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But I simply don;t understand (and its entirely possible I am being thick) how you can think someone who has empathy for their dogs can also shock them.


Because I've met these people in person and seen first hand their relationship with their dog.

Would you say the same thing if the person in question were using collar pops as a correction?

Did you watch the video I posted?


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Dogloverlou said:


> I came across G3 dogs a few months ago and had my suspicions based off of their website and videos, but like you said there is no clear indication that is what they use. You also only get 'before and after' vids. But the real interest would be the 'in training' vids, in how they train the dog to accept the collar, how the dog reacts, what 'other' techniques do they use etc? It's all a bit cagey.


The most saddest thing I think I have ever seen was the dog he owned. Just awful - the body language said it all. And another one inside who we didn't' meet who was 'work in progress'. I have never forgotten that.

But it was a bad experience in a clicker class that made Molly lead reactive (this is pre PF). I think in being evangelical about clicker work, we must be careful to be appropriate. Luckily I realised that clicker is the way forward and I needed a better training approach and a behaviourist, not a group class. But I can imagine that G3 collect a lot of customers from poor clicker trainers and impatient owners with little time to spare.

G3 actually advertise new shock collars on their Facebook page.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

MollySmith said:


> Have you heard of this odious lot - close to us?
> They only use one form of 'equipment', & are so terribly proud of it.
> *Facebook |* G3 Dogs
> 
> ...





MollySmith said:


> G3 Dogs website is very persuasive... when you think you have no more resources.
> *They don't actually tell you what they do* until you look at their FB page.
> That's how I went to see them - shock collars cure everything, apparently, including on-lead reactivity.
> ...





Dogloverlou said:


> I came across G3 dogs a few months ago & had my suspicions, from their website & videos, but like you said,
> there's no clear indication that is what they use. You also only get 'before & after' vids. But the real interest
> would be the 'in training' vids - how they train the dog to accept the collar, how the dog reacts, what 'other'
> techniques do they use, etc? --- *It's all a bit cagey.*


This is a classic tactic in the USA: dangle intriguing tidbits, make broad promises of what U can achieve,
but give no details - no tools, no info on who U admire or Ur own role-models, no DIY tips, nada.

Many shock-collar trainers WHO USE NOTHING ELSE never mention them on their website - anywhere.
They sell the collars directly to their clients, but unless U're a customer, U'd never know about it - they often
are "professional members" of the USA-apdt, which simply disgusts me, as it's the direct opposite of what that
group stood for, when I joined in 1997.

The founder of _'Sit Means S*it'_ bragged on the USA-apdt trainer's list that he tells his franchisees
to be sure to join - to boost the confidence of their prospective clientele. :thumbdown: 'Sit-Means-S*it' franchisees use
no other tools or methods; no markers, no treats, no shaping, no capture, no luring.

_'Bark-Bluster'_ is also very limited, not so much on what tools, but what MEANS:
they are virtually exclusively punitive. They wait for the dog or pup to make a mistake, & pounce to 'correct' that.
they use water-balloons, infinite-slip AKA choke-collars of chain with cotton-webbing [which are, BTW, cheap &
very-poorly made; a friend & neighbor had one on her Shih-Tzu pup, it pulled hair with the links, matted his coat,
& the stitching began to fray out within weeks - the running-ring came off within 6-mos, the stitches failed],
throw-chains in bags, collar corrections, shouts of *"Bah!..."* when the dog does something that the BB-trainer
doesn't want, etc, etc.

The married couple who "trained" her very-soft, very sweet Shih-Tzu traumatized him so thoroughly,
he wouldn't walk BESIDE U to Ur left - only on Ur right; the left was the side he'd been taught to "heel" on,
& he'd walk 3 to 4-feet out, while he'd walk, untrained, within 6 to 8-inches of Ur right leg. 

He was also petrified of all TALL men but his owner; the male BB-trainer was 6-ft 4-inches, & the puppy would duck
to avoid the gaze of all men over 5'-10" & would bolt to the end of the leash if they tried to meet him - however
gently, squatting, side-on, whatever.

It took 3-weeks of concerted effort to get him to LLW on my left, or his owners' left sides, & 2-weeks of very
careful introduction to kind, TALL men who went out of their ways to help him, before he was sorta comfy
with tall male strangers - but only if they didn't try to approach him directly.
Then he'd cringe, & go to the end of the leash.
If they invited HIM to come say hi, that was OK. :thumbup1:


MollySmith said:


> I haven't seen anyone use a clicker dangerously, but I've seen someone in a local park trying to teach recall
> to a dog by clicking each time the dog ran off; they were getting more & more upset. I gave them our
> trainer's leaflet.





Dogless said:


> I've seen a few people madly clicking clickers when their dogs won't recall!


I once gave a clicker WITH_ AN_ INSTRUCTION-SHEET to a co-worker; I'd listened to him whine all morning
about his now-12-WO, untrained, not-yet housetrained, hyperactive, incredibly investigative Siberian.

He came in the next day, singing my praises; how well it worked, how quickly, amazing!... :sosp: So impressed.

Instantly I had a bad feeling; I asked had he charged the clicker?... He looked blank, & i knew dam*ed well
he'd never even glanced at the paper, which i'd wasted my lunch-hour to write. :cursing:

Turned out he'd only used a unique, sharp sound as an unconditioned interrupter; I gave him
the rough side of my tongue, told him he'd now ruined it for future use, & told him to bring it back...
which, i might add, he never did. 
Eejit.
.
.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> But I simply don;t understand (and its entirely possible I am being thick) how you can think someone who has empathy for their dogs can also shock them.


Personally I weighed up my dog being stuck on leash his entire life due to being a more than willing and accomplished killer and serious dog aggression (it is next to impossible to find a secure area when you're reliant on public transport and have a dog who can scale a 7ft fence easily) and the better quality of life that might be achieved by a training plan involving shocks. It's not that I didn't have any empathy for him, far from it. He wanted to run free and the joy in him on the occasions he did get to made me want to be able to give him that.

I'm still not sure whether I could have gone through with it but I did look into it and seriously consider it as an option. For me it wasn't a clear cut black and white situation with Rupert. Yes, it would have caused him pain and stress, not something I ever want to do to my dog. But would it have been worth it for that much improved quality of life for him? I still don't know. Never will either. The ecollar was looked into after several years of trying other methods with no success. It wasn't laziness, looking for a quick fix, a desire to hurt my dog or anything like that that made me look to it. It was a desire to give him a better life. One where he had at least a little bit of freedom outdoors.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

By Bark Bluster ( lol ) do you mean Bark Busters LFL? I've not heard hugely great things about them. The strangest advise I ever heard was from another forum member elsewhere in Australia who used the company and was advised to 'chuck a weighted pillow/bean bag' at her dog everytime she misbehaved  
Because of course we all have one of those to hand....


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Because Ive met these people in person and seen first hand their relationship with their dog.
> 
> Would you say the same thing if the person in question were using collar pops as a correction?
> 
> Did you watch the video I posted?


I don't know as I haven't got a clue what collar pops are 

Yes I did watch the video but I wasn't sure what I was looking for. I didn't particularly "enjoy" it but then its just not my thing so that may be why. Would I be rushing to hand one of my dogs over to him? No but there again I very rarely let anyone else handle my dogs or train them due to previous very bad experience with so called experts.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't know as I haven't got a clue what collar pops are
> 
> Yes I did watch the video but I wasn't sure what I was looking for. I didn't particularly "enjoy" it but then its just not my thing so that may be why. Would I be rushing to hand one of my dogs over to him? No but there again I very rarely let anyone else handle my dogs or train them due to previous very bad experience with so called experts.


Collar pops are leash jerks used to modify the dogs behavior.

There was nothing to look for in the video. It was an example of a pup training and engaging with a very excellent trainer and having a lot of fun doing it.

I dont understand your not my thing comment? Its not a thing, its just training a puppy with food?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Dogloverlou said:


> I may have missed where you've mentioned it before, but can I ask what the reason was why your trainer didn't think the collar would be a good idea in Roxy's case, Cleo? Out of all the reasons for use of the collar recall seems to be the biggest contender, so I'm genuinely interested as to why it wasn't seen as a good idea in your case. Also am interested in what behaviours your trainer does use the collars? I'd hope it's not to train behaviours for competition. I'm aware that does happen in some circuits, but was under the impression certain sports were moving away from using such aversives and favouring positive reinforcement and clickers.


He uses them for some dog for recall, usually dogs that have attended his classes so he can assess them (& their owners). He advised that he sthought Roxy wouldn't cope well with any stress as she wasn't a particularly confident dog in certain situations. She is alot better than she used to be but still gets anxious, he felt that this was too big a risk - which I agreed with.

No, he certainly doesn't use them for competition work, it's all about motivation with him. That's what I think I have really gained, alot more understanding about motivation & drive.

With the young dogs in the club (Archer & his siblings) we are constantly working on play, motivating them, handler focus, etc rather than concentrating on technical correctness (although we are doing more of this now they are older).


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Collar pops are leash jerks used to modify the dogs behavior.
> 
> There was nothing to look for in the video. It was an example of a pup training and engaging with a very excellent trainer and having a lot of fun doing it.
> 
> I dont understand your not my thing comment? Its not a thing, its just training a puppy with food?


Oh I see - I thought perhaps it was a collar that blew raspberries at the dog 

Yes I know its just training a puppy with food but it was all a bit too frenetic for my personal preference. If it floats your boat that is fine.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Oh I see - I thought perhaps it was a collar that blew raspberries at the dog
> 
> Yes I know its just training a puppy with food but it was all a bit too frenetic for my personal preference. If it floats your boat that is fine.


Okay, my question still stands though. If we were talking about collar pops, would you be questioning the persons empathy towards dogs?

Im not trying to pick on you BTW  I think there is an element of familiarity going on here. Collar pops are familiar to us and so, okay. E-collars are not. Both can cause pain. Both are used to correct a dog. Both are aversive. Yet the e-collar is perceived as worse.

I say this over and over, but I really wish we would listen to our dogs better and let *their* opinions count too.

Deaf dogs who find a vibration collar very aversive are often okay with an e-collar set on very low settings. 
Dogs who hate head collars are often perfectly happy in prong collars.
We dont notice how Positive trainers like Zach George are highly aversive to dogs, and we ignore the wisdom trainers like Mike Ellis have to share because they use e-collars.

If it were up to Bates, (and I think I know him pretty well), he would hate a head halter, he probably wouldnt even notice a prong collar, he would hate Zak George (okay, probably not, he loves everyone), but he would LOVE playing with Mike Ellis for an afternoon.

And no, Im not saying people need to consider aversive tools. Not at all. Ideally we would all be good enough trainers that we wouldnt have these messes to fix. But the reality is that regardless of *my* beliefs, some people are going to be at a place where they feel they have to reach for an aversive. (And no, these people are not all sadist who enjoy hurting dogs.)

Im just saying when the owner is going to anyway, let the dog have a say in what is more aversive and what less so.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> [When U say] "Bark Bluster" :lol: do you mean Bark Busters, LFL?


the very one - yes.  Vague fuzzy pack-theory talk, lots of interruptions, no learning theory,
no science references; a lot like CM /DW, but without the Pepsodent smile or TV-series.
.
.


Dogloverlou said:


> I've not heard hugely great things about them.


I wonder why?... :huh:

For a sample of what i really think, see my review:

Bark Busters: Solving Your Dogs Behavioral Problems: Sylvia Wilson: 9780895948816: Amazon.com: Books
.
.
Sylvia Wilson is an Aussie housewife who founded a global trainers' franchise, beginning with 1 book,
& using basic Koehler techniques with some 1960s / 70s wolf-pack theory mashed onto it.
.
.


Dogloverlou said:


> The strangest advice I ever heard was from *another forum member* elsewhere in Australia,
> who *used [a BB trainer], & was advised to 'chuck a weighted pillow/ bean bag' at her dog,
> every time she misbehaved.*
> 
> Because, of course, we all have one of those to hand...


See that?...
Bark Bluster INVENTED Gary Wilkes' technique, at least a decade before he picked it up. :hand:

Don't believe me?...

"Why the Bonker Works" | *Gary Wilkes'* "Real Clicker Training"

Why the Bonker Works | Gary Wilkes' Real Clicker Training

FYI:
Mr Wilkes is a former partner of Karen Pryor, who [IMO] has lousy timing, for a supposedly expert 
clicker-trainer, but moreover, he's moved to The Dark Side of the *Force*. :scared: I think of him as
a formerly well-reputed scientist, who now wears a tinfoil hat whenever he's outside of his foil-lined
underground bunker. :nonod: It's sad - also frustrating, as he continues to attract novice trainers,
pet-dog owners, & other innocents, who swallow his pronouncements like toxic Kool-Aid.
.
.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Okay, my question still stands though. If we were talking about collar pops, would you be questioning the persons empathy towards dogs?
> *
> Im not trying to pick on you BTW  * I think there is an element of familiarity going on here. Collar pops are familiar to us and so, okay. E-collars are not. Both can cause pain. Both are used to correct a dog. Both are aversive. Yet the e-collar is perceived as worse.
> 
> ...


I didn't think for one minute that you were  Would I feel the same about collar pops (now that I know what they are ) yes I think I would. Do I accept that some owners know what is best for their dogs and what their dogs may find aversive while others won't? Yes I do. Would I hand my dogs over to one of those trainers even if they also use positive/reward based methods? No I wouldn't. I guess it comes down to what relationship you want with your dog and what methods you (generally not personally) are prepared to use to get it.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I say this over and over, but I really wish we would listen to our dogs better and let *their* opinions count too.


This. I often see people going on about how it's the dog who decides what's rewarding, not us. Well the same goes for aversives. It is the dog who decides whether something is irritating but ignorable, incredibly painful/scary, something they'd rather avoid if possible but it's not the end of the world if they can't etc.

I keep being told to use a head collar with Spen, it's this humane tool that doesn't hurt them but stops them from pulling. How is using a device that he will hurt himself in order to remove a humane option?? And I've seen so many dogs who clearly feel the same way. Okay, a lot aren't desensitized to them and conditioned to wearing one (Spencer was by the way and is fine until it comes to walking with a leash attached to it) but does nobody else find it a bit odd that we condition our dogs to accept something they clearly see as unpleasant so that we can use it while saying they don't mind it? And yes, I'm aware that some dogs don't mind it, Rupert didn't. But for those who do is it any more right to use one than it is to use a prong or shock collar or choke chain?


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

leashedForLife said:


> See that?...
> Bark Bluster INVENTED Gary Wilkes' technique, at least a decade before he picked it up. :hand:
> 
> Don't believe me?...
> ...


 and I thought that was some made up advise!

I'm surprised that guy isn't advocating the use of rolled up newspapers too as a 'tangible shock of being hit' 

Just saw on his YT channel, that he more or less does use that kind of method. The 'bearbonk' vid shows the dog being hit over the head with a rolled up towel......
Horrible viewing!


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Collar pops are leash jerks used to modify the dogs behavior.
> ?


What's worse is a collar pop is often accompanied by anger in the person delivering the pop and I would assume there's no doubt in the dog's mind as to where the pop originated.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> ...Im not saying people need to consider aversive tools... Ideally, we'd all be good-enough trainers
> that we wouldnt have these messes to fix.
> 
> ...the reality is... regardless of *my* beliefs, some people are going to... feel they have to reach
> ...


That's precisely what LIMA is for: *L*east *I*ntrusive, *M*inimally *A*versive.

Unfortunately, many traditional-trainers have subverted it to serve their own ends. They choose a tool
not based on the reactions or temperament of the individual, but on some vague premise, such as
_"All dogs should be able to go off-leash"_, followed by, _"Dogs can only be off-leash if they're reliable"_,
followed by, _"The only way a dog can become reliably trained & obedient is by showing the dog what will
happen if they DON'T obey..."_ & natch, that's where the shock-collar comes into play.

LIMA is about scoring any tool per a specific individual. Their feelings, their level of sensitivity, their basic
timidity or boldness, their general compliance, what behaviors this dog finds difficult or easy, etc.

It's not about rationalizing use of a specific tool; it's about deciding what's assuredly safe, what's questionable,
& what's simply out of the question, & off the list.

LIMA isn't a beginning, where U start with the least-upsetting tool or method, & MOVE to more-upsetting tools.
It's an absolute limit: this particular dog will be trained using only this, this, & this, & nothing else. Period.

"Escalation of punishment" is an all-too common & even predictable stage, where the mild thing fails, & we move
to the next level of intensity, & fail there, & go to the next level, & if we fail there, move up again... We scold
our 3-YO, smack the 5-YO's bum lightly, slap the rebellious teen's face, & might punch the college-age son,
if we're the sort of parent who uses physical punishment.

U can't do that with LIMA. U have a clear signpost - if U use it properly.

For myself, I won't use physical aversives or coercive methods outside of an emergency - & training isn't
an emergency; training is a goal, a plan to get there, & tracking progress along the way.
.
.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

leashedForLife said:


> That's precisely what LIMA is for: *L*east *I*ntrusive, *M*inimally *A*versive.
> 
> Unfortunately, many traditional-trainers have subverted it to serve their own ends. They choose a tool
> not based on the reactions or temperament of the individual, but on some vague premise, such as
> ...


Geez L4L! Im all about positive parenting too, but its not like most parents who lightly smack a kids butt are going to end up punching the adult child! 

I do agree with you, a) most of us easily habituate to punishment as do our dogs, and b) punishment is rewarding for the punisher because it makes the annoying thing stop, and c) because of both of these punishment does have a tendency to escalate. So yeah, dont go down that path to begin with.

I would like to be able to say I will never, however, Im not that good. 
I would like to be, but Im not. 
I still mess up criteria, I still reward out of place, I still mess up on timing, give conflicting cues, say sit when I meant to say stay, Im human. So while I work to improve every say, I also know that the second I make an absolute statement Ill end up eating crow, and as a vegetarian that just sucks to have to do


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

diefenbaker said:


> What's worse is a collar pop is often accompanied by anger in the person delivering the pop and I would assume there's no doubt in the dog's mind as to where the pop originated.


Again, depends on the dog. For some dogs their owner being angry with them I would think would be very upsetting. If the dog and owner dont have much of a relationship, it may not be. Or if the owner is just an angry person and the dog is desensitized to it, it may not be. Depends, depends, depends...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Geez L4L!
> Im all about positive parenting too, but *its not like most parents who lightly smack a kids butt will go on
> to punch the adult child!*


WHOOPS - no, no, no, sorry. Total miscommunication. 
This was certainly nothing personal, nor an example of how the average parent changes tactics - 
far from it.

that was only an example of escalation - pure & simple, isolated from any other factor. This is very mild,
this is mild, this is serious, this is violent. In LIMA terms, depending upon THE CHILD, even the mildest
could be "too much" - some young children cannot cope with scolding.
.


ouesi said:


> I do agree with you, a) most of us easily habituate to punishment as do our dogs,
> and b) punishment is rewarding for the punisher because it makes the annoying thing stop,
> and c) because of both of these punishment does have a tendency to escalate.
> So yeah, dont go down that path to begin with.
> ...


That's definitely the simplest choice. :thumbsup: I tell prospective clients that if they are hellbent
on using that prong-collar, or buying a shock-collar & want instruction in its use, i'm not the trainer for them,
sorry. Even if the dog "is already USED to" the prong, choke, etc, I won't use it, & don't want them to use it,
either.

Some folks don't want to give up their favorite aversive; this can be difficult to negotiate. I've had clients
who said, _'Oh, no, I won't use that anymore!...'_, & it's just a line. They have zero intention of stopping.
If it's really egregious, i've 'fired' the client. If it's something they continue to do when I'm not there, I just
let them know that I'm aware they haven't quit, & that it's affecting the dog.
It can be very awkward - no denying it.
.
.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> ...
> 
> *I would like to be able to say "I will never..."*; however, Im not that good.
> I would like to be, but Im not.
> ...


I don't think this is a valid statement, when we're talking about aversive tools.
I do not think it's IMPOSSIBLE to say, "I won't use infinite-slip collars, prong or shock collars,
won't use throw-chains or water-balloons or penny-cans, _____ ."

The list of ERRORS in Ur comment are mistakes - not physically-aversive tools. I'm not claiming to be
perfect, fool-proof, or a miracle-worker; sure, i make mistakes.

But a mistake in timing a reward, or marking a behavior, IS NOT jerking a collar or poking a dog's neck,
nor is it using a choke-collar, pushing the button on a remote to shock a dog, flinging something to startle
the dog, looming over the dog in a threatening fashion, etc.

Aversive tools are DESIGNED to deliver discomfort; that's what they do, that's their function.
Saying simply, _"I *will*..."_ or _"I *won't*..."_ use thus-&-so, is a pretty simple declaration.
What's on the list & what's off are very concrete & straightforward; no metaphors, no waffling.
.
.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2015)

leashedForLife said:


> WHOOPS - no, no, no, sorry. Total miscommunication.
> This was certainly nothing personal, nor an example of how the average parent changes tactics -
> far from it.
> 
> ...


It is so tricky...

If the strength of your training is in relationship building, motivation, and getting dogs to want to work for you, youre already at a disadvantage trying to help an owner who is heavy on the correction front. Because already its going to be harder to motivate a dog whos used to corrections, the owner is going to struggle more, get frustrated, and be quick to fall back on what worked before. It really is a vicious cycle.

Thanks to this thread I ended up on youtube watching too many videos. This is a quick five minutes on how correcting your dog can actually make your life harder down the line. Plus I love that he talks at the end about how not everything can be fixed. Thats something I wish more people realized.

Im not one to say there is never a need for P+, but I think we need to realize that if the behavior was going to respond to P+, it will, if it wont it wont. Making the correction harder, different, whatever, wont magically make a behavior that doesnt respond to P+ start responding to it. 
Argh... he says it way better than me


----------

