If I put a shock collar on my exhusband I bet I could train him to put down the toilet seat and a billion tasks. Or your child.
O.K. I am not going to reiterate what I have said many times before, but I do get tired of this particular argument. You would not put your husband or child in a crate, either. Let's at least be fair about that.
O.K. I am not going to reiterate what I have said many times before, but I do get tired of this particular argument. You would not put your husband or child in a crate, either. Let's at least be fair about that.
Right.
I know I'm new here, and am running the risk of alienating myself for having strong opinions, but hey… life is about honesty.
If the choice is between keeping a dog crated 22/7 and judicious use of an E-collar, or prong collar, or choke chain for training purposes, I'm on the side of life outside the box. I'm pro-choice in most things, and not ballsy enough to believe that I know the One True Way about anything, so I would most definitely not vote in favor of banning training tools that happen not to be in my personal toolbox.
There is a world of difference between an e-collar as a vibration tool ONLY, and every using it for negative feelings (shock)
But, you know, those aren't the only two choices. The low levels of stimulation feel like a finger tapping on your skin, or a static discharge off a skirt. I've gotten static discharges off my car door handle worse than what most people use as a physical signal. The trainers I know who utilize these tools use them as "touch" signals, which includes completely non-painful low levels. Some dogs don't take in information with their ears when they're in a state of excitement. Adding a "touch" sensation can be a great way to re-direct attention back to the handler. There is no "negative" feeling involved with this.
I do know at least one dog whose life was saved with an e-collar used for "aversion" purposes. He's a hunting dog who started running cattle at about two years old. That happens one time, witnessed by the livestock's owner, and the dog will be shot, regardless of the dog owner's opinion. The first time the dog started running a cow with the collar on, the dog got jolted hard enough to knock him off his feet. He got up, tested the conditions of what triggered a shock two more times, then he went running back to the trail pack and never again expressed interest in chasing livestock. If his choices were between experiencing a non-lethal shock a couple times, and getting to live a life running in the woods, doing what you were put on planet Earth to do, or being shot or kenneled the rest of your life, I'm pretty sure the dog would vote for the transitory discomfort.
Mixie, strong opinions are fine, really. We don't have to agree. 
I may think you are batpoop crazy or you me.. but you'll find as long as folks don't make it personal, we can debate almost everything. (well except neglect/abuse/puppymilling & irresponsible breeding– those would not go well). I adore eeeefarm. I think she's great. Just because I strongly feel shock collars as basic (ie other than life threatening issues like rock eating and snakes) are abusive doesn't change that.
Agreed DebraDownSouth… hopefully people with read the differnce of opinions and come to the right conclusion... I too strongly feel that shock collars are abusive... as is irresponsible breeding. And people should reconize the debate between.... before making a conclusion. There are too many that think something like a shock collar is the "QUICK FIX".. It is not
Agreed DebraDownSouth… hopefully people with read the differnce of opinions and come to the right conclusion... I too strongly feel that shock collars are abusive... as is irresponsible breeding. And people should reconize the debate between.... before making a conclusion. There are too many that think something like a shock collar is the "QUICK FIX".. It is not
I agree. The main problem we seem to be having is not that there's a difference of opinion, it's that there seems to be little respect for difference in this space. For example, we discuss the myriad and complex ways different trainers may use e-collars which often do not involve any aversive experience, and tanza refuses to hear anything but "abuse". That's not a reasoned discussion.
There are too many that think something like a shock collar is the "QUICK FIX".. It is not
And there are too many who think a crate is a great substitute for training that might prove to be a bit challenging. Those of us who chose the training route have dogs that are reliable in the house and don't have to be confined whenever they are unsupervised. And no, I don't use an e-collar to teach house manners!
I do love this forum and the information it has provided me but do feel sometimes things get a little heated and people get defensive. I love all the different opinions about different topics and will come here to find different methods to solve any problem I have. Just wish people would understand their opinion is not always other peoples opinion and give a little understanding that different training methods work for other people and their dogs. No one way is the right way. Would be sad if we only ended up with one sided opinions on topics which leaves people with no choice in methods to use because people feel unwelcome to express their opinion. That's my opinion.
Jolanda and Kaiser
I agree. The main problem we seem to be having is not that there's a difference of opinion, it's that there seems to be little respect for difference in this space. For example, we discuss the myriad and complex ways different trainers may use e-collars which often do not involve any aversive experience, and tanza refuses to hear anything but "abuse". That's not a reasoned discussion.
Sorry, so here we go.. a civil talk and someone makes it a personal jab. If you said to me or any anti-shock person that you would ONLY use a vibrating/sound never a SHOCK, then fine. But you know and I know that you do and have used more than vibration.
Here is the problem I guess. You seem to think that Tanza and I must AGREE shocking a dog is okay for there to be respect. Shocking a dog is abusive and unnecessary in almost every case on earth. You know how i can prove it? Study after study showing over and over that dogs can be trained without them as thoroughly as with. Even hunting dogs. In countries where they are banned, and for centuries before they were developed. There is a huge difference between me respecting that you can make your own choices, that you can decide for a quick easy fix in spite of overwhelming research and information from canine behaviorists and trainers, and me having to say I think it is okay. It is disingenuous for you to pretend that her or my issue is with a collar used for noise or a vibration. And just because you can zap a dog and teach them that the noise/vibration are a warning for what comes next doesn't mean you didn't use the zap to get there.
So, let me be really clear… using a collar ever on more than vibration level is, to me, simply abusive except in cases where expedience is critical (such as a rock eating dog, bee chaser, snake areas). And honestly, it is like spanking children. It isn't abusive enough for me to think a parent should lose custody or be publicly ridiculed. But I know in my heart that children can absolutely be raised without spanking and dogs can be raised without hitting or shocking or pain. No one should have the right to ever hit another human being, even if that human being is your child. No one has to cause a dog pain to train it. So like spanking, I see shock collars as bad training, lazy training or simply uninformed .. but I won't call it okay or good just to make nice.
For you to attack Pat because she feels strongly about the topic as not respecting isn't okay to me. You can respect without agreeing. In fact, with something like an e-collar, there isn't much wiggle room. Either you see them as abusive or you see them as okay at least basically. If you can't respect our view that to us they are abusive, then how do you expect respect that you do something WE think is abusive? It goes both ways.
And there are too many who think a crate is a great substitute for training that might prove to be a bit challenging. Those of us who chose the training route have dogs that are reliable in the house and don't have to be confined whenever they are unsupervised. And no, I don't use an e-collar to teach house manners!
Not sure who you are targeting with that since I don't know anyone with working brain cells on this forum who thinks crates are a SUBSTITUTE for training, challenging or not.
As for training to be loose in the house, bully for you.. your dogs are a minority of basenjis. However, I do agree. For people able to puppy/basenji proof their home, who don't live with others who might put the dogs in danger, I think it is great to work at them being loose. I personally have never owned a dog until the basenjis who needed crating after puppyhood.
But considering my household, and that they sleep up to 17 hours a day normally, I'd darn sure rather put in a crate when I go out than risk their lives and pat myself on the back for not having to crate. In fact Arwen can be left alone in my bedroom… except she will pee on my bed. No thanks. Of course, I am almost always home so they are rarely in a crate. And no, I don't have to use an e-collar to train my dogs anything every-- not Rottweilers, not chows, not basenjis, not feral rescues, none. Not in schutzhund, not in obedience. So I'll trade you my no e-collar but crate when not home over your don't crate but use an e-collar any time, Shirley. Your dig was uncalled for, no matter who you were directing it at.
Your dig was uncalled for, no matter who you were directing it at.
My "dig" was simply stating my opinion of what is abusive. To me, hours spent locked in a crate is far, far more abusive than causing a brief uncomfortable sensation, or even a degree of pain when the trade off is time spent in freedom, running loose in a field or down the beach. I base my opinion on observation. At best, crated dogs are resigned to their fate. At worst, they are terribly distressed, often for hours at a time. That is true abuse! A fleeting painful sensation is part of life for just about any animal. Treading on thistles or getting a thorn in the paw is more painful than a brief electric shock (and I am calling it what it is). Like any training device, an electronic collar can be used abusively. Like any training device, an electronic collar can be used to give direction, dialed to a light sensation that does not approach pain, and of course it can be used strongly in case of need. Look at the dog and he will tell you if it is abuse. Perry absolutely knows that the collar is the source of the sensation…...proof of that is his attitude to commands given when he is wearing it and when he is not.......but when I call him over, holding the collar in my hands, he has no hesitation or resistance to having it put on. If I do issue a correction (yes, mild shock sensation, just a tingle) when he is out loose, he retains his composure and complies with whatever request he had been ignoring (most often "leave it", a very important command since you don't want your dog ingesting something nasty). He continues happily with no sign of distress. Nobody viewing his reaction would consider him an abused dog,
As far as crates being some kind of necessity, well, nobody used to use them when I was a kid. I didn't own a crate when I got my first Basenji, and still didn't own one when I got my second, but I did acquire one to assist with house training, and have used them briefly with the succeeding dogs until I felt they were trustworthy. My goal has always been to dispense with crates as quickly as possible, even without the added incentive of adopting a dog that was very crate averse. You will note that although I consider crates abusive, I do use them when necessity dictates. E-collars can be used the same way........when you want the dog to be loose and need the dog to be safe. A "necessary evil" if you like.
Sure, dogs can be trained to be reliable off leash without an e-collar, as all of my dogs have been, including my first Basenji. However, as is often stated on this forum, it is hard to get to that point of complete off leash reliability with a Basenji (although I have done it), and with some it probably is an unachievable goal. Hence, the backup safety of the collar. This has nothing to do with wanting a "quick fix", and I resent the implication. What is wanted is a way to keep my dog reliably safe. I took the time to teach him about the collar, so that he would understand it and not fear it. His attitude tells me that I have been successful in teaching him, and I can live with that.
Just a further note. People hear the word "shock" and are appalled. They really need to experience the sensation to know what is being proposed. Most "studies" (do check who commissioned them and what their motives may have been) use full on, high level shocks to obtain their results. I don't know of any (please point me in the right direction if there are some) that have looked at very low level electronic stimulation, so let's not compare apples and oranges. The "working level" I use on my dog is just barely discernible to me, and if I dial it any lower he doesn't react at all and neither do I. It's a tingle, a bit unpleasant, so you do wish it would go away, but it is annoying rather than painful. No doubt, a high level shock hurts! But I don't use that except in an emergency.......dog is chasing a cat or squirrel or whatever towards a road.......and again, although painful the sensation is brief! The dog reacts in the moment, and it is forgotten immediately thereafter. If he associates it with chasing something he should not chase, so much the better. He is now listening to me and returns unharmed instead of pursuing that critter into a danger zone.
Well Shirley here is where you and I can really differ. I can say I disagree that being in a crate is abusive even for people who work 8 hrs a day. We can disagree that confining a dog for safety and shocking them is even in the same ball park of abusiveness or laziness in training. I don't have to make jabs at you. In fact, just like e-collars, there are many who will not place a dog in a home where the dog (or usually puppy) has to be crated 8 to 10 hrs a day. In fact, I wouldn't place a puppy where owners either worked full time or didn't have the ability to come home midday to give a puppy or young dog a break, and would choose a home where someone was home – all other things being equal -- over a full time working family.
I am laughing a bit at the motivation for studies. Please. E-collars == sell for money. No e-collars, nothing to sell. Not sure what studies you look at, but I don't go to any site that sells anything. But yeah, most of the people are selling something-- the idea that you can train as solid without an e-collar as with one. Even for barking, citrus collars worked as well as e-collars and in most studies more effectively.
As for safety-- we also disagree when safety is the issue. I consider safety only for unavoidable situations where an e-collar is not abusive.... a dog that eats rocks, bees, etc. The thing with those-- you can use them without the dog seeing you or knowing you did it, making the rock/bee/snake what it fears. For people who cannot put up tall enough fences to contain an escape artist, an e-collar with electric fence to BACK UP an actual fence is sometimes necessary so that a dog doesn't have to be tied or on a leash all the time. (and I mean when used right, not left on 24/7 like a regular collar, or for just an electric fence and let outside ALONE where other dogs can get in or it out). But if someone can't train a reliable recall without an e-collar, keep your dog on a line or commit to training without one. I don't consider that safety, I consider that .. yes, an easier fix. Even basenji can be trained for a solid recall. And since there are in fact many dogs who will in fact drive through the pain on a chase, an e-collar isn't a sure bet there either.
At this point we are just resaying the same things. Life is too short for this.
I am laughing a bit at the motivation for studies. Please. E-collars == sell for money. No e-collars, nothing to sell.
Oh yes, there is something to sell all right. It is the idea that they shouldn't be used. People who are against choice often design studies to back up their point of view. I would like the freedom to make up my own mind about issues, and if I am on the opposite side of something I don't want to be forced to accept that it is their way or the highway. Too many controversial subjects come to mind where the "tyranny of the majority" decides, and too bad if you hold the minority viewpoint. Prove to me that I am abusing my dog…....prove it by his behaviour or whatever scientific controlled study method you wish.......but use the criteria that I employ, not those designed to have a negative result. Most of the studies I have looked at, including those you link to, are just poorly designed, bad science.
Even basenji can be trained for a solid recall. And since there are in fact many dogs who will in fact drive through the pain on a chase, an e-collar isn't a sure bet there either.
Yes, a Basenji can, I have done it. My first girl was as solid as could be. I walked her off leash in the city, I had her follow me down country roads while I rode my horse. in hindsight, perhaps I trusted her more than I should have, but she never let me down. That said, my others have been variable in their reliability. And as I get older I am more of a "belt & suspenders" kinda gal. As far as the e-collar not being 100%, show me something that is. In my experience as of this writing, it is for me, but never say never. A leash can break (or be chewed through!) and isn't a sure thing either. So what?
At this point we are just resaying the same things. Life is too short for this.
Ah, something we can agree with! I enjoy discussions. I enjoy them less when they get heated and personal and everyone goes away mad.
Some pictures of Ozzy with the eCollar in action!!!
He looks pretty relaxed to me. Glad it is working out for you. My boy Perry is also very relaxed and happy when we are out in the fields or on the beach. (He is far less happy when I take the collar off at the beach, as it means I am taking him swimming!! The collar is claimed to be waterproof, but I don't need to test the theory, so I take it off when we go in the water. He has learned that when I remove it he is going to get wet, and he is oh, so happy, when I put it back on!)
Still think that it is not the right thing to do….
Me too, and dog behaviorists would jump all other the assertions that your dogs are CALM. Um yeah… because dogs learn to have submissive behaviors. There are videos SHOWING how dogs react to being hurt/afraid. They look calm because that is how they learn to stop more attacks in the wild. It doesn't mean they aren't afraid or stressed that you have something on them that can inflict pain if they don't comply.
CAN you train a dog (or your child, husband, employee, etc) with a shock collar? Yes. But should you? I feel it is a betrayal of the relationship, lazy and wrong. As long as every single trainer and behaviorist comparison shows you can train as well or much better without a shock collar, using one is wrong. And unless the person says it is okay for their employer/teacher/partner to use one to train them, then they are fooling no one with assurances that the method is not bad. I just hope we eventually ban them also.
I think what upsets me is that the research is out there and the ability to train without them is there, so I don't understand why anyone would choose to shock a dog on any level for training. I just don't. It makes me sad and it upsets me. And when people say they can do it without it set on a shock level, the question begs then why do you have one that does? There are noise collars.
I don't want this to be a personal fight, but I also don't want to be bullied into pretending I think, any more than Pat, that it is at all okay. I don't want others to come here and see folks just chatting up shocking dogs without knowing that others strongly disagree.
The UK banned them, many european countries have.. and their dogs are better off for it.
http://www.ukpets.co.uk/ukp/index.php?rtn=temp66_249_66_73_at_1614&sf=2000966609§ion=Home&sub=News&rws=&method=fetch&item=1041&tb=introduction
The APDT and the KC claim that not only are such collars inhumane, but that teaching a dog to respond out of fear and pain rather than a natural willingness to obey fails to address underlying behavioural problems and can give rise to far more serious problems.
Carolyn Menteith, APDT spokesperson said:
"We are totally committed to having these barbaric pieces of equipment consigned to dog training history. It is our professional opinion that it is totally unacceptable to train dogs using such inhumane devices, and a complete ban should be implemented as soon as possible. Dogs are meant to be man's best friend - and you don't cause your best friend pain and fear in the name of training." <<
Newest study on collars btw.
https://positively.com/articles/every-dog-owner-should-know-about-this-new-shock-collar-study/
Interesting study. I note that in their preliminary study, only one dog was being e-collar "trained" using methods similar to what I use. The others were being "trained" using high level shock in order to deter them from approaching sheep. Not a big surprise when they yelped in response to corrections, and showed high cortisol levels.
The second study is also quite interesting, particularly the conclusions, which make an interesting dance around their own chart that shows e-collars clearly having a substantial edge in the "very effective" category. It's interesting that the dogs from Group C ("positive" trainers who belonged to a professional training organization, APDT, UK ) consistently showed elevated salivary cortisol and more whining than the other groups. Now, if that had been the e-collar group, what conclusions would have been drawn? But the study tried to explain it away as anxiety over food rewards! (hey, maybe teasing dogs by withholding food is cruel? Who would have thought…..?)
There are a lot of things you wouldn't do to your "best friend". Notably sticking him in a crate for many hours every day. We all have our own opinions about cruelty. I have witnessed extremely abusive behavior from a trainer using a flat collar and leash. I have seen a traumatized dog recover its confidence through judicious use of an e-collar. We are not going to agree on this subject. But I do agree that people who have not had some instruction in the use of e-collars should not be using them. However, you can say the same about about pet ownership!
LOL Shirley I couldn't use treats with my rottie he got so hyper, salivated, could see the whites of his eyes. Yet, he could be taught all manner of tricks with a clicker and verbal reward.
But I think you miss my point entirely.. no matter what the studies show, training with pain is, to me, utterly wrong and I don't care the level of pain.
To compare that to abusive training of any type is silly. That's like debating if it is worse to shoot someone or stab them. We absolutely agree about collar abuse, be it prong, flat, choke. Pop and jerk is abusive even when done mildly. It isn't necessary. And for the record, if my best friends were likely to kill each other when I was gone, or get into something they would harm themselves with, yeppers, I'd be willing to lock them in their rooms, especially if they normally slept 17 hrs a day and it was just deciding where they slept to be safe.
If you mean ABUSE of crates… do you not see that you continue to compare ANY use of an e-collar with abusive practices. How about comparing it with, oh, positive training?
My point with e-collars remains that if you use even some pain, it is abusive and unnecessary. I don't care if it is more effective even (though again, in training contests, clicker beats most methods with experienced trainers).
The issue is that the moment you use any level of pain to train, you've gone down the slippery slope. I am simply not willing to use pain unless the animals life is in danger or their life would be confined to, say, using a basket muzzle all the time, and if the situation cannot be avoided. Which of course means bees/snakes/rock eating. I do not comprehend a willingness to hurt an animal, even if only mild. Because we all know that even if you ONLY use mild, they know that it can get worse if they don't comply. When it can be done without that, I truly don't understand choosing that route.
you continue to compare ANY use of an e-collar with abusive practices. How about comparing it with, oh, positive training?
My point with e-collars remains that if you use even some pain, it is abusive and unnecessary. I don't care if it is more effective even (though again, in training contests, clicker beats most methods with experienced trainers).
Sure. Positive training in this context meaning positive reinforcement. I train with positive reinforcement all the time, including with a clicker. Nice little invention, and more precise than a marker word (which I have used forever). As I believe I have stated before, I don't personally "train" with the e-collar. I use it for safety, and yes, as an aversive to inhibit behaviour I don't want and that is dangerous…..e.g. cat chasing, skunk encounters, chasing game of any sort. I like my dog to have some off leash freedom, but I don't want him running into danger, and I have the means of preventing that. His recall is generally good, but I won't bet his life on it under high distraction.
I have watched and participated in e-collar training sessions, and they are very low key. The antithesis of abusive. But I think the clicker has it beat for learning most new behaviours. E-collar wins when you add distance (and of course you can use tone or vibration, not shock). I would rate low stimulation corrections as mildly annoying, rather than painful (from personal research, and from observation). This type of training is correctly labelled negative reinforcement, which I am very comfortable with since it is the foundation of most horse training (and yes, I have trained horses certain behaviours using a clicker, but it isn't very practical when mounted, although I have always used marker words and positive reinforcement in training horses, as well as using negative reinforcement.) Horse trainers "fix it up and let him find it", in other words, add pressure of some sort and let the horse discover what action causes the pressure to go away. You can do the same thing with an e-collar, and again, I stress it can and should be very low key.
When people start criticizing e-collars, I like to point out that most training aids can be abusive if used incorrectly. Crates can and do cause great emotional distress. Judicious use of them is humane and just fine, from my point of view, but they can easily become the "go to" solution in lieu of proper training......that "slippery slope" you alluded to.....
dog behaviorists would jump all other the assertions that your dogs are CALM. Um yeah… because dogs learn to have submissive behaviors. There are videos SHOWING how dogs react to being hurt/afraid. They look calm because that is how they learn to stop more attacks in the wild. It doesn't mean they aren't afraid or stressed that you have something on them that can inflict pain if they don't comply.
I had meant to respond to this before, but I got distracted. There is a difference between "calm" and protectively submissive. Give me credit for being able to recognize the difference.
Of course the extreme form of protective submission is "learned helplessness" or shutting down. When this occurs, IMO, it is a training error. Whether you are using positive or negative reinforcement, some animals will shut down when they cannot figure out what they are supposed to do, either to earn the reward or to turn off the unpleasant stimulus. It is up to the trainer to recognize when the animal is confused and help him out, either by physically directing the animal in the right direction (and rewarding for that) or if that is not possible, then finding something else to reward, and perhaps returning to the original problem in another training session.
