Lou Castle

I've come across a surprising (to me) number of dogs who find the vibration highly aversive. Some of them panic when they feel it. But it's fairly easy to overcome, especially if you anticipate that this may happen, and take steps to prevent it. Start by familiarizing the dog with the sight and sound of the Ecollar receiver. Then press the vibration button with them a few feet away. Usually they'll be curious about it, and if you reinforce that with a treat, toy or praise, will not fear it. If they show some sign of fear, wrap the receiver in a towel, and do some play with them with it. That will muffle the sound and then you can gradually unwrap it, still making it vibrate, until they're desensitized to it. After they're used to the sound, introduce the feel of it. You can keep it wrapped in the towel and touch it to them. The sensation will be muted by the towel and you can gradually unwrap it. Then you can start to use it for training. I've found that more dogs are frightened by the vibration than by the stim.

Meriment, thanks so much for writing of your success with your training with Steve. I’m sure that many will read your post and lose a bit of their fear of the Ecollar and may even be encouraged to give it a try, instead of being swayed by those who don't know how to use it properly. Let's not forget, "Good job, Steve."

Unless you know the dog's history, any kind of a guess as to what has happened to him is, as I've said a guess. Just because a dog is handshy does NOT mean that he was beaten. He could have run into his owner's hand at top speed and hurt himself. Now he's making the association because of the pain he got, not because of any beating. People who pretend to know what has happened to a dog based only on what they see now are guessing. You need to learn to read critically. And that goes for what I've posted and what you've posted as well. First, what you posted was not a "review of Ecollars." It was, as the title quite clearly said, "Electronic Training Devices: A Review of Current Literature." The 50-year-old study that I referred to was NOT on Ecollars, because they didn't exist. It was on the effect of electric shock on dogs and that's been going on almost since electricity was first discovered. How's this? http://www.alldogsgym.com/training/clicker-history.asp Shouldn't you know this stuff?

I define anything used in dog training as "tools." That includes your voice, your touch, flat collars, leashes, long lines, pinch collars, Ecollars and anything else that you can think of. It's impossible to train a dog without using tools. Perhaps your definition of "tools" is different?

Until someone invents a device that lets us talk to dogs in a language that we both understand, any attempt to "understand the reason for the dogs problems in the first place" is just a guess. It may be an "educated guess," but it's still just a guess. Anyone who tells you any different is not being honest. Clickers are older than Ecollar, having been invented about 50 years ago. Ecollars were invented in the late 1960's, only about 40 years ago. Yes! To both questions. There will always bee the "newer is better" thinking among some people, It's human nature. It's not always right, but it's there for some folks. Just having the tools doesn't mean that people are capable of applying them. I think so. I know quite a few dogs whose lives have been saved by the Ecollar.

I have the time but I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by the sentence you want me to reply to. If you'd expand this a bit, I'd be happy to respond.

I don't know of a tool that isn't easy to use incorrectly. People think that treats are a benign way to train that that nothing bad can happen with them. But I've seen many fat dogs who have been trained with treats. Often those owners have not adjusted the dog's regular feedings to cut back on the food because the dog is getting part of his nutrition during the training. A fat dog is worse off than a fat human. Dogs lay down their fat in between their internal organs and that means that their hearts and lungs don't have the room they need to work properly. That causes lifelong damage and will probably shorten the dog's life. People think that clickers can't be misused. I saw a frustrated clicker trainer throw her clicker at her dog's head because he wasn't "getting it." It was only by luck that he wasn't hit in the eye. The bottom line is that any tool can be misused. Any tool can be abused. No tool is idiot proof to the right idiot. One should not avoid a tool because "it's easy to misuse," they all are. One good thing about the Ecollar, is that it can't cause any physical damage, even if it is misused.

Do you understand the concept that "one can't prove a negative." Rather the burden is the other way. There have been dozens of studies looking for just what you suggest occurs, some kind of physical damage. NOT ONE STUDY HAS SHOWN IT. What is your evidence that the studies that have been done have been "poorly done?" The studies have been going on for more than 50 years; almost since Ecollars were invented. Please don't think that you're being attacked just because someone is disagreeing with you. I don't think you're offering anything new. There have been dozens of studies that covered the points you brought up. Not one of them showed any physical damage.

My reality is certainly different from yours. I've given myself thousands of stims from Ecollars. I test mine that way every morning before I put them on my dogs to make sure that they're working. And that's often at higher levels than where I first perceive the stim. It's certainly not a high level stim but it's not the lowest I can feel either. I've also felt the highest levels of stim from many models of Ecollar. Sometimes for sustained period of time, 20-30 seconds. I've had thousand of people feel the stim from an Ecollar. At my seminars everyone used to have to feel it. These days because many have already felt the stim I only have people who have not felt a stim before, feel it. NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE have reported anything such as you describe. I never have either. It's quite possible (probable even) that you did not use a modern version of the tool for your experiment. If you used a model that had a limited number of levels you might not have been able to go low enough so that you could avoid the response you got. That's going to give a vastly different result form someone who's using a modern Ecollar with at least 15 levels, my minimum recommendation. If there had been any studies that show this anti-Ecollar people would be shouting them to the heavens. But NOT ONE STUDY has shown anything that you're talking about. What are your definitions of "positive" and "negative" training? Such differences don't exist anywhere in learning theory. I think you're making value judgments that the dogs don't make. There ARE negatives to using an Ecollar. First is that they're expensive. I don't know of any other training tool that costs as much. You have to remember to keep them charged. You have to remember to put them on the dog. You have to remember to turn them on. If you have more than one you have to remember to bring the proper transmitter with the proper collar unit. I agree. But your claims of physical damage done to dogs is without any basis in fact. Did you read the Review of Current Literature" that PDTS posted? There are studies there that go back for 50 years. How much science are we required to show before "it's enough?"

There's a third group. Those who use it as a teaching tool. This is done on low levels. Actually there's some overlap between us, but you omitted this group. NaturallyWild wrote: The trouble with joe-public using an e-collar is that they probably don't have the skill or self control to know the best level to use when in a "situation" with thier dog. The first is a matter of training. People can get that by going to my website, reading the articles and then putting it into action. As far as "self control" – if they don't have the self control to use an Ecollar, which gives the fastest results possible, then they certainly don't have it for other tools that take more time to get results. NaturallyWild wrote: We all know of the abuse that can be given with check chains, prong collars and halters - because the person is untrained, unskilled and emotional about the situation - it is therefore laughable to say that the similar abuse could not occur with an e-collar. Of course it can occur. But people aren't going to spend that money JUST to abuse their dog. NaturallyWild wrote: The big issue i have been pondering recently is about the "damage" that could occur from an e-collar (both physically and emotionally). There is no support for a showing of any physical damage from an Ecollar. As far as "emotional damage" we're talking opinion here. I think that there's just as much potential for emotional damage with "all positive methods." NaturallyWild wrote: Obviously there is the potential for emotional damage through poor timing, to high stimulation, etc but people here seem to deny the fact that and e-collar can cause physical damage If such damage was possible, then there would be studies that show it. But even studies done by anti-Ecollar folks don't show any. They say such things as (Klein, 2000). 332 M.B.H. Schilder, J.A.M. van der Borg / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85 (2004) 319–334and Klein 2000and Biobehavioral monitoring and electronic control of behavior (Lindsay, S. (2005). Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training: Procedures and Protocols, Vol. 3. Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 557-665.)and (Sang et.al., 2003).There are more but you get the idea. NaturallyWild wrote: and there are also comparisons made to tens machines. Tens machines can cause damage - ever try turning one up high on your self, serious damage can occur to muscle fibres. Their effect is not always just local - if in the right position the signals can transmit through nerves to different areas of the body. I don't think people realise the potential for effect that could be cause even if it is just a localised stimulation. Simple to avoid. Don't turn it up. But, in reality the only reason that the comparison is made to TENS machines is that more people are familiar with them and they have adjustable levels. TENS machines put out much more current than do Ecollars, even at the highest levels. If you have some study that shows physical damage to nerves, blood vessels, muscle or any kind of tissue from an Ecollar please post it. No one else has ever found it. NaturallyWild wrote: Who here has had acupuncture/acupressure done to them We're really into an area of comparing apples and oranges here. There is NO link between Ecollars and acupuncture/acupressure. NaturallyWild wrote: Food for thought everyone. Not really. This is more "food for fright." People have been looking for physical damage from Ecollars for decades and never has it been found. NEVER.

Where's an Electrical Engineer when you really need one? LOL. Yep. Scary isn't it? I find it interesting that PDTS who posted the Review continued to call it a "Study" as if this was new information even after she was corrected as to it's true nature! She's obviously trying to influence those who don't see this for what it really is. This is the phenomenon that I referred to in my earlier response where they put together a document that looks at old studies (some as old as 50 years) and publish it. The unsophisticated call it a "study" and quote it as if it was something new. Then people quote those quotations and it's a never-ending list of citations, all traceable back to one original document. But it appears to those who don't closely examine such things as if there's an landslide of new information that shows the dangers of Ecollars.

I've only seen him use one once on his show. That was aversion training, with a dog that chased farm equipment. My site gives clear "how-to" instructions so that even a novice can pick up the tool and use it to train their dog to their satisfaction. Hundreds have. These are people who do it without a trainer and who have little to no experience in training a dog beforehand. It's a very simple tool to use properly with a little instruction. The only way to stop Ecollars from getting into everyone's hands is for the government to ban them. Such bans have never worked in the history of mankind. All that happens is that use of the tool will go "underground" and a black market will open up where prices are significantly higher. The best course at this time is education, teaching people who will use the tool the best way to do so. There's really no need for that. My pets are not working police dogs yet they have the same level of OB that they do. The only real difference is that the police dogs do different things. My experience has been that when the tool is used properly the outcome is always positive. I've not come across a dog that hasn't responded properly to the tool, used as I advocate it. I find it hard to believe that an abusive dog owner is going to spend several hundred dollars on an Ecollar to abuse their dog. Not when boots are handier and sticks are free.

No. There is stress involved in any learning. No. Not when the tool is used properly. This can happen with high level stim use but unless one does it for days with low level stim, it doesn’t occur. And then only if the dog is not shown how to shut if off. The dog should be just as happy when the Ecollar is on as when it's off. If anyone answers these question differently, they're talking about abuse or misuse of the tool.

Odd but I don't recall anyone saying that any manufacturer did that. Perhaps you can show us the post? Poodlesplus wrote: It as if one of your lower class students who knows stuff all about dogs came at you.telling you how to handle dogs, You would be a bit bewildered, and wouldn't know where to start. It was a bit like that for me. I'm afraid that you've got this backwards. I've been using Ecollars for nearly two decades. There are some others here that have been using them for quite some time, some perhaps longer than me. (Some perhaps a LOT longer than me)! and then along you come spouting theory, telling us how bad Ecollars are and that we know nothing of them. Poodlesplus wrote: I am as good as a claim to be, I am probably a little better. No ego problems there! ROFL. Poodlesplus wrote: If you care to email me I am quite happy to provide credentials in a way that protects my identity. Why do you need to protect your identify? Are you a spy and if your true identity was revealed it could seal the fate of the free world? (If you are, say, "No.") Poodlesplus wrote: I also expcet you to reply with your credentials too. Mine are on my website. Poodlesplus wrote: laughter at their profession. You've said this several times. Each time we've denied that it's happened and you've been invited to show us the post where anyone has made fun of your profession. Each time you've failed to do so. Now you're just whining. No one has made fun of your profession. Poodlesplus wrote: I will very occassionally contribute. I wonder why anyone feels the need to tell us this? If you want to contribute do so. If you don't, then don't. Poodlesplus wrote: but I will abide by the forums formal and imformal rules. As will the rest of us. Again, I wonder why you feel the need to tell us this? Poodlesplus wrote: As for apologies, I would see you as a professional if you actually read what I have written, came back and said, look i am sorry, you are right on the elctrical bits, now lets get on with it. Instead you just seem to be bitcing away. Good on ya. I've proposed at least TWICE now the following situation. I've not seen any response from you. Poodlesplus wrote: I just live for the day when my ability to practice my methods is not continously encroached on, or met with a Met with a ?????????

Long before a head halter causes visible physical damage to a dog that doesn't like it, the dog has been tortured for countless hours. A dog that is terrified of the noise that a clicker makes lives in constant fear that it will occur again, especially if the owner decides to desensitize the dog to it. Imagine the psychological horror of offering your best friend a treat but then NOT giving it to him because he didn't sit, when commanded! People who favor so-called "all positive methods" like to pretend that this "damage" doesn't occur because there's no outward physical signs and the thrill of the next treat masks it, but it's there. Every form of training and every tool used in dog training induces stress.

This is disgusting! Now you intentionally try to mislead the readers! NOT ONE STUDY you posted talks about any damage being done to a dog by an Ecollar. In fact. Lindsay is quite clear about this and wrote, "at low levels there is no physical damage." He goes on to quote another researcher who wrote, Even your beloved Schilder study includes this statement, Again, it's not ?a study" it's a review of studies, some as old as 50 years. No matter how many times you call it "a study" it isn't one. In any case, I didn't see one reference to "long term health aspects." Can you direct us to it? Finally an answer to one of my questions, even if it is a backhanded one. Why is it that you save your vitriol for the Ecollar? Why aren't you out there fighting against the misuse of ALL tools? What is the origin of this "list" that you speak of? Since the Ecollar is probably the least used of all dog training tools, the rate of it's misuse is probably far less than other tools. But if you have some evidence that states otherwise, please supply it. Thanks for answering ONE of my questions. Now if you'd just take a moment to reply to this one. Earlier you wrote, And I responded It's obvious that you're here to promote yourself, you discussed how much your business has improved since (something occurred). And yet you accuse me of being here for that purpose. Since this list is based in Oz, there's little chance of any benefit coming to me. so just what is it you think might happen?

Earlier myszka wrote It's not a "scientific reason" but the answer is that low level stim won't give these people the results they desire. If they use low level stim, they won't see the yelps of pain, the fear, the "lowered body posture" and all the rest of the crap that they need to justify their position that Ecollars should not be used in training dogs. YES! That's the case. The stim from that collar went (for the most part – don't want to offend poodlesplus) from one side of the dog's neck, THROUGH the neck to the other contact point. Additionally the batteries on this collar took up most of the circumference of the strap. Please never let the fact that I've posted something stop you from posting as well. Even if it's just a "me too" it's appreciated.

Oh, look who's back! In spite of (is it three times now?) having told us that he was done with this topic. If you're not capable of keeping your word on this, very simple thing, how can we believe anything you say? Oh well, let's proceed. And not that I'm the punctuation police but you keep telling us how educated you are (otherwise I wouldn't even mention it) but; did they teach anything about punctuation, paragraphs, spelling, or syntax at that fancy engineering school that you went to? LOL. I wonder if you're this careful (careless really) with your dog training or your engineering work? I'm certainly not saying that this is the case with you; I'm just askin' because sometimes people's habits in one area spill over into other areas of their life. Poodlesplus wrote: I have Lou's statement "forget Ohms law" enlarged ready to have a giggle at at work. It is like arguing that the earth is flat.You can't argue with insanity like that. I’m glad that you're so thrilled at your ability to take my words out of context that you'd put it up at work. I'd suggest that you let your coworkers have a look at the entire discussion between us. I'm pretty sure that they'd be laughing at YOU! Ohm's law applies to materials (of any type) that conduct electrical energy, as long as they're homogeneous. But a dog's neck is not and you keep ignoring this obvious fact. I could set up a situation to prove the absurdity of your statement but I'll save that for next time you appear here, again breaking your word. ROFL BUT let's assume that you're completely, 100% right and that I'm completely, 100% wrong about this. Now, please show us some scientific study that shows that it makes some difference in the training or has some impact on the dogs. You've gotten hung up on this minor point and have completely forgotten about the big picture, dog training. Poodlesplus wrote: I was a little sad because up to now, I had some respect for Lou. The guy who's been insulting me, calling me names and generally being a jerk SUDDENLY claims that "up to now" he had some respect for me. I guess respect is shown differently in your neck of the woods than it is in mine. Poodlesplus wrote: Personally i found it unbelievable that adult people want to piss with science so much. Quite the contrary. I've asked REPEATEDLY for some science to support what you claim. YOU'RE the one who's not provided it. Poodlesplus wrote: Never mind. I didn't take it at all personally. I just took it for what it was a bunch of crap from some very arrogant people who don't have the grace or good manners to admit when they are wrong. Tell us again about how we're attacking you! Poodlesplus wrote: If i made racist comments about forum participants would that be OK to?? Why then is my profession something to be laughed at??? I have missed anyone laughing at your profession. Please provide a quotation that supports this claim. Poodlesplus wrote: What I do have problems with is so called trainers telling porkies about how they work AGAIN, please provide the posts to support this statement. Poodlesplus wrote: Now I will go away again Why do I doubt this statement? Could it be that you've been caught out several times before? Nah, that couldn't be it. Poodlesplus wrote: and no doubt, you will have another good little bitch session, tell yourselves how good you are , and i don't know what. Mostly we'll poke holes in your statements and wonder whether you'll keep you word this time. LOL. Poodlesplus wrote: I do have this question. I am on holiday at the moment,writing some papers and i have trouble keeping up with the stuff you people write. Don't you have jobs or isn't the dog training going so hot? No I don't have a job, I'm retired. Is that OK with you? I train dogs only when I feel like it these days. Is that OK too? Please accept my deepest apologies for having more spare time than you.

What a great post! Thanks Poodlefan for injecting common sense and reason into what often becomes a debate based on emotion rather than rationality. I've worked with many dogs in front of a crowd of people. Often, after about ten minutes, someone will ask, "When are you going to start using the Ecollar?" I'd been using it the whole time! If people from all ranges of experience can't tell when the button is being pressed by any outward sign from the dog, just how stressful or painful could it be? The only outward sign that the Ecollar was being used was that the dog was learning a new behavior.

Myszka the antis want everyone to think that this is how Ecollar training is done. It supports their attempts to get people not to use the tool or to have them banned or restricted. In reality there's no correlation between high level stim and low level stim. But the antis want you to think that it's the same. It's a bit like taking a couple of aspirin for a headache or taking the whole bottle. The results are very different.

I rarely do "aversion training" which is the ONLY thing that your quotation addresses. It uses very high level of stim to cause pain so that the dog makes an association with the thing that his owner does not want him to do. THAT'S NOT HOW I USE AN Ecollar for most of the work! People keep making statements such as this one and it's obvious that they don't have a clue as to how I use the tool. Why they do this is beyond comprehension, but they do. Please don't assume that because you don't know how to properly use an Ecollar to train a dog with, that others don't. The fact that I train police dog has nothing to do with anything that's being discussed. I also train my pets and those pets of my clients in the same way. In any case, we know that often the so-called "all positive methods" often fail and when they do, the Ecollar is a good alternative. LOL. In the previous paragraph you discuss "the majority of us." And now you inquire about a relatively rare circumstance. The Ecollar used as per my articles, is the best tool to deal with fear aggressive dogs. That's usually how the discussions degrade. It's almost always those who oppose the use of the Ecollar that take them down that road.

Thanks for posting this pinnacle. Before we get into it can you tell us a little bit about your personal experience with Ecollars? Have you ever used an Ecollar? Ever used one with modern methods. EVER SEEN ONE! Ever felt the stim from one? In the past, I've asked a few questions that you seem to be ducking. Here they are again. Earlier you claimed that I was promoting my self and I asked, "Exactly what benefit do you think might come to me?" Earlier you wrote I would just like to say that this is why a lot of trainers will not recommend tools that can be misused in the first place. And I asked, Could you answer these questions please? And now to discuss your post. WARNING: My response is even longer than the post that pinnacle sent in. If you don't want to read through all of it just read my response to one study, the Schilder one. I'll highlight it in red to make it easier for you to find. What follows is about a 7,500 word article that has no paragraph formatting or separation between studies or thoughts, making it very difficult to read. pinnacle could have supplied it with formatting but choose not to for reasons of her own. I think she did it so as to make it as difficult as possible for any response. Also she failed to supply a link for it. We have no way of knowing if she's quoted it accurately, completely or if she's chosen to change any wording. This is often typical of those who oppose Ecollars. Often there is information omitted that is quite favorable to the use of Ecollars, but they don't want us to see it, so they provide information in this manner. I'll use blue lettering when I quote this REVIEW. And BTW I hope you noticed that this is NOT a new study. Rather it's a REVIEW of Current Literature. This is one thing that the anti-Ecollar folks do. They don't have any new studies to show so they do a "review" of old studies. Then they quote from it as if it was something new. Then they'll quote each other quoting the review which quotes the old studies. Those who don't follow this closely think that there's an avalanche of new information when, in fact there's NOTHING new. But let's begin. The use of electronic devices to train animals is a controversial issue that elicits strong emotions. Not among those of us who actually use the tool. Controversy is only with those who have little or no experience with the tool. This literature review summarizes currently available scientific research concerning As I said, there's nothing new here. Every effort was made to give a synopsis of the research without personal opinion or conjecture. I wonder why this statement was made? The reason is that the people who compiled this information are all anti-Ecollar!. And so they want to let us know that they've tried to be as fair as possible. Of course any reasonable person knows that this is impossible. If one has an agenda and a bias it's impossible to eliminate it from any endeavor, try as we might. In Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training: Procedures and Protocols, Vol. 3 (2005), Lindsay explains in detail the electrical engineering that goes into these collars (pp. 570-573). There is no evidence of standardization for electronic training devices, and the quality varies from one manufacturer to the next. This is true and it's the reason that I only recommend two brands, Dogtra and Tri-Tronics. Both brands are of the highest quality. Some manufacturers have developed collars that have a wide range of settings and the ability to administer various levels of electricity. I recommend that if you want to follow my protocols that the Ecollar have at least 15 distinct levels of stim. Even better is one that offers 127 levels. The length of coat, hydration of the dog, how the dog holds his head, and amount of dirt and debris on the dog are also factors in the amount of electronic stimulation/shock the dog receives. None of this matters to the Ecollar user. It's just an attempt to make the beginner think that finding the dog's working level of stim (the level where he first feels it) is quite difficult. In reality it's quite simple. One starts with the Ecollar set at zero, and then slowly turns it up, testing each level until the dog shows some sign that he feels it. This is most commonly a "sit and scratch" as if the dog was bitten by a single flea. Other common signs are an ear flick, a blink, a furrowing of the brow, a quick look at the ground or at his neck. Sometimes seen is a shaking of the head, the same sort of thing as when a dog is shaking off water. The user doesn't have to determine the coat length, the hydration of the dog, how he's holding his head, or the amount of dirt on the dog. Other factors that affect the degree of stimulation include the size and type of electrodes (as noted above), distance between electrodes, voltage and amperage levels, as well as the impedance of the tissue at the sites of contact with the electrodes. This is just more of the same. The user doesn't have to take any of this into account. He just turns up the stim, testing each level until the dog shows that he's feeling it. Impedance is defined as how much resistance the electricity encounters to complete a circuit, or electric charge (http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com, accessed 28 July, 2006). The greater the tissue impedance, the less electrical conductivity is seen; conversely, less tissue impedance results in greater electrical conductivity. Tissue impedance is affected not only by the location of the electrodes, but by the amount of connective tissues and fat deposits, as well (Ahn, Wu, Badger, Just more of the same. The goal of this study was to establish parameters for determining stress elicited by different stimuli in dogs. Guidelines for physiological levels indicating stress were determined from previous studies, one of which showed that when a dog was exposed to noise, heart rate and cortisol levels increased at 30 seconds and returned to normal at 4 minutes (Engeland, 1990). The dogs in the Beerda study were exposed to a loud noise, electric shock (estimated to be medium level electrical stimulation, or MLES), Note that this test did NOT measure low level stim. I find it interesting that NOT ONE TEST done by the anti's has ever used low level stim. a bag dropped from the ceiling, physical restraint, and an umbrella opening. Body posture, saliva cortisol levels, heart rate, and behavior responses were analyzed. Some of these measures are actually worthwhile. But some are completely subjective. Since these folks are all anti-Ecollar measurements of body posture and behavior responses can easily be skewed by the filter of perception. The results of this study showed that the greatest increase in cortisol levels occurred when dogs were exposed to loud noise, a bag dropped from the ceiling, and electric shock. And yet we don't see people getting hysterical if a dog is subjected to a loud noise or a bag dropped near him. But use an Ecollar and people rise up! The time necessary to return to the baseline heart rate was longer when the dogs were exposed to the loud noise and the bag. WHAT! The dogs were more frightened by the loud noise and the bag dropping than a MEDIUM level stim? Imagine how little they'd be bothered by a low level stim! This study reported behavioral responses of very low body posture to the dropped bags, loud sounds, and shock, while the restraint and umbrella responses included restlessness, defined as high levels of body shaking and verbal behaviors (social communication). Measurement of these responses are completely subjective and are easily influenced, even on an subconscious level by a prior bias or agenda. This study is a good example of signs of stress, positive as well as negative associations to humans, and the increase of stress when electric shock is used in unpredictable situations. This study is a HORRIBLE example of signs of stress. Much of the information was gathered in a completely subjective manner. And, most importantly this was completely unnecessary. They had perfectly good measures of stress, heart rate and cortisol level. For reasons known only to the researchers (I think they knew what the outcome of a purely scientific measure would be) they decided to include subjective measurements into the study, allowing them to color it as they pleased. Note: We personally believe that while this study was a good example of using cortisol to measure stress It's interesting to note that they FAILED to mention other reasons that cortisol may be present in a dog. They only associated it with stress. There are other reasons as well including health, presence of infection and how long it's been since the dog has eaten. The effects of petting on classically conditioned emotional response (Lynch, J.J. & McCarthy, J.F. (1996). Behavior Research and Therapy, 5(1), 55-62). In this study, the authors observed the physiological effects of human contact on the dog. The research found that the dogs. heart rate increased when a tone was followed by an electric shock of a medium level. The electric shocking device used was a high-voltage system, one second shock, different for each dog according to the dog.s reaction at each interval. The level of shock used was intense enough to cause the dog to fully flex his leg off the table. Why do you suppose that these folks used HIGH level shock? Why is it that they didn't use low level stim? Quite simple. It wouldn't have shown the results that they were after. Is anyone else old enough to remember the studies of saccharin done in (I think) the 1960's? It showed that saccharin caused cancer in laboratory rats and it was widely spread by the folks who make sugar. Much later it was revealed that you'd have to ingest 600 pounds of saccharin a day in order to induce cancer. Similarly studies that use high level stim or even medium level stim mean nothing to those of us who use low level stim. The rest of this study shows that the presence of humans lowers the dog's heart rate but that after 2-3 days it had no effect. That's all that study showed. Predicting canine cortisol response from human affiliative and punitive behaviors (Jones, A.C. & Josephs, R.A. Current Issues and Research in Veterinary Behavioral Medicine 2005 . Papers Presented at the 5th International Veterinary Behavior Meeting, West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press:194-197.) The results of this research showed that play and petting decreased cortisol levels, while punitive behavior (yelling and physical non-play) on the owners. part increased cortisol levels. I see no connection to the study of Ecollars here. Clinical Signs caused by the use of electronic training collars on dogs (Canis familiaris) in everyday life situations. (Schalke E, Stichnoth J, & Jones-Baade R. Journal of Applied Animal Behavior Science, doi:10.1016/j.japplanim.2006.11.002 The purpose of this study was to determine whether any stress is caused by the use of electric shock collars or not, and in this way contribute to their evaluation with respect to animal welfare. The collars were the Teletakt micro 3000 (ohm levels of 500 to 2.2 kohm). This is an obsolete model of Ecollar that is famous the world over for delivering the highest levels of stim of any Ecollar. Notice that these researches LIKE ALL OTHERS totally overlooked testing the results of low level stim. Hmmm, why could that have occurred? Group A (Aversive) was trained to avoid prey by receiving a shock at the precise moment they touched the dummy rabbit, forming an association between touching the prey and shock. Group H (Here) received additional training to come on command, and were then tested in a situation where they were asked to avoid prey with a .here. command. If they did not respond to the .here. cue, they received a shock. Group R (Random) was given a random electric shock prior to attention toward prey, while hunting, or after the hunting sequence when the prey had been removed. This work is usually done at the highest level that an Ecollar affords. We're talking VERY HIGH LEVEL STIM here folks. Each dog was allowed a maximum of only one shock per day Isn't this nice of the researchers? They've being soooooo nice to the dog by only shocking them once a day. In reality this makes it very difficult, if not impossible for the dogs to know that they've made the correct association that's desired in the training. They only know that when they come into the environment where this test is being conducted, they're going to be shocked and AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL. They have no idea to what or why this will occur. OF COURSE they're going to be highly stressed. This was purposefully done by the testers knowing that the dogs would not have known what started and what stopped the shock. The researchers state, .This study indicates that the general use of electronic shock collars is not consistent with animal welfare. It has to be assumed that pet owners do not have the sufficient knowledge about training and skill to avoid the risk that dogs will show severe and persistent stress symptoms.. They further conclude, .The results of this study suggest that poor timing in application of high electric pulses, such as those used in this study, means there is a high risk that dogs will show severe and persistent stress symptoms. We recommend that the use of these devices should be restricted with proof of theoretical and practical qualification required, and then the use of these devices should only be allowed in strictly specified situations. Does anyone really think that these folks needed to go to all this trouble to come to this determination? It's obvious that they had an agenda and a bias before they even started. It's easy to make a test go a certain way if you want to. In this case they used extremely high levels of stim and didn't allow the dogs to learn what was causing the stim by only allowing them one stim per day. Fear conditioning occludes LTP-induced presynaptic enhancement of synaptic transmission in the cortical pathway to the lateral amygdala (Tsevtkov, E., Carlezon, W., Benes, F., Kandel, E., & Bolshakov, V. (2002) Neuron, 34(2), 289-300). This study attempted to prove a longstanding theory that learning takes place and memories are formed when the same message travels repeatedly between specific cells in the brain. During the study, researchers introduced rats to a sound that was accompanied by an electric shock to the foot. The shock, while of a low intensity, did cause the rats to be visibly startled. Thos of us who actually use Ecollars know that if a stim is of such a level that it causes the animal to be "visibly startled, it's NOT of "a low intensity" as these folks pretend. The measurement is NOT one of how much voltage is applied it's ONLY based on how the animal responds to it. Biobehavioral monitoring and electronic control of behavior (Lindsay, S. (2005). Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training: Procedures and Protocols, Vol. 3. Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 557-665.) In his recent book, Steven Lindsay cites many research studies concerning electronic training devices. NO WHERE in this citation does Lindsay discuss using low levels of stim. Remember the saccharin story? In the chapter,.Biobehavioral Monitoring and Electronic Control of Behavior,. he states that electric shock at high levels can cause distress and emotional harm to dogs (p. 576). Of course it can. Notice that he makes NO COMMENT about the effects of low level stim. That's because it doesn't cause either distress or emotional harm to dogs. Notice that he later discusses "medium level stim" but he does not make this same comment about it. With all the factors and electrical contingencies, the best way to understand the level of electrical stimulation is to feel it. Contact with electricity causes the body to respond as if injured (at low levels there is no physical damage ). the brain perceives a threat to survival that causes neurological, psychological (fear of pain), and physiological responses (heart rate and cortisol levels increase). Please read this again. at low levels there is no physical damage! As far as the rest of his paragraph, the "threat to survival that causes neurological, psychological (fear of pain), and physiological responses (heart rate and cortisol levels increase)." DOES NOT occur when the tool is used with my protocols at low levels of stim. What he describes occurs with random stims, (that's what he's doing) and OF COURSE this is the result. When the Ecollar is used in actually training the dogs quickly learn what makes the stim start and what makes it stop. When they learn this there's nothing of what he describes. And when low levels of stim are used there is not "fear of pain" as he mentions occurs with high levels of stim. High-level electric shock (HLES) causes a neurological response and a perception of pain, and activates muscular and skin-burning sensations even if there is no physically burned flesh and although no physical damage has actually occurred. The study specifically stated that the sensation of burning was perceived even when there was no actual physical injury (Sang et.al., 2003). Medium-level electric shock (MLES) produces sharp pricking, jabbing sensations. Low-level electric shock (LLES) causes tapping, tickling, and/or tingling sensations. Note again what low level stim causes tapping, tickling and/or tickling. It is difficult, at best, for anyone to determine the full psychological effect of these devices or training methods until we can agree on exactly what constitutes a stress signal in a domestic dog. Not only do none of the researchers agree on what it is, but it varies from dog to dog. So if this is the case, how can all these researchers make such definitive statements about the effects of Ecollars on dogs? The obvious answer is that they slant the test any way that they want, any way that agrees with their bias. SCHILDER STUDY Training dogs with the help of the shock collar: Short and long term behavioral effects. (Schilder, M. & van der Borga, J. (2004). Applied Animal Behavior Science, 85, 319-334). The goal of this study was to determine the behavioral changes in dogs during training using electronic training collars. Of all the tests cited in this gathering this test is the biggest joke of them all. My critique to this study runs to six pages. I'll cut it down for this post. Thirty-two dogs were divided into two groups, each receiving both general obedience and protection training. One group was trained with shock collars and the other group without shock collars. The dogs trained with the shock collars displayed signs of stress: lowering of body posture, high-pitched yelps, barks and squeals, avoidance, redirected aggression, and tongue flicking. It was also noted by the authors that, even during play and relaxed walking, the group of dogs trained with shock collars continued to show signs of stress while in the company of their handler. The authors concluded that shock-collar training is stressful; receiving shocks is a painful experience to dogs; and the shock group of dogs evidently learned that the presence of their owner (or his commands) announced the reception of shocks, even outside of the normal training context. They suggest that the welfare of these shocked dogs is at stake, at least in the presence of their owners. This study has come under considerable fire because the experience of the handlers and dogs is not clear, and the level of shock is not stated. This study was conducted on the Netherlands. This part of the world is famous for using the highest levels of stim available on any Ecollar. The full version of the study states Ya think there's an agenda here? The stated purpose was to find "pain, fear, avoidance, pain-induced aggression and submission." The language they use is very important. They didn't go looking for "signs of" these things. They didn't go looking to see if such things existed, they had predetermined that they do and then they structured their study to find it. This is not The way that scientific studies are supposed to be conducted. "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, writing as Sherlock Holmes. The full version of the study states Perhaps the most telling criticism of this study is that they based their findings, "that Ecollars cause stress" on their observations of the dogs. The very same Steven Lindsay that has been quoted in this Review has some interesting things to say about this study. He writes Lindsay continues, These observations can be the result of many other things besides "fear" which is what the "observers" noted. Yet they only reported that one and never remarked that any other stimuli could be responsible. The "altered ear posture" is completely subjective and since these people were anti-Ecollar they could have easily interpreted the ear carriage any way that they wanted to. The same criticism apply to tongue flicking and pawing actions. He continues, And The system of competition that these dogs are being trained for contains within it a measurement of the level of fear that these dogs might have. Yet this study doesn't even make a mention of it. Of course they don't, it would conflict with their findings. Not only did they construct a study that would allow them to come to their predetermined conclusion, but they purposefully ignored evidence that exists that directly conflicts with that conclusion! Here's something that I find quite interesting about this study. They go into great detail about the equipment that they used. We know the various breeds of dogs used. We know their sexes and ages. We know how many wore Ecollars and how many did not. We know the brand of camera used to film the study; the model number and size of film it used. We even know that it had a 40X optical zoom! We know the sampling method they used, the number of training session they observed and the number of sequences they filmed. We know the OB commands that were used during the "walking" phase of the study and what "protection" movements were involved. We know how the data was analyzed; we know how each ear and tail position was scored and we know how the data from the two samples was compared. But nowhere does it state what brand or model of Ecollar was used! I find this omission startling! That is until I realized the lie that is told in the study, that "in general a current of a few thousand volts is used." I'm fairly confident that these folks know that when this lie was told about Innotek Ecollars in Australia by the RSPCA that it cost them tens of thousands of dollars when they were sued for making that statement. In truth Ecollars put out 3-200 volts when they're being used. The statements regarding "a few thousand volts" would have these people being sued if they had mentioned the name of the Ecollar that was used. While it's certainly a more powerful unit than most, it's still nowhere near "several thousand volts." By not naming the brand of Ecollar used, they escape a lawsuit for libel. A clever bunch of liars they are, but they are liars nonetheless. Here's some more from Lindsay, This post is longer than most people, even those with an interest in this topic will read. I'll not continue to discuss the rest of the articles unless someone has specific questions about one of them. Suffice it to say that they address the modern use of Ecollars with low level stim EVEN LESS than the articles that have come before it. Which is to say, "not at all." pinnacle wrote: This is the full study that I referred to in my other post in this thread. As I pointed out at the top of my post, this is NOT a "study." Rather it's quite clear that as it's name says, it's A Review of Current Literature. Those two things are significantly different. Pinnacle wants you to believe that this is some new information. It's not. One cited study is 50 years old! pinnacle wrote: While it is agreed that proper use is not harmful to the dog by a skilled trainer. EVERY study that was discussed, used high level stim. I don't. And the difference is significant in its effect on the dog. If one reads my articles and follows them one will get excellent results as many have. I can provide many references for people who have had no experience with Ecollars, who have used my articles and are perfectly happy with their results. pinnacle wrote: I will once again state how can that trainer be confident that the average dog owner will go and use it properly. Even in a class with a so called skilled trainer the misuse of this tool by one of their clients was not picked up. As I so clearly demonstrated, the same thing can occur with any tool. You can't guarantee that every person in a clicker class will use it properly. pinnacle wrote: While a few of you on this forum may have used an e collar correctly I feel it is highly irasponable to give it such wide a claim to the average dog owner. Thanks for your input. I know better and have demonstrated it many times. pinnacle wrote: Lou I am not the one standing around with the nodding heads and I have plenty to say. You have used lots of words, but you've said very little as regards my use of the tool. pinnacle wrote: Sarcasim is the lowest form of wit. Actually the pun is considered to be the lowest form of wit. pinnacle wrote: If I have not responded to anything it is because I would be spending my time trying to debate with a brick wall. Nonsense. You've not responded to the questions I've asked because you know that to do so will discredit you. I'd be willing to bet on the answers to the questions that I've repeatedly posed to you; the ones that I asked again, at the top of this post. pinnacle wrote: If an open mind has led you to e collars. Then are you saying the way you used other methods did not work. So are you claiming they don't work? or perhaps is it that you did not have a full understanding of how to apply them. I know well how to apply them. This is just a weak attempt to try and discredit me, but it won't work. I use them and use them often, WHEN THEY'RE APPROPRIATE. But often they're not. And they give poor results with highly driven dogs.

You were asked to support your statements with scientific studies repeatedly. You never did. You were asked to support your statements with scientific studies repeatedly. You never did. (Why does this sound familiar?) LOL. We don't need any more of your experience and knowledge. We need scientific studies that support your statements. You've not supplied any. (I'm having a déjà vu now). Please supply a scientific study to support your statement. And while you're getting that, please show us a study that shows that even if you're completely right, it makes some difference. You've mentioned "long term damage" And have consistently refused to supply any support for those comments. You have also made this comment before only to show up again and again. Nothing has changed. You've done the same thing here as in the original topic. You made many claims and been asked to supply support for them. Again, you've failed to do so. Instead you DEMAND that we accept your expertise. Sorry ain't gonna happen without the support that's been requested over and over.

It says otherwise because I'm not fully awake yet and goofed up. Thanks for the slap. It's been fixed.

Yes, I saw that. Amhailte brought them up and then showed some weaknesses in both studies, and another one I think. I have tons of info on the Schilder study, it's VERY poor science. I felt no need to comment as no one gave any support for it. I don't recall seeing anything from her either. Probably for several reasons. One is that they're not used to anyone disagreeing with them. They stand around with the nodding heads, spouting their opinion and they're rarely called on it. When it does happen, even though it's done politely, they have a fit. We can see this with poodlesplus who started a new thread to discuss how badly he'd been abused here. LOL. Because they have nothing else to say. The truth is that most people who use aversives and Ecollars DO have open minds. If not, we'd have never found our way to them. Most of us have tried other methods and found them wanting, that's my situation anyway. I still use so-called "all positive methods" when they're appropriate, but they're not always appropriate. The "believers" in those methods have almost a religious zeal about them and believe that they're always appropriate and that they always work. The sad fact is that both statements are false.