Lou Castle

I'd suggest that you read the thread in question, rather than take sides based on what you've heard from one side of a disagreement. BTW poodlesplus considers himself "an apprentice" (his word) in dog training. There has been no slandering, at least not from those opposed to poodlesplus. As to my experience, I've been involved in training dogs, mostly for police work and SAR for about 28 years. I've done 39 seminars in the US, Europe and Canada. Perhaps you should check your facts before you make such groundless statements. How polite you are. No personal attack there! ROFLMAO.

You were not attacked. You were disagreed with. You kept spouting theory and repeatedly ignored requests for scientific studies to back up your statements. You refused at all points. George Bernard Shaw said, Quite the opposite was the case. You called others names including "stupid" and "silly." Those ARE personal attacks but no one else is whining about it. Your credentials were never questioned. Rather you tried to make others feel "less than" by boasting of your education, even though it had nothing to do with the topic. You were treated extremely fairly. You were asked many questions that you simply ignored and pretended that it had never happened. You told us several times that you weren't going to write any more, only to return a short time later, demonstrating that you're not a man of your word. Perhaps, but practically you were wrong. I agree. When are you going to apologize for your behavior? No one but you used "insulting language." If you disagree, show us the posts. That's what transpired. The problem is that you couldn't support your side of the discussion so you looked bad every time you posted.

Was that the "Schilder study?"

Nonsense. If someone can post a study that stands up to scrutiny, I'll be happy to stop using Ecollars. I missed it. Post it again or provide a link to it and I'll be happy to take a look. But the chances are that I've already seen it many times and will be able to show where it's flawed. More nonsense. I've had them many times. But it takes someone who does not get emotionally involved and is capable of responding to requests for information. I reread that post and found this comment that Vickie wrote, Why was it necessary to "save his life on 2 occasions? What happened? Which words are the "useless" ones? Anytime you think that your words (or those of another) have been twisted or quoted out of context you are free to bring them to your next post and show everyone what's been done. I deny that this has happened. It's quite simple for you to prove if you disagree. Yaknow for someone who accused me of posting for the sole reason of "promoting myself" (your post # 88) this is VERY lame. It's obvious that you want us to know how busy your business has become since this thread started. Talk about self promotion! Talk about hypocrisy! ROFL. And I noticed that you failed to answer my question about this. I asked, "Exactly what benefit do you think might come to me?" And in a recent post you wrote this I responded with a question that you haven't answered. "Can you please name a tool that can't be "misused?"

Your last post contained this statement, "That wil (sic) be my last post on this subject. There really isn't anything else for me to say" And yet here you are again. I'm pretty sure that you've made similar statements before, only to go back on them. Are you not a man of your word? Poodlesplus wrote: Lou, you have gone like a dam politicain, and again haven't adressed the technical issues. Torrents of words don't make up for your lack of correct content. "Torrents of words don't make up for you lack of "scientific studies to support your claims. Poodlesplus wrote: Here it is again just basic application of ohms theory "Current flow is proportional to the resistance of the path.Not all the current flows through the path of least resistance in this case. The path between terminals does take a fair bit of the current, but an arc (part of circle NOT an electrical arc) drawn at twice the distance between the will have approximately 1/2 the current etc. This assumes that the material (the dog's body) beneath the contact points is homogeneous as would be the case with a solid block of a conductor, such as a metal. We know that it's not homogeneous as is the block of steel. As has been pointed out, there's skin, muscle, blood vessels, nerves, all with various levels of conductivity and resistivity. But EVEN IF IT WAS, so what? Show us a study that shows a problem. This isn't new stuff. Ecollars have been around for about four decades. If it WAS a problem it would have shown up loooooong ago. Poodlesplus wrote: It is just as well it does that as nerve involvement and hence sensation could be problematic. " Yes it "could be problematic." If it was there'd be a scientific study that shows it. This sort of thing is exactly what the antis would love to find. But it doesn't exist. Your theory that it "could be problematic" is interesting but means nothing without something to back it up. Poodlesplus wrote: "Ohms law " does describe how current flows regardless of whether the item is a donkey or a dog. When correctly used, it makes nonsense of your statement about "taking the path of least resistance" Talk about nonsense. Please show us something that shows that Ohm's law has been applied to donkeys or dogs. And while you're at it, show us a study that shows a problem. Poodlesplus wrote: You obviously just don't understand some simple basic science. You are just plain stinking wrong. I invite you to study the text book I invite you to study the reality and get out of the text book. If you maintain this then show us a scientific study that supports it. Poodlesplus wrote: I find it laughable that you keep to this entrenched positon and tell me again that the current just goes between the points it doesn't. I work with these things calculate these every day. I find it laughable that you think that your theories trump reality. Poodlesplus wrote: I am at least as much an expert on fields as you claim to be on dog training. Where have I ever said that I'm an "expert on dog training?" I just know a few things. Poodlesplus wrote: Thanks for the insult about my degree Lou. That is so gracious and open minded of you. I insulted your EE degree? I did? I don't think so. When did I do that? But since you think so, I apologize. I meant no insult. Poodlesplus wrote: The old statement about cars and collars and technology doesn't always hold. I can think of 3 or 4 smart moves that would be cost neutral that would vastly improve e collars. But i will keep these ideas to myself thank you very much Pardon me if I don't believe this one bit. If you had this knowledge AND cared about dogs as you claim to, you'd sell this information to the Ecollar manufacturers. You could make yourself a pretty penny AND help the dogs at the same time. I'm quite sure that you're MUCH smarter than all the EE's that the Ecollar companies employ. LOL. Poodlesplus wrote: I guess you are a dog trainer, not an engineer. Never mind. Yes, don't we already know that. Ever been told that you have a flair for the obvious? Poodlesplus wrote: I will have to leave the rest of the DOL fratenity to sort it out. You have managed to cross the line from presenting some misguided ideas, to going through with the completely stupid. Good one And you talk about me insulting you? ROFLMAO. I never stooped so low as to call you names. I too leave it to the forum members to sort this out. I'll point out that you're not a man of your word (several times you said that you were done writing on this topic and then you continued to do so) and you've been asked repeatedly for scientific studies to back up your comments, you've failed every time to supply them.

No one has committed any personal attacks against you. But you continue to spout theory and have steadfastly refused to provide anything to support it. Poodlesplus wrote: I feel that many of you seem perplexed by complex situations and want simple answers and don't listen to people who might have something important to say if it doesn't agree with you. I agree. Many of us have used Ecollars for quite some time and our experience doesn't mirror your theories. Poodlesplus wrote: That to me makes the beginning of dam poor dog training. And yet somehow many of us get quite good results. Poodlesplus wrote: You didn't bother finding out about me or checking the facts out (again). I'd love to "check out the facts" but you haven't provided any for us to examine. As far as finding out about you, I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion. You say that you're an EE and I accept that. What more do we need to know? Poodlesplus wrote: I have supported my claims. You've done nothing of the kind. You've been asked repeatedly for scientific studies to support your wild claims. You've not supplied one. Poodlesplus wrote: 1) Current applied between two terminals in a material that is essentialy the same density and restistivity travels over many paths and that significant current flows over these different paths But a dog's body is NOT "essentially the same density and restivity" throughout! There are many structures besides the skin; muscles, blood vessels, nerves, bones and we KNOW that they don't have the same density and resistivity. Poodlesplus wrote: 2) The pulses of an electric fence are narrow and have lots of let go time look up the brochure or hang on to one This has nothing to do with a discussion of Ecollars. Poodlesplus wrote: 3) The current per unit of voltage on a fence circuit is much lower that on an e collar circuit.. There is a whole different model for this.. You can look this up Ditto. But; as I've said, an Ecollar used, as I advocate, emits 0.000005 Joules. An electric fence charger emits 3.2 Joules, 640,000 times more powerful. Poodlesplus wrote: 4) You need a very large open circuit voltgage to get arcing,and no collar manufacturer would do this. Again look it up. You need to consider where the breakdown path on the collar would be, but usually it is over the surface.of the collar. It is in the 10's of thousands of volts. Not sure what "arcing" has to do with a discussion of Ecollars. As you say, it takes "10's of thousand of volts" and no Ecollar puts out anywhere near enough current for it to happen. Poodlesplus wrote: 5) The collar voltages vary a lot. They do. Yes, we know. They all have dials, switches, and/or LCD screens so that we can select the stim level that is needed for the individual dog and the given situation. Poodlesplus wrote: I tried to give a moderate scientific view You gave your opinion disguised as science. We don't buy it and have asked for studies to back up what you've said. You've told us that you aren't going to supply them. Don't expect to be believed if you're not willing to do so when our personal experience contradicts your theory. Poodlesplus wrote: my goodness how are you going to react to a more emotional less scientific approach??? We're still waiting for the scientific studies to support your claims. Poodlesplus wrote: That wil be my last post on this subject. There really isn't anything else for me to say. OK. We'll reasonably believe that you don't have any scientific studies to support what you say. I don't believe that they exist, or you'd have supplied them.

This can create a very dangerous situation. The dog may come to think that the discomfort comes from the other dog and "learn" that the other dog can hurt him from a distance. He'll learn to stop the display of aggression but you haven't stopped the aggression from happening, only the display of it. Not always. It depends on how it's done. Take a look at this video and tell me which dog used to be aggressive. One had my Ecollar protocol on crittering http://loucastle.com/critter.htm used on him. That was a couple of years back. Roma has not reverted and last I heard of Simon, he was still leading the good life with his adopted family and has never shown any aggression towards anyone.

Thanks for the kind words about the website. I've never seen one on Ecollars that did, "promise the earth." In any case, I'll match my speed on teaching the recall with an Ecollar against any methods that you care to use. I've tried this and not lost but perhaps we're using the word "teaching" differently. You'll probably get the concept across faster but I'm talking about having a dog that is reliable in the face of all distractions no matter how far he is from the handler before I'll apply the word "taught" to the situation. Poodlesplus wrote: Sorry about the quoting etc. I don't spend all my time on forums. You will just have to put up with what i wrote in any case. Fine by me. If you're willing to let such statements stand without any crediting of the sources. We're free to not believe them, as the case should be. Poodlesplus wrote: Again the technical data and terms you use are generally wrong. For example If you read a good basic text book like Resnick and Halliday it will explain ohms law I'm quite familiar with Ohm's Law and the related science. But it has little to do with what you're written. Poodlesplus wrote: I guesss thats why I went off and did an EE degree. Ohms law and these notes hold for dogs too. Unfortunately your EE degree is not standing you in good stead here. Ohm's law holds true just about everywhere but it has nothing to do with this discussion. The electricity from an Ecollar does NOT go everywhere in a dog's body, it runs between the contact points. If what you said was true there'd be lots if scientific studies that showed it and you've failed to show one. That's because no such study exists. Ecollars have been studied for years by those opposed to their use and nothing of what you describe has ever been reported. If such things happened they'd be common knowledge. Poodlesplus wrote: I know that the electrical facts in my note are 100% correct. I have checked, them over and had them checked. They aren't open to debate, unlike a lot of dog training they are just plain old boring scientific fact. They may be but they don't apply to this discussion. Poodlesplus wrote: Current flow is proportional to the resistance of the path.Not all the current flows through the path of least resistance in this case. The path between terminals does take a fair bit of the current, but an arc (part of circle NOT an electrical arc) drawn at twice the distance between the will have approximately 1/2 the current etc.It is just as well it does that as nerve involvement and hence sensation could be problematic. Interesting theory. Please show us a study that supports it. Please show us a study that shows this penetration of flesh, muscles and nerves and show us a study that shows it to be "problematic." If such a study existed the anti's would be shouting it to the heavens but they're not. Poodlesplus wrote: I did find the data hard to get. But at the end of the day, you have to look at what happens and the long term effects. Yes we certainly do. So far no study has shown any negative long term effects of Ecollar use, especially with low level stim. Poodlesplus wrote: Unfortunately the attitude of this forum sucks. I gave sound technical data. i gave sound technical replies. I used and contributed my skills and abilities.I had a "professinal" dog trainer (Erny) suggest an open cirucuit voltage so high that arcing would happen. I suggest that rather than waste my time she check out what she said.. If that is how she operates, then i am not at all impressed. i had the usual candidates jump on the usual band wagons. I think the "attitude of this forum" (whatever that means) is just fine. When you make comments that those of us who have been using Ecollars for years know to be untrue, we ask that they be supported. You claim that you don't have the time and that's fine by me. But don't expect that your wild theories will be believed by anyone of us who have logical minds coupled with experience of actually using the tool. Poodlesplus wrote: I did see some highly emotive arguement about e collars and clickers that personally made me laugh. Good one. Still chuckling. I am still wondering how any instructor in any dog class worth their salt would let a dog be treated so insanely that it got overweight and died!.Is this another urban legend? It's not even that. It just served to show that ANY tool can be misused. Something that few so-called "reward based trainers" will admit. Poodlesplus wrote: Then the detail about dog's impedance, it is still a topic of debate. One-hundred ohms is the figure that your courts accepted as fact during a law suit between Innotek and the RSPCA. Poodlesplus wrote: We can barely agree on what the human body model is. Yasee here's part of the problem. We're not talking about the entire body. We're talking about a few square inches on a dog's neck. That's relatively easy to measure. Even in discussing the charged fence where much more of the dog's body is involved, no studies exist that show any problems. If there were problems they would have been shown to exist and electrified fences would have gone by the way long ago. Poodlesplus wrote: I don't mean to denigrate the fine engineers that work for the e collar companies, but I don't think thy generally attract MIT's finest and best. This is nothing but pure conjecture on your part. But in any case, one needn't have finished in the top of the best school to realize that you're trying to needlessly complicate this situation. Poodlesplus wrote: The technical challenges aren't that enormous and the ones that exist don't seem to be met. They've been met since the late 1960's when Ecollars were invented! Poodlesplus wrote: You would think that after all these years that the size would be really reduced and some kind of better terminal would have been developed. It's a bit like the question, "How fast do you want your car to go?" That question really is more a matter of "How much money do you want to spend?" Ecollars are fairly expensive as it is right now. Making them smaller, means a lot more money. Think of thin-screen televisions. They're coming but right now, they're expensive. They'll get thinner, Ecollars will get smaller. I don't seem much point in your responding with, "My statements are right" unless you provide some scientific studies to show support for them. Theory is great, but here, it means little.

I've not found a "personality" type that isn't suited for training with the Ecollar. They're excellent for teaching basic OB with. The second part of your question is so general that I can't answer it. Perhaps if you proposed some behaviors that you're thinking of, I could better respond. I'll try to generalize. The Ecollar is not good for what I call "circus tricks." Getting a dog to balance a piece of cheese on his snout until given a command to eat it, is not a good use of the tool.

Gee, I'm so sorry that I wasn't around when the topic first came up. I would have written exactly the same thing. And the most recent comment when I found the thread was only about two- three weeks prior to mine. Bosko, the OP was quite clear in the request for success stories; I didn't see any and I had two so I posted them. Is there some date past which one is prohibited from responding to a thread? I didn't see any such rule when I joined up. Was there an attempt to "promote" myself? I must have missed it. Exactly what benefit do you think might come to me? Didja really read what was written about Roma by her owner? http://loucastle.com/roma.htm Jen wrote, Jen tried many tools before coming to the Ecollar. Simon http://loucastle.com/simon.htm had been brought into the shelter on a Monday and because his problem was so severe was going to be PTS on Friday. Nothing would have given results as quickly as did the Ecollar. The trainer who was there knew that and so he turned to the Ecollar. His use before that time was minimal. He'd used many of the so-called "kinder, gentler methods" and knew that there wasn't time for them to work. Pinnalce now addresses Poodlesplus Quite true. Any tool can be misused. Any tool can be abused. No tool is idiot proof to the right idiot. In this, the Ecollar is no different than any other tool. Can you please name a tool that can't be "misused?" I can't think of a single one. I was speaking to a woman recently who attended a clicker training session with her dog. These are her words...... there were 8 or so people in the class and while the trainer had split the class in two and sent the first half off to practise while the other half were being shown what to do, there was one man in the class that just kept treating and treating and treating his dog and the trainer did not see this because the trainer was dealing with the other half of the class. After a few years of this the dog was quite overweight and died of heart failure after living a miserable life because he was so fat and could barely move. Part of the problem with this question is that you have no idea of how I use the Ecollar. You imagine that it's used when the dog does not comply with a command and that the button is pressed to "correct" that lack of compliance. That's not what I do and I'd suggest that you try reading just one protocol. I'd suggest the recall. http://loucastle.com/recall.htm The direct response to your question is "go back to the basics." But unless you understand those basics, you won't know what I mean.

I've not found anything wrong with erny's reply. So without clarification from you, this statement is simply worthless. No one has "all the time in the world" but still we manage to find the time to contribute. If you don't want to, that's fine but I'd suggest that with nothing to back up your statements, that no one place much credibility in them. Erny's reply is correct from the standpoint of electricity, Ecollars and dog training as well. Internal impedance has little, if anything to do with this topic. What IS important is what's going on externally, at the contact points. That's easily measured and when the impedance of the dog's skin is taken into account (100 ohms is a generally accepted figure) the voltage that's emitted varies from about 3 to about 200, depending on the Ecollar setting. I disagree. You're the one who's making "silly" comments and you're the one who has not backed any of them up. Again, fine by me. But little that you said is pertinent. Nothing that you said was backed up by a study or by anything at all. Therefore no one should believe it as it applies to an Ecollar being used to train a dog.

Usually when one quotes someone else, it's customary to post the source for their information. Poodlesplus wrote: I find the lack of available technical data interesting, and it makes sane rational consumer choices hard to make. The technical data is available to anyone who wants to do the research. But it will make little sense and no difference to consumers. Poodlesplus wrote: The normal open circuit voltage, current, vary enormously between manufacturers. Not really. Amperage is measured in milliamps. Voltage ranges from 3 to about 200, depending on the setting of the collar. The setting is more of a determinant than the brand. Poodlesplus wrote: I have no idea why collars are called e collars rather than shock collars. It seems like a bit of marketing to me. The "E" in Ecollar stands for "Electric." It's just a euphemism. Poodlesplus wrote: "Low stim" is no magic either, it is just a lower setting that you might or might not use on your dog. There is no such thing as magic in training an animal. But there are significant differences that occur when low level stim is used than when high levels of stim are used. Poodlesplus wrote: The level of percieved shock is extremely variable, and needs to be adjusted according to the humidity, dog's excercise level, callous formation around the shock application sites to name just a few variables. None of these variables need to be taken into account by the user. One simply starts with the collar set at zero and slowly turns it up until the dog shows some sign that he feels the stim. Poodlesplus wrote: I.E think of another paralell adversive that could produce the same change in behavior and make your decisons accordingly. What "parallel aversive" could produce the same change in behavior as an Ecollar? Poodlesplus wrote: I sometimes suggest that if it stops a chronic behaviour in a dog, it might be equivalent to knocking a "mature age" male of his bar stool while drinking an ale. I'd guess by this analogy that you've never used an Ecollar, especially as I advocate, with low level stim. But I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong. Have you ever used an Ecollar? Ever used one with modern methods? Ever seen one? Ever felt the stim from one? Poodlesplus wrote: e collars can generally be used in two modes, as a positive punisher, and as negative reinforcement. The two "modes" can't be separated. When the button is pressed, +P happens. When it's released –R happens. Poodlesplus wrote: Here are some inaccuracies that come up time and time again "The current goes from one terminal to the next " no it doesn't, it goes everywhere!!! The basic realtionship is that I=V/R. well the R changes gradually as you draw arcs away from the terminals. Electricity follows the path of least resistance. That is going to be between the two contact points. At very high levels it's going to spread out but only minimally, fractions of an inch at most. From an Ecollar worn on the dog's neck it's NOT going to his brain or his heart. This is easily shown by putting the Ecollar on yourself. At low levels it will only be felt where the contact points touch the skin. At the highest levels, because more nerves are enervated, you will feel the muscles twitching near the "box." Poodlesplus wrote: Can it involve the brain? I don't know. It depends on what the restivity of a path through the brain is compared to a path through muscle and skin tissue. If you worked out something that put one contact point on one side of the head and the other contact point on the other side of the head then perhaps this could occur. But used as it comes out of the box, it can not involve the brain. If you're going to make outlandish scare statements like this, you should provide citations to support them. Poodlesplus wrote: "Some how electric fences give a worse kind of shock because the dog is standing on "Mother earth", and the shock travels through the central nervous system" No, just not true. What happens is that the path of the shock is the least resistance path. This is generally through muscle tissue. Again, if you expect anyone to believe this, a citation will be necessary. In the case of a stim from an electrified fence the charge will travel from the point of contact with the dog to the whatever he's standing on. As to whether it travels through the CNS or the musculature system will depend on what offers the path of least resistance. Poodlesplus wrote: It is interesting to note that if a dog makes contact with an electric fence, a couple of different things do happen. The first is that generally the shock path is of much higher resistance than an e collar becuase of the pads of the paws.(They are generally hard and calloused) Not really pertinent. Many readers will have had the experience of touching an electrified fence. Many will have had the experience of feeling the stim from an Ecollar. There's really no comparison and anyone who has felt both will have no problem deciding which he'd rather feel again. An Ecollar set on low emits 0.000005 Joules. An abdominal energizer, one of those passive stomach exercisers, emits 0.914 joules, almost 183,000 times more powerful. An electric fence charger emits 3.2 Joules, 640,000 times more powerful. A defibrillator emits 360 Joules, 72,000,000 times more powerful. Ecollars are best used where the dog first feels the stim at the lowest levels. Poodlesplus wrote: thirdly the dog controls the release of the shock from the fence by moving. A dog trained with an Ecollar also controls the stim by complying with the command. Poodlesplus wrote: "TEMS machines and e collars are vaery similar in application, in fact I can barely feel a tems machine or similar such words" The machine is a TENS, not a TEMS. It stands for Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulator Poodlesplus wrote: TEMS machines give a "shock" along a nerve path so that the percieved pain along that path is reduced. It is similar to biting your finger to reduce the percieved pain elsewhere. TENS machines are used like this during childbirth, to distract the mother from the pain of that birth. But they're also used, on lower settings, to stimulate nerves. They're used to help alleviate pain from nerve damage due to injuries. Poodlesplus wrote: Of course you have complete controllability over the level of the applied shock And the trainer has "complete controllability over the level of the applied" stim when using an Ecollar. Poodlesplus wrote: And that brings me to three key issues. It is very easy to give an e collar shock to a dog. It is very easy to get the timing wrong, and hence the dog loses controllability. Like any adversive, it can have unintended side effects. Timing with an Ecollar is no more or less important than with any other type of dog training tool. The reality is that no one, not the best of trainers, has perfect timing all the time. Even the best trainer can only work for so long, usually a matter of minutes, before his concentration falls off and his “perfect timing” becomes merely “very good timing.” If you have perfect timing, training progresses VERY quickly. If you have good timing, training takes a little longer. If you have so–so timing training takes longer still. If you have HORRIBLE timing, either no training occurs or the wrong training effect occurs. Just about anyone who can train a dog with a leash and collar can use an Ecollar effectively. Even many who aren't coordinated enough to give a correction can learn to use an Ecollar effectively. If you have HORRIBLE timing, sell your dog and get a goldfish. Timing isn't important with them. Poodlesplus wrote: Second IMHO it is hypercritical to use other adversives such as chokers and condemm e collars. There is nothing magic or unmagic about them . Did someone do this? One main advantage is that an Ecollar can't do any physical damage. That's not the case with the choke chain. Poodlesplus wrote: Third, I am not a great fan of any adversive, I am a great fan of tons of R+, but would in very limited circumstances use them as a last resort. I'm a great fan of +R too. But it doesn't give great reliability with highly driven dogs. It's good that you're open minded enough to consider the use of an Ecollar when other methods have failed. Some aren't. I know quite a few people who would rather that a dog be PTS rather than to have an Ecollar used to rehab him. Poodlesplus wrote: What I have said technically is correct, and I have used correct language, stating what are facts and what are not. I disagree and challenge you to bring forth the studies and/or science that supports it. Poodlesplus wrote: It would be great if others could do the same. I have no desire to take part in a politician type battle, just a sane calm discussion based on fact. Fine by me; but since you've failed to provide any support of any kind for your statements they shouldn't be taken as facts.

I find it amazing that people are still making statements like this. It's even more surprising since this person has claimed that she's "done research" on Ecollars. In any case here are two stories about fearful-aggressive dogs being rehabilitated with the Ecollar. Both dogs would have been PTS if it were not for the Ecollar. http://loucastle.com/roma.htm http://loucastle.com/simon.htm All that was done with both dogs was that the recall and the sit were trained with an Ecollar.

It doesn't seem to work on true aggression as in a "bully" dog. (That's not a bull breed, it's one that must dominate every other dog in his environment.) It works on fear based aggression and fortunately that's the most common kind of aggression. Most aggression is based on a "stay away from me" mindset. It occurs when the "other dog" gets too close and the fearful dog thinks that he must give a "pre-emptive strike" to keep the other dog from harming him. Many people use an Ecollar in a way that can make the problem much worse. They press the button, usually at a fairly high level of stim, when the dogs shows aggression towards other dogs. They think that they're punishing the aggression. Usually they're punishing the display of aggression, not the aggression itself. And so the dog stops giving the display of aggression; the barking, the lunging, the lip curling, the "showing hair." The problem here is now that this has been done, you can't tell if the dog is feeling aggression and so you may get a dog that goes from a completely calm appearance to murder, without warning. I've seen this result a number of times and heard of it happening many more times. Stopping fear-aggression works best if the Crittering protocol and two OB movements, the recall and the sit are taught. There are two articles I suggest you read, both deal with aggressive dogs who's lives were threatened by their fear-based aggression. Both of whom were saved by dedicated people (neither of whom had much prior experience) with the Ecollar. http://loucastle.com/roma.htm and http://loucastle.com/simon.htm

Well said Steve. Thanks for the kind words. Good points. This makes it possible to use on dogs that need prey drive in other areas of their work, such as detector dogs, SAR dog and police patrol dogs. I originally devised the protocol to stop police dogs from chasing cats during urban searches. Later it was applied to SAR dogs to stop them from chasing game during searches and found out by accident that it worked for stopping some types of dog-to-dog aggression.

The head turns happens before the reward get "potent." It happens while the reward is very mild. The training is best done over the course of three days with a "refresher" done about a week later. By that time the dog is habituated to turning his head away from the prey animal. One SAR worker told me that after she'd done the protocol her dog, who used to chase deer, walked up on a deer who had frozen, instead of bolting. The dog nearly stepped on the deer before he ran. The dog watched him run off and then went back to work. By the time he's put back into a situation where chasing might occur, he's habituated to turning his head away. The "huge reward" never comes because as soon as the "pleasure of the chase" begins to rise, it's over-ridden by the stim. It never rises to a high enough level to make it worthwhile for the dog to chase.

No need, you got it perfectly. What a great analogy. Please consider it stolen!

I agree with your points before this one Tony. But the timing isn't any more or less critical than it is with any other method or tool that's used in dog training; especially if my protocol is used. If you're doing aversion training (using high levels of stim to stop a dog from doing something) I'll agree, that timing can be critical. But using low level stim it's not as critical. If one has good enough timing to use treats or leash corrections to train with, one has good enough timing to use the Ecollar as I advocate. If one has perfect timing (Very rare, even among professionals) learning happens very quickly. If one has only "good timing" learning takes more repetitions. If one has horrible timing, for example, more than four seconds behind the behavior, get a gold fish.

The desensitization doesn't work because it doesn't address the self-rewarding nature of chasing stock. It merely reinforces not chasing. That doesn't stop the chasing. And when the treats aren't present, the fun of the chase is. I think that the problem here is that you're thinking of the stim as used as a punishment to stop the chasing and since it's of such a low level, how can it work? The answer is that it's not used to punish the chasing. It's used to teach the dog that when he feels the first urges to chase, as shown by "the look" he has to turn his head away to make the stim stop. The dog can't chase something he can't look at. It's not merely that the dog is taught an incompatible behavior (such as teaching a dog to sit to stop him from jumping up on people) it's that chasing simply can't be done if the dog can't look at the prey animal. The excitement that the chase brings starts when he sees the stock; but then he turns his head away, and the interest in chasing disappears.

No I don't. I recommend that the protocol be run every other day for three days and that a refresher be done a week later. Most people find that's all they need. The protocol isn't perfect. I've found that many dogs will generalize to animals in the same size range as the one that's used in the training. Only one dog generalized to all prey animals in the 200 or so that I've done this with. Some dogs need to be "crittered" off every animal that they want to chase. That's a nuisance but only difficult, not impossible.

They're illegal in a few states, not most. In at least one, all it takes to use an Ecollar is a letter from a vet. I'm told that they're easy to get. This makes use of reinforcement of the desired behavior and extinction of the undesired behavior. Extinction doesn't work if the behavior is self rewarding, and in this case it is. Only punishment tells a dog, "Don't do that again."

The most common way that an Ecollar is used for this problem is to simply wait until the dog is in full chase and then hit the button with it set on a fairly high (if not the highest available) level of stim. This usually works but sometimes problems arise. The first problem is that the dog doesn't know what's causing the pain and so he powers through it. If this occurs he may never stop chasing. The second problem is that he associates the pain with being away from you instead of chasing the stock. If this occurs he may never leave your side again. Another problem is that he may become afraid of the stock pen and will never go there again. Another problem is that he may associate the pain with the stock and will become even more aggressive towards them. I suggest that you read this protocol and follow it. It's never failed to stop this behavior for me and none of the problems described happen with it. After it's done the dog simply acknowledges the presence of the prey animal and doesn't chase them. http://loucastle.com/critter4.htm There's nothing wrong with getting a trainer to help with this stuff. But many people have used the articles on my site to train their dog without any other help and are completely satisfied.

Earlier I wrote, It seems to me that if one fails to read the instructions, one has lost any right to complain if the device doesn't work as expected.

The latest and greatest from Dogtra is the 1700 NCP. It has 127 levels but the big news is that it has an LCD readout of the level. It's similar in size and shape to the others in the "Pro" series and has the same sort of dial on top. But on the front of the transmitter there's the LCD that's backlit with a cool blue light that's easily seen at night. The light on the dial comes on when the level is changed, each time a button is pressed or when the on-off switch is quickly pressed and released. This creates some problem for LE but they're easily overcome. I've been using it for nearly a year now and it's replaced all my other units for regular use. As to the original post regarding "Rufus" the photos are real but much of the situation is off base. The collar in use, which hasn't been named as to the brand, was an invisible fence; a member of the Ecollar family but not an Ecollar. The problem came up because the owner didn't bother reading the manual that clearly says not to get it wet. He left the dog out in the rain, the collar got wet and the batteries leaked as they often do when they get wet. The injuries that Rufus suffered were from chemical burns, not from the Ecollar stim. The chemicals that batteries release when they leak are very caustic. Many will have had the experience of having to throw away flashlights when the batteries leaked because they were so badly damaged. No Ecollar available in the US puts out enough current to cause any damage. Damage can result from "pressure necrosis." Because the circulation is impaired under the contact points, if the collar is on too tight to for too long, the skin can actually die. That's why it's recommended that the Ecollar not be left on for more than 8-10 hours and that it be moved around every couple of hours. I've spoken to the vet who treated Rufus. In a letter to his owner she said that the damage was "electrical burns" but she now realizes that she couldn't tell the difference between electrical and chemical burns without a more thorough examination. She now doesn't think that the burns were electrical in nature and she recommends Ecollars for dogs that she thinks will benefit from their use.

Sorry to wander in so late on this topic. I've been using Ecollars for nearly 20 years now. I've taught hundreds of people to use them correctly. I'm one of those people who uses and advocates using the tool at the lowest possible level of stim that works, where the dog first feels it. I've written several articles that will help the complete novice learn to use the tool correctly. www.loucastle.com