Staranais

I don't see the advantage of teaching a formal retrieve by the force retrieve method, not when compared to teaching it with something like the clicker method. Can you explain what the advantages are? In general, I'm not a fan of using corrections on a dog in the learning phase, not until the dog understands what he's meant to be doing. But to be fair, I have never seen anyone use a forced retrieve.

I must admit that is the main use I can think of for a head collar, the idea of controlling the dog's head, and therefore it's focus. I remember when I first started taking my dog aggressive staffy boy to training school, the only way I could get his focus off other dogs when they caught his attention was physically picking him up and turning him around to break his line of sight - using a halti to turn his head towards me might have been easier, I guess! Perhaps I could even have put that headturn on cue. Hind sight is 20/20! In any case, I personally haven't been that impressed with the headcollar for a number of reasons (primarily the way that most dogs seem to dislike wearing them, and the fact that it's almost impossible to keep a dog from becoming "collar smart" with a headcollar on). And I do agree that, like choke chains, most people do seem to merely use them for management. All I'm saying is that I don't see why you couldn't use them for training in certain circumstances. I think that most training tools (including extending leashes!) can be used for training or for management, it depends more on the intent of the user than on the tool. I don't agree with the idea that either, but it's an argument I've heard quite often from clicker type trainers - the idea that if the dog is being physically assisted or controlled by the trainer, it just isn't learning. Perhaps it holds true for dogs with certain temperaments? I really don't know, and it's probably off topic - sorry!

For the first question, I'm not sure. I think he knows the difference between the leashes by the way they look or maybe the way they smell, just like he recognises most of the other equipment I own for him on sight - but I can't claim to know exactly what's going on in his head, and it's possible that he could be reacting to the way I handle the leashes. For the second, he actually had very good loose leash manners which I'd previously trained, and then I had to reteach him that it was OK to pull on the extender leash (we tried using a long line, but it kept tangling round my feet, hence getting the extender). So (please correct me if I'm wrong), you think that a headcollar is a management tool since training is basically a process of allowing the dog to make choices and providing consequences for those choices, and because the headcollar doesn't allow the dog the chance to be wrong, it therefore prevents much true training from taking place? Is that right? That's interesting, particularly because it's very similar to an argument I've heard a few times from clicker trainers - they believe that physically guiding a dog into position doesn't teach the dog anything, whereas keeping your hands off the dog and requiring him to think for himself how to earn the reward results in much more learning occuring. Sorry Myszka, we've hijacked your thread.

Hi Erny! I have an extender leash, which I used with my dog while jogging. He was taught that pulling was OK on the extender leash, and was not OK on any other type of leash. So for the period of me teaching him that, wasn't the extender leash a training tool? And with a headcollar, are you saying that it's a management tool not a training tool because the eventual aim of the trainer is to wean the dog off it? In that case, isn't that the same for pinch collars and check chains, since most people do want to wean off these eventually too? Or are you calling it a management tool simply because most people do use them as management tools (just like many people use check chains as management tools for the entire life of their dog), even though you can train with them if you want to? Or am I competely misunderstanding your point? (can't believe I'm arguing in favour of extending leashes and headcollars! )

I once heard a story about a greyhound that broke its neck wearing a headcollar, while on a long extending leash. It apparently took off after something and hit the end of the leash at full speed - snap! Headcollars and extending leashes (or long lines) are training tools that definately don't mix well, IMO. Just too risky for the dog.

But why should they have to perpetually stick up for themselves? It's always a case of uninformed newbies coming onto the forum and personally insulting established members for using tools that the newbies don't understand and haven't experienced. I'm sure it must get a bit old for the professional trainers, answering the same misplaced insults again and again. Noone's saying that newbies can't ask questions about different tools, or state their informed opinions about them, or write about why they choose not to use them on their dogs - just as long as it's done without insulting the people who do choose to use them. I for one am really grateful for the professionals who share their experience and knowledge for free on this forum. I think this was a great thread, Rom.

Rom, they should make this a sticky. Way too many people come onto this forum to criticise tools that they think look nasty but that they have no personal experience with.

You're right Erny, it's a self fulfilling prophesy. They want to stop pitbull owners obedience training their dogs because their dogs are apparently too dangerous. Then they will get to point to all the untrained, unsocialised pitbulls out there as proof that pitbulls really are dangerous dogs. I shudder to think this woman calls herself a dog trainer! I wouldn't let her near my dog for the world.

You mean train the dog with no tools? No correction collars, no headcollars, no leashes, no longlines, no toys, no clickers, no food treats? I only wish I could do that! Otherwise I really don't understand the point of your question. Most people who use prong collars do so in order to train their dog. Most have the eventual goal of weaning back onto a flat collar (or no collar). Just like most clicker users don't want to have to click a command forever, most prong collar users want to achieve offleash reliability.

The good thing about a prong was that it is limited slip, making it much safer than a regular choke chain, since it can't constrict fully. So I don't really see how the dog could have injured itself on a prong collar, unless the trainer was being abusively harsh with his corrections? It's perfectly possible to injure a dog with any kind of collar if you use it abusively enough. That problem is in the user, not the tool.

Now I'm feeling very intrigued!

Well, it said that the malfunction of the collar caused "first, second and third degree chemical and thermal burns". I wasn't sure whether "thermal burns" meant that the collar burned the dog, or if those can happen via battery acid? You're right that the vet letter definately does mention battery acid burns, though.

So it was the battery not the collar? Interesting, thanks. Do you know the brand of collar, or have any other details about that battery malfunction? (no rush, I know you're busy!)

Hi Erny! I'm sceptical too, and I too wondered if the photo was doctored. I also wondered if perhaps either the injury was in fact genuine but wasn't caused by an ecollar, or whether the ecollar malfunctioned because it was misused? I find it hard to believe that a properly used ecollar could cause that type of injury. But I'm kind of hoping someone will have some concrete proof either way.

I've got a question for any of the ecollar gurus on the forum. I've always been led to believe that ecollars are harmless unless misused or abused, and that they cannot cause burns or other physical injury. On that note, has anyone seen this photo before (page 9)? http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.uk/pdf/...hockcollars.pdf And apparently the same case is also discussed in this article/vet letter: http://members.aol.com/ukaim/ Is it genuine? Was it really caused by a malfunctioning ecollar? If it is genuine, does anyone know the circumstances? Thanks!

I'll probably be in the minority here, but I really didn't particularly like Jan Fennell's books. I didn't think they were bad or that they gave harmful advice, I just thought that they were too simplistic and way overhyped. To me, she seemed like a "one trick pony". She seemed to ascribe every problem behaviour to dominance problems, and seemed to think that most if not all canine behavioural problems could be cured if only the owner was dominant enough. In my experience, that's just not true. It's important to be a good leader to your dog, but I do think that it's overly simplistic to claim that all behavioural problems are caused by the dog owner being too weak. I haven't been to her seminar though, just read her books. So perhaps my opinion would change if I went to her seminars? I'm not sure. Maxspots, I recall her saying a few minor disparaging things about the nature of pitbulls and similar breeds in one of her books, but I can't remember which book it was off the top of my head. At the time I wondered if they were possibly a reflection of her own lack of achievements as a trainer - i.e. like Nekhbet said, perhaps she's only used to dealing with low drive pet dogs, and she finds it hard to deal with any dog with a strong personality, so she prefers to label them "savage" or "hard to train fully"? Anyway, I did notice the comments, and they did strike me as peculiar.

I haven't seen this method before, and I'd be concerned that the vinegar might sting the dog's eyes? What I have seen is people using water in a squirt bottle to punish bad behaviour, which works by giving the dog a bit of a fright. I personally would be a little concerned that this strategy would negatively affect the SBTs behaviour towards other dogs, especially if your friend's timing isn't great. The SBT could easily get the impression that the other dogs were causing the squirt just by being present, which could make him wary or aggressive towards other dogs. A dog aggressive SBT is not fun to handle (believe me, I know!) So no, I wouldn't let someone do this to my dog, even just with water, unless I was very sure they knew what they were doing. Have they tried taking the SBT a little further away from the other dog, so he's not so hyped up and excited, then praising and rewarding him for good behaviour?

But what's the point of practicing in a situation where you can't reward and/or correct your dog? That just seems counterproductive to me.

Nope, about 10 min for us normally, short attention spans here. About the example given though, I'm not sure that I'd like to see a new student in a class correcting their dog physically at all, except perhaps if they were all working on loose leash walking. When you're starting to train a dog, the dog doesn't know what behaviour you want, so shouldn't be physically corrected for failing to offer it. IMO correcting a dog who is merely confused is unfair and ineffective. Your job as a trainer of a new job is to motivate the dog to give you his attention, and show him what you want him to do. Correction is best saved for later, when the dog fully understands what you want. So yes, I'd definately say a class of beginners who were correcting their dogs over and over with a correction collar would be misusing the tool. They should motivate their dogs further with better rewards, or else start working in a less distracting environment (smaller classes or dogs further apart), instead of nagging the dogs. Just my 2 cents.

Doesn't make it a kind or effective way to train, though, huh? If a trainer was continually popping a dog with a correction collar and having no impact on the dog (or having an unwanted impact), then I'd personally call that misuse of the tool.

If you're correcting your dog 10 or 20 times in a training session, I think you're probably doing something wrong. If I found myself needing to correct that often, I'd want to take a break and consider why it was happening. For example, perhaps: a) my dog was confused, and I should make the exercise easier for him instead of correcting him. or b) the corrections I am using are just way too soft to make an impact on the dog.

That's what I was thinking - I read somewhere that if you can't get your dog back into drive after a correction (whether you're in food drive, pack drive, prey drive, whatever), then your correction was way too hard. I was also thinking that maybe your dog is confused about why he is getting corrected, and doesn't know how to avoid the correction. I don't think any trainer here would recommend that you correct your dog for a mistake during training, not if the dog was genuinely trying to complete the exercise. All that would give you would be an upset or scared dog. Edited to add - I'm not saying that you should correct your dog if you don't want to or don't need to, I'm just trying to suggest a few reasons why you might have got the reaction you did from your dog.

Depends how hard you yank it, I guess. I have put my prong on my arm many times and popped myself, to show people it doesn't actually hurt unless you give it one heck of a good yank. A light to medium pop is merely uncomfortable. Honest. You can certainly abuse a pinch collar by popping far too hard for the dog's temperament and hurting or scaring the dog. But then again, you can abuse any other correctional tool - even things as 'humane' as a flat buckle collar (e.g hanging a dog) or your voice (yelling scares the cr*p out of some dogs). Abuse is in the trainer, not the tool.

Nah, sounds perfectly normal to me. Most people who use prong collars also reward their dog for correct behaviour, and some of us certainly do use clickers or verbal bridges when we are teaching new behaviours. The purely positive school of thought doesn't have a monopoly on clickers or bridges.

She's not joking. I've talked to people who have said to my face that they'd rather put a dog to sleep than use an e-collar on them. I've also talked to positive trainers who think that if you can't control any particular dog through positive methods alone, then that just shows you shouldn't own the dog, and you should either give him away or PTS. Sad, but true. Luckily, in my experience, these kind of fanatics are few and far between. Most positive trainers that I have met are actually reasonably open minded and quite nice people!