Treating Anxiety/fear Aggression

[Kelpie-i]

Pinnacle dts, you sound exactly as I did many, many years ago when I knew nothing about e-collars and their workings. I too referred to them as "shock" collars and often made statements about dogs being "fried" etc etc. I knew no better and made a very incorrect assumption and judgement on something I hadn't bother to research. My curiosity got the better of me and I then began to explore the e-collar's proper usage in today's world and its successes. Since then, I have come to respect the e-collar for the tool it is and have seen how handy it be for serious problems like stock chasing.

I have witnessed a small success from your short time on DOL however, and that is that you have at least commenced terming it "e-collar" as opposed to "shock" collar. This is progress!!!

[Staranais]

Pinnacle dts, you sound exactly as I did many, many years ago when I knew nothing about e-collars and their workings. I too referred to them as "shock" collars and often made statements about dogs being "fried" etc etc. :p

IMO that's kind of similar to people who dislike prong collars, or choke chains, or haltis, so imply that every use of them is abusive and unnecessary. Most change their minds at least somewhat after seeing the tools applied properly and appropriately.

Personally, I hated haltis for years after seeing them abused at my first obedience school (dogs on haltis were allowed to lunge and get their necks wrenched, haltis were slapped on dogs who then panicked or shut down, all by people who called themselves "positive" ). I've since come to talk to people who actually use these tools appropriately, and they're not as bad as I thought. Still wouldn't be my first choice of tool for most situations or most dogs, not by a long shot, but I've come to realise they can be handy sometimes when introduced and used appropriately.

I think a lot of people go through the same type of thing with modern e-collars - they've heard of shock collar abuse in the past, or even seen it, and won't change their mind about the tool until they see one used appropriately and usefully by an experienced professional.

As for me, there aren't many trainers that I would trust to use an e-collar on my own personal dog (K9Force and Erny are the only two who spring to mind right now!), but I have nothing against the tool per se, and definately see the advantage of being able to correct or interrupt a dog at a distance. I've felt the stim of a modern e-collar at every level, and doubt that thoughtful and judicious use of the collar would cause a dog any more stress than any other form of punishment or behavioural interrupter would.

Edited July 22, 2007 by Amhailte

[Sarah L]

post='1904523' date='21st Jul 2007 - 09:15 PM']Pinnacle dts, you sound exactly as I did many, many years ago when I knew nothing about e-collars and their workings. I too referred to them as "shock" collars and often made statements about dogs being "fried" etc etc. :p

Kelpie first quoted this Amhailte also used it.

Now really with the information I have given below do you really think I sounded like you when you first looked at E collars. If all you are arguing is terminology, then for those of you with the attitude of a dog who won't give up a bone, then here is something of higher value to make you change your mind. Sorry could not resist that Also sorry for the length of the post but is well worth the read. Especially for passive readers as Erny puts it.

Is the Electric Collar Cruel?The electric or electronic collar can't be cruel, it is an inanimate object. By "wait!" you say, "surely it is cruel to use the device on a dog. You are an awful and mean person for even thinking the e-collar might be OK."

Well, I'm not here to promote the e-collar. I don't use one, and I think that most people shouldn't go near one much less use one. Nevertheless I'm going to discuss it because I think examining the e-collar and your reaction to it is important. We make a lot of presumptions and assumptions in our lives. Mostly these are pretty harmless. Sometimes, however, they get in the way of truly thinking and when that happens we can fail to act in the least harmful way.

When discussing dogs the e-collar can be compared to chocolate. "Chocolate like an e-collar?" Yes. "Chocolate like an e-collar" The person using it never thinks they are doing any harm and the person opposed to it is always loudly opposed, and likely to toss around hot words like "cruel, thoughtless, stupid etc"

In tiny doses both are harmless, and both are appreciated by the dog. In larger doses both can be quite harmful. More important, however, is the process by which we decide that one is OK and the other is awful. I often hear "but my dog loves chocolate. I don't want to deprive him, and he has never gotten sick from it." You are, at that moment deciding what is appropriate for your dog based upon your experience and observations. So what are you thinking when the next person says "Well, I know a dog that died from eating chocolate." Most likely the first thing you are likely to do is start asking questions: "What kind of chocolate? How much? How large a dog? Was the dog particularly sensitive to chocolate?" You do this because your personal experience is at odds with what you are being told. In sharp contrast when someone says shocking a dog is OK you react in revulsion. You do not ask what the dog's reaction was, nor whether there are any indications at all that the dog has experienced the same distress as you would feel. You are content to rely on your feelings, entirely.

The reason the process of deciding is important is because what is OK for your dog should be evaluated based first upon the dog being a dog. Dogs view things from a dog's perspective. They don't pay attention to politics or rumour. They love things we hate and hate things we love. So pay attention to the dog, not to what you think the dog wants, thinks or feels. I have seen the collars used horribly. I've also seen them used to truly improve communication between dog and human. You might ask what can be done with such a collar that can't be done by other training methods. It is a good question. The answer is that the average pet owner simply does not need an electronic collar. There are two primary uses for the electronic collar. (a) aversion training and (b) high level distance work.

The picture most of us have in our mind when we think about the electronic collar is that nasty jolt of electricity we get if we stick our finger into an electrical socket. It frightens us. And that is exactly what happens when the collar is used for aversion. The collar level is set to scare the dog. Why would you want to scare the dog? Well it depends upon what risks your dog faces and what steps you believe least adversely affect quality of life to reduce those risks. For example: the collar is used to cause dogs to be afraid of rattlesnakes and to avoid them. The purpose is to prevent the dog from getting killed or injured by a rattlesnake. If you are going to allow the dog into areas where rattlesnakes might be then you will have to consider whether the stress of the aversion is worth possibly saving your dog's life. Of course you could just keep the dog out of areas with rattlesnakes. And that's what you should do, unless doing so adversely affects the dog's quality of life, or the dog's ability to keep its home. If the dog must encounter rattlesnakes then aversion should certainly be considered as less cruel than injury or death by rattlesnake.

What most people unfamiliar with electronic collars don't know is exactly how refined those collars have become. They can be very subtle. Although I've not used such a training collar on any of my dogs I have felt them. To my astonishment there are some settings I could barely feel. The trainer using the collar for distance work is going to look for the lowest level that gets the dog's attention. Used this way the dog is not frightened or distressed reason is that the dog feels what it feels, it does not have the view that electricity itself is scary.

They certainly can be used badly. The electronic collar is easy to abuse and the average dog owner shouldn't go near one. But I've learned enough about the collars, and watched enough dogs, to decide that they can be used without distressing the dogs. So when someone uses one I no longer simply judge them to be cruel. Instead I have to ask the questions (a) how is the dog reacting? (b) what is the purpose? © what are the alternatives? There was no name/date or scientific bases to this article it was someones view after watching the use of one not exactly testing one.

Electronic Training Devices: A Review of Current Literature

by Jo Jacques, CPDT, CPCT and Sandy Myers, CDBC. Spring 2007

Electronic Training Devices and How They Work

Remote collar,” “electronic collar, and “shock collar are terms used to describe

electronic training devices. Common variables of all of these devices include the level of shock

or stimulation, the quality of the equipment, and the person with the control device. 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. Some manufacturers have developed collars that have a wide range of

settings and the ability to administer various levels of electricity. High-quality collars

consistently produce a less unpleasant sensation when they are on a low to medium setting.

In the simplest terms, electrical stimulation can be categorized by levels: low, medium,

and high. Low-level electrical stimulation creates a tickle and tingle effect, mid-level electrical

stimulation enables the handler to annoy or startle, and high-level electrical stimulation is

Point 1 Factors to be considered

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. 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. 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,

Hammerschlag, & Langevin, 2005; Tagliabue, et al., 2001)

Point 2: Physiological Effects

To determine whether electronic training devices cause physical stress, it is necessary

to look at the animal’s physiological reaction to these training devices. By looking at scientific data,

we are better able to make an educational assessment. There are several studies cited below that

enable us to observe documented changes in heart rate and cortisol levels when electric shock is

being used. For the purposes of the following discussion, “stress” is defined as “a physiologic

condition in response to environmental or psychological pressures. These pressures are referred

to as stressors. This condition is accompanied by, but not limited to, elevation in corticosteroid

levels and may be accompanied by concurrent behavioral changes” (Marder & Voith, 1991).

Behavioral, saliva cortisol, and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs

(Beerda, B. (1998). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58, 365-381).

This full study can be found at www.iaabc.org this is not a link and you have to type the web address in.

The information above is the tip of the iceberg of my research. However I wonder how many of you even went this far in the beginning before you were convinced into using this tool. I am requesting you send to my e mail the research you have done on the subject. The problem I am having is finding scientific research for the benefits of using this tool as the only papers I can find are from the company's who make but will not send me there research or testing results or the people who use them hardly an unbiased view point don't you think.

One further point and please correct me if I am wrong. The sale of E collars in nsw are legal but the use of them is not. Is this correct?

Edited July 22, 2007 by pinnacle dts

[Lablover]

How about police dogs in certain parts of the world, who are conditioned to vibrating collars, on recalls for example, so the "naughty" people cannot hear vocal cues.

[Sarah L]

How about police dogs in certain parts of the world, who are conditioned to vibrating collars, on recalls for example, so the "naughty" people cannot hear vocal cues.

Lablover not sure what your question is, but you have got me intrigued. I actually don't know what a vibration collar is do tell us more. Are you sure this is not some kinky story you are going to tell us. I know professional handlers and their dogs can get quite lonley at times but I don't think we need to go that far

All jokes aside I am interested in what this collar is.

lablover you have made me laugh so many times and I mean this nice way. Keep up the good work I like a good sense of humour

[MonElite]

The collar level is set to scare the dog.

This is where you are WRONG. Start your research on that subject, I suggest.

[Kelpie-i]

QUOTE

The collar level is set to scare the dog.

This is where you are WRONG. Start your research on that subject, I suggest.

I've probably stuff up the double quote thing.....how many years on this forum and I still cannot double quote

Anyway back on track......Miszka, I think Pinnacle has quoted this from someone else, therefore the person who originally wrote this needs to check their facts.

[Erny]

Pinnacle However I wonder how many of you even went this far in the beginning before you were convinced into using this tool.

If you go to this link : E-collar research update you'll see there is a discussion here on DOL about some research that was conducted. Research material is referred to in there too. I've noticed that much research seems to involve the application of high level stims. It also seems to involve non-control comparisons where there is room for doubt as to the accuracy of the results found. I have read other materials in relation to e-collars. I have also watched video footage/DVD from oversea's trainers discussing the e-collar and its use in training and behaviour problem solving. Not all the materials were mine (eg borrowed books, DVD's etc.) A good part of my understanding in the use of the e-collar has also been as a result of many, many discussions (over time) with well respected dog trainers both in Vic and interstate, as well as having use of the e-collar tool demonstrated and explained (explanations pertaining to both the pro's and con's ie use and mis-use).

ETA: Wasn't going to ask this, but seeing as I've posted here again and that I'm curious .....

Pinnacle : Especially for passive readers as Erny puts it.

I don't know what you're referring to here? Where did I say "passive readers" ? What was it in reference to?

Edited July 22, 2007 by Erny

[Staranais]

The information above is the tip of the iceberg of my research. However I wonder how many of you even went this far in the beginning before you were convinced into using this tool. I am requesting you send to my e mail the research you have done on the subject. The problem I am having is finding scientific research for the benefits of using this tool as the only papers I can find are from the company's who make but will not send me there research or testing results or the people who use them hardly an unbiased view point don't you think.

I'd rather post here, since it could be of use to someone else (and if other people post their research then I might hopefully learn something new too.)

From what I've seen, there's simply not much research out there on the benefits or downsides of e-collars, I've only ever found a few relevant peer reviewed studies (just had another hunt round our vet library database, since it's a pretty interesting topic, but didn't turn anything new up since last time I checked. Hey, I'm a nerd! ;) ).

The lack of information's not unique to e-collars, I've found very few peer reviewed articles on prong collar or haltis either. Perhaps the funding just isn't out there for them to be conducted?

Anyway, like Erny says, most research on e-collars is pretty poor science: the collar is abused (used non-contingently or on confused dogs) or used at very high levels with the intent to cause pain. e.g a recent example:

Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 85, Issues 3-4, 25 March 2004, Pages 319-334

Matthijs B. H. Schilder and Joanne A. M. van der Borg

IMO if they repeated the same study but instead unexpectedly caused pain with choke chains or haltis they would probably get similar results, attributing the results to the fact the punisher was electric shock is poor science.

This is an older one I found which you may or may not have seen:

Behavioural differences between three breed groups of hunting dogs confronted with domestic sheep

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 72, Issue 2, 26 April 2001, Pages 115-129

Frank O. Christiansen, Morten Bakken and Bjarne O. Braastad

A more recently and slightly better study, IMO, is one that was recently quoted on DOL:

Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 105, Issue 4, July 2007, Pages 369-380

E. Schalke, J. Stichnoth, S. Ott and R. Jones-Baade

Abstract states that: "This led to the conclusion that animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators."

I doubt you'll find any peer reviewed studies proving that e-collars are beneficial though, because that's a pretty subjective and complicated thing to measure. I guess it would all depend on how we measured the "benefits" - will we measure whether there is less stress to the dog during learning, more rapid learning, best final result, better retention of learning, easier for a professional trainer to implement, easier for a dog owner to use, or what? And no matter which criteria we chose, I imagine that you'd probably find the e-collar to be beneficial, when used in certain ways, to teach some things, to some dogs, when compared to some tools - and not beneficial if used in other ways or on other dogs or to teach some other behaviours (like just about any other training tool).

If you have some worthwhile peer reviewed articles on e-collars, please share! They're hard to come by.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Amhailte

[Steve K9Pro]

K9, I started, once again, to reply to every single statement where you have misquoted me or purposely misunderstood me. In reality this is a complete waste of my time & I am sure yours as well, since I am sure you will continue to attempt to discredit me

K9: I a sorry you took it this way, I wasnt attempting to discredit you, rather point out that a certain part of the information you were giving was incorrect.

Let's just recap...this is what I wrote that apparently made you feel so threatened that you needed to launch into an attack of my credibility:

On the subject of electric shock collars or prong collars to cure dogs of problems, I personally have never had to use any of these with any of my clients to cure their dogs problems. I am currently researching with veterinary assistance the negatives versus positives use of such devices.

K9: I was not threatened by you nor did I attack you, you would know if I did...

The reason I entered this thread was to share my views on how I would treat a fear/anxiety issue.

K9: & proceeded to tell us what you would not do?

From memory, you agreed with what I wrote, but felt the need to defend your territory after I made passing reference to tools that it seems you use as part of your training methods.

k9: I will remind you again tha a tool is not part of a training method.. Its a tool..

I was not defending my territory at all, I called you on a part of what you wrote as it is clearly out of your experience & the information you gave is outdated...

One of the biggest assets I believe any dog trainer can have is the ability to understand (and not purposely misunderstand, as is the case here)

K9: So now your ass u ming what my intention was, it seems you have not got he greatest asset a dog trainer can have as claimed by you, the ability to understand...

what is being communicated to them by clients or peers.

K9: well your peers on this forum (other credible trainers) have been tryimng to educate you & you clearly have your one sided view. So it very much appears to me that you have ideals of how one should behave but cant adhere to them...

I can only hope that the way you communicate to your own clients is not similar to the defensive

K9: why dont you search what my clients write, they are all over this forum... wont take you long to find them...

and blatant attempt on your part to discredit another trainer whose views or methods you know nothing about.

K9: I know what you wrote regarding electrical impulses directed to the dogs brain, & this is completely wrong... The other section of your post I agreed upon which I believe was competely right. Interesting you say that I am the defensive one but your focussing on the negative...

I am sorry K9,

K9: No need to apologise...

but this shows an ignorance and close-minded attitude on your part.

K9: insults huh, wow.. what does that show? ;)

May I suggest until you know how another trainer works or what they have learned or believe, that you keep your misinformed beliefs to yourself.

K9: Of course you can suugest what you like, doesnt mean I have to listen... You wrote a reply that was incorrect, I reserved my replies to that information only.

It was you who implied

P: Some trainers have learned far more than what was taught to them in their original profession and I am proud to say I am one of them.

K9: which seems to be a suggestion that those who used prong collars & e collars had were not moving with the times....

Once more for the record, I will state that I am satisfied with my current methods of dog training which do not include the use of E Collars or prong collars. Why on earth should this be a problem for you or anyone else on DOL?

K9: It isnt, well done... Posting incorrect information is where my problem lays, I think I have told you that several times now...

Right now my clients are getting the results they are after and since this is my goal, I am happy and so are they. As far as explaining what my methods are…is that a question you (or any of us) could answer yourself in a few paragraphs?

K9: yes..

While I have some obvious basic rules & protocols I follow, my methods are tailored depending on the dog & owner I am facing each day.

K9: well tailored with in the restrictions of tools you will use...

Maybe if you have problems with my training and/or creditability we should address it in another thread so as not to hijack this one any further.

K9: Sure, start one up, I am there.. But for the last time (I hope) my issue was with the information you posted...

[Steve K9Pro]

V: Good on you for rising above the games people play when they are threatened. I guess I should have warned you when I invited you to this forum, that often newcomers are subjected to people ignoring all the beneficial information they give & "picking on" anything they can find to create conflict.

K9: No need to warn anyone of this, as it simply not true... In fact I did recognise the correct part of the original post..

You might warn people that some people have difficulty reading though...

There are no games played by me, I could care less how mnay posts people make or who they are, if the information is untrue, I will say so...

I will never feel threatened when the quality of information is at that level either...

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: Just to make some use of this lengthy thread for the OP in regards to certain tools..

Prong collars are known to increase the control some people have over their dogs, some people who have aggressive dogs become so nervous that they trigger the dogs defence drive just from their actions, offering these people an increased level of control allows them to relax & present themselves to the dog in these circumstances as the Alpha & the problem can be under control much quicker...

E collars used correctly can efficiently & emotionlessly convey to the dog the behaviour it is exhibiting is not acceptable, this can be done at distances over 1 mile (1600m) with many collars, this is not something you can replicate with any other tool...

This story tells how one such dog (of hundeds) was saved using the painless stimulation of a modern e collar..

How we saved Graces Life..

These are not tools that are required in every case, but they can help in many cases.

[Shakti]

Years ago I owned a VERY dog-aggressive Newfie (adopted as a rescue at 7 years of age) and went to many many trainers who ultimately advised that i have her euthanised as neither a Halti nor a check chain nor Purely positive training had any effect on her at all. (apart from in some cases to weken the bond between the dog and myself)

When I got my Leonberger (another very large dog) I was very aware that I needed her to be at all times calm and obedient and under complete control with total trust in me. (SWFs might get away with the odd run at another dog but seeing 40 or more kgs of huge, hairy Leo barrelling down towards your dog is pretty disturbing!)

I took her to K9 when she was barely 18 weeks old and she was already beginning to display fear aggressive tendencies. (note - many of the rest of her littermates have also developed fear-aggression and two have been euthanised) I began training her with an e-collar and I firmly believe that the combination of my increased confidence and my increased control over her have helped her develop into the sweet and willing dog she is today .

In my VERY limited personal experience often the owner's lack of confidence can exacerbate a situation of fear/aggression and the e-collar prevented that. The e-collar also prevented the emotional state of us both rising ie I was able to stay very calm and there was no shouting or jerking at her neck or tension and/or fear being communicated.

I think the e-collar can be an absolute Godsend for fearful dogs

ETA K9 was the actual Godsend as it was his advice and knowledge which helped me change the way I relate to my dogs and therefore changed how I train them but the e-collar was the tool that helped me implement that learning

Edited July 23, 2007 by Brooke

[Griffo]

As has probably been mentioned previously in this thread, curing a dog who is aggressive has no quick fix as their rehabilitation is an ongoing process. It does take patience, perseverance, hard work and there is often a lot of frustration involved. Although my dog is probably 85% better than what she was, her training is an ongoing process and i will be implementing K9 Forces' perscribed programs for the rest of her life. As soon as i slack off i notice it in her behaviour.

One of the first changes made to our relationship involved the use of the prong collar...that horrible tool of torture, as i have been told so many times by people on the street, and even by people on DOL :shakehead: .

The prong gave me back my control of Ellie instantly when i was walking her. I went away from my first lesson feeling very hopeful and enthusiastic. It allowed me to actually venture outside of our fence and gave me the confidence that i could control her and handle her - and i am not a small girl, but she is one very strong dog. This confidence seemed to spill over to her immediately as she began seeing me as her alpha who made decisions. It was not the prong alone which achieved this, but i can guarantee you, it helped a lot. It would have been pretty hard convincing her that i was the alpha when she was pulling me everywhere on our walks.

However it was just a tool i was given which aided me with her training programs...the prong wasn't the program. Not even close to it.

This is my "success" but mostly my hard work story...

CLICK HERE!!

Edited July 23, 2007 by Rachelle

[Lou Castle]

Whether you use the terminology of shock or e collar makes no difference it is still electoral impulses

being sent to the dogs brain that would not normally be produced by the dog. This was done away with in humans in the 1930's because it did not work in solving behavioural problems.

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.

[poodlesplus]

Some facts about e collars

Some facts about e collars

Here are some technical facts about e collars. They have taken me a while to collate. I find the lack of available technical data interesting, and it makes sane rational consumer choices hard to make.

E collars do provide a shock.to the dog. They provide a level high enough to be commonly regarded as a shock as definined in the wikipedia and the IEC. The normal open circuit voltage, current, vary enormously between manufacturers.I have no idea why collars are called e collars rather than shock collars. It seems like a bit of marketing to me.

"Low stim" is no magic either, it is just a lower setting that you might or might not use on your dog.

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.

A shock itself is not neccessarily a big deal, but it is important to realise that shocks are adversives. Dogs might or might not percieve them as a greater or less adversives than humans as they have no knowledge of electric shock. It is likely that a behavourist perspecitive might give some insight. I.E think of another paralell adversive that could produce the same change in behavior and make your decisons accordingly. 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.

e collars can generally be used in two modes, as a positive punisher, and as negative reinforcement.

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.

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.

"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. 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) So that the shock current per volts is much lower. The second is that the shock pulse is very narrow, and the dog has plenty of "let go" time, and thirdly the dog controls the release of the shock from the fence by moving. It is generallaly apparent to the dog where the shock comes from.

"TEMS machines and e collars are vaery similar in application, in fact I can barely feel a tems machine or similar such words"

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. Of course you have complete controllability over the level of the applied shock

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.

Second IMHO it is hypercritical to use other adversives such as chokers and condemm e collars. There is nothing magic or unmagic about them .

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. To contrast this, I can never imagine a situation where i would feel that active use of a choker was a great idea.

I will leave it to others to argue about whether using e collars is a good idea for aggression etc. It is an issue that has not affected me much at all. I have not done any research on it so I will keep my mouth closed on this one.

I really don't want to comment any further on e collars. What I have said technically is correct, and I have used correct language, stating what are facts and what are not.

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.

[Erny]

Firstly, I'm no electrician and have scant knowledge on the technicalities of electricity and neither to the 'jargon' used in relation to associated terms. So the following responses to part of your post I have taken as direct quotes from Stephen Lindsay's "Applied Dog Behaviour and Training" Volume 3.

Because there are so many quotes I have highlighted references to Poodlesplus' statements in RED.

Quotes taken from Stephen Lindsay's book are highlighted in BLUE.

And mine are in BLACK.

E collars do provide a shock.to the dog. They provide a level high enough to be commonly regarded as a shock as definined in the wikipedia and the IEC. ... I have no idea why collars are called e collars rather than shock collars. It seems like a bit of marketing to me.

Erny : First, an exerpt from his aforementioned book in some basic explanation of terminology : SL : "Specifically, the term "electrical stimulus" (or stim) "has been selected to replace the word shock. ... There are several reasons for this decision. First, at low levels, the term shock is hardly fitting to describe the effects produced by electronic training collars, since there is virtually no effect beyond a pulsing tingling or tickling sensation on the surface of the skin. Second, the word shock is loaded with biased connotations, images of convulsive spasms and burns, and implications associated with extreme physical pain, emotional trauma, physiological collapse, and laboratory abuses."

PP : The normal open circuit voltage, current, vary enormously between manufacturers.

SL : "Because e-collars are designed to limit arcing, both electrodes of the stimulator need to make close contact with the skin to establish a closed circuit."

Erny : It would seem from this then, that an open circuit would be achieved only when the collar is fitted incorrectly, and I would catagorise this occurrence as "mis-use" of the tool in question.

SL : "When discussing the effects of ES, some care should be exercised not to confuse electrical categories or phenomena. A common error is to equate voltage with current. Electrical potential or voltage is relative and depends on the electromotive difference between two points, whereas current refers to the amount of electrical charge or amperes flowing between those points over some period."

Erny : I don't think I could begin to explain in layman's terms the correlation and effect of voltage as to current so I won't begin. But it does appear from the above that there is more to the value of "voltage" than what the ordinary person would first think and that "current" often is not even considered by many when debating or considering the real effect/affect of the e-collar. Stephen also writes about "pulse" and "waveform" which also has a bearing in the energy that makes up the "stim".

PP : "Low stim" is no magic either, it is just a lower setting that you might or might not use on your dog.

Erny : I don't think anyone claimed "low stim" as magic ..... you're right, it is as it says. But for those unfamiliar it does to imagine "low stims" as often barely detectable and might be as mild as to cause the dog to blink. The debate in relation to e-collars, apart from them not being the treacherous tool some might otherwise think, is that used properly (as ALL equipment and tools - both physical and emotionally applied should be) it can be seen as being kinder to the dog both in a physical and emotional sense compared with other tools and I would argue, even some methodologies particularly favoured by "purely positive" (loose term) trainers in lieu of P+ by way of physical means.

PP : 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.

Erny : This is why knowing the dog's 'working level' of stim is important, as well as whether the coat is wet etc. etc.

PP : A shock itself is not neccessarily a big deal, but it is important to realise that shocks are adversives. Dogs might or might not percieve them as a greater or less adversives than humans as they have no knowledge of electric shock.

Erny : This was an interesting thought. But then I don't think I was unduley distressed as a very young child when I received my first ever electric "shock" when closing a car door one day. Can't say I understood "electric shocks" at that very early age and whilst I might have been more surprised by it than I would be now, to my knowledge it has not left me with any permanent 'mis-givings'. Also not forgetting the principals of learning which are simply about consequences in correllation with the behaviour occuring immediately beforehand.

PP : It is likely that a behavourist perspecitive might give some insight. I.E think of another paralell adversive that could produce the same change in behavior and make your decisons accordingly. 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.

Erny : Actually, the e-collar has the great advantage of exactly the opposite. IE Used properly, the dog will pair the e-collar stim directly to the behaviour being exhibited at the time of delivery, rather than pairing the same to the human. Learning is therefore very quick and there is less liklihood of possible break-down of the bond between dog and handler. If someone knocked me (btw, I'm not a 'male' and wish I could ascribe to not being of a "mature age" :D) off my bar stool, I would not correlate it with me drinking an ale or sitting on the stool, but I would correlate it with the person who knocked me. The other advantage of the e-collar stim compared with other traditional punishments is that the force of the latter may be poorly regulated and that its timing can be even more difficult to establish.

PP : 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.

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.

SL : "... Kouwenhoven and Milnor (1958) demonstrated that exremely brief low-energy (-.0001 to 2.4J) high voltage shocks of 40,000 V in anestheetised dogs could not induce ventricular fibrillation, cardiac arrest, or "any other untoward effect" ". (If I am understanding what is written, I think 2.4J is twice the amount of peak 'voltage' from the e-collar, but don't quote me on that, because I'm confused by all this e-speak :D.)

PP : "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" ... 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) So that the shock current per volts is much lower.

Erny : I don't have the technical knowledge to discuss this. But I will say that I have had the experience of knowing the difference between catching a 'shock' from an electric fence and a 'stim' from an e-collar. I know which one I'd prefer ....... you can have the electric fence. :D

PP : No, just not true. What happens is that the path of the shock is the least resistance path. This is generally through muscle tissue.

Erny : But from what I read, the current, voltage, pulse and waveform all need to be taken into account? Used properly and with sensitivity towards the dog, I doubt the stim levels reach muscle depth. Instead they travel from one contact point through the skin to the other. To my understanding, anyway.

PP : The second is that the shock pulse is very narrow, and the dog has plenty of "let go" time, and thirdly the dog controls the release of the shock from the fence by moving. It is generallaly apparent to the dog where the shock comes from.

Erny : This is covered above, where mention of the "pairing affect" is discussed.

PP : 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.

Erny : As can any punishment be that a physical or emotional one. With the e-collar however, the dog-owner does not require as much co-ordination skill and with that said, I can imagine it easier to achieve more accurate timing than otherwise. Of course, like with any aversive application (or for that matter, positive reinforcement where good timing is also required), tuition for the dog-owner is always a recommendation. Furthermore, it is the training that provides the pathway to the dog understanding that it does have "controllability".

PP : I really don't want to comment any further on e collars. What I have said technically is correct, and I have used correct language, stating what are facts and what are not.

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.

Erny :

Edited August 19, 2007 by Erny

[poodlesplus]

Firstly, I'm no electrician and have scant knowledge on the technicalities of electricity and neither to the 'jargon' used in relation to associated terms. So the following responses to part of your post I have taken as direct quotes from Stephen Lindsay's "Applied Dog Behaviour and Training" Volume 3.

Because there are so many quotes I have highlighted references to Poodlesplus' statements in RED.

Quotes taken from Stephen Lindsay's book are highlighted in BLUE.

And mine are in BLACK.

E collars do provide a shock.to the dog. They provide a level high enough to be commonly regarded as a shock as definined in the wikipedia and the IEC. ... I have no idea why collars are called e collars rather than shock collars. It seems like a bit of marketing to me.

Erny : First, an exerpt from his aforementioned book in some basic explanation of terminology : SL : "Specifically, the term "electrical stimulus" (or stim) "has been selected to replace the word shock. ... There are several reasons for this decision. First, at low levels, the term shock is hardly fitting to describe the effects produced by electronic training collars, since there is virtually no effect beyond a pulsing tingling or tickling sensation on the surface of the skin. Second, the word shock is loaded with biased connotations, images of convulsive spasms and burns, and implications associated with extreme physical pain, emotional trauma, physiological collapse, and laboratory abuses."

PP : The normal open circuit voltage, current, vary enormously between manufacturers.

SL : "Because e-collars are designed to limit arcing, both electrodes of the stimulator need to make close contact with the skin to establish a closed circuit."

Erny : It would seem from this then, that an open circuit would be achieved only when the collar is fitted incorrectly, and I would catagorise this occurrence as "mis-use" of the tool in question.

SL : "When discussing the effects of ES, some care should be exercised not to confuse electrical categories or phenomena. A common error is to equate voltage with current. Electrical potential or voltage is relative and depends on the electromotive difference between two points, whereas current refers to the amount of electrical charge or amperes flowing between those points over some period."

Erny : I don't think I could begin to explain in layman's terms the correlation and effect of voltage as to current so I won't begin. But it does appear from the above that there is more to the value of "voltage" than what the ordinary person would first think and that "current" often is not even considered by many when debating or considering the real effect/affect of the e-collar. Stephen also writes about "pulse" and "waveform" which also has a bearing in the energy that makes up the "stim".

PP : "Low stim" is no magic either, it is just a lower setting that you might or might not use on your dog.

Erny : I don't think anyone claimed "low stim" as magic ..... you're right, it is as it says. But for those unfamiliar it does to imagine "low stims" as often barely detectable and might be as mild as to cause the dog to blink. The debate in relation to e-collars, apart from them not being the treacherous tool some might otherwise think, is that used properly (as ALL equipment and tools - both physical and emotionally applied should be) it can be seen as being kinder to the dog both in a physical and emotional sense compared with other tools and I would argue, even some perceived "purely positive" (loose term) methodologies.

PP : 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.

Erny : This is why knowing the dog's 'working level' of stim is important, as well as whether the coat is wet etc. etc.

PP : A shock itself is not neccessarily a big deal, but it is important to realise that shocks are adversives. Dogs might or might not percieve them as a greater or less adversives than humans as they have no knowledge of electric shock.

Erny : This was an interesting thought. But then I don't think I was unduley distressed as a very young child when I received my first ever electric "shock" when closing a car door one day. Can't say I understood "electric shocks" at that very early age and whilst I might have been more surprised by it than I would be now, to my knowledge it has not left me with any permanent 'mis-givings'. Also not forgetting the principals of learning which are simply about consequences in correllation with the behaviour occuring immediately beforehand.

PP : It is likely that a behavourist perspecitive might give some insight. I.E think of another paralell adversive that could produce the same change in behavior and make your decisons accordingly. 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.

Erny : Actually, the e-collar has the great advantage of exactly the opposite. IE Used properly, the dog will pair the e-collar stim directly to the behaviour being exhibited at the time of delivery, rather than pairing the same to the human. Learning is therefore very quick and there is less liklihood of possible break-down of the bond between dog and handler. If someone knocked me (btw, I'm not a 'male' and wish I could ascribe to not being of a "mature age" :D) off my bar stool, I would not correlate it with me drinking an ale or sitting on the stool, but I would correlate it with the person who knocked me. The other advantage of the e-collar stim compared with other traditional punishments is that the force of the latter may be poorly regulated and that its timing can be even more difficult to establish.

PP : 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.

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.

SL : "... Kouwenhoven and Milnor (1958) demonstrated that exremely brief low-energy (-.0001 to 2.4J) high voltage shocks of 40,000 V in anestheetised dogs could not induce ventricular fibrillation, cardiac arrest, or "any other untoward effect" ". (If I am understanding what is written, I think 2.4J is twice the amount of peak 'voltage' from the e-collar, but don't quote me on that, because I'm confused by all this e-speak :D.)

PP : "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" ... 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) So that the shock current per volts is much lower.

Erny : I don't have the technical knowledge to discuss this. But I will say that I have had the experience of knowing the difference between catching a 'shock' from an electric fence and a 'stim' from an e-collar. I know which one I'd prefer ....... you can have the electric fence. :D

PP : No, just not true. What happens is that the path of the shock is the least resistance path. This is generally through muscle tissue.

Erny : But from what I read, the current, voltage, pulse and waveform all need to be taken into account? Used properly and with sensitivity towards the dog, I doubt the stim levels reach muscle depth. Instead they travel from one contact point through the skin to the other. To my understanding, anyway.

PP : The second is that the shock pulse is very narrow, and the dog has plenty of "let go" time, and thirdly the dog controls the release of the shock from the fence by moving. It is generallaly apparent to the dog where the shock comes from.

Erny : This is covered above, where mention of the "pairing affect" is discussed.

PP : 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.

Erny : As can any punishment be that a physical or emotional one. With the e-collar however, the dog-owner does not require as much co-ordination skill and with that said, I can imagine it easier to achieve more accurate timing than otherwise. Of course, like with any aversive application, tuition for the dog-owner is always a recommendation. Furthermore, it is the training that provides the pathway to the dog understanding that it does have "controllability".

PP : I really don't want to comment any further on e collars. What I have said technically is correct, and I have used correct language, stating what are facts and what are not.

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.

Erny :

[Erny]

Poodlesplus ...... why did you simply quote my quote as a response/reply? Or was that merely a keyboard error?

[poodlesplus]

[Look i don't know where to start. There is so much wrong with your reply.

i don't have all the time in the world, I did research this document and I am professionally qualified to comment on the terminology. Most of your reply is electrically incorrect. I stated that I had no desire to get involved beyond that.

Just one iillustration. When we talk about an electric circuit , we talk about the "open circuit" voltage being loaded by an impedance consisting of the internal impedance of the generator and the load impedance. Of course the open circuit voltage is not going to be so dam high you get arcing, but the open circuit voltgae and the internal impedance will vary from manufacuturer to manufacturer to get a partivcular shock. What would be great is for you to actually research this matter, establish the required open circuit voltage to get arcing on an e collar, and realise what an electrically silly thing you have proposed.

Well the rest of your response is on a similar vein. One thing I do agree with is what lindsay said about stims versus shocks. I go with the IEC version though, Lindsay is a dog trainer par excellent, the IEC has many thousands of electrical engineers consulting via their member countries. My guess is that they know a thing or two.

No more from me, I normally charge for more advice!!