Treating Anxiety/fear Aggression

[Erny]

So to me this is a waaaay to high stim that was used, hence yes study showed what it showed. No surprises there.

But this isnt how those advocating the collars use them.

Is there are scientific reason that dictates why high stims need to be used for the purposes of reports such as the ones given?

Also, in one of the studies mentioned in that review, it refers to the Teletakt Collar being used. I'm not personally familiar with this collar, but unless it has since been technologically updated by the time of that study, wasn't it a style of collar with a design so that the e-shock (and I'm purposefully using the word "shock" and not 'stim' here) actually went through the dog's neck? IE Not from two closely sited contact points, but from one contact point on one side of the dog's neck to another on the other side?

I find it surprising that ecollars were the tool that was studied heaps, yet we are unable to find heaps of studies on it to read.

I agree Myszka. I find this surprising too. Save that I guess there is a lot of time and money required for the experimentation to produce a report - and I guess moreso for a report which is from a balanced and unbiased point of view.

ETA: Sorry - I posted the above only after I saw that LC has posted above. Mine seems somewhat superflous now (not to mention, "basic" :D), given that what I've said has already been pointed out by LC (plus some ).

Now ..... back to reading LC's reply.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Erny

[Lou Castle]

I have also read through most of the studies and first thing I have found was this

The research found that the dogs. heart rate increased when a tone was followed by an electric shock of a medium level. The electric shocking device used was a high-voltage system, onesecond shock, different for each dog according to the dog.s reaction at each interval. The level of shock used was intense enough to cause the dog to fully flex his leg off the table.

So to me this is a waaaay to high stim that was used, hence yes study showed what it showed. No surprises there. But this isnt how those advocating the collars use them.

Myszka the antis want everyone to think that this is how Ecollar training is done. It supports their attempts to get people not to use the tool or to have them banned or restricted.

In reality there's no correlation between high level stim and low level stim. But the antis want you to think that it's the same.

It's a bit like taking a couple of aspirin for a headache or taking the whole bottle. The results are very different.

[Lou Castle]

I prefer to experience and judge the use of any training tool by watching the reaction of the dog in front of me.

What a great post! Thanks Poodlefan for injecting common sense and reason into what often becomes a debate based on emotion rather than rationality.

I've worked with many dogs in front of a crowd of people. Often, after about ten minutes, someone will ask, "When are you going to start using the Ecollar?"

I'd been using it the whole time! If people from all ranges of experience can't tell when the button is being pressed by any outward sign from the dog, just how stressful or painful could it be? The only outward sign that the Ecollar was being used was that the dog was learning a new behavior.

[Sarah L]

I do understand what you have said Rom about the use of any piece of dog equipment being used wrongly. However the damage that is done by haltis, choke chains, flat collars is visible to the dog owner. If they choose to ignore this damage to the dog then they themselves IMO should be up on cruelty charges. Not only this but a trainer would also be able to spot misuse of these tools, very easily, there would be blood or the dog screaming and yelping at the end of a choke chain etc... If an e collar is misused the damage is not so visible to the dog owner so they carry on in ignorance. The study I posted does cover the long term health aspects to misusing e collars. So while all dog equipment can be misused why is it that not many people see that e collars are at the top of the list.

Why did that woman not have her dog at a vet tending to its injuries, and why did the club trainer not insist that these injuries were treated instead of carrying on giving training advice to a dog that was obviously not in good health to train in the first place. This is not an attack, but I can't understand.... the damage was very visible, how can a dog that has cruciate problem and a back that is out, be expected to respond to any training.

I do not like haltis either, you are right Rom they are widely accepted and promoted but it does not make it right. I for one never recommend them. However people like the RSPCA and DELTA have the where with all to promote what they like whether it be right or wrong so people get succeed into the it must be true syndrome if these people say so. It dumbfounds me that people can watch such damage being done to a dog and then think its ok because it was taught to them certain organisations.

[Erny]

I do understand what you have said Rom about the use of any piece of dog equipment being used wrongly. However the damage that is done by haltis, choke chains, flat collars is visible to the dog owner. If they choose to ignore this damage to the dog then they themselves IMO should be up on cruelty charges. Not only this but a trainer would also be able to spot misuse of these tools, very easily, there would be blood or the dog screaming and yelping at the end of a choke chain etc... If an e collar is misused the damage is not so visible to the dog owner so they carry on in ignorance. The study I posted does cover the long term health aspects to misusing e collars. So while all dog equipment can be misused why is it that not many people see that e collars are at the top of the list.

Pinnacle - I read and then re-read and thought "what is wrong with this picture"? You've expressed an opinion that "e-collars are at the top of the list" for mis-use because they don't draw blood that people can see?

Edited August 21, 2007 by Erny

[Erny]

Lou - thank you and :D for your post. Informative, educational, sensible and extra-ordinarily clear minded with what is REALLY being said in them ......... and just as often importantly, what is not. Great explanation of what the submissions are really telling us, or sometimes more particularly, what they are wanting us to believe they are saying and how they achieve that.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Erny

[haven]

I do understand what you have said Rom about the use of any piece of dog equipment being used wrongly. However the damage that is done by haltis, choke chains, flat collars is visible to the dog owner. If they choose to ignore this damage to the dog then they themselves IMO should be up on cruelty charges. Not only this but a trainer would also be able to spot misuse of these tools, very easily, there would be blood or the dog screaming and yelping at the end of a choke chain etc... If an e collar is misused the damage is not so visible to the dog owner so they carry on in ignorance. The study I posted does cover the long term health aspects to misusing e collars. So while all dog equipment can be misused why is it that not many people see that e collars are at the top of the list.

Pinnacle - I read and then re-read and thought "what is wrong with this picture"? You've expressed an opinion that "e-collars are at the top of the list" for mis-use because they don't draw blood that people can see?

I think what PDTS means is that they're more likely to be misused because it is less obvious to the avergae owner that they are causing damage i.e. the damage done is less visible.

I'ts not a bad point, although I do believe that other training tools also cause damage that isn't necessarily obvious to the naked eye, particularly head collars.

[Erny]

I think what PDTS means is that they're more likely to be misused because it is less obvious to the avergae owner that they are causing damage i.e. the damage done is less visible.

I'ts not a bad point, although I do believe that other training tools also cause damage that isn't necessarily obvious to the naked eye, particularly head collars.

Aaah. Ok. Sorry - it's been a long day.

And what about even ignoring the dog? People who are anti-aversive in regards to training equipment often don't think about what affect this common "positive only" treatment method can have on the dog at an emotional level. It's not visible to the naked eye either.

[Lou Castle]

I did not carry in because there was no science or believable content in what was said

Oh, look who's back! In spite of (is it three times now?) having told us that he was done with this topic. If you're not capable of keeping your word on this, very simple thing, how can we believe anything you say? Oh well, let's proceed.

And not that I'm the punctuation police but you keep telling us how educated you are (otherwise I wouldn't even mention it) but; did they teach anything about punctuation, paragraphs, spelling, or syntax at that fancy engineering school that you went to? LOL. I wonder if you're this careful (careless really) with your dog training or your engineering work? I'm certainly not saying that this is the case with you; I'm just askin' because sometimes people's habits in one area spill over into other areas of their life.

Poodlesplus wrote: I have Lou's statement "forget Ohms law" enlarged ready to have a giggle at at work. It is like arguing that the earth is flat.You can't argue with insanity like that.

I’m glad that you're so thrilled at your ability to take my words out of context that you'd put it up at work. I'd suggest that you let your coworkers have a look at the entire discussion between us. I'm pretty sure that they'd be laughing at YOU! Ohm's law applies to materials (of any type) that conduct electrical energy, as long as they're homogeneous. But a dog's neck is not and you keep ignoring this obvious fact.

I could set up a situation to prove the absurdity of your statement but I'll save that for next time you appear here, again breaking your word. ROFL

BUT let's assume that you're completely, 100% right and that I'm completely, 100% wrong about this. Now, please show us some scientific study that shows that it makes some difference in the training or has some impact on the dogs.

You've gotten hung up on this minor point and have completely forgotten about the big picture, dog training.

Poodlesplus wrote: I was a little sad because up to now, I had some respect for Lou.

The guy who's been insulting me, calling me names and generally being a jerk SUDDENLY claims that "up to now" he had some respect for me. I guess respect is shown differently in your neck of the woods than it is in mine.

Poodlesplus wrote: Personally i found it unbelievable that adult people want to piss with science so much.

Quite the contrary. I've asked REPEATEDLY for some science to support what you claim. YOU'RE the one who's not provided it.

Poodlesplus wrote: Never mind. I didn't take it at all personally. I just took it for what it was a bunch of crap from some very arrogant people who don't have the grace or good manners to admit when they are wrong.

Tell us again about how we're attacking you!

Poodlesplus wrote: If i made racist comments about forum participants would that be OK to?? Why then is my profession something to be laughed at???

I have missed anyone laughing at your profession. Please provide a quotation that supports this claim.

Poodlesplus wrote: What I do have problems with is so called trainers telling porkies about how they work

AGAIN, please provide the posts to support this statement.

Poodlesplus wrote: Now I will go away again

Why do I doubt this statement? Could it be that you've been caught out several times before? Nah, that couldn't be it.

Poodlesplus wrote: and no doubt, you will have another good little bitch session, tell yourselves how good you are , and i don't know what.

Mostly we'll poke holes in your statements and wonder whether you'll keep you word this time. LOL.

Poodlesplus wrote: I do have this question. I am on holiday at the moment,writing some papers and i have trouble keeping up with the stuff you people write. Don't you have jobs or isn't the dog training going so hot?

No I don't have a job, I'm retired. Is that OK with you? I train dogs only when I feel like it these days. Is that OK too? Please accept my deepest apologies for having more spare time than you.

[Lou Castle]

Earlier myszka wrote

So to me this is a waaaay to high stim that was used, hence yes study showed what it showed. No surprises there. But this isnt how those advocating the collars use them.

Is there are scientific reason that dictates why high stims need to be used for the purposes of reports such as the ones given?

It's not a "scientific reason" but the answer is that low level stim won't give these people the results they desire. If they use low level stim, they won't see the yelps of pain, the fear, the "lowered body posture" and all the rest of the crap that they need to justify their position that Ecollars should not be used in training dogs.

Also, in one of the studies mentioned in that review, it refers to the Teletakt Collar being used. I'm not personally familiar with this collar, but unless it has since been technologically updated by the time of that study, wasn't it a style of collar with a design so that the e-shock (and I'm purposefully using the word "shock" and not 'stim' here) actually went through the dog's neck? IE Not from two closely sited contact points, but from one contact point on one side of the dog's neck to another on the other side?

YES! That's the case. The stim from that collar went (for the most part – don't want to offend poodlesplus) from one side of the dog's neck, THROUGH the neck to the other contact point. Additionally the batteries on this collar took up most of the circumference of the strap.

ETA: Sorry - I posted the above only after I saw that LC has posted above. Mine seems somewhat superflous now (not to mention, "basic" :D)

Please never let the fact that I've posted something stop you from posting as well. Even if it's just a "me too" it's appreciated.

[Lou Castle]

I do understand what you have said Rom about the use of any piece of dog equipment being used wrongly. However the damage that is done by haltis, choke chains, flat collars is visible to the dog owner. If they choose to ignore this damage to the dog then they themselves IMO should be up on cruelty charges. Not only this but a trainer would also be able to spot misuse of these tools, very easily, there would be blood or the dog screaming and yelping at the end of a choke chain etc... If an e collar is misused the damage is not so visible to the dog owner

This is disgusting! Now you intentionally try to mislead the readers! NOT ONE STUDY you posted talks about any damage being done to a dog by an Ecollar. In fact. Lindsay is quite clear about this and wrote, "at low levels there is no physical damage."

He goes on to quote another researcher who wrote,

High-level electric shock (HLES) causes a neurological response and a perception of pain, and activates muscular and skin-burning sensations … and although no physical damage has actually occurred."

Even your beloved Schilder study includes this statement,

Although shocks may be painful, this does not imply that there is physical damage. A recent report on possible damage by the use of shock collars provides no evidence for physical damage and states that this is even unlikely …

The study I posted does cover the long term health aspects to misusing e collars.

Again, it's not ?a study" it's a review of studies, some as old as 50 years. No matter how many times you call it "a study" it isn't one. In any case, I didn't see one reference to "long term health aspects." Can you direct us to it?

So while all dog equipment can be misused

Finally an answer to one of my questions, even if it is a backhanded one. Why is it that you save your vitriol for the Ecollar? Why aren't you out there fighting against the misuse of ALL tools?

why is it that not many people see that e collars are at the top of the list.

What is the origin of this "list" that you speak of? Since the Ecollar is probably the least used of all dog training tools, the rate of it's misuse is probably far less than other tools. But if you have some evidence that states otherwise, please supply it.

Thanks for answering ONE of my questions. Now if you'd just take a moment to reply to this one. Earlier you wrote,

was a very lame way to try and promote yourself.

And I responded

Was there an attempt to "promote" myself? I must have missed it. Exactly what benefit do you think might come to me?

It's obvious that you're here to promote yourself, you discussed how much your business has improved since (something occurred). And yet you accuse me of being here for that purpose. Since this list is based in Oz, there's little chance of any benefit coming to me. so just what is it you think might happen?

[Lou Castle]

I think what PDTS means is that they're more likely to be misused because it is less obvious to the avergae owner that they are causing damage i.e. the damage done is less visible.

I'ts not a bad point, although I do believe that other training tools also cause damage that isn't necessarily obvious to the naked eye, particularly head collars.

Long before a head halter causes visible physical damage to a dog that doesn't like it, the dog has been tortured for countless hours.

A dog that is terrified of the noise that a clicker makes lives in constant fear that it will occur again, especially if the owner decides to desensitize the dog to it.

Imagine the psychological horror of offering your best friend a treat but then NOT giving it to him because he didn't sit, when commanded!

People who favor so-called "all positive methods" like to pretend that this "damage" doesn't occur because there's no outward physical signs and the thrill of the next treat masks it, but it's there.

Every form of training and every tool used in dog training induces stress.

[poodlefan]

Pinnicle:

I do understand what you have said Rom about the use of any piece of dog equipment being used wrongly. However the damage that is done by haltis, choke chains, flat collars is visible to the dog owner

.

I'd argue it isn't with haltis Much of the damage occurs to muscles and ligaments, not externally. People are told these things are "kinder" than a check chain but I've seen dogs heads reefed on a halti in ways a check chain could never accomplish... Since we seem to need scientific evidence of any statement made here, I tender a letter to APDT from one of Australia's leading chiropractic vets as evidence. I can't quote his name because I've been unable to contact him to get permission to but I could PM it to anyone who wants it.

Restraint of Dogs – are head collars the best option?

Over recent years head collars have gained popularity in the dog training world as a method of restraint and as a training aid. They have largely superseded check chains, which are believed to be less effective and hard on the neck of the dog. However are they the best option for dog restraint? Sadly the adverse effects of head collars on the neck of the dog are poorly recognised.

I was first made aware of negative effects head collars have in 1993 at a module of the American Veterinary Chiropractic Association chiropractic certification course, Illinois,USA. The rapid deterioration in neck mobility with the use of a head collar was demonstrated then and has been recognised by myself and many other veterinarians and registered chiropractors trained in veterinary chiropractic since. The principal restriction induced is of the upper neck, in particular the occipito-atlantal joints. This region is very highly innervated with proprioceptors which control our coordination, and dysfunction of this region of the spine is recognised by veterinary chiropractors as having major deleterious effects on the health of the dogs as a whole. If one observes dogs, even ones that have been well trained to head collar use, being led with head collars it can be seen in the majority of cases that the dog leans a little on the headcollar, causing bending of the upper neck. This leaning appears to be the source of the upper neck mobility restriction found on vertebral motion palpation. From a chiropractic point of view this restriction over the long term can lead to major health and musculo-skeletal problems.

So the question remains – is there a better option than head collars? Is there something that does not do any long term harm to the dog that is effective in delivering control over a dog. Harness’s which incorporate a cord which tightens under the axilla (arm pits) of the dog, such as Cameo Easy Walker harness’s, are found by the majority of my clients that use them to provide the desired level of restraint. Such restraints are the only type supported by the Australian Veterinary Chiropractic Association (www.chirovet.com.au).These allow easy restraint of most dogs and have not been found to produce any damage to the dogs’ musculo-skeletal system, with the worst effect seen in a small percentage of dogs being chaffing of the axillae. They can be used with a collar and second lead to give added steering control. To those who are in a position of influence in the dog training world I ask that these be tried as an alternative to head collars, and that the safety of head collars be re-thought in light of the above.

Right now, in most states Jo Average can't go out and buy an E-collar from Petbarn. Personally, I think the only way someone should be able to get one is from an accredited trainer who instructs in its proper use.

Anyone can buy a halti. Ask yourselves which training item is doing the most damage to the most dogs. I see dogs tied up with them, dogs lower than knee height walked on them for more control.. any number of potentially damaging situations and I see them all the time. It's a pity we don't see the same level of caution applied to the halti.

[Cosmolo]

I couldn't agree more Poodlefan. I've seen dogs whose anxiety and/ or aggression has increased dramatically with the use of a headcollar. Doesn't mean its a bad tool but does need to be used with caution. I just wish that it got the same attention as an e collar- which has given 2 of my own dogs and many of my clients a dramatic improvement in their quality of life.

[poodlefan]

I'll confess to being gobsmaked that trainers who regard themselves as "purely positive" recoil from check chains, prongs and e-collars but vigorously advocate the halti.

This is an item, that, when intially fitted, many dogs literally claw their faces to remove. "He'll get used to it" is the encouraging advice provided and sure enough, most dogs learn to tolerate it. Note the word "tolerate".

This is a training device, that in use or not is aversive to many dogs. Yet this is the device advocated for improving control by many many positive trainers.

Even walking perfectly on it, most dogs will find it aversive. Poorly fitted, it is tormenting the dog - I've corrected handlers that have it fitted to interfere with the dogs lower eyes. Yet this is "kind" or "gentle" and check chains and prongs by their very nature are "cruel".

Whilst I'll confess to not knowing the composition of the material that makes one, or it's breaking strain, I can see that many dogs find them uncomfortable that they have great potential for misuse. To see a dog being walked by a none to gentle child on one of these makes my blood run cold. I've seen head checks applied that made me shudder and at that point I say something.

At my own club... miniature poodle being "trained" by a +6 foot guy with a none to gentle correction... why???? "Because it's kinder than other collars". Picture the angle of correction and the level of force from even a gentle tug on the neck of a dog that weights no more than 7kg...

"Gentle Leader" my @arse!!!

Edited August 22, 2007 by poodlefan

[MonElite]

All in all Id like to know why are some people so very much against the ecollars?

Do they think that those that use the ecollars are there to purposly hurt their dogs?

I own an ecollar and the blooming thing was so expensive, surly if someone was to hurt their dog on purpose would find something cheaper to do it with!

I can see a point that someone might think that those with a remote in the hand will get trigger happy way to often. But how many times did you people see someone walkign their large dog that agresses on another and yank that check chain so hard that the dog yelps. Not only that but they yell, at the dog, smack it on the face and whatever else?

Is there a bigger pictire why several people are so totally against collars? Some monetary benefit? Political? Status?

What is it, I just cant see that bigger picture!

[daccies]

Hi Lou,

First up this wasn't my quote - I was just commenting on it.

these correlations suggest,

So you're right I don't have a clue how to use one, nor have I seen one being used (although thinking back I'm fairly sure I've seen it being used by Ceser Millan on one of his programmes). I have joined this topic to LEARN about various ways of training, who has success with what etc.

I also don't assume that because I don't know how to use an ecollar that others don't either. However from reading through this topic it would seem that e collars would require both trainers and owners to know what they're doing. Ergo they shouldn't be in the hands of anyone, although seemingly (and I haven't checked) they can be bought over the internet by anyone not trained in its use. Its also, from this discussion, now becoming apparent that the same would be said of halti's etc.

My apologies about the comment on your training police dogs. I guess the point I was trying to make would be that both police dogs and their trainers would be far more advanced in training than most pet owners.

And finally as for e collars, I'm not sure I am opposed to them since they would appear to have positive outcomes in some cases. However I can quite see that in the wrong hands I wouldn't like to witness it, same with halti's. and lets face it there are some shockingly cruel owners out there.

[Erny]

... although seemingly (and I haven't checked) they can be bought over the internet by anyone not trained in its use.

This is possible. There are a couple of differences though and although they don't go to guarantee they'll be used correctly, I think these two things do have a bearing ...

1. The e-collar comes with at least some instruction on how it is to be best used; and
   
2. The e-collar is not cheap by comparison to other tools, nor is it as easily available.
   

I know I'm generalising and making a sweeping blanket statement here, but I think these TWO things (jointly and severally) make a tool like the e-collar more attractive to mainly those who have some knowledge of dogs.

I wonder, if (eg) head-collars (be it "gentle leader"; "halti" etc.) were as expensive as e-collars, whether the average pet dog owner would be as attracted to them as they are. Or would they more carefully consider their purchase and by those very considerations, make an effort to learn about them and their use so as to be able to decide which tool does what, how and why.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Erny

[Rom]

However the damage that is done by haltis, choke chains, flat collars is visible to the dog owner.

That would depend on what the owner is looking for and they may not necessarily know about or be looking for the right things.

My girl had put her back out during an accident and we had been seeing a chiro and physio for some time when I decided to try a halti on her. I only had to see the effect on her neck once before I figured that I didn't like potential of the halti. Apart from the fact that she hated it, she didn't show any signs that it had physically harmed her to my untrained eye. The thing is, because of her back, I was always watching how she was moving to be sure that everything was going OK. She was moving fluidly and her rear extension was improving. She had already been scheduled for the final follow up for her back and I didn't really expect that anything was wrong. I figured that we would just be getting checked over to be sure everything was right and she was regaining strength in the right areas etc...maybe some adjustments to the exercises we had been given.

At the physio appn. the physio showed some attention to the way she was placing her back feet when she was standing still. If he placed her square, she would immediately move one rear foot forward.....her neck was out. It wasn't bad because she wasn't showing any other signs ie restricted movement in her neck etc, but it was out. He explained to me that there are some nerves in the neck that affect the rear legs and that the leg that she puts forward will indicate what side of the neck that the problem is on.

If you watch dogs that are worked on haltis, have a look and see how many don't stand square in the rear. But this is such a minor detail that many wouldn't pick up on it and even if they did it would be a long shot for them to think that the halti may have caused it.

So its not always a case of choosing to ignore or being intentionally cruel. As with many things, its just a lack of education.

Why did that woman not have her dog at a vet tending to its injuries, and why did the club trainer not insist that these injuries were treated instead of carrying on giving training advice to a dog that was obviously not in good health to train in the first place. This is not an attack, but I can't understand.... the damage was very visible, how can a dog that has cruciate problem and a back that is out, be expected to respond to any training.

The dog was already under treatment for the cruciate problems and it was the trainer that initially pointed out that they thought there was a problem with the dogs back....the owner was none the wiser until the trainer pointed it out.

[daccies]

I wonder, if (eg) head-collars (be it "gentle leader"; "halti" etc.) were as expensive as e-collars, whether the average pet dog owner would be as attracted to them as they are. Or would they more carefully consider their purchase and by those very considerations, make an effort to learn about them and their use so as to be able to decide which tool does what, how and why.

Since head-collars etc. are sold along with leashes, collars etc. at much the same price I think this is a problem. I don't believe the public has any idea of their adverse effects. I don't use one but until coming onto this discussion had no idea. But then isn't that what this place is all about - learning and discussing!