Treating Anxiety/fear Aggression

[Lou Castle]

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've only seen him use one once on his show. That was aversion training, with a dog that chased farm equipment.

However from reading through this topic it would seem that e collars would require both trainers and owners to know what they're doing.

My site gives clear "how-to" instructions so that even a novice can pick up the tool and use it to train their dog to their satisfaction. Hundreds have. These are people who do it without a trainer and who have little to no experience in training a dog beforehand. It's a very simple tool to use properly with a little instruction.

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.

The only way to stop Ecollars from getting into everyone's hands is for the government to ban them. Such bans have never worked in the history of mankind. All that happens is that use of the tool will go "underground" and a black market will open up where prices are significantly higher. The best course at this time is education, teaching people who will use the tool the best way to do so.

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.

There's really no need for that. My pets are not working police dogs yet they have the same level of OB that they do. The only real difference is that the police dogs do different things.

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.

My experience has been that when the tool is used properly the outcome is always positive. I've not come across a dog that hasn't responded properly to the tool, used as I advocate it.

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.

I find it hard to believe that an abusive dog owner is going to spend several hundred dollars on an Ecollar to abuse their dog. Not when boots are handier and sticks are free.

[Rom]

"Ohms law " does describe how current flows regardless of whether the item is a donkey or a dog. When correctly used, it makes nonsense of your statement about "taking the path of least resistance"

I've been doing some research and I've found that Ohm's Law doesn't apply to all materials. Those materials that Ohm's Law doesn't apply to are referred to Non-Ohmic materials, resistors or conductors. The human body and other animal organisms are listed as Non-Ohmic.

Ref:Halliday, David, Robert Resnick, and Kenneth Krane. Physics. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1992.

Serway, Raymond A. Physics for Scientists and Engineers. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.

Couldn't find those in bold below.....but we have some authors in common....

You obviously just don't understand some simple basic science. You are just plain stinking wrong. I invite you to study the text book (Resnick and Halliday Fundamentals of Physics) followed by some good old math (Advanced Engineering Maths by Kryseig) followed by some basic stuff on fields. I find it laughable that you keep to this entrenched positon and tell me again that the current just goes between the points it doesn't. I work with these things calculate these every day. I am at least as much an expert on fields as you claim to be on dog training.

Have I misunderstood something?...I'm no scientist and I'll admit to finding some of the jargon confusing. It hurt my head actually

On the subject of the 30 pages of review of studies my basic overall impression (and I'm doing it this way cuz if I replied to all the questions I'd jotted down while reading it my post would end up at 60 odd pages) is that while most of the studies seemed to have a bias against e-collars, they come from two basic different directions. There is the camp that says 'don't use them because they harm the dog in ways that negatively affect their behaviour' and the camp that says 'don't use them because they have no effect on changing behaviour'. So....aren't they basically contradicting each other?

Funny thing is, when you look at the big picture of the review, some of the studies seem to contradict some of the others and sometimes this is seen in what isn't said. For example, you've got the study that says that electric containment systems make dogs dangerously aggressive. Then you've got the study that says that electric containment systems didn't stop wolves from eating prey enclosed in them in the long term. But there was no mention that the electric containment system turned the wolves dangerously aggressive. If the first study was right, then wouldn't the aggression have also been produced in the second?

Then there are the sighing rats. I can only come to the conclusion that this was put in for emotive reasons because none of the studies made mention of sighing dogs as a measurable or noticeable reaction so I really don't see a scientific reason why this study was referred to.

Like I said, I'm no scientist....but I do have a laymans understanding of the scientific method which is basically a protocol under which hypothises are developed and put to the test through experimentation. Many of the studies seem to be lacking in their application of scientific method one of the maxims of which is that you can't really prove a theory by experimentation...you can only seek to disprove it and it only becomes accepted when it can't be disproven. The studies included in the review made no or poor attempts to disprove their theories by the inclusion of controls, blinds and double blinds. As LC has pointed out, they have also failed the test of full disclosure.

Imagine if human medicine and surgical technique was developed by following similar protocols as was done in the studies of the review....

Edited August 27, 2007 by Rom

[Lou Castle]

I've been doing some research and I've found that Ohm's Law doesn't apply to all materials. Those materials that Ohm's Law doesn't apply to are referred to Non-Ohmic materials, resistors or conductors. The human body and other animal organisms are listed as Non-Ohmic.

Where's an Electrical Engineer when you really need one? LOL.

On the subject of the 30 pages of review of studies my basic overall impression … is that while most of the studies seemed to have a bias against e-collars, they come from two basic different directions. There is the camp that says 'don't use them because they harm the dog in ways that negatively affect their behaviour' and the camp that says 'don't use them because they have no effect on changing behaviour'. So....aren't they basically contradicting each other?

Yep.

Imagine if human medicine and surgical technique was developed by following similar protocols as was done in the studies of the review....

Scary isn't it? I find it interesting that PDTS who posted the Review continued to call it a "Study" as if this was new information even after she was corrected as to it's true nature! She's obviously trying to influence those who don't see this for what it really is.

This is the phenomenon that I referred to in my earlier response where they put together a document that looks at old studies (some as old as 50 years) and publish it. The unsophisticated call it a "study" and quote it as if it was something new. Then people quote those quotations and it's a never-ending list of citations, all traceable back to one original document. But it appears to those who don't closely examine such things as if there's an landslide of new information that shows the dangers of Ecollars.

[Rom]

Still thinking on this.......

Perhaps those that conducted the studies used medium level stims because their knowledge of dogs or their training methods were not sophisticated enough to be able to detect that the dog had felt the low level stim? So if the handler's/those conducting the study couldn't detect the effect, how could they know what and when to measure? Just another angle to look at it from I guess.

I also figure that there was more happening in the training environment with the study on the dutch dogs than what that study reported on.....How did the dogs associate the stim with the handlers? What was happening for the dog to be able to pair the stim with the handler?

ETA: A little more on Non-Ohmic stuff. Apparently those materials that are considered Non-Ohmic are generally those that have a high proportion of gas or liquid in their make up. Can't find anything to suggest what level it has to be at before its considered Non-Ohmic. Examples given include the air, plasma like in plasma screen TV's, battery acid as well has human and animal organisms. The resistance of Non-Ohmic materials is still measured in Ohm's despite the fact that these materials do not obey Ohm's law, but the value is found by algabraic manipulation of the Ohmic formula. That is, an x is placed where the R or Ohmic value would normally be in the formula, then the other variables in the formula are measured and applied in the formula to find the value of the x. From what I can find there is no other way to figure out what the resistance is in a Non-Ohmic material...it isn't measurable by itself.

Take the above with a grain of salt though...a non scientific mind trying to interpret scientific jargon leaves room for error

You're right LC....twould be good if there was a qualified electrical engineer on DOL who could help us out with this :tongue in cheek icon:

Edited August 30, 2007 by Rom

[Erny]

You're right LC....twould be good if there was a qualified electrical engineer on DOL who could help us out with this :tongue in cheek icon:

Wow! By the sounds of it, we have one growing in our midst!!! And her name starts with "Rom" .

[Rom]

You know what? Despite that little bit of cheekiness I'm glad that PP and PDTS posted what they did.

I haven't used an e-collar but I can't rule out that one day there may be one in my tool box. When/if that day comes I won't have the benefit of the years of experience of some of the pro's that have also contributed to this thread. The training steps sure do look simple, but I'm glad of the opportunity to spend time looking into all the pro's and con's that this thread has pointed out and doing some personal research so that I could find a comfortable place within me for the knowledge.

I'll also be able to speak of the pro's and con's with a lot more confidence.....

So thanks to all the pro's and con's (sorry for that little pun...being cheeky again) I really do thank everyone for their contributions here

[NaturallyWild]

I'd like to throw around a few possibilities into this debate.

While my preference of training is to utilise positive motivational methods, i do not deny that there could be the need for corrections in specific situations. I do believe though that if you setup your training correctly there would be no need for these. I preface the below stuff by saying i am not necessarily against e-collars but very cautious of their use.

The difficult thing with utilising an e-collar is that there are basically 2 fields of trainers that use this tool. As a high level correction tool, or as a low level avoidance tool. The trouble with joe-public using an e-collar is that they probably don't have the skill or self control to know the best level to use when in a "situation" with thier dog. We all know of the abuse that can be given with check chains, prong collars and halters - because the person is untrained, unskilled and emotional about the situation - it is therefore laughable to say that the similar abuse could not occur with an e-collar. Just because someone has forked out a lot of money for one does not mean that they can think clearly in a pressure situation.

The big issue i have been pondering recently is about the "damage" that could occur from an e-collar (both physically and emotionally). Obviously there is the potential for emotional damage through poor timing, to high stimulation, etc but people here seem to deny the fact that and e-collar can cause physical damage and there are also comparisons made to tens machines. Tens machines can cause damage - ever try turning one up high on your self, serious damage can occur to muscle fibres. Their effect is not always just local - if in the right position the signals can transmit through nerves to different areas of the body. I don't think people realise the potential for effect that could be cause even if it is just a localised stimulation. Who here has had acupuncture/acupressure done to them - the simple stimulation of a specific point can have huge effects on the rest of the body (muscles, organs, immune system, etc) - stimulating the wrong points can also have a negative effect, otherwise there would be any cause for concern if who was treating you wasn't qualified. Also like many people here have mentioned there are a lot of nerves around the dogs neck that can have effects on the rest of the body, just because its not a halti applying pressure causing a problem doesn't mean that a consitent pressure and stimulation from an e-collar cannot cause the same problems.

Food for thought everyone.

Edited February 18, 2008 by NaturallyWild

[Steve K9Pro]

NW: While my prefered method of training is to utilise positive motivational methods, i do not deny that there can be the need for corrections or aversions in specific situations. I do believe though that if you setup your training correctly there would be no need for these.

K9: lets say that training was set up 100% perfect, if there is such a thing...

Your dog has a 100% reliable recall, & he is performing a long distance send away, running into the wind, his back to you.

Circumstances chance in the environment, an aggressive dog enters your training area, you recall your dog & with the wind blowing directly into you, of course the dog cant hear you....

Your hand signals are unseen when the dog is running away from you..

What do you do?

E collars are not effected by the wind...

Just one way that they are invaluable as a communication tool...

NW: The difficult thing with utilising an e-collar is that there are basically 2 fields of trainers that use this tool. As a high level correction tool, or as a low level avoidance tool. The trouble with joe-public using an e-collar is that they probably don't have the skill or self control to know the best level to use when in a "situation" with thier dog. We all know of the abuse that can be given with check chains, prong collars and halters - because the person is untrained, unskilled and emotional about the situation - it is therefore laughable to say that the similar abuse could not occur with an e-collar. Just because someone has forked out a lot of money for one does not mean that they can think clearly in a pressure situation.

K9: This is true, however its equally laughable that e collars should be the only tool out of the list you gave to suffer due to the possibility of abuse...

The problem as you have indicated isnt the tool in use, its the skill of the user or the lack there of..

I do agree that the abuse factor is possible with any tool, but at least most e collars come with a comprehensive traing video or they are available at least. I havent seen check chains or halters come with any such thing...

NW: Also like many people here have mentioned there are a lot of nerves around the dogs neck that can have effects on the rest of the body, just because its not a halti applying pressure causing a problem doesn't mean that a consitent pressure and stimulation from an e-collar cannot cause the same problems.

K9: does it mean then for sure that it can cause these effects, or is it a theory?

There is no getting away from the fact that actually using this tool for many hundreds of hours with zero negative effects is going to outrank a theory in my opinion.

I always seem to find those who have ideas and theories about what could go wrong, to have have never or rarely used an e collar, as Lou said, most have never even seen one..

[NaturallyWild]

I do agree that the abuse factor is possible with any tool, but at least most e collars come with a comprehensive traing video or they are available at least. I havent seen check chains or halters come with any such thing...

NW: Also like many people here have mentioned there are a lot of nerves around the dogs neck that can have effects on the rest of the body, just because its not a halti applying pressure causing a problem doesn't mean that a consitent pressure and stimulation from an e-collar cannot cause the same problems.

K9: does it mean then for sure that it can cause these effects, or is it a theory?

There is no getting away from the fact that actually using this tool for many hundreds of hours with zero negative effects is going to outrank a theory in my opinion.

I always seem to find those who have ideas and theories about what could go wrong, to have have never or rarely used an e collar, as Lou said, most have never even seen one..

Just because a tool comes with a video doesn't mean that it will mean the owner will be capable of using it - i have seen plenty of people that have been instructed on the correct use of c/chains, halters etc to leave and return to their old bad ways.

The post i put in repeatedly said they are points i have been thinking about and something that others should also think about. I know for a fact that these effects can occur, as they have occured on me - a single stim, lowest detectable level on my arm left it feeling mildly sore in the whole muscle that was contacted for a good 30min or so.

You say that there have been zero negative effects with you many hundreds of hours - these are negative effects that you are aware of; you do not know what is going on within the whole body of the animal (mentally and physically); all you know is that the desired behaviour has changed successfully without any observable responses that appear to be "negative". I'm not saying that there definitely has been negative effects with your cases, just that you don't know.

In my eyes there are negatives in all aspects of different styles of training (positive and negative), it is a case of your damned if you do, damned if you don't. There are also positives to the same styles. If we are having a discussion here then i believe all aspects can and should be explored.

Once again, i will say i just believe that there is more than meets the eye and far more research should be conducted before hailing it as the best tool out there. They "can" be used as a highly effective tool but not necessarily the best, and definitely could be avoided with more skillful training through positive focus.

Edited February 18, 2008 by NaturallyWild

[Lou Castle]

The difficult thing with utilising an e-collar is that there are basically 2 fields of trainers that use this tool. As a high level correction tool, or as a low level avoidance tool.

There's a third group. Those who use it as a teaching tool. This is done on low levels. Actually there's some overlap between us, but you omitted this group.

NaturallyWild wrote: The trouble with joe-public using an e-collar is that they probably don't have the skill or self control to know the best level to use when in a "situation" with thier dog.

The first is a matter of training. People can get that by going to my website, reading the articles and then putting it into action. As far as "self control" – if they don't have the self control to use an Ecollar, which gives the fastest results possible, then they certainly don't have it for other tools that take more time to get results.

NaturallyWild wrote: We all know of the abuse that can be given with check chains, prong collars and halters - because the person is untrained, unskilled and emotional about the situation - it is therefore laughable to say that the similar abuse could not occur with an e-collar.

Of course it can occur. But people aren't going to spend that money JUST to abuse their dog.

NaturallyWild wrote: The big issue i have been pondering recently is about the "damage" that could occur from an e-collar (both physically and emotionally).

There is no support for a showing of any physical damage from an Ecollar. As far as "emotional damage" we're talking opinion here. I think that there's just as much potential for emotional damage with "all positive methods."

NaturallyWild wrote: Obviously there is the potential for emotional damage through poor timing, to high stimulation, etc but people here seem to deny the fact that and e-collar can cause physical damage

If such damage was possible, then there would be studies that show it. But even studies done by anti-Ecollar folks don't show any. They say such things as

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

(Klein, 2000). 332 M.B.H. Schilder, J.A.M. van der Borg / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85 (2004) 319–334

and

However on the benefits-and-losses basis, it would rightly be extremely difficult to justify this course, particularly with an unruly but not inherently aggressive dog, and especially when the problem could possibly be resolved by an electronic stimulation lasting a fraction of a second that has not been evidenced to cause physical damage.

Klein 2000

and

… at low levels there is no physical damage.

Biobehavioral monitoring and electronic control of behavior (Lindsay, S. (2005). Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training: Procedures and Protocols, Vol. 3. Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 557-665.)

and

High-level electric shock (HLES) [/b] causes a neurological response and a perception of pain, and activates muscular and skin-burning sensations even if there is no physically burned flesh and although no physical damage has actually occurred. The study specifically stated that the sensation of burning was perceived even when there was no actual physical injury

(Sang et.al., 2003).

There are more but you get the idea.

NaturallyWild wrote: and there are also comparisons made to tens machines. Tens machines can cause damage - ever try turning one up high on your self, serious damage can occur to muscle fibres. Their effect is not always just local - if in the right position the signals can transmit through nerves to different areas of the body. I don't think people realise the potential for effect that could be cause even if it is just a localised stimulation.

Simple to avoid. Don't turn it up. But, in reality the only reason that the comparison is made to TENS machines is that more people are familiar with them and they have adjustable levels. TENS machines put out much more current than do Ecollars, even at the highest levels. If you have some study that shows physical damage to nerves, blood vessels, muscle or any kind of tissue from an Ecollar please post it. No one else has ever found it.

NaturallyWild wrote: Who here has had acupuncture/acupressure done to them

We're really into an area of comparing apples and oranges here. There is NO link between Ecollars and acupuncture/acupressure.

NaturallyWild wrote: Food for thought everyone.

Not really. This is more "food for fright." People have been looking for physical damage from Ecollars for decades and never has it been found. NEVER.

[Steve K9Pro]

NW: Just because a tool comes with a video doesn't mean that it will mean the owner will be capable of using it

K9: I cant see where I suggested that was the case, what I did say was

I do agree that the abuse factor is possible with any tool, but at least most e collars come with a comprehensive traing video or they are available at least. I havent seen check chains or halters come with any such thing...

K9: what I am saying is that, with a comprehensive video that other tool manufacturers dont supply, this goes some way to eliminating people using e collars with zero idea..

NW: i have seen plenty of people that have been instructed on the correct use of c/chains, halters etc to leave and return to their old bad ways.

K9: which only stands testimony that the tool isnt the problem...

NW: The post i put in repeatedly said they are points i have been thinking about and something that others should also think about. I know for a fact that these effects can occur, as they have occured on me - a single stim, lowest detectable level on my arm left it feeling mildly sore in the whole muscle that was contacted for a good 30min or so.

K9: people arent dogs though & what is interesting is what effect the mind has the on the body..

I can hook up a e collar to a persons arm, make a loud sound & they will jump & take the collar off their arm. I ask did that hurt & they say yes, I say the collar wasnt turned on...

NW: You say that there have been zero negative effects with you many hundreds of hours - these are negative effects that you are aware of; you do not know what is going on within the whole body of the animal (mentally and physically); all you know is that the desired behaviour has changed successfully without any observable responses that appear to be "negative". I'm not saying that there definitely has been negative effects with your cases, just that you don't know.

K9: & may I ask, how do you know what I do or dont know?

NW: In my eyes there are negatives in all aspects of different styles of training (positive and negative), it is a case of your damned if you do, damned if you don't. There are also positives to the same styles. If we are having a discussion here then i believe all aspects can and should be explored.

K9: I agree all real aspects should be explored, if someone was to suggest that stimming a dog would cause the dog to explode, that is an aspect, doesnt make it a realistic aspect..

I make my comments based on facts, not the lack thereof...

NW: Once again, i will say - i am not against the use of e-collars, i just believe that there is more than meets the eye and far more research should be conducted before hailing it as the best tool out there.

K9: What facts have you got to suggest there is more than meets the eye...? Your tingling arm?

They "can" be used as a highly effective tool but not necessarily the best in every case.

K9: Has anyone said that they are the best in every case though?

[Lou Castle]

I know for a fact that these effects can occur, as they have occured on me - a single stim, lowest detectable level on my arm left it feeling mildly sore in the whole muscle that was contacted for a good 30min or so.

My reality is certainly different from yours. I've given myself thousands of stims from Ecollars. I test mine that way every morning before I put them on my dogs to make sure that they're working. And that's often at higher levels than where I first perceive the stim. It's certainly not a high level stim but it's not the lowest I can feel either.

I've also felt the highest levels of stim from many models of Ecollar. Sometimes for sustained period of time, 20-30 seconds.

I've had thousand of people feel the stim from an Ecollar. At my seminars everyone used to have to feel it. These days because many have already felt the stim I only have people who have not felt a stim before, feel it.

NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE have reported anything such as you describe. I never have either. It's quite possible (probable even) that you did not use a modern version of the tool for your experiment. If you used a model that had a limited number of levels you might not have been able to go low enough so that you could avoid the response you got. That's going to give a vastly different result form someone who's using a modern Ecollar with at least 15 levels, my minimum recommendation.

You say that there have been zero negative effects with you many hundreds of hours - these are negative effects that you are aware of; you do not know what is going on within the whole body of the animal (mentally and physically); all you know is that the desired behaviour has changed successfully without any observable responses that appear to be "negative". I'm not saying that there definitely has been negative effects with your cases, just that you don't know.

If there had been any studies that show this anti-Ecollar people would be shouting them to the heavens. But NOT ONE STUDY has shown anything that you're talking about.

In my eyes there are negatives in all aspects of different styles of training (positive and negative),

What are your definitions of "positive" and "negative" training? Such differences don't exist anywhere in learning theory. I think you're making value judgments that the dogs don't make.

There ARE negatives to using an Ecollar. First is that they're expensive. I don't know of any other training tool that costs as much. You have to remember to keep them charged. You have to remember to put them on the dog. You have to remember to turn them on. If you have more than one you have to remember to bring the proper transmitter with the proper collar unit.

If we are having a discussion here then i believe all aspects can and should be explored.

I agree. But your claims of physical damage done to dogs is without any basis in fact.

far more research should be conducted before hailing it as the best tool out there.

Did you read the Review of Current Literature" that PDTS posted? There are studies there that go back for 50 years. How much science are we required to show before "it's enough?"

[NaturallyWild]

K9 - you don't have proof of a lot of what you say - where's your scientific reports showing that physiologically there are no effects going on within the body - your proof is your word of observation and scientific testing that has been poorly done and not explored this side of things in enough depth. Like i said there needs to more research done in this field - something "i think" you don't believe is necessary.

The fact that you need to make comment on my experience and try to belittle me by infering that i have imagined my response is a weak effort at trying to defend your precious tool...................................some people just get so pedantic.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to get so defensive by trying to attack every point of thought that i make. I am hear just offerring points for people to think about.

[MonElite]

Like i said there needs to more research done in this field - something "i think" you don't believe is necessary.

YOU belive its necessary. Well knock yourself out and conduct a study.

Those that produce or use the ecollars dont have a need for it. If there was a necesity, requiirements or rules and regulations to conduct more, Im sure manufacturers would be conducting those studies.

Are you propagating the idea for more studies into affectd of mobile phones as well? There is a lot more of them around than there are ecollars and people used them, kids including.

[Lou Castle]

K9 - you don't have proof of a lot of what you say - where's your scientific reports showing that physiologically there are no effects going on within the body

Do you understand the concept that "one can't prove a negative." Rather the burden is the other way. There have been dozens of studies looking for just what you suggest occurs, some kind of physical damage. NOT ONE STUDY HAS SHOWN IT.

your proof is your word of observation and scientific testing that has been poorly done and not explored this side of things in enough depth.

What is your evidence that the studies that have been done have been "poorly done?"

Like i said there needs to more research done in this field - something "i think" you don't believe is necessary.

The studies have been going on for more than 50 years; almost since Ecollars were invented.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to get so defensive by trying to attack every point of thought that i make.

Please don't think that you're being attacked just because someone is disagreeing with you.

I am hear just offerring points for people to think about.

I don't think you're offering anything new. There have been dozens of studies that covered the points you brought up. Not one of them showed any physical damage.

[Steve K9Pro]

NW: K9 - you don't have proof of a lot of what you say

K9: again you are telling me what & I do & dont have, how do you know? I asked you that same question in the last post, you didnt answer?

NW: where's your scientific reports showing that physiologically there are no effects going on within the body

K9: & here I was thinking it was Innocent until proven guilty...

I havent got a scientific study saying that I cant jump over the moon, so I must be able to...

NW: Like i said there needs to more research done in this field - something "i think" you don't believe is necessary.

K9: your right there, I dont think its neccessary... I think every test known to man has been completed & the only results shown really prove no harm, & thats by those who are against e collars..

You feel that more research is needed, thats fair enough comment, I ask why do you think this?

How many dogs have you seen suffering after being subjected to good e collar training?

NW: The fact that you need to make comment on my experience and try to belittle me by infering that i have imagined my response is a weak effort at trying to defend your precious tool

K9: perhaps you can show me where I tried to belittle you? or your experience...

The e collar isnt my precious tool, it can be anyones precious tool... Getting a little defensive are we?

But whilst were on the subject, maybe you can share with us your experience with the e collar?

NW: some people just get so pedantic.

K9: yes they do, just like those who need to test & test & test things when the answers are already there...

NW: I'm not sure why you feel the need to get so defensive by trying to attack every point of thought that i make. I am hear just offerring points for people to think about.

K9: I am not in any way attacking you, but in any thread I choose to reply to, I, regardless of the poster, will question anything that I dont agree with.. I think thats quite within the forum rules...

[sidoney]

Hi folks

This is kind of tangential, but mention was made of halters not coming with a DVD - thought I'd mention I did get a DVD with a halter I bought. It was a Gentle Leader. From the CleanRun shop website:

The Gentle Leader comes with a free training DVD!

[Rom]

Yeah Sidoney, I've heard that they come with a DVD these days...must get a copy to have a look at.

NW, I think I see where you're coming from.

Thing is, all the studies in the world really do not educate as much as practical application and experience. Everyone has heard at least one story of how somebody with a bunch of letters after name come into a practical environment and performed uselessly because the science really didn't prepare them for the practical environment. The reality is that basing education on science alone merely sets up an environment that can sometimes support superstition and opinion that may be off centre.

The most realistic and true to life information comes when the scientists and those with practical experience come together. Once upon a time scientists said that the earth was flat and everybody believed that...then somebody with the practical skills actually went out and had a look.

One of the reasons why the studies mentioned have been so easily refuted is because they were working against those with practical experience rather than with them. To date, those interested in conducting studies into the e-collar really haven't been interested in working with those with the practical experience. If they were, then there would be no superstition. Those with the practical experience really have no need to conduct formal experiments to know why they stand where they do....in a sense, they have been conducting informal experiments for many years on many hundreds of dogs. They already know when and why fallout can occur and have developed methods to avoid this that those scientists that are interested in conducting experiments seem determined to ignore. So for them... the e-collar earth will always be flat.

[Rom]

Just because a tool comes with a video doesn't mean that it will mean the owner will be capable of using it - i have seen plenty of people that have been instructed on the correct use of c/chains, halters etc to leave and return to their old bad ways.

Ooooh, yeah! I think its easier to train dog than it is people.

I'm faster on the theoretical uptake than I am on the practical application of it and I think that that is the same for a lot of people.

I read somewhere that it takes a human somewhere between 30 to 90 days to change a habit. This can present a bit of a difficulty when you are teaching them something new. I don't think that it is always so much that they aren't capable its just that they subconsciously lapse back to old habits.

With a lot of people I don't think its sufficient to demonstrate a technique once or twice, give them an explaination and then expect that they can do it....we need to look at the people and train them the same way we would train a dog. We don't expect that if we lure a dog into a sit once or twice that it will always sit on command. We need to go through the steps of teaching, training and proofing the behaviour in a number of different environments and under a number of different circumstances before the behaviour becomes habit for the dog. Some people need to go through a similar program when they are learning a training technique I think...teach, train and proof under a number of different circumstances in a number of different ways. After all, we need to teach the people to change their habits as well as the dogs.

But once again, this isn't a fault intrinsic to the tool that is being used.

[Lablover]

Phew, what a long thread.

What can I add? Probably nothing - my first experience with E collars was watching retriever training in the US on my initial trip, where everyone uses the device. At least the professional trainers I observed.

They conditioned the required behaviour and responses over the course of many weeks.

The dogs were not fools. As a result the dogs had to be forced to go also (a force fetch program), as it was considered safer by the handlers/trainers side.

Lucky the dogs learnt to handle pressure (corrections and sometimes punishment) well, all for their main reward, a retrieve. God bless high drive dogs with sound nerves.

All the professionals mentioned, E collars are wonderful tools. The problem is they are too easy to use incorrectly.