An Observation And A Question

[Cosmolo]

I know a number of trainers who advocate headcollars for different dog issues. The same trainers refuse point blank to use an e collar under any circumstances. My question is- given that both tools (can and should) work with the principle of negative reinforcement- why is there such a gap in thinking between one and the other?

All thoughts and perspectives welcome- not a bashing thread!

Edited October 1, 2008 by Cosmolo

[poodlefan]

The answer is ignorance.

Many trainers are convinced head collars are "kinder" than other methods of training. They don't stop to think that a dog experience discomfort from them whether it's performing desired behaviours or not. They do operate to suppress drive in a lot of dogs but people don't stop to question how.

Many of those condemning other training tools as 'cruel' have never seen them or seen dogs trained with them.

Any assertions about training need to be backed with facts and education, not opinions. Sadly there is a lot of opinon in trainer education.

Edited October 1, 2008 by poodlefan

[Kelpie-i]

I agree PF!!

It's also the way society has been forced to perceive the different tools. Head collars are recommended by organisations like RSPCA, therefore they MUST be kind to the dog. Other tools such as e's and PPC's are not.

The general public is not well versed in the art of dog psychology, therefore they are unaware of contingencies like negative reinforcement. To them, it's what the pet stores market and also what organisations like RSPCA want you to use.

[Erny]

Agree with PF and Kelpie-i.

The Head Collar has received IMO much undeserved claim as being attached to "positive" training. This is false, although of those who herald it prefer to not think about it in terms of reality.

[Erny]

It's also the way society has been forced to perceive the different tools.

This sentence worth copying .... so I did :rolleyes:.

The amount of propaganda out there is scary. Not only in that much of it is false (when it comes to talking about training tools), but there is also what it leads the general public to "think" even though it might not actually be saying it.

[Cosmolo]

Thanks for the replies- propaganda has a huge part to play in so many facets of life!

I would love to hear from anyone who would use a headcollar, but not an e collar- no flaming- would just like your perspective.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Cosmolo

[JulesP]

Umm ok. Scary.

I would use an e-collar for certain things - e.g. an animal that is chasing stock. Obviously I wouldn't use a head collar for something like that.

If I have a pupil that can't get good loose lead walking on a flat collar and they are in danger of being dragged over then I would suggest a head collar. I would not trust such a person with anything else. These are usually just pet people btw.

[leopuppy04]

I have used a head collar - and my dogs didn't dislike it.

I didn't just chuck it on them - I conditioned them to wearing it - ie: with the example of a gentle leader - I would put the noose on their nose and feed with it on... as soon as the noose comes off - the feeding stops - noose on = food. I have never had a problem with this method and any aversion to a head collar from any dog.

Like any training tool it is not the be all and end all - and it is not suited to every dog. I think if it really were that aversive to every dog - not that many would be accepting of it - and lets face it, if the owners want to take the positive approach, seeing their dogs struggle with a head collar would not bode well for the tool. JMO.

Every client I fit to a head collar - I explain the above to them as well as how to walk a dog appropriately on a head collar. I like them because used correctly they are a useful tool, and a good tool to use to gain that extra control before weaning the dogs off it back onto their normal collar, should the owners wish.

As for a shock collar - it would be a last resort use for me, and I mean absolute last resort use. I think that the application of such an aversive is very different to the application of a halti. I do not like to see the halti used to give a correction (I shudder at the thought) but as a tool to help aid the handler with a little more control over the dog.

Perhaps if you were to explain further about what you mean... I might be able to expand further also :rolleyes:

Personally - for a dog that constantly pulls it's owners around - that dog can do quite a lot of damage to their windpipe - for me - a halter is a better option.

ETA:

Thinking more along the lines of the negative punishment - NEVER will I or do I see many trainers use the halter in order to get the dog to do something - eg: pull up on the halter to get the dog to sit. In my mind - this is the true use of negative punishment here - and I simply don't use it like that. I use the halter to gain more control particularly for dogs who are perhaps a little reactive to their environment or to aid with pulling. If they were barking at another dog - I do not apply pressure on the halter until the barking stops.. I don't use the halter in that way. If the dog were reacting to another dog - to me that's a sign that that dog is over threshold, and I will move it to a situation where it can better cope (ie: increase distance).

Edited October 1, 2008 by leopuppy04

[J...]

I just wish the head collars came with some decent directions and a warning at the damage they can do. :rolleyes:

There are several dogs who are walked around here on tight leads and their heads and necks cricked at a dreadful angle. Poor dogs

[Cosmolo]

Thats really interesting LP- thanks for your reply. SO you don't use the headcollars with negative R at all? What is your reponse (with a dog on a HC) if the dog pulled toward another dog or smell? I have always used HC's with a degree of NR so am genuinely interested in your different approach

Let me explain how i would use an RT as negative R in a similar manner to HC. I do use headcollars with some NR so may apply mild pressure, dog moves into heel position, pressure released. ( i am only using this exercise as an example- not necesarrily how i would teach it) With an e collar- i can do the same thing,command, low level stimulus, dog moves to position- stimulation removed.

I must say, i find very few dogs who are what i would call 'easy' to condition to accept a HC. Many are not food motivated and some shut down as soon as the headcollar touches them, regardless of the lead up work. I also find many owners are not willing to go through the process- not the fault of the HC.

However, i do use a HC on one of my dogs for some of his rehab and he really likes it- he is a food motivated and somewhat insensitive dog so doesn't care. One of my other dogs who is not truly food motivated and quite soft, shuts down as soon as the HC touches her and it would be alot of work ( not impossible) to change this.

LP- i would never use a headcollar to give a correction. Nor do i use RT's to give corrections

ETA- LP with regard to your last sentence (sorry don't know how to quote) how would you do this withought applying any pressure to the HC?

Edited October 1, 2008 by Cosmolo

[poodlefan]

Thanks for the replies- propaganda has a huge part to play in so many facets of life!

I would love to hear from anyone who would use a headcollar, but not an e collar- no flaming- would just like your perspective.

Personally Cosmolo, I'd prefer not to use either. I think both have their uses but neither are ideal for your average pet owner and both have considerable potential for misuse.

[Cosmolo]

Thats fair PF- although i find it hard to think of a tool that can't be mis used in inexperienced hands. I went and saw a labrador who had been crab walking (walking sideways) for months in a sporn harness because it was meant to be kinder :rolleyes:

ETA- just wanted to clarify- i'm not suggesting we start handing out RTs in the local pet store!!

Edited October 1, 2008 by Cosmolo

[poodlefan]

Much as some trainers don't fancy food as a motivator, the majority view at our club is that the worst you can do is make a dog fat. Flat collars are pretty hard to abuse also but you need to advocate something that will give a handler sufficient confidnence and control to actually try to walk and train the dog.

Our club tends to use flat collars. Haltis are advocated by some instructors and there is a discussion about their pros and cons active at the moment. Some, like me prefer martingales. Harnesses are used to some degree but a lot of folk find the control ones a bit fussy.

I think you really have to look at the dog and the handler before you can make a decent recommendation. I'm no fan of haltis but in some circumstances they are the best fit.

We can't use e-collars in the ACT so that tool is unavailable to us anyway. So are prongs.

[Cosmolo]

"I think you really have to look at the dog and the handler before you can make a decent recommendation. I'm no fan of haltis but in some circumstances they are the best fit"

Totally agree with this. And while i don't always love HC's- one on my young dog for parts of his rehab has been fabulous

[leopuppy04]

Thats really interesting LP- thanks for your reply. SO you don't use the headcollars with negative R at all? What is your reponse (with a dog on a HC) if the dog pulled toward another dog or smell? I have always used HC's with a degree of NR so am genuinely interested in your different approach

I don't think you can use a headcollar without any form of NR, so if I said no I didn't that would be a lie. If a dog pulled toward another dog or smell - I would use the head collar to about turn the dog away from that. We would approach again in the correct manner or get the dog to sit/ down as the dog passes. The reason I would use a head collar as opposed to a flat collar is simply because to turn your dog away from another dog or stimulus (with the application of NR) is much easier than doing the same on a flat collar (still using NR though correct?!)

Let me explain how i would use an RT as negative R in a similar manner to HC. I do use headcollars with some NR so may apply mild pressure, dog moves into heel position, pressure released. ( i am only using this exercise as an example- not necesarrily how i would teach it) With an e collar- i can do the same thing,command, low level stimulus, dog moves to position- stimulation removed.

This is a situation where I would not use the HC - if I wanted my dog in closer - the HC is not used as a tool to get the dog in closer - apply pressure and release when it comes into position. The pressure on the HC only is applied for example if the dog pulls me somewhere - to which I promptly respond by about turning with the dog to release that pressure (if you are going to pull me there, we are not going there... period). So for this reason, I don't find myself in conflict with the RT at all. I guess personally - I would also not use the RT as you described - ie: mild stimulation until the dog sits etc. The only example I can think of in terms of a RT would be - dog chasing stock - stimulus applied... and to me - that's more or a PP than a NR.

I must say, i find very few dogs who are what i would call 'easy' to condition to accept a HC. Many are not food motivated and some shut down as soon as the headcollar touches them, regardless of the lead up work. I also find many owners are not willing to go through the process- not the fault of the HC.

Again - I would be lying if I said I have not had a dog that was quite adverse to a head collar. If I did have one of those, I would use another tool. I don't want to use something that the dog finds so adverse as I don't think it fair on the dog or the owner. I must say though, for me - these dogs are few and far between (and yes, I've fitted quite a few). most of the dogs readily take the food - and because it's their choice to wear it (ie: food when head collar is on, no food when it is off) I have had very few dogs refuse to wear it after a few repititions. In fact Kinta was quite adverse to the HC the first few times I did this with her - now she looooves it!

As always - there isn't one tool or method that works for all dogs - to me it's about keeping your options open and using the tools available for you to use.

ETA: I also don't disregard that there are a lot of misconceptions about HC's too which I absolutely hate - I totally agree with you Jess!

Edited October 1, 2008 by leopuppy04

[Erny]

There is +P that comes with the use of the HC as well.

[Seita]

Personally - for a dog that constantly pulls it's owners around - that dog can do quite a lot of damage to their windpipe - for me - a halter is a better option.

This is something that gets to me. A head collar puts pressure across the nose which most know is a very sensitive area, how is that any different from a collar that put pressure on the windpipe. If someone were to use an e-collar there would be no pressure at all, just low level stim which would in no way harm the dog. I think there are a lot of misconceptions over many training tools but if we're going to stop using one tool because is can damage a part of the dog how are we fixing the problem by using a tool that can cause just as much harm to another part of the dog?

[poodlefan]

Constant pressure from a dog leaning on a halti or walking with its head angled (quite common) can cause permanent damage to the upper neck resulting in serious ongoing movement and coordination problems.

It seems that a tool originally intended to be step towards walking on a flat collar is viewed by many people as a kinder alternative to long term control. How many dogs do you see outside clubs walking on a halti, a flat collar and two leads (or a double ended one)

Now we see them tied up wearing them or even worse (for the reasons above) being walked in a halti and a flexi lead.

I think they shouldn't be made available to the public from any place other than a trainer or club.

[Staff'n'Toller]

Personally - for a dog that constantly pulls it's owners around - that dog can do quite a lot of damage to their windpipe - for me - a halter is a better option.

This is something that gets to me. A head collar puts pressure across the nose which most know is a very sensitive area, how is that any different from a collar that put pressure on the windpipe. If someone were to use an e-collar there would be no pressure at all, just low level stim which would in no way harm the dog. I think there are a lot of misconceptions over many training tools but if we're going to stop using one tool because is can damage a part of the dog how are we fixing the problem by using a tool that can cause just as much harm to another part of the dog?

A mis-timed stim or misused E collar can create shutting down, frustration and learned helplessness. Just because it's not outwardly apparent physical harm, doesn't mean it is not harmful at all.

This is swaying off topic of the original post, but everyone needs to put head collar use into some sort of perspective IMO. I would rather positively introduce a head collar over a number of weeks to a dog that is NOT getting walked at all because the owner is unable/unwilling to do so. I would rather see a dog happily wearing a head collar with some amount of aversive in there for pulling (balanced with R+ for correct walking behaviour) getting OUT of it's backyard each day and being mentally stimulated than not at all.

Each case needs to be analysed in its individual situation in regards to owner and dog. The head collar (nor the E collar) for that matter is not something you can make blanket statements on in regards to training because every dog and owner is different!!

Mel.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Staff'n'Toller

[leopuppy04]

Constant pressure from a dog leaning on a halti or walking with its head angled (quite common) can cause permanent damage to the upper neck resulting in serious ongoing movement and coordination problems.

It seems that a tool originally intended to be step towards walking on a flat collar is viewed by many people as a kinder alternative to long term control. How many dogs do you see outside clubs walking on a halti, a flat collar and two leads (or a double ended one)

Now we see them tied up wearing them or even worse (for the reasons above) being walked in a halti and a flexi lead.

I think they shouldn't be made available to the public from any place other than a trainer or club.

Absolutely no disagreement from me here.

There has been a huge mis-use of a halter as a training tool. It really arks my back up seeing dogs tied up with their halter still attached

Used with a trainer, I see the halter as a valuable tool.

seita - you can condition your dog to the feel of a halter - ie: the feel of a halter resting on it's nose (no pressure)... I've never had much difficulty doing this.

Constant pressure on a dogs throat by pulling on a collar is not something I like to see - period.