What's Something Universally Mildly Aversive?

[corvus]

Well, it depends on what your question is, doesn't it? If it's "What effect do high-stim e-collar protocols have on dogs?" then it's not invalid to only examine high-stim e-collar protocols.

How do you make a dog swallow a tablet before checking to see what it is? Is it conditioning, a sense of competition, or optimism? :D

That's sort of my point - if it's the paper I'm thinking of, and like I said may be different to the one you're thinking of, she only looked at high stim protocols, but just concluded that e-collars in general were risky. I thought that was either ignorant (she genuinely doesn't know the difference between different protocol types) or misleading (she's unwilling to discuss the difference). If I were writing a paper studying the Koehler "head held under water to discourage digging" technique, and concluded that all use of water in training was risky, I'd be making a similar error.

I was talking about this one: Why electric shock is not behavior modification

Her main drive is that very little that is claimed about electronic collars is tested or supported by data. Except the bad stuff, really. I was being a bit generous when I said she acknowledged their potential usefulness. She acknowledges the areas in which they are supposed to be useful, but questions if they actually do what it is thought they do.

I think the Schilder and van der Borg paper was pretty objective, but obviously it gets criticised for the same thing: only studying the use of high stim shocks. I think a better analogy for that one is to say that if you were studying the "head held under water to discourage digging" technique, you may conclude that holding a dog's head underwater was unnecessarily stressful and it is therefore not recommended that the average owner have a tub of water on hand when training their dog, or even be taught that that method exists.

Anyway, I'm quite happy to admit I'm biased on the issue. Overall's concerns about e-collars are basically my concerns. I don't think she was being ignorant or misleading. She discusses low stim and how it is used and raises concerns particular to the R- method. She raises a good point that a lot of what is claimed about e-collars is not tested and is therefore suspect.

[Staranais]

Anyway, I'm quite happy to admit I'm biased on the issue. Overall's concerns about e-collars are basically my concerns. I don't think she was being ignorant or misleading. She discusses low stim and how it is used and raises concerns particular to the R- method. She raises a good point that a lot of what is claimed about e-collars is not tested and is therefore suspect.

Yes, she does. She has some valid points, but I also get the feeling that she had a preconceived agenda to discredit any use of the ecollar regardless of the evidence, which rather colours the whole report for me, especially since she's criticizing the ecollar users for being non scientific. (Incidentally, I feel the same way about a traditional trainer I once talked to who thought that clicker was ridiculous and couldn't possibly work, without ever having tried the method or seen anyone competently demonstrate it. I didn't like his attitude either).

I could discuss the parts I disagree with in that article point by point, I suppose - I think what she writes is illogical in several places - but I don't know if this thread is the place for it.

Instead I'll just say that I certainly don't cause my girl shock or pain when I use the ecollar at low levels on her (I'm as certain of that as I am certain that I cause her pleasure when I feed her and play with her). Nor do I feel that I am part of a "cycle of violence". I also think it's rather a stretch to say that I (as an e collar user) "do not understand normal canine behavior and signaling and have little respect for the welfare and cognitive needs of dogs". And furthermore, I do not believe that a properly objective review of scientific information would use those emotive terms.

ETA: thanks for the link to the paper! It was different to the one I read, but very much along the same lines.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Staranais

[SharpShep]

??

What I don't understand is how the banning of tools primarily targeted towards professional trainers is helpful to the dog's abused with a lump of broom stick on a daily basis, or should broom sticks, local papers and car heater hose be banned too I can't get my head around the constant targeting and banning of properly designed training tools that offer an aversive stimulus, while the hard core aversives that do harm dogs dramatically are put in the out of sight out of mind basket. I hope someone can see where I am coming from in my slightly twisted thought process

I don't think anyone on this forum necessarily advocates banning any training tools, although I could be wrong because if they were I doubt they'd be game to publicly say it!

But I think you would find that broom sticks used on dogs, kicking with steel-capped boots and hitting a dog hard enough to injure them would all be considered illegal. It is illegal to injure animals unnecessarily. Although there are always grey areas. If I saw someone hitting a dog with a broomstick you can bet I would report them and I would expect them to be facing animal cruelty convictions. My concern is the misuse of dedicated training tools resulting in cruelty to dogs. I do not think said training tools should be banned, but I do think if we can minimise their capacity to cause harm we should do that.

We will never be able to prevent cruelty by banning things that can be used in a cruel manner. However, if we are making purpose-built dog training tools with the capacity to do harm then I think we need to be extremely careful how those get distributed and used. I think we have a responsibility to dogs to protect them from the misuse of such tools where we can.

Hi Corvus,

I did have the impression that some laws were already in place to restict sale and use of especially E collars and prong collars, either you could buy them but not use them or vice versa, something to that effect on the basis that these tools have the potential for misuse and abuse.

I totally understand the concept of this, but people who are heavy handed or cruel with dogs will use other means if they can't use an E collar on high stim or a prong collar to cause the dog pain, they will use a piece of heater hose and smack the dog on the nose instead............so what is gained from targeting and banning tools that can potentially cause abuse when the heavy handlers will use something else to cause an aversive instead???.

In the big picture, does legislating against certain training tools spare that given dog from suffering abuse??? The agenda doesn't really address the elimination of dog dog abuse, it only adresses that abuse will not be commited with a particular tool where it's confusing to me as to the effectiveness of such an agenda or what the agenda is really about???.

Edited August 10, 2010 by SharpShep

[corvus]

Maybe for another thread, Staranais. I think it's good to discuss these things. I just recently had Overall's text book on clinical behavioral medicine out from the library. She has kind of grown on me.

SharpShep, I don't think anyone who has such little regard for their dog that they would outright, deliberately abuse it would fork out for an e-collar to do it with. My point was, those activities are already illegal. I don't think the legislation where it exists is aimed at such people. I think it is aimed at the average dog owner who is caught up in what they don't want their dog to do and can't be trusted to read the instructions let alone take the time and trouble to understand how best to use this tool. Pressing a button is so very different to booting an animal. And no one is trying to sell you a boot specifically for training your dog.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Mild adversives - I don't know what is universal. I can just list things my dog doesn't like. I also don't know the context of the experiment - some of these things would be easier to deliver than others.

Surprises - unexpected anything - from even relatively soft noises, claps, a shadow from above (eg might be an aggressive bird or falling bit of tree?), rattles, falling tin cans (she knocked them over), and a nearby jet of water, and maybe an infrared motion detector door bell type thing - though I think she'd get used to that one. Aggressive dog barking noises.

Bad tastes or smells - her own dog poo (doesn't work on all dogs), aloe vera, eucalyptus, vicks vapour rub, dencorub, tiger balm, lemon (not the smell, but the taste of the actual lemon). Some of these things are poisonous in large quantities but a taste is usually sufficient to deter. She did aquire the taste for chilli - I admit fairly mild chilli but I expect she could get used to any chilli.

Being ignored or left alone. Again not a universal thing.

Me saying "Uh Uh" or "Leave it" or "nope" (you're not getting a reward for that idea). But this is more a trained thing. Especially the "leave it". She knows that if she leaves the whatever and comes straight to me - she gets uber treat.

She also prefers warm places to very cold ones, unless she's been running a lot. But she will eat iceblocks or frozen dinner any time.

[Staranais]

Maybe for another thread, Staranais. I think it's good to discuss these things. I just recently had Overall's text book on clinical behavioral medicine out from the library. She has kind of grown on me.

Sounds good - perhaps in a few weeks. I could even get Overall's book back out of the uni library, and we could go at it properly, LOL. I must say, I have nothing against her in a big way, but somewhat resent any trainer who rules out tools without giving them a fair go - no matter what the tool is. And I think this is what she's doing.

[corvus]

*puts it in the diary*

I realise I asked Erny to leave off the e-collar debate and then continued to discuss it with you for another page or so. Thanks to Erny for following my request and to everyone else for not getting too carried away. It would be nice to have a sensible, open discussion about it and how it is treated in science. Watch this space.

[SharpShep]

Maybe for another thread, Staranais. I think it's good to discuss these things. I just recently had Overall's text book on clinical behavioral medicine out from the library. She has kind of grown on me.

SharpShep, I don't think anyone who has such little regard for their dog that they would outright, deliberately abuse it would fork out for an e-collar to do it with. My point was, those activities are already illegal. I don't think the legislation where it exists is aimed at such people. I think it is aimed at the average dog owner who is caught up in what they don't want their dog to do and can't be trusted to read the instructions let alone take the time and trouble to understand how best to use this tool. Pressing a button is so very different to booting an animal. And no one is trying to sell you a boot specifically for training your dog.

Prong and E collars are commonly used world wide, it's not like they are a new device like a steel capped boot that has popped up on the Aussie market for a dog training aversive that needs evaluating with the knee jerk reactions that seemed to have happened. In reality, I see these tools being purchased under greater instruction than the simple flat collar and leash and the remote chance of people using these to an abusive level unconsciously I think is too slim to use as the agenda to ban them. At least professional trainers should be able to use them freely where required I think.

[Erny]

I realise I asked Erny to leave off the e-collar debate and then continued to discuss it with you for another page or so. Thanks to Erny for following my request ...

Admittedly I had to bite my tongue because in your last response to me (the one you asked me to stop talking about it) it was clear (to me) that you misunderstood what I was saying. But I didn't feel I had the right of reply. But that's ok, because it is your thread and what was being discussed was not on topic . And besides - I know through (multiple x multiple dog) experience what fantastic training collars e-collars can be and are with the right method and how much additional freedom it can permit dogs who otherwise might be deprived it. And how happy those same dogs are.

Where you misunderstood my point is ...... WHAT misuse is it that everyone talks about? Where is it happening? How often?

Edited August 11, 2010 by Erny