Latest Research On Prong & Check Collars

[mixeduppup]

I have two kelpies and two very different training methods. One needed a check collar for a while as she was a rescue and a bit dog reactive and needed that extra reinforcement.

How do you know she "needed" it? I think that's the point corvus was making, just because something works doesn't mean it was necessary. It's more important to know that you are competent and not doing harm.

We tried many different avenues and this is what she responded to and it suited her abrupt yet forceful nature.

[Aidan3]

I have two kelpies and two very different training methods. One needed a check collar for a while as she was a rescue and a bit dog reactive and needed that extra reinforcement.

How do you know she "needed" it? I think that's the point corvus was making, just because something works doesn't mean it was necessary. It's more important to know that you are competent and not doing harm.

We tried many different avenues and this is what she responded to and it suited her abrupt yet forceful nature.

The arguments go that "some dogs need this, some dogs need that". I doubt that anything is truly "necessary" in training a dog. What you really mean is "I had success training one dog with a check chain, and I was not successful in training this same dog a different way".

Chances are there are probably other people who would have had success training your dog a different way. I don't know how many dogs I have trained, but I take very few dogs who are not reactive or aggressive, and I have never needed to use a check chain. This is not a value judgment on the myriad of different ways that a dog can be trained, it's just a statement based on probability.

It might sound like an argument in semantics, but the reality is that it seems a majority of people truly believe that certain things are "necessary" - as in "there is no other way to do this" - which implies that because someone else doesn't do it that way, that person must be wrong.

Well I resent that, and I think we all should. I don't say people "need" to be able to use food, because clearly they don't. (The exception is when they're paying me to help them with their aggressive dog, because if they don't do what I tell them and their dog doesn't get any better, that reflects badly on me, and puts others at risk.)

[mixeduppup]

I've only ever used a check chain once before about 9 years ago on a border collie that was a bit the same way. I actually had to go looking for it as it's not in my training tool kit. The point is, if the dog responds to it well and you are using it properly...why not use it?

[corvus]

I disagree that most methods are effective if applied skilfully.

Crank & yank on a whippet probably isn't going to be successful (shutting down the dog, lots of fall out etc).

That's not what I would call skilful application. Is that what you would call skilful application?

Likewise a 'positive only' approach may not work (and by work I'm talking about fixing the issue to an acceptable level within an acceptable timeframe) for a high drive, dog aggro Rotty and may for the placid Whippet (again, generalising), even when being used effectively.

Really? Then how can we say it's being used effectively if it doesn't work? We know that in some cases at least it does work, so if it doesn't, can we be certain it was applied skilfully?

Individual dogs respond to individual techniques, and that's why many of us feel a good balanced trainer is always preferable.

No, every species that is capable of some level of cognition responds to operant conditioning. They don't just respond to the quadrants that suit them. Pretty much anything with the ability to sense its surroundings responds to classical conditioning.

Arguments about the effectiveness of quadrant-based methods are mostly pointless. They are all effective. It's a matter of the balance of reinforcers and punishers, the ability to control the environment, and what's driving the behaviour. You don't have to be a balanced trainer to be a good judge of these things, and many good trainers get by just fine with hundreds of difficult dogs without using things like prong collars. I'm sure it's a confronting thing to hear and it's more comfortable to shrug it off or come up with reasons to justify using tools others have decided they don't want any part of, but honestly, it is fact. There are plenty of people out there training all manner of big, powerful, reactive, aggressive dogs without prong collars or corrections and having great success. Are they better trainers than you? Many have done the prong collar thing once upon a time and don't anymore. It's not hard to find them. Are you game to look? Can you accept that it can and is being done? You could even learn how if you wanted.

Arguments based on a single dog are also pointless. If you've been through a bunch of different methods there are a bunch of big fat question marks surrounding the whole thing. How skilfully were those other methods applied? Were they tried for long enough? To what extent did they affect the methods tried afterwards? How were other confounding factors like arousal and emotional state managed? Were they managed at all? How much practice did the dog get performing the undesired behaviour? Was the driving force correctly identified in the first place? Were the antecedents correctly identified? Was there conditioning involved? Oftentimes things work, but they don't always work for the reasons people think they work. I've seen dogs basically bludgeoned with the same awful training over and over and I wonder how on earth they actually managed to learn anything, let alone the desired behaviour. But they do. Dogs do stuff like that. They are so easy to train they are their own worst enemy.

[melzawelza]

But owner capability is a huge factor into how you teach them to train a dog. MUP had success with a check chain, The fact that you or I or anyone else may have had success with different techniques doesn't matter, because the person who has to handle and live with the dog didn't.

That's the problem with only subscribing to one philosophy. If the owner is unable to do it and isnt given an alternative that they can, the dog is the one that often pays when it ends up at the pound or with the green dream.

[Cosmolo]

I agree with both Corvus and Aidan's posts.

As i have also posted in another thread recently- it's not just about correct use either. There are many other questions that need to be asked including but not limited to- How likely is the tool to be used correctly? (some tools are easier to learn to use than others) How long will it take to learn to use XYZ tool correctly? What happens to the dog during this time? What happens to the dog when the tool is used incorrectly? (links strongly with how likely it is to be used correctly or not).

For what it's worth i went from what most would call positive to 'balanced' and then to something else that i'm not sure has a label. I believe my best training has been without label.

[Cosmolo]

Define success?

[melzawelza]

I disagree that most methods are effective if applied skilfully.

Crank & yank on a whippet probably isn't going to be successful (shutting down the dog, lots of fall out etc).

That's not what I would call skilful application. Is that what you would call skilful application?

Likewise a 'positive only' approach may not work (and by work I'm talking about fixing the issue to an acceptable level within an acceptable timeframe) for a high drive, dog aggro Rotty and may for the placid Whippet (again, generalising), even when being used effectively.

Really? Then how can we say it's being used effectively if it doesn't work? We know that in some cases at least it does work, so if it doesn't, can we be certain it was applied skilfully?

Individual dogs respond to individual techniques, and that's why many of us feel a good balanced trainer is always preferable.

No, every species that is capable of some level of cognition responds to operant conditioning. They don't just respond to the quadrants that suit them. Pretty much anything with the ability to sense its surroundings responds to classical conditioning.

Arguments about the effectiveness of quadrant-based methods are mostly pointless. They are all effective. It's a matter of the balance of reinforcers and punishers, the ability to control the environment, and what's driving the behaviour. You don't have to be a balanced trainer to be a good judge of these things, and many good trainers get by just fine with hundreds of difficult dogs without using things like prong collars. I'm sure it's a confronting thing to hear and it's more comfortable to shrug it off or come up with reasons to justify using tools others have decided they don't want any part of, but honestly, it is fact. There are plenty of people out there training all manner of big, powerful, reactive, aggressive dogs without prong collars or corrections and having great success. Are they better trainers than you? Many have done the prong collar thing once upon a time and don't anymore. It's not hard to find them. Are you game to look? Can you accept that it can and is being done? You could even learn how if you wanted.

Arguments based on a single dog are also pointless. If you've been through a bunch of different methods there are a bunch of big fat question marks surrounding the whole thing. How skilfully were those other methods applied? Were they tried for long enough? To what extent did they affect the methods tried afterwards? How were other confounding factors like arousal and emotional state managed? Were they managed at all? How much practice did the dog get performing the undesired behaviour? Was the driving force correctly identified in the first place? Were the antecedents correctly identified? Was there conditioning involved? Oftentimes things work, but they don't always work for the reasons people think they work. I've seen dogs basically bludgeoned with the same awful training over and over and I wonder how on earth they actually managed to learn anything, let alone the desired behaviour. But they do. Dogs do stuff like that. They are so easy to train they are their own worst enemy.

It doesn't matter whether the trainer can train and control the dog without tools or corrections (that only matters with their own dogs). It matters whether the OWNER can, and many do nt have the skill set, timing or knowledge to apply completely positive training to very tricky, dangerous behavioral issues.

ETA: and more importantly, are not willing to invest the length of time needed to get adequate results using those methods.

Edited November 9, 2012 by melzawelza

[mixeduppup]

But owner capability is a huge factor into how you teach them to train a dog. MUP had success with a check chain, The fact that you or I or anyone else may have had success with different techniques doesn't matter, because the person who has to handle and live with the dog didn't.

That's the problem with only subscribing to one philosophy. If the owner is unable to do it and isnt given an alternative that they can, the dog is the one that often pays when it ends up at the pound or with the green dream.

If the process works and isn't cruel and the owner knows what they are doing, then there's no reason not to implement it. the dog in question was rescued from the pound at 2-3years and knew nothing of walking on a leash. In the yard dog world there's no place for halties or harnesses (or the like) and the dog must be under full control on a flat collar and walk at your side or behind you. A halti may have worked if she were to be just a pet but due to the circumstances the check chain was the best option and has proven successful.

ETA. Working dogs aren't given treats as it distracts them from their job. So positive reward based training through treats or toys cannot be done. I however employ these techniques with my other doggies and with Maybe and Torque for general obedience :D

Edited November 9, 2012 by mixeduppup

[Cosmolo]

If they don't have the timing, knowledge, skill set to apply positive techniques- why give them tools that have high levels of corrective function that also require timing, knowledge and skill sets? Someone who is training with correction collars or headcollars of any sort need even more ability, timing and comittment IMO.

[m-sass]

FWIW I think you get good at the method you practice. And there are bad trainers all over the spectrum of methods. I'd rather get in a trainer that is specialised and well-versed in the method of training that the kelps already have a basis in, than a 'jack of all trades' who may be able to use a prong but that is of no use to me because I'm not going to use one. I'm quite happy to "piss around with a positive trainer" with my reactive dog because I know that the fallout for correcting him for displaying fear is going to to be worse and harder to resolve than just treating the problem at the source to start with.

You can get "fallout" with too harsh an aversive for the dog's temperament so a trainer who won't apply a correct level aversive to suit a particular dog from fear of fallout isn't a good trainer who can read a dog properly. Fallout and all that crap is a cover up of the trainer's lack of ability and experience. There is no "one method" that fit's all IMHO and each individual dog needs a method suitable to it's individual temperament, good trainers can supply that, method pushers can't is my point.

But the point is that a good balanced trainer would recognise if corrections were going to cause too much fallout for your dog and wouldn't use them. That's why it's balanced - they use the best tools and techniques for the individual dog rather than just using a one size fits all for all dogs.

100% correct :D

Edited November 9, 2012 by m-sass

[melzawelza]

If they don't have the timing, knowledge, skill set to apply positive techniques- why give them tools that have high levels of corrective function that also require timing, knowledge and skill sets? Someone who is training with correction collars or headcollars of any sort need even more ability, timing and comittment IMO.

Not necessarily. Take a 60kg dog that hasn't left it's backyard in a year because the owner can't hold it back.

Sure, we could put it on front attach harnesses and spend weeks to months trying get the owners timing right for when to stop and not move forward (thats if they can stop at all!), when to reward, how to reward, how to reward quickly enough that the dog associates it with the behaviour we want to reward, all the while expecting the owner to be unbelievably patient and go on walks where it takes them 20 minutes to move 10 meters.

Would we get there in the end? Sure, if the owner was really patient, and picked up the many different concepts involved and the timing.

But it the owner wasn't any of those things, and wasn't willing to spend weeks to months on it, and/or simply couldn't physically hold the dog back, we could introduce a prong collar and just carefully and clearly ensure the owner understands that this took is NOT for cranking and yanking, and a lot of the work is done by the dog anyway.

I find that prong collars LOOK so harsh (much more harsh than they actually are) that most people are very ginger and careful with them, and very very soft with corrections. People figure out very quickly that they don't NEED to crank the dog on a prong, and therefore they don't do it.

With a prong collar we can usually go for a nice walk first go. Dog gets exercised adequately which means other behavioral issues start to improve very quickly, and the owner doesn't have 5 different things to think about when teaching the dog how to walk.

Edited November 9, 2012 by melzawelza

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

At my dog park - no choke collars are used as negative reinforcemnet slip collars. All the dogs pull to the limit of the lead and then some.

At my dog club - there are some using them correctly but they could probably do the same exercises in a flat collar or limited slip. Ie their dog doesn't need the choke collar. But most of the beginners who are encouraged to use them - they have to fight and argue to use something else, and they're not told about what other options there are - food and play as reward are actively discouraged by many but not all of the instructors. It's horrible.

So - before, after and during class - most dog owners are using the chains as choke collars. Many of the instructors are not stressing the importance of RELEASING the chain and praising the dog when it does what the owner wants. They yank the dog to heel, it pulls they repeat. There's no warning and often no release of pressure as they keep the lead and chain tight to preven the dog moving forward. Maybe if there was a licencing system where a dog owner had to demonstrate they know how to use one correctly before they could put one on the dog - and dog pulling in front of them - not correct.

I wish there was some good scientific studies on dogs ending up at vets or behavourists. But I've only got anecdotes - eg friends lab with collapsed trachea from pulling on a choke chain and my own dog - avoiding walks on leads - she'd run and hide when she saw me getting the walking kit out for two whole years, including a year after I stopped using the thing.

[melzawelza]

At my dog park - no choke collars are used as negative reinforcemnet slip collars. All the dogs pull to the limit of the lead and then some.

At my dog club - there are some using them correctly but they could probably do the same exercises in a flat collar or limited slip. Ie their dog doesn't need the choke collar. But most of the beginners who are encouraged to use them - they have to fight and argue to use something else, and they're not told about what other options there are - food and play as reward are actively discouraged by many but not all of the instructors. It's horrible.

So - before, after and during class - most dog owners are using the chains as choke collars. Many of the instructors are not stressing the importance of RELEASING the chain and praising the dog when it does what the owner wants. They yank the dog to heel, it pulls they repeat. There's no warning and often no release of pressure as they keep the lead and chain tight to preven the dog moving forward. Maybe if there was a licencing system where a dog owner had to demonstrate they know how to use one correctly before they could put one on the dog - and dog pulling in front of them - not correct.

I wish there was some good scientific studies on dogs ending up at vets or behavourists. But I've only got anecdotes - eg friends lab with collapsed trachea from pulling on a choke chain and my own dog - avoiding walks on leads - she'd run and hide when she saw me getting the walking kit out for two whole years, including a year after I stopped using the thing.

Checks are a different story. They are very hard to get right for most owners and have much more potential for physical damage. I'd choose a prong over a check 99% of the time.

[m-sass]

But the point is that a good balanced trainer would recognise if corrections were going to cause too much fallout for your dog and wouldn't use them. That's why it's balanced - they use the best tools and techniques for the individual dog rather than just using a one size fits all for all dogs.

There are two problems with this.

1) How do you judge what is "too much fallout"? How do you measure it? How do you predict it?

2) How do you tell what's 'best' for an individual dog? This is a statement that drives me crazy. There is NO WAY TO TELL. You can't compare methods on the one dog and unless you find dogs that are clones with exactly the same upbringing and training history, comparison between dogs is meaningless. And even if you could do that, can you take into account the skill of the trainer? There is no measure for trainer skill at this point. Success is not a measure of trainer skill.

I find it very telling that some people on this thread seem to think there is just one way to apply, say, dicking around just under threshold doing watch me exercises. Er, it's a fair bit more nuanced and subtle than that, people. I love when folks are quick to cry ignorance when someone disses their favoured methods, but in the same breath show their ignorance by dissing other methods. D'ya think no one notices the hypocrisy? Most methods are effective to some degree. I expect all methods are effective if applied skilfully.

Nonesense, you can tell easily at what level of character and temperament a dog has by working with the dog on leash. A very soft dog can show avoidance to the rattle of a chain collar for example........you watch the body language through subtle tests, a very hard dog will show absolutely nothing to collar pressure even to a harsh correction the dog takes it in their stride...........so fallout level from an aversive isn't hard to predict, the harder the nerve of the dog, the more aversive the dog can handle and vice versa. The recovery time even a soft dog takes after a rattle on the chain is indicative of what fallout if any is likely. Fallout occures from my experience at the extreme ends of temperament which is not common in the average dog, you can shut down a very soft dog with aversives as you can cause a low threshhold to fight dog come back up the leash with aggression........yes fallout is real and a possibility but it's not guaranteed across the board, in most cases fallout is unusual in the average temperament of most dogs.

[Cosmolo]

In the situation you describe, it might be appropriate, it might not. I'm not saying there is never a case where it is the right thing to do. BUT i am sick of seeing chains and prongs handed out like lollies by 'balanced' trainers to people who shouldn't have them AND dogs that don't need them under the guise of being 'balanced'.

[tdierikx]

Define success?

Success is ending up with a method that works well for both dog and owner - and results in the dog behaving in a responsive manner to said owner... *grin*

As you are a trainer of some note, and have indicated that you will work with both dog and owner to find a training method or tools that work for both towards the common goal, I'd say you would have more success than the weekend group training clubs who prescribe to "my way or the highway" methods/tools.

Say for example, you were faced with my scenario of an owner who knows how to use a check chain, and preferred not to feed their dog at every turn - I'd say you'd probably start with working within those basic guidelines if it appeared to be working for the dog and me, yes? The group training club I was referring to totally disregarded my input with regards to the food issue and decided that they knew my dog better than I did... then "expelled" us when the dog became unruly due to being fed all the bloody time...

So I found another training club when it was time to try some obedience with my disabled dog - one that listened to why she was going to train in a harness and no collar, etc... they also used food rewards a lot, but were flexible enough to let me only reward with food at irregular intervals so the dog learned that praise was more often going to be the reward.

Quite frankly, I'm not always going to make sure my pockets are stuffed full of treats when I take my dogs out in public just to make them respond to my commands - they need to learn voice only command/reward IMHO... the only thing I want to have to remember is poo bags... *grin*

T.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

At my dog park - no choke collars are used as negative reinforcemnet slip collars. All the dogs pull to the limit of the lead and then some.

Checks are a different story. They are very hard to get right for most owners and have much more potential for physical damage. I'd choose a prong over a check 99% of the time.

I agree that prong collars seem to be much more effective than slip collars and they can't choke in the same way - but they have the same problems in the hands of untrained beginners. Ie the dog gets continually punished for all behaviour and never rewarded for good behaviour. And the nature of postive punishment is - that you have to continually escalate it to keep getting a response. And then there is the fall out you get from using postive punishment (adding + an aversive). Unless the handler's timing is perfect and they remember to get good behaviour and reward that immediately after - the dog does not understand what it is being punished for or what the handler wants instead.

So at dog club - there's not enough one to one supervision and encouragement for the handler to be able to get it right. And getting it wrong can have nasty consequences for dog and handler.

[4Kelpies]

[ In the yard dog world there's no place for halties or harnesses (or the like) and the dog must be under full control on a flat collar and walk at your side or behind you. A halti may have worked if she were to be just a pet but due to the circumstances the check chain was the best option and has proven successful.

ETA. Working dogs aren't given treats as it distracts them from their job. So positive reward based training through treats or toys cannot be done. I however employ these techniques with my other doggies and with Maybe and Torque for general obedience :D

You can still use positive rewards - just different rewards. For my dogs getting to the sheep is a far greater reward than any treat or toy. If they don't walk beside me we don't go any closer to the sheep until they are back in heel position. They learn to walk beside me off lead and know the correct position. If I can control them in a trial when sheep are being let out in front of them and bolting to the other end of the yard, it's not hard to keep them under control when walking around the paddocks and calling them off rabbits etc. (I don't ever walk around roads.)

[melzawelza]

In the situation you describe, it might be appropriate, it might not. I'm not saying there is never a case where it is the right thing to do. BUT i am sick of seeing chains and prongs handed out like lollies by 'balanced' trainers to people who shouldn't have them AND dogs that don't need them under the guise of being 'balanced'.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. But I'll also say that a lot of balanced trainers are sick to death of seeing dogs surrendered at pounds because the owners can't or won't do what's needed for a positive only approach to leash training a dog that has already learnt to pull like a steam train, when it could have been addressed if the trainer had a more open mind.