Latest Research On Prong & Check Collars

[Cosmolo]

I think that is a very simplistic view of why dogs end up in pounds with reasons like " can't walk pulls on lead".

I find many trainers who use physical corrections frequently are just as closed minded as their positive counterparts. I am around dog trainers and dog trainers in training alot and the closed mindedness exists equally in both camps.

[Cosmolo]

And yes T- owner preferences are absolutely one of the factors we consider in embarking on a training program with any dog/ owner combination.

[megan_]

Every working dog I've ever met has always been given rewards - even the military figs

[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.

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.

In my experience they rarely have the same problems in untrained hands as checks. Most dogs who have a long history of pulling need some pretty hefty whacks on a check to get any sort of result. This sets a precedent for heavy corrections and actually puts the dog owner in a more agitated state. They have much, much more potential for physical damage.

Dogs on prongs don't get continual punishment (sounds like head collars to me). Not unless the owners are stringing them up, but again I've found that almost all people are incredibly delicate on prongs because of the way they look.

You don't have to continue escalating at all, most dogs only desensitize slightly if at all on a prong, and if you're using the prong IN CONJUNCTION with rewards for

Correct behaviour (which you should be), the need for corrections all but disappears quite quickly.

Dogs learn very, very fast on prongs. It's a brilliant way to get big progress with a dog that an owner has all but given uP on for walking, and show them the light at the end of the tunnel. It also means that the dog is finally getting exercises which makes EVERYTHING easier.

[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.

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.

In my experience they rarely have the same problems in untrained hands as checks. Most dogs who have a long history of pulling need some pretty hefty whacks on a check to get any sort of result. This sets a precedent for heavy corrections and actually puts the dog owner in a more agitated state. They have much, much more potential for physical damage.

Dogs on prongs don't get continual punishment (sounds like head collars to me). Not unless the owners are stringing them up, but again I've found that almost all people regardless of how 'green' they are are incredibly delicate on prongs because of the way they look.

You don't have to continue escalating at all, most dogs only desensitize slightly if at all on a prong, and if you're using the prong IN CONJUNCTION with rewards for Correct behaviour (which you should be), the need for corrections all but disappears quite quickly.

Dogs learn very, very fast on prongs. It's a brilliant way to get big progress with a dog that an owner has all but given uP on for walking, and show them the light at the end of the tunnel. It also means that the dog is finally getting exercises which makes EVERYTHING easier.

[megan_]

Every working dog I've ever met has always been given rewards - even the military dogs!

[melzawelza]

I think that is a very simplistic view of why dogs end up in pounds with reasons like " can't walk pulls on lead".

I find many trainers who use physical corrections frequently are just as closed minded as their positive counterparts. I am around dog trainers and dog trainers in training alot and the closed mindedness exists equally in both camps.

The dogs often have lots of othe behaviour issues stemming from the complete lack of exercise and stimulation and the cumulative effect sees them end up in the pound. I'm not saying every dog is there because of these reasons; but it happens and it happens too often.

I'd agree that the people on the other side are also closed minded and just as bad - the people who rely heavily on corrections and not much reward. That's why I value balanced training methods.

[Rebanne]

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

but being allowed to work can be a reward, therefore can be a positive reward.

[Cosmolo]

I think the label balanced has been poisoned. There are lots of correction heavy trainers who would describe themselves as balanced.

I have dealt with thousands of surrendered animals and believe it is rare that dogs are surrendered because of a training attempt that was positive that did not work. Dogs that have never had training- yes. There are many other factors pertaining to the owner and genetics of the dog involved.

[mixeduppup]

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

but being allowed to work can be a reward, therefore can be a positive reward.

True. I meant in the sense of treats or toys. Good point though.

[mixeduppup]

[ 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.)

True the stock are a positive reward. I doubt my girls would care about a treat or a toy in the presence of stock any way. They love working and find out quickly that being obedient gets them the sheep lol

[m-sass]

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 think it would be more realistic to see trainers handing out head halters to dogs who need a prong in most cases. I don't know of many trainers who use prongs let alone hand them out like lollies.....over exaggeration perhaps Cosmolo?

I have dealt with thousands of surrendered animals and believe it is rare that dogs are surrendered because of a training attempt that

was positive that did not work

very few people dedicated enough to their dog to train it positive or not are the last people who will surrender them, they usually just accept the dogs behaviour and manage the dog accordingly.

Edited November 9, 2012 by m-sass

[m-sass]

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.

+1 excellent post :D

[Cosmolo]

No i am not exaggerating. But your point is valid in that there are also headcollars handed out when they shouldn't be.

[corvus]

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

Nonesense, you can tell easily at what level of character and temperament a dog has by working with the dog on leash.

You missed my point. Fallout is not just shutting down or redirecting on the handler. Those are just the most obvious examples. The effects of punishment have the tendency to bleed. It makes perfect sense given negativity biases are adaptive. But how do you judge an acceptable level of bleeding? It's completely subjective, and you have no way of measuring the emotional effect on the dog. So 'fallout' is not a measurable thing. If it's not measurable, how can you identify how much is acceptable? How do you know it is always expressed in the same way? How do you know you are identifying all negative effects? How you define a negative effect may differ to how others define it. I think it is far more common than you think it is. So who is right? Either someone is making Type I errors or someone is making Type II errors. I know which I'd prefer to be making.

I also know what I'd rather people screw up their timing on between rewards or punishments. Cosmolo made a very good point about that. If they don't have the skill to deliver rewards properly I don't think I'd want them trying to deliver punishments properly. Sensitivity changes from moment to moment. If someone skilled tells someone unskilled what punishment to use based on how the dog behaves in one circumstance, there is no guarantee that same punishment will be appropriate a few days later in a completely different circumstance. I think there is some buffering from these effects in using reinforcement. Crappy timing in reward delivery is pretty harmless. You can mess some things up if you're really awful at it, but if you're that bad your potential to do damage with punishments is huge. Punishments become non-contingent. That's a recipe for extreme stress. Your timing only has to be off by a second to make the association really hard for the dog to form.

[Maxiewolf]

I think I got to "The prongs are sharpened which is often the case" before I rolled my eyes and gave up. They dont rip necks appart, and yes like any collar they can cause pressure necrosis (those gorey photos that anti-prong people always throw at you) from being tied up or left on for extended periods of time.

I can not fathom how the heck people think "sharpening" the prongs on these things is so easy and common... if its so common, how come their arent pages of google images of "sharpened" prong collars? or how to pages on how to sharpen the points?? - Something cant be sooo common yet so hard to find. Doesn't really add up now does it?

I do believe however that Joe Public (i hope noone ever actually called Joe public actually joins this forum) should not be able to just pluck one of these collars from anywhere (or a check chain for that matter) without being shown how to correctly use one.

I recently switched to a neck tech type, which has blunt low profile prongs for Brutus, most of the time it just hangs loose. I was shown by a trainer how to use an older style prong, and I use a martingale on our Mastiff. What I use on my dogs doesn't cause them pain, I don't intentionally hurt my dogs - so why should my training tools that WORK for me be taken away cos too many idiots cant use things properly or because people take them at face value.. lots of things "look" unsightly but are not harmful in the right hands and serve a purpose.

If a person WANTS to hurt a dog by putting something around their neck... banning, removing or restricting prong collars woudlnt stop such things. Cruel people will be cruel no matter whats available or not available to them.

[m-sass]

I think that is a very simplistic view of why dogs end up in pounds with reasons like " can't walk pulls on lead".

I find many trainers who use physical corrections frequently are just as closed minded as their positive counterparts. I am around dog trainers and dog trainers in training alot and the closed mindedness exists equally in both camps.

Physical correction will work on any dog to gain obedience.....it's not that in the Koehler days that dogs trained in that method were not obedient, they were obedient with excellent off leash reliability, but judging trends with a liking to animated performances from motivational training methods were scoring higher than the Koehler trained dogs is where it began, it was nothing about aversive methods lacking obedience or reliability results, but, motivational methods doesn't work "easily" on all dogs.......if it's going to take 2 years to get a loose leash walk in motivational methods or 20 minutes on a prong collar with a particular dog, what's the point other than saying "I have never corrected my dog", well that's excellent of you have got 2 years to mess around I guess??

"Balanced" training IMHO is a balance of all methods applied either singally or in combination with, dependent upon the temperament and character of the dog??. Any trainer who won't correct a dog when required or motivate a dog with reward are as bad as each other I think, you need to apply what ever method works best for that particular dog I think.

[mixeduppup]

The Joe Public comment made me giggle. :laugh:

If they did join, they'd quickly develop very low self esteem

[m-sass]

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

Nonesense, you can tell easily at what level of character and temperament a dog has by working with the dog on leash.

You missed my point. Fallout is not just shutting down or redirecting on the handler. Those are just the most obvious examples. The effects of punishment have the tendency to bleed. It makes perfect sense given negativity biases are adaptive. But how do you judge an acceptable level of bleeding? It's completely subjective, and you have no way of measuring the emotional effect on the dog. So 'fallout' is not a measurable thing. If it's not measurable, how can you identify how much is acceptable? How do you know it is always expressed in the same way? How do you know you are identifying all negative effects? How you define a negative effect may differ to how others define it. I think it is far more common than you think it is. So who is right? Either someone is making Type I errors or someone is making Type II errors. I know which I'd prefer to be making.

I also know what I'd rather people screw up their timing on between rewards or punishments. Cosmolo made a very good point about that. If they don't have the skill to deliver rewards properly I don't think I'd want them trying to deliver punishments properly. Sensitivity changes from moment to moment. If someone skilled tells someone unskilled what punishment to use based on how the dog behaves in one circumstance, there is no guarantee that same punishment will be appropriate a few days later in a completely different circumstance. I think there is some buffering from these effects in using reinforcement. Crappy timing in reward delivery is pretty harmless. You can mess some things up if you're really awful at it, but if you're that bad your potential to do damage with punishments is huge. Punishments become non-contingent. That's a recipe for extreme stress. Your timing only has to be off by a second to make the association really hard for the dog to form.

I understand where you are coming from......I don't know that a science can prove the difference, all dogs being individual you can't undo a training method already applied to the same dog easily to try an alternative for a definitive answer??.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I have never corrected my dog

withholding a treat is a correction.

m-sass

Anecdote - I saw an owner trying to catch his dog a couple of weeks ago. The dog was clearly terrified of him. I stupidly helped him catch the dog, and before I handed it over - I told him not to punish it. But he immediately shoved a choke collar over its head and yanked it around - told the dog "not to play games", and then he pushed the dog on the ground and hit it.

In my best growly voice - I said "I will NEVER help you catch that dog again". And he grovelled - smiled and waved at me and left. Next time I see that dog - I will get its id info off its collar and report him for abuse. Some people should not be allowed to own dogs. But this is classic fallout. Ie the punishment is getting the opposite of what the owner intended in a way that treats never would used in the same situation.

I accidentally trained my dog to go off big time at the lawnmower man. But so many (badly timed) treats were involved that she is always really pleased to see him and licks him to death if she gets close enough. I've stopped using treats and started using blocking with more success. Sigh. But at least I didn't use a technique that would likely cause her to blame the lawnmower man for her pain and lead to her attacking him.

So the science - it's already been proven somewhere that reward based training is more effective, faster and lasts longer than aversive based... I think it would be straight forward to split new comers in dog clubs into two streams - old school yank and crank and new school reward based, and see which group graduates more dogs faster - with the same criteria and assessors who don't know which group is which or even that there is a split in the training techniques - though it might be obvious to them if they're doing an assessment.

Another anecdote - watched a GSD club training. Watched tonnes of aversives - scoldings yanking, shaking, alpha rolls!!! being dished out, and no rewards, no pats, no praise, no fun, no treats. All the dogs looked sad. Heads were low, they were making calming signals at their owners and the instructor. The instructor stopped during class to punish his dog for failing to hold a down stay. My dog holds down stays for longer than his could, and my dog wags her tail the entire time.