Kajirin Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share Posted October 29, 2015 Have to remember the proposal is for trainers only to use e-collars not the general public...it's only for an exemption for trainers who undergo the specific snake aversion training using e-collars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 They are a handy tool for aversion learning if you believe that is what you want/must do. I have been kicking around ideas for snake avoidance training lately and considering running a class (obviously not with e-collars, as they are illegal in NSW), but there are so many ifs and buts and variables to take into account. It is really tricky to map out how to approach this for a variety of different dogs to get the safest and most reliable results. I could count the trainers I know personally worldwide I would trust with an e-collar who might actually use one on one hand. This suggests to me the average professional trainer should not have access to them. Some trainers do quite enough damage without these tools, thanks. I am not real bothered by their illegal status in NSW. I am yet to recommend punishment anyway as a) it's generally easy to not use it and b) it runs counter to my goals for nearly every dog and every behaviour, but if I did decide to go that route for whatever reason, I would just have to be a bit more clever about it, wouldn't I? Shucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 Incidentally, I don't even consider my own timing to be quite up to scratch for punishment. I do a truckload of clicker training and get some pretty funky tricks that are entirely reliant on sharp eyes and good timing, but man, it has been ages since I trained a bird. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Huski do you think e collars have a higher risk of negative fallout? No, I think any training method or tool has the potential for negative fallout, for a variety of reasons. One of the worst and most dangerously behaved dogs I have seen was trained with an experienced handler who used food and a clicker. It was raised by the same handler from a puppy. The dogs needs weren't met and it was poorly managed. It bit a lot of people, badly. I feel it is a bit of dangerous territory to think it is only training with tools like e-collars that can have a high risk of fallout. Edited October 29, 2015 by huski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 It's also about empowering owners to problem solve and indentify issues - lots of good dog trainers out there. Not so many who can train both dogs and people. Without question - owners need to have confidence, belief and hope that the dogs problems can be addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Huski do you think e collars have a higher risk of negative fallout? Hate to butt in and answer a question not addressed to me, but this is a huge question and I think it's important to note just how complicated this can be and that there is theory that may help answer it. I wrote a whole paper on this kind of thing a few years back. The bottom line is it's critical to understand the emotional state of the animal. If you have a dog that is already in a negative state because they are conflicted or afraid or anxious (the vast majority of dogs with behaviour problems), adding another negative stimulus is way more risky than adding something the dog likes. It doesn't mean that it will go bad, but it does mean that there is a higher chance of it going bad. By that I mean the dog becomes more fearful, or associates their fear with other behaviours or stimuli, and there are bigger things afoot than behaviours and stimuli, because it does affect their mood. The more bad things that happen to a dog, the more they expect more bad things to happen to them. This has a big impact on what they are willing to try. For trainers, behaviours are our currency. The easier a dog will offer up new behaviours, the easier it is for us. So suppressing anything should be considered very carefully. Even using negative reinforcement should be considered very carefully, because you are still bringing more negative experiences to the dog in some cases. The bigger picture is that stacking positive experiences into your dog's court makes for a confident, outgoing dog that will happily try new things. It also tends to make for a dog that is more difficult to manage around reinforcers you can't control, but that has always seemed like a morally repugnant reason to keep a dog risk averse to me. Off-setting the positive experiences with negative experiences is not a big deal if it is rare and will lead to even more positive experiences, but you don't want to be making it a regular part of a dog's life or you risk it making an impression on all that good work you have been doing stacking positive experiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Huski do you think e collars have a higher risk of negative fallout? Hate to butt in and answer a question not addressed to me, but this is a huge question and I think it's important to note just how complicated this can be and that there is theory that may help answer it. I wrote a whole paper on this kind of thing a few years back. The bottom line is it's critical to understand the emotional state of the animal. If you have a dog that is already in a negative state because they are conflicted or afraid or anxious (the vast majority of dogs with behaviour problems), adding another negative stimulus is way more risky than adding something the dog likes. It doesn't mean that it will go bad, but it does mean that there is a higher chance of it going bad. By that I mean the dog becomes more fearful, or associates their fear with other behaviours or stimuli, and there are bigger things afoot than behaviours and stimuli, because it does affect their mood. The more bad things that happen to a dog, the more they expect more bad things to happen to them. This has a big impact on what they are willing to try. For trainers, behaviours are our currency. The easier a dog will offer up new behaviours, the easier it is for us. So suppressing anything should be considered very carefully. Even using negative reinforcement should be considered very carefully, because you are still bringing more negative experiences to the dog in some cases. The bigger picture is that stacking positive experiences into your dog's court makes for a confident, outgoing dog that will happily try new things. It also tends to make for a dog that is more difficult to manage around reinforcers you can't control, but that has always seemed like a morally repugnant reason to keep a dog risk averse to me. Off-setting the positive experiences with negative experiences is not a big deal if it is rare and will lead to even more positive experiences, but you don't want to be making it a regular part of a dog's life or you risk it making an impression on all that good work you have been doing stacking positive experiences. ...I agree, when you look at mother nature's concept of learning it comprise positive experience,e.g. catch the prey and fill the tummy, and negative experience (pain!), e.g. trying to catch a porcupine. Obviously, the positive experience should always have a significant higher ratio than the negative experience, however the few negative experiences are as important as the positive ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 ...I agree, when you look at mother nature's concept of learning it comprise positive experience,e.g. catch the prey and fill the tummy, and negative experience (pain!), e.g. trying to catch a porcupine. Obviously, the positive experience should always have a significant higher ratio than the negative experience, however the few negative experiences are as important as the positive ones. The timing of those negative experiences can be really important, though. With my own dogs, there are times when I absolutely do not want them to have a negative experience and will do everything in my power to stop it. One of my dogs is a single-trial learner that tends to respond to threat by trying to drive it off aggressively unless I can remind him to hold off. You can bet I am extremely careful about when he has a negative experience and what it is. He is also prone to anxiety. Most of my anxious dog clients respond well to a truckload of positive experiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pjrt Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 I was reminded of this thread when yesterday I received a fat envelope from the RSPCA SA addressed to my grooming business that contained all the information in this link along with lists of recommended trainers and several post cards with the image of the good and bad collars/leads same as the graphic top right of the online story. I very much doubt that the change in legislation has a hope in hell of getting through. RSPCA SA Lead By Example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) geez ...that paper even classifies a Martingale collar as 'Non-Recommended Equipment' ....one of the big advantages of this collar type - IMO- is that the dog can wear it very loosely without rubbing and chafing, but when the dog goes nuts (in my case because she sees another dog and wants to sniff & play) it's tight and she can't slip out....much better - IMO - than wearing a normal flat collar much tighter all the time. Edit: ...just noticed that even the flat collar is 'Non-Recommended Equipment' ...oh dear... Edited October 31, 2015 by Willem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 ...ironically the paper recommends on the right upper corner exactly that type of harness the dog (and I) doesn't like as it is either too loose or sit in the pits of the front legs and restricts the dog from running freely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 geez ...that paper even classifies a Martingale collar as 'Non-Recommended Equipment' ....one of the big advantages of this collar type - IMO- is that the dog can wear it very loosely without rubbing and chafing, but when the dog goes nuts (in my case because she sees another dog and wants to sniff & play) it's tight and she can't slip out....much better - IMO - than wearing a normal flat collar much tighter all the time. Edit: ...just noticed that even the flat collar is 'Non-Recommended Equipment' ...oh dear... Yep, stupid doesn't come close. Only no pull harnesses are the go apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 I read it, I shouldn't have.........there is no vaccine for stupid. Using a front attach harness is apparently the only way to teach loose lead heeling. Guess all the dogs I have ever owned never got that memo. Bunch of idiots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kajirin Posted November 1, 2015 Author Share Posted November 1, 2015 I read the RSPCA lead by example a few months ago and just sighed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 The recommendation in the link is not to use flat collars or martingale collars IF A DOG PULLS. They are specific about that and say nothing against general use. It seems they are borrowing a lot from PPG, which is concerning. RSPCA has in the past based their recommendations on science. PPG claims to do the same, but some scrutiny of the science they cite and in what circumstances should raise some eyebrows. Likewise, some of the statements made on this RSPCA page that are supposedly supported by science are not entirely accurate. E.g. Herron et al do not claim that confrontational methods of addressing aggressive behaviour in dogs CAUSES more aggressive behaviour directed towards the trainer. They report a correlation, and I don't recall it being specific to addressing aggression in the first place. Their claims that collars can cause injury to dogs that pull are unsubstantiated as far as I'm aware. PPG cite some sources of evidence for this, but it basically consists of one case study and one expert of dubious quality with no supporting data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 The recommendation in the link is not to use flat collars or martingale collars IF A DOG PULLS. They are specific about that and say nothing against general use. ...specific?...IMO 'biased' is the better term here ...how many dogs never ever pull on the leash during their life time?...the 'Flexi or Retractable Lead' is specified as 'not legal', but listed under 'Other Collar' instead of listing it under 'Illegal and Non-Recommended Equipment' (saying this there is actually no real structure in how the titles are used in this paper)....interestingly these Flexi Leads are sold by Woolworth (one of those 'unscrupulous distributors') etc. etc....not sure whether they know that they sell illegal stuff? From a factual point of view this brochure is very very poor and sounds more like one of these political party pamphlets than an informative paper based on sound knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simply Grand Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 I think (although I'm not sure) that the issue would be that an extended flexi lead could be longer than the specified leash length of 2m or whatever it is, not that they are completely illegal. Although I agree that it isn't a great informational document! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Best Dogs! Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 It seems to be intentionally misleading and confusing :/ Not good for the potential new person reading everything they can get their hands on and taking it at face value... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Carthy Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 (edited) Kajirin as technology has changed since the old actual shock collar days. Shock collars started to fall into technological obsolescence from mid 2000 onwards when, after 32 years development, Tri-Tronics launched the Pro 100 & 500 series of training collars, other manufacturers took around another 5 years before they developed their own equivilent application technologies. The electrical technology is very easy to understand, it is trans cutaeneous electrical stimulation technology, the current is around the same as most other TENS units in domestic use all over the world, here in europe tens products sold in chemists or anywhere else, they are not restricted, hardly surprising as electricity is universally acclaimed & recognised for its benefits to man and other species (which seems to surprise some). The pulse type used by all e-collar manufacturers is the 'micro pulse' mA (millionth sec), a pulse travelling at that speed cannot be felt by mammals so the pulse rate/speed is 'slowed' down by 'grouping' 1000mA together, so in effect, each pulse lasts 1000 per sec ms, then on all tens products & including e-collars the pulses are sent out in 'groups' of several ms, the number of ms pulses determins the sensation level. In europe & probably the rest of the world. E-collars start at around 5mA (0.005) which is around the threshold of sensation, each level is a bit higher & so on. I hope that gives more understanding of e-collars, the top level on high end collars is usually around .80 to .90mA, the same as most other tens products including erotic tens toys. The "Electric Shock" collar. The electric shock collar was invented by a Bavarian vet named Dr Scheker or Sheker, he designed it because many of his hunting dog clients hunting dogs got lost or injured when they went on a chase & there was no way to stop them. It was never on sale here in UK but one firm in the 1970's & 1980"s did have one for hire in those days. The collar comprised of two electrical units placed on either side of the dogs neck, the pulse was very high and went straight through the dogs neck, one record times the duration at 30 secs, little else is known about it. Anyway back to Aus & dol. In 2002 (1) Orion Pet Products Aus were awarded 100,000$ when they sued RSPCA Aus for liable due to RSPCA slagging e-collars, the rspca were also awarded 30,000$ because orion called them liars. After & in part because of that case there was some kind of (2) attempt (maybe succesful?) to amend existing legislation regarding RSPCA aus privaledged position, i dont understand the file details, so.....hope that throws some light on collars. ref 1. http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/orion-pet-products-pty-ltd-v-royal-society-for-the-prevention-of-cruelty-to#sthash.qLU6dAu0.dpbs 2. http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/CommSubs/CriminalOLAB/001.pdf Tens products http://bit.ly/1P7dRyi http://bit.ly/1Wmsdxj http://bit.ly/1Hbdpsk Erotic, Tens Electrical Stimulation Sex Aids. Please note, this advert contains explicit electro sex aid descriptions. http://bit.ly/1RBB4Yv . Edited November 5, 2015 by Denis Carthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willem Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 nice work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now