Natural History

Posted in Uncategorized | 61 Comments

61 Responses

1. on March 26, 2010 at 5:42 pm flattie-n-Labbie

   Now they need to ban those “gentle” leaders that can make a dog flop around like a fish. Or that create sores on dogs’ muzzles when poorly fitted or worn excessively.

   They should also ban pinch collars, because they look mean. And flat-buckle collars that could injure an unsupervised dog. And choke collars, that can hang a dog.

   And rawhide, which can bloat a dog. And mulch. And rocks.

   And food. It makes dogs fat.

   And voices. They can nag and threaten.

   And feet. Feet can kick. Hands–they can hit.

   And finally, ban stupidity and ignorance.

   Get rid of stupidity and ignorance, and you can bring all the other stuff back.

   
   
   • on March 26, 2010 at 8:43 pm ruthcrisler

     I’m thinking of specializing in the training of banned breeds using banned equipment.

     
     
2. on March 26, 2010 at 8:09 pm EmilyS

   oh don’t worry! They’ll be able to substitute this:
   http://themacinator.blogspot.com/2010/03/mothers-they-just-cant-train-their-dogs.html

   
   
   • on March 26, 2010 at 8:39 pm ruthcrisler

     There’s also a mat on the market (made by PetSafe I think) that automatically shocks the dog if it leaves the surface. I think the ad shows a dog laying quietly on the mat right beside a child’s bed. Brilliant.

     I use electronic collars with some regularity, but these supposedly fool proof devices are anything but, and frankly scare the bejesus out of me.

     
     
3. on March 26, 2010 at 8:56 pm Rinalia

   Is Wales going bankrupt? I can only see this as some government fund-raising scheme. $30,000 fine for using a shock collar? That is excessive, as is any amount of prison time. (Unless the collar is really used in a maliciously cruel manner, of course, but hopefully Wales has anti-cruelty laws to address that).

   I am no fan of shock collars. I would actually prefer seeing an attempt at regulating their use, because I have found them to be easily misused and misunderstood by the general public. Which is just me saying I would rather see certified behaviorists or qualified trainers only have access to them in lieu of the general public, but that is just me (I’m not going to argue about it, either, it’s just an opinion I have.) I do not believe they should be banned, for the sole reason that their use as a last resort can save a dog’s life. An appropriate, mild aversive is better than non-existence for most creatures.

   
   
   • on March 26, 2010 at 10:10 pm ruthcrisler

     As a trainer that uses remote collars humanely and without guilt in my own practice, I nonetheless admit to wincing a bit each time I glimpse the display of crapola ones at Pet Smart. But then, I feel the same way about many of the products at such venues.

     The thing about remote collars (and I use that term because the fact that they are remote is more relevant than that they are electronic) is that the very thing that makes them more humane in many situations, also makes them more predisposed to abuse. It’s the fact that punishment may be doled out remotely.

     On the one hand, this allows for solving certain simple behavior problems impersonally in a way that, according both to scientific study and experience, may be far less stressful to the dog (as well as more effective) than a clearly owner-administered correction. And no, I am not promoting punishment as a first line of defense. But I would much rather see a dog receive a correction “from the heavens” for, say, attempting to leap the fence, than see that dog’s owner race out of the house full of fury to correct the dog physically. Such handling can easily undermine one’s relationship with one’s dog, and is less likely to be effective in the long-term.

     On the other hand, a remote collar may empower an unethical or unskilled handler to do real damage without risk to himself. Unlike leash or other physical (i.e. personal) corrections, remote collar punishment does not provide a sufficient feedback loop to discourage abuse in some cases. So whereas a person might get bit for doling out unfair leash corrections, that’s much less likely to happen with a remote collar.

     In the end I balk at judging any tool according to its potential for misuse alone. As with most things, good judgment is key. Too bad that’s something that cannot be mandated.

     
     
     • on March 26, 2010 at 10:34 pm Rinalia

       This is why I don’t have a strong opinion about its use. It’s misuse frustrates me, of course, as much as the misuse of any training tool frustrates me. I think it can really “kill a dog’s spirit”, so to speak. Which is still why I would prefer it in the hands of certified behaviorists and trainers (who can also misuse it, of course) rather than, say, my idiot neighbors who think “come” means “get your ass over here right this second, so I can whack you on the head.” (It is perhaps unsurprising the dog is a fearful mess.)

       
       
       • on March 26, 2010 at 10:50 pm ruthcrisler

         Ah, yes, the Damn-your-sorry-ass-for-coming-to-me method. You know, I’m the first to admit that certain elements of dog training may be genuinely counter-intuitive, but c’mon.

         
         
     • on March 27, 2010 at 10:54 am EmilyS

       if the significance in the tool is “remoteness”.. why don’t they use sound instead of “buzz/vibrate/shock”?

       Because as you write: “It’s the fact that punishment may be doled out remotely.”

       To me that sentence, and the tool, is as much about the “punishment” as about the “remoteness”.

       
       
       • on March 27, 2010 at 11:00 am retrieverman

         The problem is that when a dog goes into a predatory state, which is what a dog does when it retrieves, that state is very hard to override.

         Except that I had one that you could stop with your voice no matter what she was doing. She was naturally that biddable.

         
         
         • on March 27, 2010 at 11:35 am flattie-n-Labbie

           A properly bred and trained retriever demonstrates a balance of strong drive and biddability. It’s hard but interesting work for both trainer and dog.

           Speaking of which–I’m going to train. Yea!

           
           
       • on March 27, 2010 at 11:33 am flattie-n-Labbie

         Emily, with all due respect, have you ever seen a retriever work?

         Sound is a very important part of communicating with a working retriever. That’s why we wear whistles and use verbal commands. That’s why we practice blowing our whistles, and why some trainers have two or three different ones; it’s why we practice how loudly or softly we use our voices.

         I don’t know others’ experiences with e-collars or dog training, but when it comes to retrievers and e-collars, you are fixated on punishment. Training a retriever is about teamwork and communication. An e-collar is a powerful, nuanced tool–but only one of many, most of which have to do with voice, sound, and body language.

         
         
         • on March 27, 2010 at 12:52 pm EmilyS

           you, not I, are the one who used the word “punishment”. I don’t think of “punishment” in connection with training.

           Why do you chose to use that word if that’s not how you think of training?

           I asked about a theoretical sound-collar which does not cause pain, as opposed to an ecollar, which can. You have declined to answer the question, which is ok. Your words speak for themselves.

           
           
           • on March 28, 2010 at 1:09 pm flattie-n-Labbie

             I didn’t use the word punishment first. You seem to think e-collars are about punishment and pain; I’m saying that has not been my experience.

             I did not decline to answer the question; rather, I drove 2 hours out into the country to train my dogs, spent the night, and drove two hours this morning to another location to train dogs, then drove home.

             I am trying very hard to communicate clearly without spending my entire life in the ether.

             The theoretical sound collar has no place in the training program most retriever trainers use. Voice, whistles, and body language are the communicators. In competition and when working, the goal is to work the dog off-lead without a collar (a trained dog is called a “non-slip” retriever); using a collar for cues in training, and then taking the collar cues away when working, would not be fair and productive.

             Do you own retrievers? Have you seen one work?

             
             
       • on March 27, 2010 at 4:49 pm ruthcrisler

         I took a bit of a short cut when I wrote that post. I should have separated the points I was attempting to make more clearly.

         I do think the most relevant aspect of a remote collar is the fact that it works remotely, whether the communication is aversive or not. Very often it is non-aversive. I myself rarely use them for punishment. But I also wanted to make a point about the potential for abuse, which I also think hinges more on the fact that the stimulation is remote, than that it is electronic. I don’t actually believe there is anything terribly special about electronic stimuli compared with other stimuli. It can be anything from imperceptible to strongly aversive.

         I do think that some of the folks out there doing really screwy stuff with remote collars would be less likely to get away with it (without getting bitten) if it was clear to the dog where the stimulation was coming from. Getting bit generally gets a person’s attention, whereas sadly, a dog looking profoundly confused or shutting down may not.

         Again, punishment is not a big part of what I do, and it is not usually what I like to discuss when arguing for their utility.

         
         
         • on March 27, 2010 at 5:00 pm retrieverman

           We’re coming from it from a different angle.

           You’re using it to correct behavior problems.

           I am not against that.

           What I’m saying is more of a macro question– like what it does to certain breeds when that becomes the major part of the training regime.

           
           
       • on March 27, 2010 at 4:55 pm ruthcrisler

         I should also add that it is clear that many dogs find moderate vibration far more aversive than low or even moderate-level electronic stimulation. Depends on the dog. I don’t generally use the tone or vibration options, because they only have one level, which may or may not be aversive to a given dog. The remote collar I use most often has a range that allows for more subtle, less startling communication.

         
         
         • on March 28, 2010 at 1:12 pm flattie-n-Labbie

           Nothing makes my Lab more upset than the vibration function. For that reason, I’ve never even thought to try it on the flat-coat.

           
           
4. on March 26, 2010 at 11:38 pm Kenneth

   Any body that feels the need to use such a device to train a dog does not deserve to have one. I grew up with dogs, I speak dog, I understand every aspect of a dog character. The Dog Whisperer has nothing on me. To me shock devices are inhuman.

   
   
   • on March 26, 2010 at 11:51 pm retrieverman

     I do think they are overused.

     I think their usage has become institutionalized in so many dog training situations that it becomes impossible to talk about training dogs any other way.

     That said, I do see situations where they may have to used.

     But there are other ways.

     I’m very open to them, so if you have them, please explain them.

     
     
   • on March 27, 2010 at 7:45 am ruthcrisler

     In the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, “Deserves got nothing to do with it.”

     By the way, knowing a great deal about dogs, whether by virtue of growing up with them or having a psychic connection with them or marrying one, does not automatically make one an expert on the vast range of electronic training collars on the market today, nor with the vast range of uses for them, many of which involve neither pain nor punishment.

     
     
   • on March 27, 2010 at 8:21 am flattie-n-Labbie

     Of course “shock devices” are inhuman. However, remote training collars that administer a precise correction, at the lowest effective setting, in a manner in which the dog has been trained to understand as a correction, are quite effective and humane for use with dogs.

     
     
5. on March 27, 2010 at 9:31 am flattie-n-Labbie

   Here we go again.

   These are my experiences–not Scottie’s. He isn’t a shock collar guy–I’m a shock collar gal, however.

   I would by no means call myself an expert, but I have been training my own dogs for about 7 years, and I have owned an electric collar for six of them. I bought one after my one-year-old Lab (whom I thought had pretty reliable obedience) broke away from me as I was returning him to the car after his turn to retrieve at a training session; he heard a real gun shot, knew that a live bird had just been downed, and broke away and across the road, down a treacherous incline, through briars and bush-hogged stick-stumps, and out into the field to retrieve another dog’s bird; thankfully, there were no cars, he didn’t injure himself en-route, and the other dog was sufficiently trained and good-natured enough that it was called off the retrieve and there was no fight.

   I decided that if I was going to train a dog that highly motivated in situations where there were dangers such as cars, live guns, and big dogs, I needed an effective tool that I could use with precision and to ensure off-leash obedience.

   In training my first dog, which has a Master Hunter title and has been qualified for the Master National hunt test, and now a second dog, running at Senior level, I have learned the following things.

   In high-level retriever work, the modern e-collar is used as a hands-free correction. It is used at the lowest effective setting that the dog understands. Using a higher setting is counter-productive–the dog stops working or doesn’t do his best work.

   In order to know the lowest effective setting, the trainer “collar conditions” to KNOWN commands, a process of finding the lowest setting at which the dog’s behavior in response to a command is quick, efficient, and cheerful; during the process the dog learns that if its response is not quick and efficient, it receives a correction. There isn’t a trainer I know that hasn’t tried the collar on him or her self at the level they use on their dog, and higher. At the levels my dogs generally work at, the stimulation is more precise and far more temporary than a choke-collar, pinch collar, or flat-buckle correction. How do I know? Tried it. Granted, not around my neck–but around my arms.

   The corrections are used sparingly. A dog that is through mid-level training and fine-tuning its communication skills may not receive a correction with the e-collar for weeks.

   Additionally, trainers of young dogs ALWAYS tip the balance toward praise and momentum, so that attitude and drive are high. Otherwise training is ineffective and un-fun for all concerned.

   Collar corrections generally fall under the category of “indirect pressure,” which if anyone is interested I can explain, but the short explanation is that it isn’t some huge Zap when the dog does something wrong, rather it is a correction that focuses the dog to do the next command correctly.

   Corrections don’t come like a bolt of lightening from the sky–the dog understands that the correction is coming from the trainer. A correction the dog doesn’t understand is coming from the trainer does little to correct the dog so that its response to commands improves.

   Such corrections are quite unfair, actually, and can be dangerous. For example–a dog doesn’t come when commanded. If the dog has not been properly collar conditioned and doesn’t understand the command, when it is given that punishment, it may not understand and be frightened, and then bolt (into the street? toward an unfriendly dog? into the woods?)–further, the trainer doesn’t know how the dog reacts to the shock, because they haven’t been through the collar conditioning process, so the stimulation may be painful. Most retrievers are actually pretty soft and sensitive, and the effective stimulation is far lower than one might guess. If the dog is in a puddle or on gravel or standing in a shadow at the time, the dog may associate that condition with a painful shock–and avoid puddles, gravel or shadow. It can be a real mess.

   So, the above paragraph is a long way of saying that in retriever training, where a dog is in the process of performing complicated tasks with known commands, there is no such thing as an impersonal or surprise correction–though the lightening-bolt punishment may be useful for other types of trainers and behaviorists in other situations with other types of dogs.

   NO TEACHING is done with e-collar corrections. This concept makes no sense in retriever training. Teaching is done with direction, communication, motivation, shaping, praise, etc.

   There are circumstances when corrections are almost unheard of, to many laypeoples’ surprise. For example, corrections are almost never given in the water, because despite any disobedience trainers want water to be a happy and safe place. When working on a concept where a trainer thinks a dog may fail at a command, the concept is practiced on land until the dog understands the concept and is highly reliable on it. Only then, when success is highly likely, is the concept transferred to water.

   One of the most important repeated phrases in retriever training is “the benefit of the doubt goes to the dog.” In other words, if the dog won’t understand why it has been corrected, don’t give a correction.

   A correction given in response to honest effort or confusion sets a team back. Good trainers are obviously always trying to move forward–so they withhold correction, even if the dog did something “wrong,” if it was trying to do the right thing or if it doesn’t understand what to do.

   I’m still learning. Sure, I’ve given unfair corrections. However, I happen to think an unfair correction with an e-collar is far less damaging and less unfair than running (hah!) two hundred yards at a dog to ball it out for doing something it’s probably forgotten about, and it’s far more effective.

   If one is going to do high-level retriever team work–which is fun and rewarding for both dog and human, if the dog and human both enjoy this kind of thing (I do, and my dogs are literally hard-wired for it)–it’s imperative to do it right, because otherwise it can be very dangerous. An e-collar is one tool that I use to help me do it right.

   I don’t think everyone can or should or needs to use an e-collar to train a retriever–depends on the person, the dog, the goals, the time needed, access to a mentor, etc.-

   But to call training a retriever with an e-collar “inhuman” demonstrates a lack of knowledge and understanding about e-collars and retriever training.

   
   
   • on March 27, 2010 at 10:46 am retrieverman

     I wouldn’t call them inhumane.

     I just think they are used far too often, but our working dog culture and test and trial system is based upon using them. In retrievers in the AKC system, it’s impossible to get to the highest levels without them or the “conditioned retrieve.”

     For stopping bad predatory behavior, these things are fine.

     I am not in favor of banning them.

     One of my Cesar posts says that if he’s followed, he will lead to the banning of them.

     I believe this Welsh decision had a lot to do with Cesar’s visit to the UK.

     
     
     • on March 27, 2010 at 10:50 am flattie-n-Labbie

       The irony here being that Caesar seems to only use them for stopping bad predatory behavior…

       That idea is rather foreign to me. Not saying it shouldn’t be done–just saying I wouldn’t myself really be comfortable that I’d get the results I was anticipating…

       
       
       • on March 27, 2010 at 10:59 am retrieverman

         In hounds, that’s basically the only way to stop them from becoming deer chasers.

         If you’re a hound, even one bred to hunt foxes or raccoons, your instincts still are to chase ungulates. In fact, all of these scenthounds were originally bred to hunt deer– not vermin.

         
         
         • on March 27, 2010 at 11:24 am flattie-n-Labbie

           Yup. And I don’t quite “get” hounds! Like I said–a little foreign to me.

           
           
           • on March 27, 2010 at 11:29 am retrieverman

             Hounds don’t look at you when you talk to them.

             That’s why we think they are stupid.

             They aren’t.

             They are just ruled by their noses.

             
             
     • on March 27, 2010 at 4:57 pm ruthcrisler

       Which Cesar post? You’ve got my curiosity peaked.

       
       
       • on March 27, 2010 at 5:14 pm retrieverman

         https://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/how-e-collars-will-be-banned/

         He’s using it wrong.

         
         
         • on March 27, 2010 at 6:15 pm ruthcrisler

           Okay, sure, that’s messed up. And that’s my main issue with Cesar Milan: no foundation, little to no method. I’ve trained dogs off of cats and squirrels (coonhounds, plotthounds, you name it). It doesn’t look like that. It doesn’t look brutal or confused. But then, it also takes longer than ten minutes.

           
           
           • on March 27, 2010 at 6:16 pm retrieverman

             And generally the dogs don’t redirect their attacks onto their owners.

             
             
             • on March 27, 2010 at 6:38 pm ruthcrisler

               That too.

               
               
   • on March 27, 2010 at 10:47 am retrieverman

     On this issue, I’ve always taken a middle of the road position, and I get it from both sides.

     
     
6. on March 27, 2010 at 10:50 am EmilyS

   “It is used at the lowest effective setting that the dog understands.”

   and what is it that the dog understands? What could that understanding be, OTHER than that if it doesn’t obey, a higher “effective setting” will be used. At what point will the ecollar trainer decide that a high setting is too high? If the dog continues to “disobey”, how many trainers go back to square one to retrain and how many turn up the setting?

   Isn’t the whole fundamental point of these remote collars to tell the dog that if it doesn’t obey, there is a painful consequence? Otherwise, why would it “work”?

   If there was only a low “cue” setting on these things, and the trainer taught the dog to associate the low cue with the command, the tool might be acceptable.

   But even thoughtful users of this tool like flatnlabbie describe how easy it is to be UNthoughtful. Even a thoughtful trainer like she can deliver an “unfair correction”. An unfair correction with an ecollar causes the dog pain. An unfair correction with other tools causes confusion. There’s a difference

   
   
   • on March 27, 2010 at 11:23 am flattie-n-Labbie

     “If the dog continues to “disobey”, how many trainers go back to square one to retrain and how many turn up the setting?”

     Good trainers evaluate the situation. It’s hard to explain–there are whole books on it–but most collar corrections in retriever training have little to do with forcing a dog to stop disobeying, and more to do with communicating, “Nope–watch and listen.”

     Bad trainers don’t evaluate; sometimes they turn up the setting; no one trains with these people if they don’t listen to the advice of a good trainer and change their ways, and these people almost always quit training in short order because they’re bad and it’s not rewarding to them and very un-fun.

     They wouldn’t have been any good without a collar, anyway–they’d just turn up the setting on their boot or the volume of their voice. There is no e-collar with the power to physically injure like a boot or a fist has. In terms of mental injury, it’s my observation that the human voice has far more power than an e-collar as well.

     “Isn’t the whole fundamental point of these remote collars to tell the dog that if it doesn’t obey, there is a painful consequence? Otherwise, why would it “work”?”

     No. Again, it’s not about a painful consequence for disobeying. It’s about communicating an expectation, which retrievers are particularly sensitive to. If the communication is painful, the dog doesn’t respond in a productive manner, so good trainers don’t cause that kind of pain. That’s the point of collar conditioning–to make sure it ISN”T painful.

     “If there was only a low “cue” setting on these things, and the trainer taught the dog to associate the low cue with the command, the tool might be acceptable.”

     I don’t understand what you mean by “associate the low cue with the command.” This is not part of retriever training. The cue IS the command. If you mean a low setting that is effective for communicating–that’s the point of collar conditioning. What is the lowest effective setting?

     “But even thoughtful users of this tool like flatnlabbie describe how easy it is to be UNthoughtful. Even a thoughtful trainer like she can deliver an “unfair correction”. An unfair correction with an ecollar causes the dog pain. An unfair correction with other tools causes confusion. There’s a difference”

     In retriever training, an unfair correction with an e-collar causes confusion. An unfair correction with OTHER tools causes confusion, too. An e-collar is far more precise a tool for working off-lead and at distances than any other tool, and in my experience and from my observations of other trainers it generally causes far LESS confusion than other tools.

     I strongly believe that for retrievers, confusion IS painful. They are dogs born and bred to follow prey drive AND please their master/mistress/trainer/handler. Tools that cause less confusion cause less “pain.”

     Retrievers of every breed are (to varying degrees from breed to breed and dog to dog) physically strong, mentally sensitive, and often soft to correction. An e-collar can be a very precise tool when dealing with this combination of factors.

     Again, if one doesn’t like it–don’t use it. I’m just trying to relate how it works in retriever training. Last I checked, this was a blog about retrievers. I know Scottie has mixed feelings about them–but he’s very patient with those of us who are fellow retriever lovers even when he disagrees, and I appreciate his open-mindedness on this topic.

     Hopefully, if I can keep my patience in response to repeated insinuations that I am inhumane for inflicting pain upon creatures I love dearly and center my life around their welfare and pleasures and instincts, I can teach a person or two the role e-collars can play in training a retriever.

     
     
     • on March 27, 2010 at 12:55 pm EmilyS

       well I see your point. If one believes that there is no setting on an ecollar that can cause pain, then there’s no issue.

       
       
   • on March 27, 2010 at 5:05 pm ruthcrisler

     Actually, that is not the case with a lot of remote collar work. The stimulation is more of a cue than anything else in many situations, and the trainer takes pains to cue the dog at the lowest level possible, in order that it does not come across as punishment.

     Not saying that’s how everybody does it, or even how anyone does it in every situation, just saying that’s how it’s often done. In other words, it ‘works’ in the absence of any implicit threat to start ‘going up the dial’. Just like cuing a dog with a voice command.

     
     
     • on March 28, 2010 at 1:21 pm flattie-n-Labbie

       I guess part of what I’m learning here is that retriever training is so specialized it’s hard for non-retriever trainers to relate to, at least as regards the e-collar, and it’s hard for me to think outside of the way I’m used to used to training.

       The idea of using an e-collar stimulation as a cue or communication is totally antithetical to how retriever training works, so much so that it just doesn’t even make sense to me in terms of what I try to accomplish.

       
       
7. on March 29, 2010 at 12:18 pm Peggy Richter

   Just as a side note– before the invention of electronic collars, other tools were used. There’s a little “spade” at the bottom of many of the “old style” herding crooks in Europe. That’s not for the sheep. That’s so you can fling a dirt clod (or a small rock, if you are into being over the top) at the dog from the other side of a big flock of sheep, when the dog decides “you arent here and I’m going to do what I want, not what you told me”. And slingshots (yes, I’ve found literary references to their use on dogs that disregarded the handler). An individual I knew that hunted with his dogs mentioned use of rock salt and a shotgun. (kid you not).

   Are any of these humane/inhumane? A dirt clod isn’t going to physically hurt a big Bouvier, GSD, Altdeucher or Sheep-poodle. A rock is likely to do something really bad. Slingshots — depends on what you put in the sling, how hard you fling things. They were, after all, used to kill animals and people in the past. I can’t think of a circumstance justifying rocksalt and a gun (well, maybe the rogue neighbor dog getting into my stock — but more likely such a dog wouldn’t get rock salt).

   E collars are a technological TOOL. They don’t increase the correction that could be delivered by a human — lots of tools (down to the stick ala Jack London and Call of the Wild) can be MUCH more physically and emotionally damaging. They DO increase the DISTANCE at which a correction can be delivered. And because you aren’t “standing there doing it”, there’s a psychological tendency for people to be more forceful than they are “doing it themselves”.

   Can E collars be abused? you betcha. And people can kick a dog to death too. Or string it up via a choke collar. Can they be useful? Yes indeed. I have a good friend who does rescue work with “problem” Bouviers and she uses it to proof” come when you are called” and “do not chase the car”. Both life saving issues for rehab dogs. — she doesn’t TEACH with the collar – she uses a long line (and cookies for some dogs). But a dog can come reliably on a long line and disregard you off line.

   Can she do these things without an E collar? sure. We could communicate before the telephone was invented. But it’s less efficent and takes longer, just as using the mail (or even telegraph) was vice a cell phone. Can you misuse a cell phone? yes. They’ve even been implicated as bomb triggers. Can you misuse an E collar? yes. But banning it’s use is likely to result in use of the older methods for those dogs that “don’t get it” and people who aren’t patient, skilled or tolerant — or in the death /disgarding of those dogs that aren’t compliant enough. It doesn’t really ban abuse. It just bans a tool used by SOME abusers — and many who use it correctly.

   vr. Peggy Richter

   
   
   • on March 29, 2010 at 6:57 pm flattie-n-Labbie

     Here, here.

     
     
8. on March 29, 2010 at 6:54 pm curlylady

   There is a vast difference in training dogs for hunting and dogs for field trials.

   I use an e-collar to stop my dogs from running deer or burrowing after weasels in the field. BUT I do not use an e-collar to force a dog into water or force it to retrieve a dummy from a pile nor do I “collar-condition a dog” in which the dog gets a buzz from an e-collar until it does whatever exercise is required for field tests.

   The problem is many people running field tests/trials are not actually hunters. Nor are they breeding natural retrievers who use innate instincts to find, flush, and then retrieve birds to their handlers.

   If you have to force a dog into water using an e-collar, that is not a natural retriever. If you have to force a dog to a pile of dummies using an e-collar, that is not a natural retriever.

   This is what natural retrievers do: they run after objects and/or birds thrown/shot in front of them and then take them in their mouth. They swim after objects/birds which land in front of them in water. They return with the object to the handler if the dog has been trained to “here” or “come”.

   When hunting in South Dakota, my dogs will often “jump” deer: that means a deer hiding in cover will often leap up and start running. It is almost impossible to train a dog who has been selected for strong prey drive to find, flush, and retrieve to ignore jumping deer 30 yards in front of them to ignore it without the e-collar.

   But using an e-collar on the constant stimulation mode to force dogs into water, or to a pile of dummies, or to come when called is idiotic. This type of e-collar training has nothing to do with the innate abilities or hereditary traits of the dog. Almost any breed of dog could be trained to do field tests and/or trials using these “constant stimulation” methods.

   People who don’t hunt fail to understand individual retrievers and upland dogs who will never quit when doing the first basic work of a hunting dog: work the cover in a method and form in which no blade of grass is unturned. Given a dog who will leave no grass blade unturned (and when you get into half-mile cattail sloughs which require the dog to both swim and jump for days on end), where is there any necessity for e-collar training? And how do field tests test for this?

   When people breed litters from parents who were e-collared trained, do they state that in their litter literature and do they state a puppy from the litter needs to be e-collar trained to achieve the same results as the parents?

   If you needed an e-collar to force the sire of your litter into water, or force him to take a straight line into the water, do you provide an e-collar with all your puppies sired by him?

   How can constant stimulation from an e-collar to do such things as come here or swim across the pond or retrieve develop better hunting breeds? Unless, of course, all puppies come with an e-collar!

   
   
   • on March 29, 2010 at 6:58 pm retrieverman

     Totally agree!

     
     
   • on March 29, 2010 at 7:01 pm retrieverman

     Have you checked out Robert Milner’s site?

     http://www.fetchpup.com/

     
     
   • on March 31, 2010 at 5:18 am labpack

     Thank you, curlylady! Totally agree!

     
     
9. on March 29, 2010 at 7:21 pm flattie-n-Labbie

   Hi curlylady. Sounds like you have nice working dogs.

   What is your experience with e-collar training? And when? How many retriever tests and trials have you seen?

   Life is too short to point-by-point right now on your idea about what water force or force to pile is about–speaking of which, I had an interesting conversation the other day about the force part of force to pile–some pros are phasing that out, at least for some dogs. Things change.

   Also, most trainers don’t use “continuous” during force training or collar conditioning any more. I can think of one big name, but he starts at the “tickle” level (but I don’t like his method–some do). More than one way to do it, I guess is what I’m saying, and I’m curious how much you’ve seen, and whether those demonstrating were successful trainers themselves, and whether it was in the last 10 years or so.

   I hate to pick at a fellow retriever owner, especially one with working curlies (how many are there? rhetorical question, not enough…). I agree with you and Scottie as far as e-collars and the “macro” level–in terms of selection of traits, etc. But it’s something to think about and balance, IMO–not a reason to not use a tool.

   I have to say that there isn’t a dog I’ve seen yet working at SH or higher levels (and I think it’s fair to say I’ve seen thousands) that has ANY style at all if it’s only working on force alone rather than a high desire to find and return with a bird. They are called pigs, and they get eye-rolls. That’s why a puppy buyer needs to look at more than titles–esp. WC, WCX, and lower level hunt test titles. It’s also why I feel strongly that the “style” category in hunt test judging should be approached in a far more critical way than it sometimes is. Tests aren’t perfect, by any means!

   They are challenging and fun and interesting, though.

   One of the things I happen to like about my two breeds is that they are natural retrievers AND naturally take direction and work as part of a team. Blind retrieves are a learned behavior, for sure–but it’s learning that comes naturally to them.

   I understand curlies are a bit more independent than the other breeds… is this perhaps a factor in your perspective?

   
   
10. on February 1, 2013 at 8:25 am Helen

    Why is it impossible to call a hunting dog off chasing a deer without an ecollar? I believe it is possible, given the skill of a +R trainer.

    
    
    • on February 1, 2013 at 9:17 am retrieverman

      It requires skill and time, and not all people have the skills.

      
      
    • on February 1, 2013 at 10:56 am Dave

      Laws may not allow people time to use positive-reinforcement to stop chasing deer. In many places, a dog can be shot for chasing the wrong kind of animals.

      
      
      • on February 1, 2013 at 11:21 am Helen

        Then you could either go to different places to walk off lead where there are no deer or put him in a harness and a long line – both giving you the chance to practise the +R skills away from set ups. I don’t see how you can have a dog and punish any innate instinct. It’s unfair and it’s really about time we started to think (and trainers started to promote) about what’s in the dog’s best interest (not only the human’s). Quick fixes have fallout. What setting would you have to have the ecollar at to bring your dog flying to the ground for a few moments until the deer gets away or until you find him. The highest, not high enough?

        
        
        • on February 1, 2013 at 11:54 am Dave

          In Finland, it is very common for Finnish Hounds who chase deer instead of foxes or rabbits to be put to sleep.

          
          
      • on February 1, 2013 at 11:50 am Dave

        Mind you, in countries where e-collars are not allowed and people don’t have the time to train their dogs to stop chasing deer– usually they are rehomed, and training starts all over again with a new puppy.

        
        
11. on February 1, 2013 at 12:26 pm Leonard Cecil

    Whoops – wrong link to wrong film…. try this

    
    
    • on February 1, 2013 at 12:30 pm Leonard Cecil

      Please delete the above video. Doesn’t have anything to do with the topic (even if it is an interesting video)

      
      
    • on February 1, 2013 at 12:31 pm retrieverman

      I’m not saying that they are necessary. I am saying they are over-used, but I do think there is a point when one could be justified. Some dogs are just so focused on chasing prey and so rewarded through their internal drives, that it is almost impossible to stop them any other way.

      I also don’t see any way of training dogs to leave venomous snakes alone unless you use the collar, and the collar is far less discomfort than a snake bite.

      I don’t think they should be routinely used, but I think they have a place when you cannot do anything else to correct a behavior problem.

      An e-collar is a sledgehammer.

      Don’t get me wrong.

      But there may be situations when they are necessarily.

      I don’t think they should be used on dogs routinely though.

      
      
12. on February 1, 2013 at 12:29 pm Leonard Cecil

    The above was STILL the wrong video:

    You don’t need shock collars (hopefully this will the correct one – Crufts 2012Demonstration of British Champion Gun Dogs

    
    
13. on February 1, 2013 at 12:31 pm Leonard Cecil

    This video is the correct one – with the spaniel and the Crufts logo

    
    
14. on February 1, 2013 at 1:44 pm Leonard Cecil

    Snake bite –
    1) they are no where near as fool-proof as their marketing would have you believe. If they were, why do most offer refresher courses? The reason is, that they are counting on the memory of the horrendous shock being enough to scare off the dog from the snake. But every time the dog sees a snake and NOTHING happens starts the counter-conditioning in the other direction. That means, the begin to lose their fear of the impending shock (that doesn’t and doesn’t come).
    2) the problems of superstitious behavior is well known. Michael Ellis talks about this, why he first stopped using shock years ago as as he put it, “the bigger stick” As he said it “We ruined lot’s of dogs with it then”
    3) You can train a variation of “leave it” which is every bit as powerful if not more so, because the dog will come for it’s treat when a snake is seen, if trained properly. If a snake is trained as a secondary reinforcer, like a clicker, then you’ll have the same reaction to the snake as you would to a clicker. Steve White has done work with this one. The good thing is, that the conditioning for the positive (go to mom when you see the snake) is reinforced everytime with a treat or game. Even if you miss once it’s not so bad – it’s like fading treats for other behaviors. The goal is to set the reinforcers on a variable schedule so that the dog never knows when one will be delivered. Fear of punishment OTOH doesn’t work that way. Mostly because the behavior you stopped through fear is often self-rewarding in itself.

    
    
15. on February 1, 2013 at 2:16 pm Leonard Cecil

    http://www.shotgunlife.com/wingshooting/wingshooting/expert-dog-trainer-robert-milner-says-heck-no-to-shock-collars.html

    
    
    • on February 1, 2013 at 2:38 pm retrieverman

      I have that in my blog readers’ group right now.

      
      
16. on February 2, 2013 at 3:08 pm Leonard Cecil

    
    Whoa Part 1

    
    

Comments are closed.