Chris sent me a link to a border collie blog called Champion of My Heart.
The post in question was about how to get a dog to leave venomous snakes alone.
The blog’s author is having lots of trouble getting her border collie to leave rattlesnakes alone, and she has been bitten twice.
The author wants to know some way to get her dog to avoid snakes, but it doesn’t appear that there are any alternatives besides doing a “snake-proofing.”
Snake-proofing is when a dog is exposed to a snake– usually a dead one or one that is safely confined–and when it starts to focus in on the snake, it receives a shock from an electronic collar. The dog learns to associate the smell of a snake with shock and learns to avoid them.
Now, a great many people are skeptical of electronic collars. I do tend to think they are over-used and over relied-upon, but they do have a purpose in certain situations.
A snakebite can be fatal to a dog.
It certainly will be painful.
Both of these things are far worse than the electric shock the dog would experience in being snake-proofed.
So the use of an electronic collar in this situation appears to be a necessary evil.
If a little shock can prevent a dog from dying from a snakebite, then it appears that a traditional snake-proofing session might be justified.
It’s not that I’m defending what everyone is doing with electronic collars.
I’m not.
But with this situation, it might be a good idea to use one.
Now, the dog has to be exposed to virtually every snake species in a region if the snake-proofing is to be successful. Each species has its own odor, and dogs have harder time generalizing their behaviors than humans do.
So if a dog is proofed off of timber rattlers, it likely won’t be proofed off of copperheads.
I live in a very unsnakey part of the country, and most golden retrievers don’t pay any attention to snakes. One of my dogs was bitten by a copperhead when she dropped a tennis ball on it. It was a mostly dry bite, and after getting an antivenin shot, she was fine in within a few days.
But if a little shock treatment prevents the a dog from bothering snakes, it can be given more liberty to run about.
Going through snake-proofing would just be a small price to pay for a dog to be able to run around safely.
In this case, shocking is worth it.
I know dozens of dogs who get snakeproofed in Tucson each year. A professional guy does it on his ranch in the country – and it works- the association is made forever. Most of these dogs will never get another electric shock for any other reason.
It is a teaching device, not a control device.
Some dogs are so much further motivated by chasing something than any positive reinforcement method an owner can produce, that it may be necessary to evoke an E-collar, stim-collar, whatever you call it, under some circumstances. Venemous snakes, running onto highways, are all great examples. Some folks assume owners should simply contain their dogs via a high fence or leash, but a lot of working dogs need to work free-hand, and also I personally would consider it MORE of a punishment to never let a dog really run and stretch it’s legs in what should and COULD be a huge, safe area, provided the road and other pitfalls can be avoided.
As Kate said, if done right, very likely the small shock will never even have to be employed again after a bit of training; the freedoms and safety that can be earned in trade, far more glorious than the conditioning is stern.
The thing is, that argument goes both ways. There are things that are so reinforcing to some dogs that no amount of punishment can overcome it – short of killing the dog. ESPECIALLY if the source of reinforcement is not removed. You can light a dog up for counter surfing, for example, but if 10% of the time he’s still getting the pork roast you’re never going to eliminate the behavior.
That said, were I Queen of the Universe and my opinions on such matters carried any weight, I would allow the use of e-collars in cases where strict avoidance saves the dog’s life (snake proofing, livestock chasing, perhaps recall in some cases).
I loathe shock collars, and yet I used to think that if there ever were a justifiable use, snake avoidance training would be it. However, as with all aversives used in training, there is no guarantee that the dog will link the shock to the snake, even with a professional doing the training. There are examples of S&R dogs (who routinely are trained this way) making an unanticipated link between the aversive stimulus and something innocuous, e.g. the handler, other dogs or people in the vicinity, the training venue, anything shaped like a snake (like a hose), etc. I suppose many would think that risk an insufficient reason not to use a shock collar, but I would be too worried about negative effects to use one.
On the other hand, what do you think about using E-collars for activities as a regular course? The brief answer to the Q “Do I HAVE to?” here speaks about using it for refinement. Is that really necessary? http://www.totalretriever.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64:collar&catid=38:new-collection
The only reason why it is a decent idea to use an e-collar on American labs is because they have been bred for wild temperament and uncontrollable energy. The labs of Europe excels the performance of American labs without the use of e-collar, but that is because the breed on the other side of the pond are much calmer and not so hyper-active.
E-collar is a crutch for poor-breeding where biddabity and intelligence are not actively selected for.
Not surprising Dave. I’ve mentioned to Rman here, in one form or another ( have hardly gotten into it though) that I tend to have some disdain for a lot of America’s breeding programs, and that’s not just against the show circuit, but the way they have taken a lot of working dogs and simply equated “drive” with “Hyperactivity.”
I have had plenty of Malinois folks tell me American Mals are much more hyper than European Mals, and a lot of folks here who knew little about Kelpies expected one to be even more hyper than a border collie, but the creme-de-la-creme of working kelpie folks in Oz breed for a dog that has a great sense of control, calmness, as well as endurance. I hear of so many folks down under who got themselves a dog that can work all day and crash on the couch at home.
Also visited a working farm near Inverness Scotland in 2009. The dogs were kenneled part of the day and perfectly calm when relased to see visitors. They were in action in the field though. The farmer said “I could never use a hyper dog. They just cannot focus.”
Those last dogs I mentioned in Scotland were Border Collies BTW.
The modern electronic collars are far more sophisticated than the early ones. The best have a choice of strength of stimulus ranging from an extremely mild ‘tickle”, on upwards through several levels, a choice of momentary or longer duration, and even offer a “warning tone” and a “reward tone” or “praise tone”. The last is a conditioned reinforcer meaning “you did good!”. In the hands of a capable and understanding trainer, such a device is far more than just an aversive or a “punishment”, it is a means of communication.
That said, it is true that far too many so-called “trainers” do not understand proper uses of the e-collar, it is far too often mis-used, and it does have the potential for severe mis-use. (Well, so does the simple slip-lead, which in the hands of an expert is one thing, in the hands of someone who uses it to strangle a dog is quite another.)
No device or training technique is foolproof. Yes there are occasions where a dog doesn’t connect the shock with the snake — there are also dogs that repeatedly get nailed by porcupines too.
I know someone who exclusively trains his herding dogs using an e collar. He’s a paraplegic and his dogs are singularly happy, willing herding dogs. Even 20 years ago at least the better ecollars used a 9 volt battery. The “extreme” settings are longer, not more “juice”. Is it easy to abuse an e collar? certainly. Humans tend to disassociate using the collar more than they do a more direct correction (or punishment). You “know” if you are reeling a dog in on a long line. You KNOW if you’ve done a scruff shake or any other physical correction. Pressing a button puts a bit of distance there, and so people have more tendency to employ it.
While I agree that there’s a tendency for breeding more hyper dogs for competitive sport rather than practical usage, I don’t think the use of the ecollar is either a cause nor a result of that. In Herding one gets the myth that “old times” the handler went out there and only used positives, which is BS. The traditional German crook has a “spade” on one end – so the herdsman could fling a dirt clod (or small rock) at the dog from the other side of the flock. I’ve read old accounts of use of a slingshot. For that matter, Stephanitz and Karl Finger’s books both still discuss using muzzles and filing down teeth as techniques to deal with a dog that grips too much or too hard. I heard about trainers using piano wire and rock salt in a shotgun for gun dogs long before I heard about e collars. As a replacement for these, the e collar is significantly more, not less, humane.
The advantage on an e collar is when you can’t “get to the dog” — I know of plenty of herding people who “chase down” a misbehaving dog using an ATV and give a correction. One still uses a horse. Others use an e collar. Are there other tools? Sometimes yes. Often compulsion is used in lieu of training or in lieu of proper training. Sometimes it’s used to obtain a level of perfection that is unnecessary – just to achieve points or a win. But compliance is not always something that’s optional – particularly in areas where it isn’t a sport but the dog is doing something critical. I’ve seen police dogs wearing e collars – because a call off MUST be complied with.
Not everyone is a great trainer. Particularly with police or where the dog is used as part of one’s livelihood, dog training isn’t their top priority. The e collar is good about being consistant (the same level gives exactly the same correction) and improves timing at a distance. For some, it is just a security blanket. I think that e collars should come with a mandatory training class on proper use, but they can be humane. They are a tool, and like any other can be used correctly or incorrectly.
I have to say Peggy I have to agree with all of this. I certainly would rather use an e collar than a slingshot. I’m just not that good of a shot. :)
And for police dogs, yes, you MUST have a backup option to call off the dog. Even the best trained dogs are just flesh and what if they have that one day where they go off their training while under the attack command? Not good.
I hope I never care more about competitions than my actual dog, to use e collars for a ribbon or trophy.
The e-collar picture is about to get more complicated. The newest thing is a GPS-enabled collar that can be used to set up an ‘invisible fence’, can be used as an e-collar, and can be used to track your dog’s movements when it goes out of range of sight. See:
http://www.sportingdogpro.com/dog-expedition-systems-border-patrol-tc1-gps-invisible-fence-training-collar
Looks like a big improvement over conventional invisible fence, as it allows a warning zone before the dog gets a real aversive (you can set the strength of both or use vibrations).
p.s. a correctly used e-collar does not shock the dog . . . aversion training as in the case of snake proofing is the exception. I worked on recall under strong distraction with a pro trainer with one of my dogs. The trainer was emphatic that the stim should be set just above the dog’s detection threshold, at which level it feels like a minor mildly annoying ping . . . say a flea bite. You calibrate your collar to the individual dog. Some show no reaction until a fairly high level, others react near the lowest level. My dog, when I was doing e-collar stuff, loved the collar. She got excited when she saw it come out . . . just as with car keys or the walking lead.