Response to an An Anti-Ecollar Website

I have learned that a well known +R trainer has responded to comments made here on this website with comments made on her own site. Of course she's never had the courage or the courtesy to address her comments to me and It's only because of my activities in promoting Ecollars that her comments have come to my attention.

Before we get started you should know that she was charged by the University that employed her with representing herself as having a Ph.D. before she actually had received one; describing publications as being “peer reviewed” that actually hadn't been, and having misused grant funds earmarked for clinical work. For these reasons she was not given a promotion to a more prestigious position. She tried to sue in Federal court to get this position back and was unsuccessful. She even tried the politically correct "sexual harassment" lawsuit, often used by incompetents to get or hold positions they don't deserve. It too failed

Clicking these links will take you to a news story and a court opinion on these situations. Close those windows to return to this page. Click Here and Here A brief excerpt from this second link follows:


_______________________________________________________

"We acknowledge that Karen is bright, articulate, and extremely energetic. Her record and our assessment suggests that Karen might become a productive investigator. (Indicating that they don't think she is a productive investigator at the time of this writing; and keep in mind that she'd been employed for quite a few years). (Please recognize that we speak of her potential for accomplishment. For despite many stated views lauding her research, her record does not reveal significant research accomplishment).

". . . we are seriously concerned by Karen’s conflicted history of unsuccessful interpersonal interaction and her questioned integrity. She is perceived by some as dogmatic, arrogant, and unforgiving. One of our number projects that no aspiring young person will thrive under her tutelage. A damning comment, but one which is supported by her resident training program history.

"The required, efficient operation of the Behavior Service is presently (and chronically) seriously compromised by a poisoned atmosphere which pits Karen against her staff. This is an extremely uncommon state in our institution, one that demands resolution, and in the end, one that reflects negatively on the senior member.

"Karen’s integrity has been questioned."


_______________________________________________________

In the following text the +R trainer's comments are in red and my responses are in black.

She writes: "There are now terrific scientific and research data that show the harm that shock collars can do behaviorally."

Every one of the studies that she discusses used high level stim. Not one of them examined the effects of low level stim as is advocated throughout my site.

The difference between high level stim and low level stim is profound. It's the difference between light taps from a tack hammer and a heavy strike from a sledgehammer.

Most of us are aware of the studies done a few years back that showed that the sweetener Saccharin can cause cancer in lab rats. But many don't know that it only occurs at a dose that's 600 times the normal intake, something that no one is going to do. Similarly, using high level stim on a dog will also gives you vastly different results than using stim at the level where he first feels it. But none of the +R people will acknowledge this, it throws all of their theories and comments into the trash can. They like to talk about pain, fear, aggression caused by Ecollars, and all sort of other factors. But low level stim only causes a dog some minor discomfort and then only for a few seconds.

Many people have a hard time understanding how an Ecollar can have an affect on a dog's behavior if it doesn't hurt. How can it make the dog stop chasing a cat? How can it make him recall away from a chicken bone that he's found in the park? How can it make him stop digging holes in the back yard?

The old method of dealing with these problems attacked them head-on by hurting the dog with high level stim so he'd stop doing them. That's how most people think of using an Ecollar. But that often causes problems more serious than the one that people are trying to stop. Modern methods teach other behaviors using low level stim. It's done quite easily and anyone can do it.

The +R trainers says, "This follows on the excellent work done by Dutch researchers, in cooperation with their working dog groups and trainers, that showed that working / patrol dogs were adversely affected by their 'training' with shock, long after the shock occurred.

The study she's referring to is one conducted by Schilder and van der Borg in 2003.¹ This study is heavily flawed. It's probably one of the poorest studies that's ever been done. As with all the other studies cited by this +R trainer, it only looked at high level stim. In fact in Holland, where this study was done, they use the highest levels of stim of just about any country. But more importantly the study was not done scientifically. The researchers knew which dogs were being stimmed and which ones weren't. Any truly scientific study is done in a "double blind" fashion. Neither the observers, the people gathering the information, nor the analysts, the people collating that information mathematically, should know which animals are which. Doing studies this way ensures that the results are honest and unbiased. That was not the case with this study.

In fact this study was used by anti-Ecollar groups in the UK in their recent attempt to ban Ecollars there. Notes from the November 8, 2006 Meeting of Parliament contained the following question and response.

"Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they have made an assessment of the quality of the study on electric shock collars by Matthijs B H Schilder and Joanne A. M. van der Borg; if so, what is that assessment; and whether further research on electric shock collars is necessary.

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): I understand that the study to which the noble Baroness refers is entitled: "Training Dogs With the Help of the Shock Collar: Short and Long Term Behavioural Effects." Defra has considered the results of this study but found that they do not provide a sufficient basis to underpin government policy. (Government Policy at that time was NOT to place any restriction on the sales or use of Ecollars. Of course cruelty in any form is already a violation).

This study is junk science at its worst. Doing it this way allows the researchers to draw any conclusion that they like. The people that did this study were opposed to the use of the Ecollar. As should be expected, they found all sorts of problems with the dogs that were wearing the Ecollars. Big surprise!

There are many comments made in the study that are simply not true or are designed to just arouse the emotions of the reader in the hopes of turning them off to using the Ecollar. This is a common tactic used by the +R crowd. One such comment in this study is "in general a current of a few thousand volts is used."² In fact current is measured in amps, not volts so they don't even have their terminology correct! But even with this glaring error, this is a highly misleading figure. This is what's called a "no load" voltage. "No load" means that no resistance (as low as is possible) is put into the circuit when the measurement is taken. This is really a meaningless figure as far as an Ecollar user is concerned. When the resistance that actually occurs when the tool is used is considered, the actual figure is from three to a couple of hundred volts.

The study says "Shocks are used mostly as a punishment . . . "³ This is true with "old school" training methods. Modern methods take into account the fact that when the button is released "negative reinforcement" is used. That's REINFORCEMENT and it's rewarding to the dog!

The study says, "no systematic investigations regarding possible long term effects of the use of the collar have been published."⁴

But In 2003 a team led by Janet Steiss, D.V.M, PhD, of the Tuskegee University College of Veterinary Medicine, conducted a 4-week study of adult shelter dogs' physiological and behavioral responses to bark control collars. Dogs were randomly assigned to either an electronic collar or the control group.

At the conclusion of the study, Dr. Steiss and her team concluded that electronic bark collars were not only effective in controlling excessive barking, but that they also did not cause any lingering adverse physiological effects.

From a behavioral standpoint, the amount of barking was significantly reduced starting on the second day that dogs wore the electronic collars. Physiologically, the dogs registered a mild, yet statistically significant, increase in blood cortisol level only on the first day of wearing the collars.⁵

The Schilder study continued, "Only one study (Beerda et al., 1997) showed behavioural and cortisol effects upon the reception of some shocks in laboratory dogs, that suggests that shocks are unpleasant."⁶

Do we really need laboratory tests to know that shock as applied in this area of the world (the highest levels available) are "unpleasant?"

The Schilder study continued, " . . . dogs in guard and police dog training are of another breed" ⁷

I'm not sure what Schilder means by "another breed" but dogs in those jobs, "guard and police dogs" are the same as any other dog. They will tend to repeat behavior that's rewarded and tend not to repeat behavior that's punished or ignored.

Schilder continues: "and thirdly, they are very excited during training. This could well influence pain sensitivity." ⁸

Such a statement, that excitement "could well influence pain sensitivity" displays an incredible lack of knowledge of training dogs. Of course when a dog is excited his pain threshold goes up. Isn't this common knowledge, even among pet owners?

The Schilder study does get a few things right, "Although shocks may be painful, this does not imply that there is physical damage. A recent report on possible damage by the use of shock collars provides no evidence for physical damage and states that this is even unlikely. . . "⁹

But probably the main criticism of this study is that the "scientists" knew which dogs were being stimmed and which ones weren't! This goes against basic scientific methodology for setting up a meaningful study. Those should be done as "double blind" studies where neither the testers nor the trainers know which dogs are being stimmed and which aren't.

This allows them to draw whatever conclusion from the study that they wish, and it's obvious from their comments that they opposed Ecollar use. Herbert Spencer once said, "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation."

This +R trainer feels that, " . . . in the vast majority of cases it (Ecollar training) meets the criteria for abuse."

Yet there's not one case of this trainer actually doing anything about what she calls the abuse of an animal. In every jurisdiction in the US and most foreign countries as well, there are laws prohibiting animal abuse. You'd think that if this was really the truth and that she really believed this (as opposed to just spouting off) that she would be personally involved in thousands of successful prosecutions for the use of Ecollars. After all, there are millions of them sold every year. But they seem strangely lacking. Hmm. Perhaps this is just so much rhetoric.

You all should know that this +R trainer hasn't reported me for abusing any animals even though I've used the Ecollar on over 3,000 dogs.

She states, "In my patient population, dogs who have been 'treated' with shock have a much higher risk of an undesirable outcome (e.g., euthanasia) than dogs not subjected to shock, and I never recommend euthanasia."

Does this seem to be a little contradictory to anyone? Among her patients, she says dogs trained with Ecollars have a higher risk of being PTS (Put to Sleep) than other dogs, but she never recommends PTS. Makes no sense to me.

But it's odd that among vets that I know they've never PTS a dog for behavioral problems that had been properly treated with an Ecollar. In fact, many vets recommend them.

A survey of veterinarians and veterinarian technicians attending the 2003 North American Veterinary Conference found a generally positive attitude about the use of electronic training devices, with 80 percent of professionals stating that they would recommend them in many cases.¹⁰

This +R trainer's patient population is not that of the average vet. She's a well known +R advocate and is going to attract that portion of the population. But I know several vets who use and recommend Ecollars. They report exactly the opposite. In fact not one of them has ever put a dog down for any behavior problems that's had an Ecollar used on him.

"In all situations where shock has been used there is some damage done, even if we cannot easily see it."

But the truth is that no study that's ever been done, even using high stim levels has shown such damage. If such a study had been done, she'd have shown it to us thereby cementing her claim.

"Dogs who cease to exhibit a problem behavior usually also cease to exhibit normal behaviors."

She doesn't mention what "normal behaviors" cease to exhibit. This is just some vague scare tactic, hoping that people won't investigate the meaning of what she wrote.

"The only data available support the idea that shock is neither an effective nor suitable training tool."

The experience of thousands of Ecollar trainers show that an Ecollar is BOTH an effective and a suitable training tool. If there was data to support her side of this discussion, again, she'd present it.

Elsewhere on this website I make the statement: "There have been many studies done on Ecollars since the late 1960’s when they were invented. No evidence of any damage, Physiological or psychological has ever been found."

The +R trainer responds to this statement by saying that it's "is patently and wholly false."

I've already cited one such study from the University of Tuskegee. I don't want to call this +R trainer a liar; so I'll just say that her information is outdated.


FROM THE HORSES' MOUTH

Then this +R trainer presents a "conversation" between two trainers that she calls, "From the Horse's Mouth" The Subtitle is "An Informal Interview With a Trainer Experienced with the Use of Electronic Remote/Shock Collars"

One of the trainers is named "BH" and the other is "Other Trainer." I shortened this so-called "conversation" a bit for the sake of brevity. In this "conversation" BH's comments are in red and the Other Trainer's are in blue. Mine are still in black

BH: Many shock collar trainers claim that they can use a stimulation setting/level on the transmitter that does not cause the dog any discomfort. How does the trainer determine that the level of stimulation will be punishing enough to be effective without going too far and causing the dog undue pain?

Other Trainer: You GUESS! And you may be right, or you may have a trembling mass of dog urinating and defecating all over himself on the lowest setting.

I find it interesting that this +R trainer fails to mention who these trainers are. It sounds like neither of them really exist. They may be a figment of the +R trainer's imagination. If they do exist, it's clear that neither of them knows the first thing about an Ecollar.

On this website this subject is discussed in the article called "Fitting the Ecollar" to your dog. It's quite easy and there's no "guessing" involved as "Other Trainer" says. It's quite simple. Rather than quote from my site, which would make this even longer, I'll give you the condensed version.

". . . set the dial on "0" and press the Continuous button quickly three times. Since the Ecollar isn't putting out any stim at this setting you won't see anything from the dog. Turn it up just a little. If you can move it in increments of 1/16" of movement you're in the right ballpark. Press the button again, three times quickly. Continue in this fashion to SLOWLY turn the dial up until you see some sign that the dog is feeling the stimulation."

"There are many such signs. One of the most common is that the dog will sit down and scratch as if a flea is biting him. Some signs are subtler than that though. They include an ear flick, a quick look at the ground directly in front of the dog, a pulling back as if a grasshopper landed on the dog, moving to another place, locking up (rigidity of the legs)."

"Sometimes all that is noticeable is a furrowing of the dog's brow. A dog may also rear up, raising his front legs off the ground. A dog that does this may do so because of a startle reflex. He's not in pain he's just been startled. One of the more subtle signs, especially with very stoical dog is a blink of his eyes."

So you see that contrary to the lie that Trainer OT tells trainer BH, there's no guessing. And there's no "trembling mass of dog urinating and defecating all over himself." There's blinking, furrowing, or scratching as if bitten by a flea.

Other Trainer: Granted, most times you will come pretty close…we don't talk about the times where you guess completely wrong.

It's impossible to guess "completely wrong." You're not "guessing," at all as Trainer OT says. Instead you're starting from a level that's so low that no animal can feel it and slowly turning it up until the dog does feel it. This is something that the +R crowd often says about Ecollar work. I don't think that this really isn't a real conversation between two trainers, one of whom knows about Ecollar work. I'll suggest that this is completely made up by the +R trainer in question in an effort to discredit Ecollar trainers.

Other Trainer: The softer the dogs, the more likely the chance they will be extremely sensitive…

It's amazing how little these so-called "experts" seem to know about Ecollars and dog training in general! The terms "hardness" and "softness" can refer to a dog's temperament or physically how he responds to leash corrections. He'll be considered hard if he's determined to do what he wants to do and soft if he's eager to please his handler.

On the physical side a dog is considered hard if he requires a "hard" leash correction to change his behavior and soft if his behavior can be changed with "light" leash corrections. A "soft" dog getting a hard correction will probably "wilt." He may become overly submissive. A hard dog will ignore light leash corrections.

Usually a dog with a hard temperament will also require hard leash corrections. Occasionally you may come across a hard (temperament) dog that responds to light leash corrections but it's not common. Usually a soft (temperament) dog will respond to light leash corrections.

However there is absolutely no relationship between how soft or hard a dog's temperament is and at what level he'll first feel Estim. There's also no relation between how a dog is physically in the world (responding to hard or soft corrections) and at what level he'll first feel Estim. There's also no relation to size of the dog and at what level he'll first feel Estim.

I've worked big, tough police dogs that required hard leash corrections to change their behavior; as low as an 8 and little tiny toy breeds, that responded to the lightest of leash corrections; at a 30. Most dogs feel the stim at about the same level as most humans but that's only of collateral interest.

This may surprise pet owners and many trainers that don't use Ecollars, but it should come as no surprise to people who use Ecollars. I'm having a hard time accepting that this "conversation" between two trainers really took place. It sounds more like an invention of the +R trainer's mind. Many of their comments are NOT what anyone would expect from someone who is supposed to be experienced in using an Ecollar.

Other Trainer: And guess what a truly dominant dog may do? He knows where the leash pops come from - he knows where that other (shock) pain came from.

Every dog, no matter how stupid he is, knows exactly who's giving him a leash pop. He sees the hand movement and feels the pop. With an Ecollar there's no hand movement and no leash to cue him as to where the stim is coming from. BUT with a high level stim some dogs, not because they're dominant but because they're reactive, may bite the handler because he's the closest thing to them.

But this doesn't happen with low level stim. Most of my work starts with the recall protocol. To do that I have to find the dog's working level as I've described above. Doing that has the handler standing alone on the field with his dog, while I turn up the stim level on the Ecollar. These are highly dominant (and some of them highly reactive) dogs. I've NEVER had a handler bitten. That's because there's no "guessing" at the proper level of stim as this trainer says. It's simply not the truth.

Other Trainer: I have seen it a couple of times that the dog whirled around to teach that human a lesson. In a group setting, another dog who just happens to be on the around may get the blame. You don't KNOW until you press the button. It is an educated guess, nothing more.

If you "just guess," this can happen. If you use high level stim, this can happen. That's why it's not done this way by anyone who has the slightest hint of what they're doing. No one is this stupid, especially not a supposedly "experienced trainer."

BH: How does the shock collar trainer avoid negative fall out from stressing the dog during this trial and error process of determining the optimal setting?

Other Trainer: Well, you pray and hope for the best before you try it for the first time.

If you "guess" as this trainer does, you'd better be praying! You're liable to go to high and bet bitten for your trouble. But if you're following my articles, this simply can't happen.

Other Trainer: To be on the safe side you start a bit lower than you think you need to

Wait a minute! Do you "just guess" or do "you start a bit lower than you think you need to?" It can't be both ways. Which is the way that It's actually done? Why would two trainers have such an exchange in which completely contradictory information is passed between them?

In truth the proper way it's done is to start from ZERO. There's no guessing and you don't start "a bit lower." You start from zero and very slowly increase the stim level as you watch the dog for responses that are clearly laid out in the articles.

Other Trainer: and you have to keep the environment in mind. You can't avoid fall-out as long as you don't control 100% of your environment

It's not necessary to control the environment. My protocol is quite clear. It says, "Put the dog on a leash and take him outside. Let him settle down so he's not fixated on anything or highly distracted by anything. With some dogs it may take a few minutes for them to settle down. If he's sniffing the ground, he's distracted. If he's looking at something and his ears are standing up (for dogs whose ears do this) he's distracted. When his ears relax and stick out to the side rather than straight up, or they lay down, you're ready to find his level."

When you're looking for the dog's working level and you see that he's distracted, you don't press the button. If at the second that you press the button you see that he was distracted, you stay at that level. If he's been distracted at the moment of the button press he won't feel it because you're below his "distraction level of stim." Just stay at that level until he loses interest in whatever distracted him and then continue.

Other Trainer: and even then you might run into that one ultra-sensitive dog.

All that happens with an "ultra sensitive dog" is that he feels the stim at a lower level, for example an 8, rather than a 20.

Other Trainer: You can minimize the potential for a wrong association, (what the shocked dog learns to fear/avoid) but you can't avoid it completely.

These associations happen with high level stim but the first time that a dog feels a stim it's NOT at a high level and this is just so much nonsense. Wrong associations don't happen with one repetition of low level stim.

Other Trainer: In a lab you control the environment. In life you don't.

It's not necessary to control the environment. You simply watch the dog. (This is on the website) If his ears go up he's distracted. If you see his nose working (wrinkling and moving about) he's distracted. If he's sniffing the ground, he's distracted. When his ears flop out to the side (for dogs whose ears stand up) he's ready.

Other Trainer: And this is where zapping can backfire. That stranger or other dog or whatever is already a perceived bad thing. Now you add real physical pain to the mix and all the dog learns is to avoid and not to express his emotional state. One way to create a time bomb.

Suddenly and without warning, Trainer OT suddenly moves from finding the dog's working level to zapping him for aggression! But he's right. Zapping a dog (working him at a high level of stim) does mean pain. And pain should never be used to control aggression. You CAN create a time bomb like this, one who has learned not to display his aggression, which allows you to read him, and he can go from "calm" to "murder" without any signs.

BH: Some E collar trainers tout their method as the best way to teach dogs basic obedience behaviors such as walking without pulling on leash. Would you recommend using a shock collar to teach loose leash walking?

Other Trainer: Having used the E-collar for avoidance training, (training dogs to shun snakes or not to chase cats or deer) which has more than enough potential pitfalls

The Ecollar is almost always used on very high levels for avoidance training. I don't do that because as Trainer OT states, it has "more than enough potential pitfalls." But there are ways to teach dogs not to chase cats or deer that don't involve high levels of stim. On my website there's a complete description of how this is done in the article called "Crittering and Dog to Dog Aggression."

Other Trainer: the issue of loose leash walking is just not a big enough problem for me

I'd suggest that Trainer OT read some of the dog training forums frequented by amateurs or owners, not trainers. IT'S A HUGE issue for them. One of the most common problems that they have is the recall in the face of high value distractions when the dog is at a distance. The first behavior I usually teach a dog with the Ecollar is the recall. It evolves into loose leash walking. This can occur as quickly as in 1-2 sessions of working with the dog.

Other Trainer: to be willing to deal with a much more complex can of worms…

It's actually VERY easy to teach the recall with the Ecollar.

Other Trainer: I have to rely on them to take it off to prevent sores

What Trainer OT is referring to here is the fact that the Ecollar has to be moved around on the dog's neck every couple of hours or it has to be taken off. This is to prevent sores from forming under the contact points from the constant pressure. There is also a device available called the SCG (Surface Contact Grid) that replaces the contact points and spreads the pressure out. This means that the Ecollar can be left on the dog for much longer periods.

Other Trainer: to follow instructions so the dog does not become collar smart.

What Trainer OT is referring to here is the fact that it's possible to teach a dog that when he's wearing the Ecollar, he is subject to correction if he does the wrong thing and that when he's not wearing it, he can't be. This is a training flaw; but it isn't limited to the Ecollar and it's discussed in the section on this website that discusses myths.

BH: OK, so what about the claims these trainers make that they can cure predatory chasing of other animals with the remote/shock collar?

Other Trainer: They don't cure poop. They just hope to put a strong enough lid on it. Like avoidance training might hold only so long when temptation and desire build up and then you need to refresh the pain and fear so they can override the desire to hunt...

This is exactly what can happen when the Ecollar is used as Trainer OT uses it. What he does is quite simple (and simple minded). He waits until his dog is in full chase and then presses the button of an Ecollar that's set on a very high level, perhaps at it's top level. He's hoping that the dog will associate the pain, and make no mistake, an Ecollar set on it's highest level HURTS, with the chase of the prey animal. This is what Ecollars were invented for in the first place! Usually it works quite well. The dog DOES make the proper association and so he stops chasing game.

But some dogs are so driven to chase that the pain doesn't deter them. (These are the ones that often +R techniques don't work on). They just "grit their teeth" and power through the pain. Soon the stim stops, either because the trainer sees that it's not working and lifts his finger off the button, the timer shuts the stim off, or the dog runs out of range of the Ecollar. When this happens the dog learns, sometimes in just one repetition, that if he keeps up the chase, the pain stops. He learns that one way to make it stop, is to keep chasing. That's a powerful lesson.

Another problem that can occur is that the dog will make another association than the chase. One common one is "being away from the handler." This dog breaks off the chase and returns to the handler, only to never leave his side again.

But neither of these problems occurs when my method is used. Low level stim is used so there's no pain or fear that can make a dog make the wrong association. After this work is done; the dog sees the prey animal, and just goes back to work. I have many testimonials that this is just how it works.

Other Trainer: Done properly, the dog will not become collar smart. That is always ****ty work.

Having a dog become "collar smart" (That means that he knows when the collar is on and he behaves one way; and he knows when it's off, and he behaves another way) is not something that's inherent to Ecollar work, although the way that many trainers use the tool it happens. Many trainers use it only to solve a problem. When the problem arises, they put the Ecollar on the dog and clean up the problem, then they take it off. Do this only a few times and a dog will become collar smart. (it's also known as collar wise).

But this can happen with something as benign as a kerchief worn around the dog's neck or a hat worn by the trainer. If it's present regularly only during training the dog will come to regard it as a cue for his behavior.

Avoiding this flaw is easy and it's discussed elsewhere on this website.

Other Trainer: If it was true that shock could CURE it, then any other means of physical punishment would also cure it. But it doesn't. Can't, since you are only dealing with the outward symptoms and not the inner motivation.

Actually this method, blasting the dog off the chase OFTEN cures the dog of chasing for the rest of it's life. But I don't like it because of the problems that I've mentioned that sometimes occur.

But as to using other means of punishment to stop crittering . . . Other forms of punishment (a leash correction) for example doesn't work because the dog knows when he's got a leash on him. Leash corrections have the effect of focusing the dog on the handler, not on not chasing game. These comments demonstrate how little these trainers understand about training a dog with an Ecollar.

My method works at a very basic level of behavior modification. It teaches the dog to turn his head away from the prey animal, an alternate behavior. A dog can't chase something he can't look at! Since he knows that looking at the prey animal brings discomfort, he stops doing it. This doesn't "deal with the outward symptoms" as Trainer OT warns us. It deals with the base behavior, the very start of the aggression.

Other Trainer: For a soft dog with less conflict/stress it may last a lifetime and seem a CURE, but in reality it is only a question of time and circumstances…

If it lasts a lifetime, isn't that a CURE?

Other Trainer: The modern human wants everything right now, without effort, with guaranteed results and preferably cheap. Fast food, weight loss, dog training.

Yes this is true. There's nothing really wrong with it. As long as the results are the same, faster IS better. Easier IS better. There's nothing inherently better about something just because it takes longer.

Other Trainer: The modern human does not want the inconvenience of changing habits and lifestyles (even if temporary), does not want the inconvenience of investing time into weeks of training (how many drop out of an 8 week class?), the inconvenience of understanding basic dog behavior and basic learning theory.

There's nothing wrong with learning "basic dog behavior" and "basic learning theory" but few owners want to. They don't see the need and there's really no need for it. It might help them but few have the time or the desire. It's necessary for trainers to learn those things and more, but most pet owners aren't interested.

Most pet owners want pretty basic things. They want the dog to come when he's called. He should do some other things on command such as sit and down. He should not tear up the house or the garden. They're not interested in learning theory, pack mentality, drive theory or the like. They have family, lead busy lives and just want a well behaved dog.

Other Trainer: Smart marketing sells people what they want. It is primarily about selling.

It's primarily about training a dog and this is just a cheap shot. It's exactly the sort of thing to be expected from a +R trainer who realizes that she's losing business every time that someone learns how to use an Ecollar.

BH: Have you ever seen that being shocked actually increase the subject dog's aggression toward other animals?

Other Trainer: Oddly, I have never experienced increased aggression towards cat, deer, sheep etc. Strong avoidance yes. Increased aggression towards other dogs and humans I have seen numerous times.

Yep this can happen when high level stim is used. It doesn't happen with low level stim.

BH: One shock collar trainer said that if she got a call about a German Shepherd that had just killed a cat, she sure wouldn't show up with a clicker. So, what happens when instead this trainer shows up with her shock collar?

Other Trainer: I prefer my skin without additional holes and I would not bring my E-collar to the first appointment one way or another.

If I used high level stim for this problem I wouldn't bring my Ecollar either.

Other Trainer: I'd bring lots of paper, treats and a clicker just to evaluate the dog and create a relaxed atmosphere before I decide on anything.

I don't need "paper, treats and a clicker" to evaluate a dog. I'd prefer to watch him as he moves around and listen to what his owner says. This tells me volumes about the dog and ALSO how the owner perceives him, how he behaves and what the owner think is the motivation for his behavior.

Other Trainer: I think it is more than stupid and arrogant to walk in on your first appointment with cat blood still wet on the dog's muzzle, strap on the E-collar and go happily zapping away.

So do I. But since I don't "zap" (use high level stim) I'll bring the Ecollar to the first session and get started on the problem.

Other Trainer: It is plain unprofessional

How is it "unprofessional" to show the owner some progress on the first visit?

Other Trainer: I hope she has enough insurance because sooner or later she will need it.

Never needed it on over 3,000 dogs.

BH: One of the toughest things I face in working with dog- aggressive dogs is helping the owners figure out ways they can get their dog around other dogs in controlled situations to do the counter-conditioning/desensitizing work, while avoiding letting their dog practice aggressive behavior in uncontrolled situations...

Yes, that can sometimes be quite difficult to set up. Counter- conditioning/desensitizing work is hard to set up, time consuming and often does nothing for the behavior. My protocol is easy to set up and easy to do.

BH: So... wouldn't shock collar trainers also need to practice repeat set ups, just as I do, in order to be sure that the dog's avoidance response generalizes to more than one particular animal and situation?

Of course. But it's much easier to set up, it's much easier to do and it's much faster. AND it succeeds far more often.

Other Trainer: Most likely. One dog I worked using an E-collar on a cat killing issue had to go through several different looking cats before he was able to draw the conclusion that ALL cats are dangerous!

Teaching a dog that cats are dangerous is done by letting the dog get close to the cat and then pressing the button on a high level. You want the dog to think that the cat can cause him serious pain from a distance. BUT IT'S FRAUGHT WITH PROBLEMS!!! And I'd NEVER do it. You can easily get a dog that sneaks up on cats from the rear with murderous intent. It can actually make the problem worse. Why does Trainer OT realize this with some problems but not with this one?

Other Trainer: Plus you most likely need different locations. Like working "Sit" only in your kitchen doesn't help in Petsmart…

ALL training needs to be worked in different locations, on different surfaces (gravel, dirt, cement, asphalt, etc.). Dogs don't generalize well from one situation to the next. This is very basic stuff.

Other Trainer: I have used it for avoidance training on the highest setting

Just as I said he's do! This is clearly someone who understand the use of the Ecollar for punishment but just as clearly doesn't understand the subtleties of the tool. This website explains those subtle uses to expert and beginner alike.

Other Trainer: I never had complete success after one session.

Sometimes learning happens in just one session of using high level stim. I know of several dogs that were trained to stay away from poisonous snakes at a young age. They did so until they passed away, many years later.

Other Trainer: Notice some people never leave the house without the E collar on the dog

If the dog never needs another correction (for example, to stay away from poisonous snakes) he's been trained. The fact that he's wearing his Ecollar may be (and most likely is) for "insurance" in case he slips.

Other Trainer: Ah - you see that is exactly why they all claim they can fix it in one session.

What "all" is Trainer OT talking about who make this claim? I've never come across any Ecollar trainer who says that he can get the training done in one session. I certainly don't.

BH: Yet the entire case that remote/shock collar proponents make for this training method/tool is based upon its supposed speediness, effectiveness and ease compared to positive training approaches!

It's hardly "the entire case." But the Ecollar is faster, more effective and easier than +R techniques. A large part of the case for the Ecollar is that it will probably work when the +R methods fail.

Other Trainer: True, but do you really expect truth in advertising?

I do expect "truth in advertising" and that's why I provide it.

________________________________________

1. Mathis Schilder and Joanne van der Borg, Training Dogs With the Help of the Shock Collar: Short and Long Term Behavioural Effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science (2003) 85. 319-334).

2. ibid., 320.

3. ibid.

4. ibid.

5. The Facts About Modern Electronic Training Devices, Radio Systems Corp. (2004): 3.

6. Mathis Schilder and Joanne van der Borg, Training Dogs With the Help of the Shock Collar: Short and Long Term Behavioural Effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science (2003) 85, 320.

7. ibid.

8. ibid.

9. ibid., 331

10. The Facts About Modern Electronic Training Devices, Radio Systems Corp. (2004): 8. (A complete copy of this collection of articles can be seen at  This Site)

 

Close this page to return to the article index

 

© 2007 Lou Castle