Eight Rules for Punishment (and why we shouldn't use them)

miranadobe

Liesje

I do not see any value in using a correction that the dog isn't sure who is responsible for.

  When the correction comes from the action of the dog, without association to the handler, he may learn HE is the one responsible for the outcome of his behavior.  That may be why some handlers say that in reference to using an ecollar for trash picking.  The dog has to know that it's the wrong move, even if his handler is not home to deliver a correction.  He learns that THIS behavior will result in THIS consequence - either the reward of a bunch of garbage to pick through, or a correction - regardless of whom it came from.

 

Do you believe there is a distinction in training vs. behavior mod?  I agree with the above and recently tried a bark collar on Nikon which is the same sort of thing.  But to me there is a difference between these uses and actual training.  I see training as a partnership between the dog and I.  Therefore, all rewards and corrects come from me and it's important the dog knows this.  To me using a remote collar for trash picking, inappropriate barking, eating poo is different than say training a dog to heel, proofing a down-stay.

I've also heard people defend the use of an e-collar in training so that their dog doesn't become overly handler sensitive or to avoid conflict with the handler.  In these cases I would argue against the use of the collar, because like I said I see training as a partnership and if the handler wants to do something he knows will cause conflict of avoidance within that relationship, it's just not appropriate regardless of who is actually pushing the button.  I don't ever seek to trick my dog when it comes to corrections.  In fact, even for the other scenarios that are more behavior mod than training, I'd be perfectly fine with correcting my dog myself but in those scenarios we just can't which is why the behavior becomes a problem.

Anyway to get back to the thread topic I still believe that the dog doesn't have to just associate the correction with the behavior, it can be associated with the handler.  Why is it that I can give my dog a correction, he responds appropriately, I reward, we move on but if my training director gave my dog the same level of correction my dog would probably try to eat him?  Because relationship DOES matter, and IMO it *should* matter.  A dog is not a robot. 

Yes a very big distinction. In the examples above the dog is not required to do anything in response to the correction but go on it's merry way. They are never trained how to respond properly at a lower levels first before turning it up to a correction level. That is what can cause stress and make them fearful of the collar because it's very unpredictable and it hurts. Once you use an e-fence or bark collar it's much more difficult to collar condition the dog because all they want to do is stop doing whatever they are doing when they feel the stim. Collar conditioning is (teaching a dog to do something in response to the collar) it's the total opposite IMO. To better understand why some pro trainer will tell you that the collar is more indirect you need to look at the history of the e-collar. Most e-collar programs are based off of what we learned from pro retriever trainers over the years. In the past they would pinch a dogs ear until it opened it's mouth in pain and stick a bumper in, or yank on a string tied to the dogs toe to teach it to hold. Compared to the old way of doing things it is more indirect. The handler does remain more of a good guy than they would using hands on physical force. I don't think that's a bad thing. I don't want to hijack her thread any more. Sorry OP!