Wales Bans Shock Collars

I think what really happened here is that Fred came along and posted on a thread that was idle for a while, and I responded back.  The purpose of a forum is discussion, so continuing a thread is fairly normal behavior, one would think.  I'm not generally in the habit of Googling the names of posters to see how long they've been members, so would have no idea how long he had been here before posting. 

spiritdogs

see how long they've been members, so would have no idea how long he had been here before posting. 

 Look below the avatar picture on each post and it says "Joined On" with the date they started their account.  Some people lost their old status when the forum changed - like yours - so it's defaulted to the Sept 2007 generic date.  Anyway, off-topic.

Wales bans ecollars = bad.

I personally find it pretty biased that the UK Kennel Club is deliberately requesting people who had "bad" experiences to come forward to take the CAWC's survey regarding ecollars.  Because they need something to outweigh the voices of those who have had good experiences?? 

Responses to the Schilder study: http://loucastle.com/schilder.htm

Lou Castle's comments on relying exclusively on one quadrant of operant conditioning: "In any case I think that all higher animals (above a single cell) learn best via +R (using the terms of Operant Conditioning (OC). The problem comes when the instincts of those animals come into play countering that training and then +R loses much, if not most of its effectiveness.

Sticking to dogs, once can train a dog to a very high degree of OB and reliability using +R in the absence of distractions, such as in the living room. But as soon as distractions enter the picture, squirrels, cats, skunks, birds, chicken bones, other dogs and people, etc., that OB will fall apart. How well it holds then becomes a matter of how much work the owner/trainer is willing to put into the dog. A bit of liver that has 100% attention in the living room, has a limited amount of power when distractions are present.

But something that's a punishment, whatever that aversive is, is almost always aversive. AND most importantly the level of most +P's can be raised. The leash can be popped harder, the Ecollar turned up to a higher stim level. You can't do that with a bit of liver.

BTW it's impossible to train an animal without using punishment and just about impossible to do it without using +P. "

Analysis of ecollar study including explanation of the stim level (NOT equivalent to electronic cattle fence) http://www.trainmypet.net/documents/white_paper.pdf  (yes, yes, it's published by Petsafe.  But they are either facts or they're not.  People can decide by reading and informing themselves.)

From one of Lou Castle's training blurbs... "As soon as he turns his head away from the prey animal, perhaps in response to your pulling, perhaps because he's given up on catching THAT animal, his distraction level will drop off very quickly. BUT you're still stimming at a 50 and now that's WAAAAY too high for his level of distraction. Suddenly he's getting a lot of pain and so he runs to you for protection. Naturally you turn off the stim and you may have just created a monster. One that will run to you quite often when he's confused and gets a stim. This will come back to haunt you later, I can almost guarantee it. The crittering protocol must be done under the controlled situation that is described here. Anything else MAY work. But it may also give you a dog that learns to power through any stim. It may also give you a dog that refuses to leave your side for more than a few feet. I'd suggest that you avoid trying to shortcut this process." Sad to think that a dog would even need to be running to his handler for protection when it is the handler who is causing the dog's pain. 

When he says that the dog's instincts coming in to play means that +R loses most of its effectiveness he is showing his ignorance of the principles that +R trainers use to work with distance, duration, and distraction as if they don't exist, or are always ineffective, which is untrue.  It's very easy to use the failures that occur in any method of training to paint the method with a broad brush, but it is mostly the individual trainer's skill or timing that leads to efficacy or failure.  The quadrants all work, properly applied.  But, that doesn't mean that, given a choice, it isn't better to use the quadrant that causes the dog the least distress, and no one should assume that a dog cannot be trained without the use of an e-collar, even if +P is used (sparingly, one would hope).  If I can train my dog, who is as drivey as any, not to herd my horse, and to leave a running cat alone, without the use of an e-collar, then why can't these supposedly well educated trainers who know all the intricacies of OC do it, too?  The simple answer is that they want fast results, and they think it's fine to get them by shocking their dogs, which certainly does inhibit those undesirable behaviors, and makes it appear that they have been banished for good, when in more than a few cases, they have simply been sublimated, only to reappear in the right set of circumstances, often at significant detriment to the dog and those around him.  

spiritdogs

and they think it's fine to get them by shocking their dogs, which certainly does inhibit those undesirable behaviors, and makes it appear that they have been banished for good, when in more than a few cases, they have simply been sublimated, only to reappear in the right set of circumstances, often at significant detriment to the dog and those around him.  

And you are talking here out of personal experience, right? Or are you just assuming?

My experience is that a great trainer is a great trainer regardless of what tool or gimmick they are using.  I could hand my dog to either one of my trainers (who are VERY different but both GREAT, in my opinion) and say "train my dog to do this using this tool" and they can do it.  Of course everyone has their preferred tools and gimmicks.

People who suck at training and suck at reading dogs aren't going to get very far whether they have a shock collar or a nylon flat collar.

 I think, as others have said, misuse of anything can turn to abuse.

 Take for example a wire hanger. It's meant to hold your clothes.... but, look at Mommie Dearest.  Thereby we should ban ALL wire hangers? Probably not.

  Look at shoes.  Or a newspaper.... even a crate.  All of these things in their proper use are wonderful things. I wouldn't get far without shoes :) And would you like to ban a crate because some people misuse them?  Puppymills wouldn't get far without them.......

 I think an e-collar in it's proper use is a useful tool.  Like anything else, banning it won't keep the abusive people from using them. It's not like because they are banned suddenly those in use won't work any more, or people will see the error in their ways.

Liesje

People who suck at training and suck at reading dogs aren't going to get very far whether they have a shock collar or a nylon flat collar.

.... or a clicker.

And I use a clicker and a whistle in my training, and used properly they are great tools... used improperly and someone won't make much headway!

 Way OT, but the Mommy Dearest reference about wire hangers, is the reason I will never have a wire hanger in my closet. "No wire hangers!" Man that movie is one to remember.

 England has banned double edged knives, and occasionally talk about getting rid of pointed knives.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail.  Govt has only laws, and seems to need to solve problems to justify their existence.

If we don't need more laws, we may not need large govts.

The e-collar is just a tool.  I've seen pictures of a dog with a neck burn from being over shocked at high settings.  Idiots do exist and will misuse equipment.  I've seen pictures of animals injured by leather collars-over growing the collar or being jerked hard.  The problem isn't the tool, its the idiot using it.

Used properly-lowest setting, sparingly- it delivers the equivalent of a static shock that can remind  a distracted dog that it's still working under orders. Used improperly, it can ruin a good dog.

DougB

The e-collar is just a tool.  I've seen pictures of a dog with a neck burn from being over shocked at high settings.  Idiots do exist and will misuse equipment.  I've seen pictures of animals injured by leather collars-over growing the collar or being jerked hard.  The problem isn't the tool, its the idiot using it.

Used properly-lowest setting, sparingly- it delivers the equivalent of a static shock that can remind  a distracted dog that it's still working under orders. Used improperly, it can ruin a good dog.

Those are not burns, they are from the dog wearing the collar too long and/or too tight and the prongs get embedded.  I don't know about e-collars of old but the good quality ones used now cannot burn like that.  You don't have to use one on the lowest setting or sparingly to avoid those marks, just make sure it fits correctly and don't force the dog to wear it 24/7. Likewise you see embedded regular nylon collars from improper fit and being worn too long.

At the lower level, the shock is far less than a static shock.  I've tried my trainer's collar (about $350) and a cheap one someone gave to me that I don't use and at the lowest settings I did not even feel the stim.  When I started dialing it up it still did not feel like a shock, it felt like a small tickle, then it just made my wrist twitch (I test on the underside of my wrist which is significantly more exposed than a furry dog neck).  A static shock contains an incredibly high level of voltage, like thousands of volts (whereas here in the US the electricity in the walls is 120V but CAN kill).

espencer

spiritdogs

and they think it's fine to get them by shocking their dogs, which certainly does inhibit those undesirable behaviors, and makes it appear that they have been banished for good, when in more than a few cases, they have simply been sublimated, only to reappear in the right set of circumstances, often at significant detriment to the dog and those around him.  

 

And you are talking here out of personal experience, right? Or are you just assuming?

Talking from owning a rescued dog that had one used on him, and from years of observation.  I don't assume anything, except that electricity produces shock, and shock is painful or it would not retard behavior.  Imagine trying to get a predatory dog to stop chasing a squirrel by using a "tap" - no, the volume is nearly always turned up.  Try the collar on "50" on your own neck.  Better yet, to simulate malfunction, try it all the way to the top.

Those are not burns, they are from the dog wearing the collar too long and/or too tight and the prongs get embedded.  I don't know about e-collars of old but the good quality ones used now cannot burn like that.

You cannot say those are not burns, since you weren't there to examine the dog.  Not only that, the fact that such huge prongs get embedded at all is a testament to the fact that some idiots will leave these things on their dogs not for temporary use, but as daily wear.  Also, do you really think the average pet owner who won't pay a decent trainer to help them because Petco is cheaper is going to buy a $350 version of an e-collar?  Nope, he's going to buy the backyard variety that comes with that handy dandy instruction booklet, and then he's going to zap the heck out of his dog.  Just like he goes around "tssst"-ing his dog because he saw it on TV.

*EDITED, RUDE*

spiritdogs

 Also, do you really think the average pet owner who won't pay a decent trainer to help them because Petco is cheaper is going to buy a $350 version of an e-collar?  Nope, he's going to buy the backyard variety that comes with that handy dandy instruction booklet, and then he's going to zap the heck out of his dog.  Just like he goes around "tssst"-ing his dog because he saw it on TV.

And just what makes you think this problem has anything to do with an e-collar?  If it wasn't an e-collar it would be a prong, or a choker, or a "dominant dog" collar.....  The tool is incidental when people are just stupid in general.  Your post already implies this with the CM reference.

What makes your "observations" any more valid than the experience of people who have used these collars for years? poodleOwned has made some interesting posts about how these tools work neurologically, and while we may still disagree on their use in general at least the points are based on science and not the sensationalism of a scumbag "burning" his dog.

Obviously one doesn't have to agree with the use of the tool in *every* context to find value in it.  I personally would not consider using an e-collar to squash prey drive or for recalls.

Sera_J

And I use a clicker and a whistle in my training, and used properly they are great tools... used improperly and someone won't make much headway!

This is a good example of why some of us don't believe shock collars belong in the hands of the casual dog owner who wants to "fix" his dogs bad habits.  With a whistle or a clicker, mistakes aren't a big deal to dog or trainer.   Not always the case with a shock collar.  As I said in the first of this thread, I have used shock collars and have trained with many people over the years who use them correctly and incorrectly.  Experienced pros and amateurs.   What I saw all too often (long before any TV trainer was around) was the amateur who observed some really impressive dog work and who also noticed some people using shock collars.  He comes to the conclusion that this is the way to go.  He rushes out and buys a collar and proceeds to "train" his dog.  He has no skills in dog training, he wants a well trained dog and he wants it in two weeks.  He gets no input or advice on how to properly use the collar. 

For those who train with educated, skilled people it may be hard to believe just how ignorant some people are when it comes to dog training and just how badly they can ruin a dog.  I wish they could only be sold to people who had completed a course from a skilled professional and that still wouldn't completely guarantee the wouldn't be misused.

Jackie I wish the crappy cheapies were not on the market.  The cost of a proper e-collar would definitely deter most senseless people, since it is more than going to training (at least where I live, training is about $100 for 6 weeks and the good e-collars are about $300).

I know it was asked but not sure if it was answered:  does this ban also cover bark collars and e-fences?

Liesje

spiritdogs

 Also, do you really think the average pet owner who won't pay a decent trainer to help them because Petco is cheaper is going to buy a $350 version of an e-collar?  Nope, he's going to buy the backyard variety that comes with that handy dandy instruction booklet, and then he's going to zap the heck out of his dog.  Just like he goes around "tssst"-ing his dog because he saw it on TV.

 

And just what makes you think this problem has anything to do with an e-collar?  If it wasn't an e-collar it would be a prong, or a choker, or a "dominant dog" collar.....  The tool is incidental when people are just stupid in general.  Your post already implies this with the CM reference.

What makes your "observations" any more valid than the experience of people who have used these collars for years? poodleOwned has made some interesting posts about how these tools work neurologically, and while we may still disagree on their use in general at least the points are based on science and not the sensationalism of a scumbag "burning" his dog.

Obviously one doesn't have to agree with the use of the tool in *every* context to find value in it.  I personally would not consider using an e-collar to squash prey drive or for recalls.

The problem is NOT limited to e-collars, and I never said it was - you assumed that's what I meant.  I think any pain-inducing device is better left unused, but if someone is going to use one, it should be someone who has extensive knowledge of OC, timing, and a basically humane attitude, not one that is focused on the dog being an automaton and having to conform to every iota of our desire for him to be perfect, and with a basic misunderstanding of how well positive reinforcement actually works.  Too many people in the e-collar community are more focused on performance, obedience, and dominance than on any realistic expectations of their dogs as partners or beings deserving of a little individualism or respect to even try to change their thinking on the need for pain in training.  (This is just my opinion, and I'm entitled to one, even if you don't like it.)   I agree with you that the tool IS incidental to stupidity, which is the larger issue, but I also think that stupidity extends to the lack of understanding of the correct application of positive reinforcement training, too.  By the way, I have used remote collars, too - the ones that only vibrate.  They are great to work on distance training with deaf dogs.  But, they really ARE a "tap" used in that way.  Vibration doesn't hurt - shock does.  If it didn't, why would anyone think it would get the dog's attention?  After all, it's not exactly a primary, or even secondary reinforcer, something the dog might want.  It's a punisher, used by people who believe that punishment is necessary to reliably alter behavior. 

If this device were so innocent, why the need to euphemize?  It's a shock collar, which shocks the dog (lightly or not so lightly).  So, why are shock collar trainers suddenly so averse to saying those words?  Marketing types are having a field day re-branding these products to make them more palatable to who???  The general public, that's who - not the guys who go out and buy the Cadillac e-collars.  Suddenly, we have "tap" and "stim"  or "radio frequency stimulus" and we have "remote" or "electronic" but no more "shock"???  Some trainers are so convoluted about it that you can't even tell from their web sites that that's the method they use - I don't know about you, but if I'm going to hire a trainer, I want to know in advance what he/she plans to use on my dog.