SHOCK COLLAR TRAINING: SHILDER AND VAN DER BORG

[Marc]

Nice to see a topic such as this being discussed rather than argued about for a change LOL

Can see Becs point of view to be honest. It is true to say that if you have not experienced one or know enough about them then it is not enough to make an informed opinion. Im sure more of us can see that. As I said above my reasoning for not wanting to use one is that I personally dont see the need for me to do so, which given that you have stated yourself you dont use them with your own Im guessin you dont either.

Its always good to have a subjective opinion and to be honest bec your post has come across to be a lot better than I have seen some of yours in the past For now however Im on the side of not seeing the need. Seems unlike other threads about these we actually have 3 categories rather than 2. 1.Dont agree with them, 2. Think they are a good tool when used correctly, and 3. Dont actually have much of an opinion on them as we simply dont see the need for such an expensive tool regardless of whether they are subtle hints to the dog rather than pain or otherwise.

Good posts people

[Bec]

I can't help but feel you are only open to how you see it an not how others do which is ashame as you are a very clever person defo a credit to the site. A stern correction with tone of voice can have the same effect as the e-collar you seem so fast to defend if you feel it is good for you then by all means use it and give you're opinion but you cant say you are wrong etc when i have had dogs my whole life as well as more people than i care to count an had all amazingly well trained ones with no need of an ecollar ever

I feel they are lazy and only give people who do not know how to do things with out their aid another way train i don't see them as pointless for those that need them i see them pointles when for 1000's of years befor electricity was even found so to speak people were training there dogs to what is almost perfection. so why suddenly use a tool that was never needed befor i would say from what i have seen that they teach the same as a vocal comand or treat training.

Example sheep hearding dogs (Don't get excited sparks lol) trained from pupp to do what their ancestors did and i can honestly say i know of not 1 case where an ecollar is used i grew up around farms and know a lot of hearding dogs. There are sides to both arguments. I'm not disputing your's i just dont agree with it. I'm sure you will have some thing to say to this I think the only time we have ever agreed since my entire time on here is the recall thread lol

It's preference nothing else

My preference is they are not needed

You say you speak from experience with them i speak from experience with same results with out them

Keath I totally understand where you are coming from, it is definitely personal preference.

But (and I don't mean to pick on you, just using it as an example) - you said that one of your dogs does not have a reliable recall. It could be that e-collar training can help you get it that bit more reliable - you wouldn't know unless you tried it (under the guidance of a professional) - I know it's a moot point because you don't want to use them, but it's a reason why many people use e-collars in training. They use a lot of positive reinforcement to train a recall and then use the e-collar to fine tune it and get it as close to 100% as possible.

Government and service agencies around the world use e-collars as part of their training programs, could they train without e-collars? Sure, but would the results be as effective or reliable or efficient? I don't think they would.

Your comment about dogs 1000 years ago being trained to perfection confuses me a bit - what dogs are you referring to? How do you know that 1000s of years ago they were trained to a high a standard that e-collars can give us today? Remember too that times have changed - 1000 years ago, dogs that couldn't work to a certain standard were culled. They also weren't used outside their original purpose, and in today's society, our dogs are expected to be able to do a lot more than what they were orginally bred for. We have leash laws, dogs aren't free to roam, very few are used for the purpose they were bred for. 1000 years ago, dogs have a far shorter life span than they did now; they woud die from disease we can now vaccinate against; they would die from injuries modern medicine can now fix; many would sleep outside and would only be taken out to work and we know a lot more about canine behaviour and training and how to raise good working dogs than we did back then. We have evolved a lot in 1000 years.

My dogs are pretty well trained but even my training has limitations, I am sure you would agree that I am not a lazy trainer nor do I not know how to train things without e-collars (obviously, as I've never used them on my dogs) - but even I recoginse that if I wanted that little bit more reliable recall on my scent hound I don't know how I'd do it without an e-collar. When she is more than 100 metres away from me, what other method or tool can you use to get her attention if she is locked on a scent? What other tool has the ability to be as gentle and subtle as an e-collar at that distance? I can call her off scents now, but she is not 100% and there have been a couple of occasions when she plain couldn't hear me call her.

Nice to see a topic such as this being discussed rather than argued about for a change LOL

Can see Becs point of view to be honest. It is true to say that if you have not experienced one or know enough about them then it is not enough to make an informed opinion. Im sure more of us can see that. As I said above my reasoning for not wanting to use one is that I personally dont see the need for me to do so, which given that you have stated yourself you dont use them with your own Im guessin you dont either.

Its always good to have a subjective opinion and to be honest bec your post has come across to be a lot better than I have seen some of yours in the past For now however Im on the side of not seeing the need. Seems unlike other threads about these we actually have 3 categories rather than 2. 1.Dont agree with them, 2. Think they are a good tool when used correctly, and 3. Dont actually have much of an opinion on them as we simply dont see the need for such an expensive tool regardless of whether they are subtle hints to the dog rather than pain or otherwise.

Good posts people

I have no problem with people who say e-collar training is not for them, I have not yet reached a point in my training where I feel it is for me, either. I wouldn't have any problem with using one if I did reach that point, however, and I would hope that the people on this forum know me well enough to know that I would never abuse my dogs or inflict pain on them as a training method. My number on priority is that my dogs are happy to work, and I would never do anything that would jeopordize that. I do think it's a tool that is often misunderstood, and even if you never decide to use one, there is no harm in learning about it.

[Macdog]

Hello again, Bec. I've read your post with interest. However, I'm struggling with a couple points:

I've read this study before, but it is working the dogs on a high stim level which is not how modern e-collar training works.

***

It's important to note that there are cheap and nasty e-collars out there just like with anything, the good quality ones will cost upwards of $500.

So you say that the shock collars used in the study can cause pain and distress because they are "high stim level" and the ones in WALMART can cause pain and distress because they are "cheap and nasty". So we have to use the specific $500 model you are familiar with to be any good. I wonder then how we would then stop the importation, sale and use of all shock collars but the specific $500 models you are familiar with? Should we develop standards? License the devices? Or just ban 'em all?

Modern e-collar training is about working the dog on the lowest perceivable level. In some instances this is a level that the handler themselves can't even feel.

I'm chuckling, here. If this was truly the case, why on earth would the dog pay any attention to the shock? I don't mean to be obtuse, but that's a pretty hard sell!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't really understand how anyone can form a solid opinion about any tool without a) having used it ...

By this line of reasoning, if somebody had never used illegal drugs, they could never form a solid opinion about the use of illegal drugs. Sorry, no sale.

How many of us here microchip or desex their dogs? Both those things inflict more pain than low stim e-collar training.

That's a matter of conjecture, but even if it were true, those are one-time events with a clear benefit for the animal, not repeated shocks on the training ground where proven alternative methods exist.

E-collars are very useful tools, what's wrong with taking the "lazy" way if it produces the quickest, quality and most reliable outcome?

Ouch! Ethics = acting according to the concepts of "right" and "wrong". Causing distress to animals because you are lazy is scarcely ethical.

All this said, Bec, I do take heart from the fact that you don't use shock collars either.

Regards,

Macdog

[KSNS]

National Museum of Natural History extracted DNA from bones of dogs from archaeological sites in Peru, Bolivia and Mexico, and compared the DNA with DNA from modern dogs and modern wolves. Much of the DNA was well preserved, Leonard (A former graduate student in the lab of UCLA biology professor, Jennifer A. Leonard) said.The hunter-gatherers brought the dogs enormous distances, which shows that the dogs were regarded as very valuable. this dates back 12.000 years it's a scientific fact with out ecollars obviously training has changed and evolved and ecollars are a part of it.

The dog who has no recall was a rescue dog to be fair i should have prob stated that and his past saw him beaten in the face those who have met him i have showen his tooth that has been bent forwards due to some ones boot making contact. it's not his fault.

My youngest of just under 7 months i use my eldest dog sakari to train her no ecollar i attach her to sakari's harness and give sakari commands nukka has no choice butto go with her and now she is copying slowly i reward when i give one command and they both do it when only sakari does it only she gets reward Nukka is picking up very fast that copying results in her getting what she wants. Shegot off at camp i called her anshe came running back and with all them dogs around i was i was super impressed given her age and playfulnes that and half the owners here would dog-nap her first chance lol.

I can see why you feel it can offer that little bit more if needed.

The limitations you speak of i feel are not from reaching you're potential as an owner but the dogs capacity to fight instinct over command/orders. Again this is my opnion i can't base that on fact just experience. I have had GSD'S that i would trust with my life i have had other breeds that have others strenths as i said i put it down to breeds for training capacity diff dogs diff traits I just dont feel for me personaly ecollars would ever change the insights i have gained and increase the bounderies with training. I may be wrong but i have never asked any more than what my dogs have accomplished and i am extremly happy with standards they have reached in past and reaching at present

This is very diplomatic for me at almost 1am lol

[Bec]

So you say that the shock collars used in the study can cause pain and distress because they are "high stim level" and the ones in WALMART can cause pain and distress because they are "cheap and nasty". So we have to use the specific $500 model you are familiar with to be any good. I wonder then how we would then stop the importation, sale and use of all shock collars but the specific $500 models you are familiar with? Should we develop standards? License the devices? Or just ban 'em all?

No, that's not what I am saying. There are many models of e-collars that work on low stim, my point was that there is a difference betwen the cheap and nasty ones and the more expensive ones. And if you read my post again, I never said the cheap and nasty ones cause pain and I distress. I just said it's important to note there are differences between cheap models and more expensive ones.

I would be happy to see the sale of e-collars restricted to ones that only work on low stim levels. Surely that is no different to banning them entirely?

I'm chuckling, here. If this was truly the case, why on earth would the dog pay any attention to the shock? I don't mean to be obtuse, but that's a pretty hard sell!

That's a good question, and one you'd know the answer to if you'd ever had anything to do with modern e-collar training. The stim is not used to "shock" the dog or punish it. It is used a subtle cue to get the dog's attention. The dog is taught what the cue means before you start using the collar out and about. If you simply whacked a collar on, took the dog out and started stimming them it would not produce the desired result. My dogs can respond to the most subtle, slightest changes in my body language, "why on earth" would they pay attention to the subtle changes in my body language or the subtle cues I give them when I am training them?

By this line of reasoning, if somebody had never used illegal drugs, they could never form a solid opinion about the use of illegal drugs. Sorry, no sale.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that it's ok for you to say the stim from an e-collar is painful even though you've never felt it and people who have used one, have said how painless it is?

That's a matter of conjecture, but even if it were true, those are one-time events with a clear benefit for the animal, not repeated shocks on the training ground where proven alternative methods exist.

Ouch! Ethics = acting according to the concepts of "right" and "wrong". Causing distress to animals because you are lazy is scarcely ethical.

But e-collars when used properly do not cause distress.

I always try to choose the most efficient and effective method to communicate with my animals as possible. I trained a formal retrieve through shaping because it's faster and more reliable than training a forced retrieve. I train in drive because it's the fastest and best way to produce a dog who loves to work and is highly focused. Why is training only effective if you take the longest, slowest way possible to do something? Why is training only good if it takes a long time? Why is anyone who choses to use a method that is quick and reliable and works well for the dog, considered lazy?

All this said, Bec, I do take heart from the fact that you don't use shock collars either.

And considering I don't , doesn't it make you the least bit curious why I have the opinion on them I do?

[Sid_Wolf]

Welcome back Bec How've ya been??

Ummm, not sure where I stand, not bothered by them if used correctly, in the way Bec mentions, but I havent used them and dont plan to, however I dont feel the need to considering what I do with my dogs, yes they work, but not in a way that would need training from a distance. If I did have a need to use them, I might consider it with the help of someone who actually knew what they were doing, and it would be a short term training aid.

[Bec]

National Museum of Natural History extracted DNA from bones of dogs from archaeological sites in Peru, Bolivia and Mexico, and compared the DNA with DNA from modern dogs and modern wolves. Much of the DNA was well preserved, Leonard (A former graduate student in the lab of UCLA biology professor, Jennifer A. Leonard) said.The hunter-gatherers brought the dogs enormous distances, which shows that the dogs were regarded as very valuable. this dates back 12.000 years it's a scientific fact with out ecollars obviously training has changed and evolved and ecollars are a part of it.

Thanks Keath, I get where you are coming from now. I am not disputing that dogs weren't trained back then or were good workers, but a couple of things stick out for me;

1) We can't know exactly what standard they were trained to especially considering that dogs that weren't good workers were culled. Nowdays we have a range of training methods available to us that means culling is not necessary. E-collars are part of this, and have saved the lives of dogs who would otherwise have been PTS because no other methods worked with the same results. Were dogs 1000 years ago capable of the level of reliability we can get when we use e-collars?

2) Dogs back then were only used for tasks they were bred for - we ask a lot more now of our dogs than we did back then.

3) Modern training methods are not a bad thing - many of the training methods and tools we have nowdays actively improve our relationship with our dogs, things like clickers give us an ability to communicate with our dogs that much more clearly.

The dog who has no recall was a rescue dog to be fair i should have prob stated that and his past saw him beaten in the face those who have met him i have showen his tooth that has been bent forwards due to some ones boot making contact. it's not his fault.

My youngest of just under 7 months i use my eldest dog sakari to train her no ecollar i attach her to sakari's harness and give sakari commands nukka has no choice butto go with her and now she is copying slowly i reward when i give one command and they both do it when only sakari does it only she gets reward Nukka is picking up very fast that copying results in her getting what she wants. Shegot off at camp i called her anshe came running back and with all them dogs around i was i was super impressed given her age and playfulnes that and half the owners here would dog-nap her first chance lol.

I can see why you feel it can offer that little bit more if needed.

Thanks so much for sharing his story, he sounds like he's very lucky to have found you.

My point was more though that unless you use an e-collar, you don't know if it can improve his recall or not. I know dozens of dogs whose recalls have improved astronomically through e-collar training, that is after they'd been trained to recall to a fairly high level of reliability already.

The limitations you speak of i feel are not from reaching you're potential as an owner but the dogs capacity to fight instinct over command/orders. Again this is my opnion i can't base that on fact just experience. I have had GSD'S that i would trust with my life i have had other breeds that have others strenths as i said i put it down to breeds for training capacity diff dogs diff traits I just dont feel for me personaly ecollars would ever change the insights i have gained and increase the bounderies with training. I may be wrong but i have never asked any more than what my dogs have accomplished and i am extremly happy with standards they have reached in past and reaching at present

Sure there are limitations with each dog, but I also don't see the harm in working to get as reliable a dog as possible. I am quite certain that e-collar trainng would fix that last little percentage of reliability we are missing, simply because it would give me an ability to communicate with her when she is a fair distance away from me.

But the most important part is your last sentence - you are extremely happy with where you are in your training. Not everyone is a big a control freak as I am and if you are happy with where you are now, that's all that matters.

This is very diplomatic for me at almost 1am lol

It was very diplomatic indeed, great post, thanks for taking the time to respond

[Macdog]

I think it would be good to review once more the paper by Schilder and van der Borg at the top of the thread.

Peer reviewed, published science says shock collars darn well hurt.

4.2. Is being shocked painful or just annoying?

Inspection of Table 3, depicting immediate responses of dogs to shocks, shows a number

of behaviours, that in the literature are connected to pain, fear and/or submission. Lowering

of the components that make up the posture of the dog (ear and tail position and position

of head and body), are related to submission and fear (Fox, 1974; van Hooff and Wensing,

1987; Beerda et al., 1997, 1999, 2000) and harsh training (Schwizgebel, 1982). Beerda et al.

have shown, that, even in the absence of a person or dog, dogs lower their posture when

confronted with an unexpected aversive stimulus. This shows that lowering of the posture

is not an expression of submission per se, but certainly is connected to fear. They also have

shown, that certain behaviours (e.g. lifting a front paw, tongue flicking, licking lips and

vocalisations) are connected to either chronic or acute stress.

Vocalisations are also indicative of pain (Hellyer, 1999; Noonan et al., 1996; Conzemius

et al., 1997), especially the higher frequency squeals, yelps and barks. Biting attempts can

be interpreted as pain-induced aggression (Light et al., 1993; Ulrich, 1966; Polski, 1998).

A characteristic, swift head movement sidewards and downwards often follows a shock as

does a swift avoidance action. Both these reactions also indicate that reception of a shock is

unpleasant. All in all these responses show that shocks elicit fear and pain responses. This

means that shocks are not just a nuisance, but are really painful. In spite of the enormously

high arousal of the dogs in this type of training, that very likely implies an increase of

analgesia, receiving a shock may sometimes be perceived as a traumatic event by a dog.

One of our study dogs still behaved as though it received shocks during protection work

although the last shock was delivered 1.5 years before!

[lyra]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion about what training methods work. Many people who are against shock collars are more willing to accept prong collars when used correctly, a method that is also corrective and not associated with positive reinforcement.

Personally I'm more comfortable with the thought of an e-collar being used properly than the dozens of owners I see yanking their dogs about on incorrectly fitted prong and slip collars.

There are many tools of the dog training trade, and every single one can be abused.

[Bec]

You can review it as much as you like Macdog but as I've

explained it only examines the results of using high levels

of stim which is very different to modern methods that work only on low levels of stim. The paper is irrelevant when we are talking about low stim ecollar training.

[princessmom]

Milla has an e-collar to keep her in the yard. (Physical fences are not allowed in our neighborhood.) It gives her a beep to remind her where the boundaries are. There's a delay on the stim so she can turn around without a correction. It's worked 100% to keep her in the yard, which is the only thing she needs to be 100% on right now.

[Lil Miss Bump]

Personally I'm more comfortable with the thought of an e-collar being used properly than the dozens of owners I see yanking their dogs about on incorrectly fitted prong and slip collars.

[Macdog]

You can review it as much as you like Macdog but as I've

explained it only examines the results of using high levels

of stim which is very different to modern methods that work only on low levels of stim. The paper is irrelevant when we are talking about low stim ecollar training.

Perfect, Bec. In your opinion, here are shock collars and there are shock collars. Good shock collars and bad shock collars.

You really should explain your opinion to every SPCA and Humane Society on the planet.

(They universally condemn all shock collars.)

[Bec]

Perfect, Bec. In your opinion, here are shock collars and there are shock collars. Good shock collars and bad shock collars.

You really should explain your opinion to every SPCA and Humane Society on the planet.

(They universally condemn all shock collars.)

No, there is proper use of the tool, and incorrect use, and like any tool there are badly made cheap alternatives.

Any tool can be misused, I see head collars used incorrectly to the detriment of the dog more frequently than I see e-collars misused.

But it's clear from your posts that you have no desire to learn about the tool or how it's used properly. You have based your entire argument on assumptions and misinformation, not actual experience. It is one thing to say 'that tool is not for me' but it's another thing entirely to intentionally remain ignorant and post blatantly untrue assumptions about a tool you've never used. It's clear from your posts that you have no idea how modern e-collar training works, but the saddest thing is that you have no desire to know anything about it that doesn't fit into your preconceived ideas on how it works and what it does.

As a dog owner and trainer I strive to learn as much as I can about any method, I approach every opportunity I have to learn as subjectively as possible which is what I did when I learnt about e-collar training. I am posting purely from experience. Despite what you may assume I am not posting in this thread because I am enjoy being argumentative, I genuinely want people to learn as much as they can and I hate seeing misinformation spread about any tool or method... however it is clear that I am wasting my time responding to your posts because you clearly have no desire to learn anything about this topic. How boring

For every person or organisation that "condemns" e-collar training there are trainers, pet owners, service and government agencies that all use them properly and swear by the benefit they can bring to dog training.

[Timbaboy]

Personally I'm more comfortable with the thought of an e-collar being used properly than the dozens of owners I see yanking their dogs about on incorrectly fitted prong and slip collars.

There are many tools of the dog training trade, and every single one can be abused.

Quote

Totally agree with this point.

I've never needed to use e collar and can't see me ever needing to with running dogs, however the way people train their dogs all over the world is differnt. I'm sure alot more dogs get abused in training by yanks on collars, choked on chains or hit and kicked than hurt by e collars. But this is just my opinion. That is not to say everyone go and get a e collar, but as I see it until all these other problems are stamped out what is the point in banning the e collar for people who are not trying to hurt there dogs but just trying to make both their lifestyles better.

Thanks Ben

[Bec]

Totally agree with this point.

I've never needed to use e collar and can't see me ever needing to with running dogs, however the way people train their dogs all over the world is differnt. I'm sure alot more dogs get abused in training by yanks on collars, choked on chains or hit and kicked than hurt by e collars. But this is just my opinion. That is not to say everyone go and get a e collar, but as I see it until all these other problems are stamped out what is the point in banning the e collar for people who are not trying to hurt there dogs but just trying to make both their lifestyles better.

Thanks Ben

Agree with both of you - when we put so much focus on tools that abuse dogs, it takes a lot of focus off the fact that no tool on its own can abuse a dog. It needs a human being to use it with the intent to abuse their dog.

Any tool can be used to abuse a dog, from a leash or flat collar to check chains to head collars etc. One of my biggest pet hates are check chains - they are readily available everywhere, are cheap and are sold with no instruction on how to use them. And if you've ever put a check chain on yourself and yanked, it hurts - in fact, it is way more uncomfortable and aversive than a prong or e-collar.

At the end of the day, every dog is different, every owner has different capabilities and limitations - IMO, as long as a tool is being used properly and appropriately I withhold judgment. There should be less focus on the tool, IMO, and more focus on the person using it.

[Macdog]

Thank you, Bec, for a rigorous discussion of a difficult topic that can be both polarizing and emotional.

I think it's important to note that I disagree only with your specific opinion on this one narrow topic. I don't by any means dislike you personally. What's more, we probably agree closely on a host of other matters that are far more important than this one.

Unhappily, there is no clear "right" and "wrong" in this stuff. It's too enmeshed in individuals' value systems and life experiences. This is not helped by the amount of emotive nonsense put about by both animal activists on the one hand and manufacturers on the other. The truth for each of us is usually most elusive.

However, a young woman whom I respect a great deal once wrote:

"He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion." (emphasis mine)

I thought about this for a long time. I decided that if I indeed followed her advice I would, at the end of the day, probably end up doing the right thing.

Ciao,

Macdog

[Kells xx]

what a great discussion with lots of very valid points made!!!!

people can now see both sides and weigh up the info