Yup exactly, and the fact that Adam proudly posts the videos of hit flat appeasing dogs shows that he just cannot see this
Which shows me that he has no understanding of what is going on with dogs, he cannot see what they are clearly telling him
So his claims that the stim is on the lowest level they notice or anything about the emotional state of the dogs are going to be wrong because he is just not able to read dogs.

Doubt I will get an answer for this - but here we go
Adam, I understand (but dot agree with) how you are teaching a recal on a real low level of stim
But you say you also treat agression with the stim
What level are you using for agression? When do you apply the shock and when do you stop it?

But this is abberrant behaviour - because the vast majority of people would not inflict pain. Wether from social pressure, innate morality, empathy or distaste. So what is special about Dennis and Adam that they can actually plan and promote the infliction of pain?

I'm going to have to disagree with that.

I an ideal world, a pup would go to a suitable home which would be its forever home. The dog would be sheltered, watered & fed, socialised, well treated, exercised appropriately and trained using +R.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.

There are times when for whatever reason, positive reinforcement fails to correct what is deemed as being inappropriate behaviour (in a world where us humans make the rules). I don't think there's an argument that using aversive methods can work in these situations, and if using aversive methods is what it takes then I find that quite acceptable.

It might be stating the obvious, but I strongly suspect (because I don't have proof/reference) that most if not all of these cases could have been avoided in the first place had the owner of the puppy been willing/able to take the responsibility of owning the puppy seriouly.

Death every time - not for me. Aversive methods - if that's what it takes to save the dog.

But it isn`t necessary. It`s quicker, is all. Expediency and ignorance are excuses. There is always a better way.

I know I'm waaaay late into this discussion, but I watched the documentary and it was awful seeing the experiments on dogs and children - do these scientists have no soul?!

Onto electric collars...I do not believe for a second it's painless and think it is utterly cruel to impose this kind of 'punishment' and force them to do our will...why not work with the dog and with mutual respect?! My dog had most of his early life spent being forced to run for his life and goodness knows what methods are used...no he's retired and we train through motivation and kindness. He learns what works and what doesn't through trial and error, it took months for him to learn to lie down, it seems he 'shut down' to training at first, probably from fear of getting it wrong.

How can you 'love' dogs and yet zap them? I think one of the most ridiculous comments I've read on here was stopping the sim when the dog came close so it learned to 'trust' that near you was safe?! I taught my dog to come back by EARNING respect and trust and teaching him that to come back meant fuss and a treat, no 'if you dare venture away from me I'll zap you so you're too terrified to explore and enjoy yourself'...

I'm sorry if I've repeated others posts, I haven't had chance to read through it all yet, managed about 30 pages...I couldn't hold my tongue any longer. I'm glad it's only a tiny percentage of people who think it's a good way to 'train', makes it that much easier to avoid them.

Off my rant box now, sorry.

Apologies if someone has already put this up:

http://webserver.ablogic.ru/wwwsites...eo/science.pdf

Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects
Matthijs B.H. Schilder a,b,∗, Joanne A.M. van der Borg a
a Department of Clinical Sciences of Companion Animals, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
b Department of Ethology and Socio-Ecology, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Accepted 23 October 2003

Abstract
Behavioural effects of the use of a shock collar during guard dog training of German shepherd dogs were studied. Direct reactions of 32 dogs to 107 shocks showed reactions (lowering of body posture, high pitched yelps, barks and squeals, avoidance, redirection aggression, tongue flicking) that suggest stress or fear and pain. Most of these immediate reactions lasted only a fraction of a
second. The behaviour of 16 dogs that had received shocks in the recent past (S-dogs) was compared with the behaviour of 15 control dogs that had received similar training but never had received shocks (C-dogs) in order to investigate possible effects of a longer duration. Only training sessions were used in which no shocks were delivered and the behaviour of the dogs (position of body, tail and ears, and stress-, pain- and aggression-related behaviours) was recorded in a way that enabled comparison between the groups. During free walking on the training grounds S-dogs showed a lower ear posture and more stress-related behaviours than C-dogs. During obedience training and during manwork (i.e.
excercises with a would-be criminal) the same differences were found. Even a comparison between the behaviour of C-dogs with that of S-dogs during free walking and obedience exercises in a park showed similar differences. Differences between the two groups of dogs existed in spite of the fact
that C-dogs also were trained in a fairly harsh way. A comparison between the behaviour during free walking with that during obedience exercises and manwork, showed that during training more stress signals were shown and ear positions were lower. The conclusions, therefore are, that being trained is stressful, that receiving shocks is a painful experience to dogs, and that the S-dogs evidently have learned that the presence of their owner (or his commands) announces reception of shocks, even outside of the normal training context. This suggests that the welfare of these shocked dogs is at stake, at least in the presence of their owner.
© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

I don't consider it "saving the dog" when that dog has a lifetime of fear and anxiety to look forward to.

I find that usually positive reinforcement doesn't fail the dog. People who don't invest the time to work with the dog, who expect the dog to get better overnight, who aren't consistent and slack off in training fail the dog.

But what do you save the dog for? To live in fear? To live as a creature trapped in its own body, not able to express properly as it has been shocked every time it has tried to deal with a situation.

I think there are worse things than death. JMO

We'll just have to disagree on this point.


I'm not arguing otherwise. But "usually" is not always. I think it's always worth making the effort to save a dog.



I'm with you 100% on this.

So you honestly think a lifetime of fear and anxiety is better than a peaceful death?