Hum Clod, you have declined to answer me on this and so I thought I'd plunge in instead.

Apologies to anyone who is bored by this, please ignore this post!

Clod, firstly I've understood OC has 5 parts doesn't it? What about extinction? In all the books I've read and discussions on this, there is 5 so not sure why you ignore that.

Secondly, in the absence of your discussion, I take it you mean that immediately after a negative reinforcement, the dog gets a positive reinforcement. You use the term "gives" suggesting that the negative reinforcement gives the positive reinforcement to the dog.

Again in the absence of your reply, are you suggesting that the reason R- works is because the removal of the aversive is so pleasurable that the dog works to get it? If so you are deluding yourself, as if it were true, they would chain the bad with the good in order to get the shock.

Instead they avoid the shock by choosing the wanted behaviour - R- works through avoidance, not through "pleasure".

R- is a reward stimulus. Behaviour increases - it's reinforcement by definition. Something has to be removed for the behaviour to increase - generally that thing removed is an aversive. This has to be in place before the wanted target behaviour in order to be removed in the first place.

An example is that of a gundog who is meant to run iin a straight line.
Dog starts off but veers left - shock is applied - the dog straightens out. This is in fact the target behaviour ... the trainer stops shocking the dog. Dog learns to run straight in order to avoid the shock.

Was veering left punished by the shock? maybe..mmaybe it wasn't. The decrease in veering left may have been a result of the reinforcement of the alternative behaviour rather than as an actual result of the aversive shock.

The idea that the release of the collar gives a positive reinforcer is incorrect.
In fact it is ridiculous. With OC with animals, one is dealing with observable phenomena. What was added or removed from the environment? The shock was removed. That is indeed R- but nothingwas added to the environment.

Internal things may be going on for the dog - he may be finding something internally reinforcing such as say, getting to the bird faster .. however, we cant observe or measure this, it is unobservable and cannot be counted. We can see only what is observable if we are going by OC and scientific workings (which after all is what you are attempting to show) - there is only one phemomena which is observable in this scenario, and that is the removal of the shock which is R- .
It is the removal of an aversive leading to the increase of the target behaviour. It is R- there is no R+.

Sorry!

I will obviously die of old age before I get to read specifically what you see as the advantages over other methods.
I think you are more bothered by Leo's comments than you would like to admit, otherwise you would ignore them and continue to extol the virtues as you see them of the collar. I can't see the point of just slagging each other off and it does not get your point across at all.
If you don't need them, why is it that you choose to use them?

Clob
Denis Carthy
UK trainer & specialist
DEFRA consultion on
Remote Static Pulse Stimulation Collars
Aug 2004.

Do you train working dogs/military dogs? or are you a consultant to anyone/pet owners who want to train using this method? Not relevant to the whole "debate" just curious and please just answer,no cross referencing to other posts!
Rachel

[quote=Clob]Leo
if you have to use this aid to help train your dogs

Clob
You still don’t get it do you…..

I don’t need them, they are the most modern addition to my training aids and the most beneficial training aid ever…but ‘need’ them, obviously not. I had to train my dogs without them same as everyone else before the technology developed to make them what they are today, I use them because of the benfits they give both to the dog and me or owner.
as you quoted me please read what i put.
i can not see the benefits they give over other types of training i do not see the need for the dog to be shocked to get the result.
….I took the trouble to learn about them when the chance came in 1998, its no use you sitting in a chair making the slightest claim you know anything at all about them because you do not know anything at all about them, you like people to think you do but that’s a dream.
i have already stated i don't use them as a training aid for my dogs and never will as i have no interest in this product.
dream....... yeah right most users on here know me better than that!
You did not take the trouble (and cost) to find out anything at all about them apart from reading hysterical writings around the net and re writing your own version of it here and there.
i am not writing any version of e collar as a training aid..... i dont use them never have and never will.

What you really do not like about your image of me is that I know exactly what I am talking about on the subject of e-collars and their application because I have the experience. That makes you feel uncomfortable because prior to this you have never had to confront the real fact, which is, you know nothing about e-collars, when I am here you can pretend and make things up no more, its a new situation for you and you dont like it.
get real the fact is it shocks the dog in the name of training, im not making any thing up just joining a debate and giving my point of view which you don't like.
tell you what you can preach about the benefits of e collars as much as you like it makes no difference to what i think of them. more to the point i don't want to know about the effects an e collar has on a dog.
im all for debating subject in an adult manner its just a shame that you feel you have to patronise people to make yourself look good.

Think you probably better join the die of old age brigade as well

well you aint got the right user name......
shall i try??????

LMAO yes ....Oh well, guess I'll never know:smt022
Or Maybe you should ask Leo :smt058


Rachel

Clob,
you've gone into ranting mode again, have you taken your medication today?

I think he's gone a bit quiet now though

[QUOTE=leo] I think what makes people uncomfortable is that you come here promoting the bullying of dogs in the name of 'training'.

Is this a lie too: ( a letter from a vet in America regarding burns from an E-collar)?http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/Adobe/rufus.pdf

And that dogs can suffer not only from burns or uncontrolled shocks from malfunctioning collars but cardiac fibrillation plus psychological stress.

I also understand that repeated shocks can lead to changes in the heart and respiration rate or gastrointestinal disorders.

A shock can cause fearful or aggressive response. The contact points on the collar can irritate the skin and cause infection.

A report on the inhumane and unnecessary use of electric shock collars for dogs (2006):

http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.u...ockcollars.pdf