There is absolutely no reason for a dog that failed at any discipline to come out of the training needing rehab. Did you have the opportunity to observe the "training"

People who are as you describe shouldn't be training goldfish, never mind dogs. The ability to read and interpreting dog behavior is a most basic requirement for any trainer. And I am glad you qualified your description with the word "usually", because lME, all e-collar users are certainly not that inept.

I don't recall asking you for your help finding pertinent threads; firstly, some are listed below, and secondly, I have no time to read them right now. I have to wonder why so many folks have contributed posts to this thread if, as you say, my posts are merely a rehash of previous ones. And, promotion of e-collar use is the farthest thing from my mind, as I have proven with my past actions described in post #79.

You only have to watch that supreme supporter of e collars CM using one on a black GSD to reinforce it leaving a cat alone-the dog screams in pain several times ergo the e collar inflicted pain on the dog

It is a well established fact that CM uses an e collar to "reinforce"his methods

I observed the results a dog so scared when people were present that it was unable to move at all. The dog had not"failed"the trainers & handlers failed.

I have no desire to witness e collars in use as a"training"aid

I have explained how I am using the terms punishment and correction in this context on several occasions. Please see post #79, I believe that will help clarify things; if not, let me know and I will try to do better.

You actually correct your dog by trying to drown him??? Oh, the inhumanity!!

I do use the 'P' word in its correct sense, Firstlight. In your way of training, whether trained without the use of physical aversive in the first instance or not, you are punishing the dog for not listening and responding.

I am pleased that you are honest enough to admit that the consequence you give is unpleasant enough for the dog to have to respond. Yes, I suppose you could describe what you do as proofing responses, but you could also describe it as teaching the dog how to avoid pain.

You use the word 'choice' a lot in your descriptions of your training technique, but in reality, you are not giving the dog any choice at all. It has to obey you, or you will increase the level of shock to a point where the dog has no option but to comply to switch off the pain it is suffering.

Of course, once the dog has suffered that level, he is likely to then choose not to suffer it again after a few repetitions, but is this really how dog training should be carried out? I don't think so.

It doesn't surprise me at all that you were appalled enough to walk out of a Dobbs workshop. You obviously thought his training methods unacceptable because they go much further than yours. Are you really surprised then, that most on here find your techniques just as appalling? After all, you go much, much further in respect of administering physical aversives than the vast majority here would ever be prepared to consider, let alone apply.

There are failed trainers in every form of training. The good, the bad and the downright ugly are all there in the training world. I doubt there are many that couldn't cite trainers who are less than adequate and who fail to practice what they preach and I imagine that, if you are honest, you know of many other trainers who use physical aversives who go much further than they profess to do

Let me give you an example of positive training that you may find interesting.

Dog - very highly driven Boxer

Problem - lives on a farm where just outside the door the chickens are kept in a pen overnight, but run loose during the day. The dog has killed 5 chickens over a short period of time.

Owner/handler - a 13 year old girl who has been warned by her father to train the dog not to do it, give him away or have him put to sleep.

Training techniques used:

Initially, teach the dog the basic commands and proof them away from chickens.

Train the dog the basic commands in the corner of the yard while the chickens are in the pen.

Gradually decrease the distance between dog and pen

Train with the chickens loose

(sorry, very truncated version, but you get the picture I'm sure).

It took three months. The dog habituated to the hens as the training continued with the result that he could be left in the yard with the hens running around without interest in them.

Happy dog, happy owner, happy dad, not a physical aversive involved and the 13 year old owner was rewarded by being allowed to get a second dog who she trained from being a pup in the same way.

I guess I cannot understand why y'all continue to view and post to a thread you do not enjoy, and one that is apparently a rehash of previous ones. And FYI, the only helpful answer to the question so far has come from Brierley.

It is not my intention to defend anything. My goal in starting this thread was to learn something from the civil exchange of information.

WOW! you are still here?
you quite tough girl, he?

or didn't you just find any other forum, where you will find those e-collard partizans like you are?

as you are really just too funny

or do you really still believe, that here you will find anyone, you can still convince of your animal abuse method?

just ridiculous

you know what I would enjoy now?

you having an e-collar around your neck and me having the remote controll for it

and always, when you are asking your same annoying questions, always and always and always again, I just would love to press the button every time, just for to give you a little "shock"!

I don't think you are an idiot (referring to your last bit in post 79), I just disagree that e-collar is a correction that gives the dog a choice, I see it as punishment and a threat and I can't picture any dog who wouldn't think of it as punishment .

I'm sure you do great things with your dogs and I find retrieveing (?) training interesting, one of my friends is a hunting instructor in Norway with her labradors.