Wilbar

Your question (being unsure if the sensation is motivational enough to change a behaviour) is very common, in fact it was my first reaction to researching into e collars.
My experience is the sensation works because it's consitent and doesn't come from anywhere but the dogs actions.
So to use a cesar milan example if I tsst whenever the dog looked he would realise that was coming from me and view it as unimportant to scary (depending on his association with tsst) Yes he would learn though repitition that I tsst whenever he looked at sheep and would learn to associate that with his behaviour, but he would know that it was me tssting, with the e collar approach he would learn that only looking at sheep gets the sensation and because that sensation just occurs (he looks = sensation) he would look at it as contingent on his own behaviour (I've mis spelled that I bet lol).
The same with training in commands with the e collar, the sensation happens or stops happening in conjunction with his behaviour.

However the real advantage of this approach is it puts the dog in ultimate control, within a very short time he learns he can control the sensation by his actions, even though the sensation is very mild (it's still an aversive but only just) the fact that he can control it means he is more motivated by it than by an equal motivator (treats) whose delivery he can't control because in the caseof treats there coming from you so he knows you ultimatly have control of them. This engages the dog with training very quickly.

Wilbar

The reason it works for sheep chasing is because were not teaching the dog not to chase (I never want that to happen in a session, sheep are too stressy anyway) were teaching the dog not to look at the sheep, this predatory look is the thing that always occurs just before a chase (sometimes for a split second) if you stop this you stop the chase.

It's the same princple as using rewards to deal with a fear issue, You don't plonk a scared dog in the middle of a thunderstorm and offer treats, you play thunder very quietly and offer treats. When dealing with any behaviopur problem you should always be working the dog at a stimulus level that is just below the problem level.

Emma

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.

My red highlight

These reactions indicate the shock level was too high (see below) no dog during any type of training (e or otherwise) should show thoses reactions as in indicates the dog is experiencing an aversive at more than the level he first percieves it. This in my opinion is crap training.
A. Because that degree of aversive is unneeded and thus unacceptable
B. From a strictly results based approach a high level of any stimulus (nice or nasty) interfers with learning by causing the dog to focuse too much on the stimulus.

CAD

Thanks for correcting the spelling (you couldn't do this post as well? could you)

The dog reacts to the sensation by flicking it's ears and looking at the ground the 1st time.
As soon as it reacts you've found it's level and don't use the sensation again until you train.
Even when finding the level stopping the sensation when the dog reacts show it he can control the sensation.

The guiding comes from the lead (initial training) the collars work by press and hold so the dog feels the sensation while you hold the button. The sequence is
1. Dog looks at sheep
2. Immediatly press and hold button
3. Walk backwards away from sheep or pull backwards on the line.
4. This physically makes the dog step away and break the look.
5. Immediatly release the button.

All this takes 2/3 secs to happen. The look is just that slight predatory glance the dog gives. I'm at the end of watever lead the dog is on so as it glances I press and step back the physical action of the lead causes the head to turn (remember we're at a distance so the dogs just looking not really focused) I release the button.


So if a car goes past the dog won`t experience aversion, but if a sheep does the dog will. Why is this?

Because of the mild sensation the dog isn't spooked or scared, to create a one trial fear association you need a big scary stimulus (this could be a high level shock of course but it isn't). Preferably with something the animal has no previouse associations with (so never seen a car before) If I was to give the dog it's first feel of the collar as a car went by (highly unlikely) I would stop the sensation when the dog looked at the ground and flicked it's ears not if it showed a reaction to the car. When they feel the first sensation of the collar they will generally look at the gropund so won't focuse on anything else.

Quick point. They don't actually look at the ground this is just how it appears. They look down because of the position of the collar on their neck and were they feel the sensation.

BTW I don't like using it as a reference point for a dog just feels a bit disrespectful, but I occasionally fall into it because of the way the language is presented.

Adam

I know exactly how they are used, and I find it abhorrrent.
I know from the past exactly how people who use the collars behave themselves - at the end of the day they will all put the collar up onto high levels if they decide it's "necessary", or they will use the system of negative reinforcement where the dog has to learn what to do to avoid the "discomfort" - it's a horrible way to train, especially as they now use it for actually teaching basic commands. Sorry, but there is no excuse for this.

One person who advocated low levels supported a US trainer, who gives high level shocks. Also supported harsh shock collar gundog training, where the dogs are trained similar to how you describe, and look so damned sad when they go to training .....Also advocated a very very high level of shock on a working dog forum for a dog who was digging....

I actually find the negative reinforcement method more abhorrent than the high level, quick shock as the dog chases, something seen in a video often shown on our news where a gsd is chasing and is shocked. That's unpleasant and unnecessary, but to my mind the other method is actually worse - partly because it is used for everyday training such as "sit" etc....

The dog is moving away from discomfort, it does not always know how ot turn it off, (even with guidance!), it lives with the knowledge that all training is painful (because they know the levels can and do go up, and they can get more sensitised, although it can go the other way and they get less sensitised). I really hurt from the "shock" from my car - even though it is not that much. If it happens several times in one day, I really try to avoid it - and that's because it's a horrible experience that I associate my car with.

Dog-owner relationships are so fragile. Training using escape/avoidance is to my mind, so very sad and a betrayal of sorts ......

Point is, this is how they were and are, used. Nothing else really matters.
Same answer as above.

Wys
x

Yes, agree Wilbar, this is my take too.
It doesn't matter how many "may" have been helped (if indeed many have - reading the info from the consultations, I was far from convinced that "dogs lives have been saved by shock collars"

The dog I saw who was being shocked for chasing squirrels would have had a miserable life - no chasing anything other than live things - no toys - the owner had no idea and, unfortunately, was not open to other ideas. I often think of that BC - how hard must it be to be hardwired to chase, and not be able to do it at all ...

Kruse - cheers for the comments

Wys
x

Adam

I am a tad confused in your previous post you said it stated the study's refer to the use of collars at a high level (above first sensation) and also as punishment not negative reinforcement.now you state the reaction of the dog NOT the sensation of the collar setting.

SO

I think you are guessing what the settings were on and due to the dogs reaction, these reactions are fear and stressed based reaction of the dogs to a painful stimuli to motivated them not a reward based training method (unless you think cessation of pain is a reward) which you don't want to admit e-collars do.

You admit it is crap training but you state no dog during any type of training (e or otherwise) should show thoses reactions as in indicates the dog is experiencing an aversive at more than the level he first percieves it. I find this a ridiculous statement on your behalf as

1.You are not the dog so you have no way of knowing how they perceive it and in your prior statements claim the dog/owner relationship is enhanced by this method, again a very misguided belief of yours

2.This is professional training of police dogs, to say they are crap, its to also realise the basis of e-collars are flawed and even in the hands of a profession of police dog trainers is not used with any regard to the dogs welfare, let alone dog owners buying them for a quick fix to problems of their dogs.

3.If you look at the whole study and not just nit pick, it is an overall basis of dogs trained with e-collars display much more stress and fear signals due to the use of e-collars.

Rather that get totally bogged down in this one study, what I would really like is not just your experience with e-collars which sounds limited as you choose to use positive methods (in most cases) but your research into deciding that it was ethical to use them using them during your studies of animal behaviour and welfare and deciding on the ethics in which you train dog, how does e-collar fit in, I really don't understand that at all. Studies show fear based aggression can increase, random attacks from dogs as they can not associate the shock with a certain behaviour.

B. From a strictly results based approach a high level of any stimulus (nice or nasty) interfers with learning by causing the dog to focuse too much on the stimulus.
Again a very peculiar statement, a dog learns from any stimulus that is how they get trained, in positive training methods, You use food, clicker, a pat, a toy (you do as you have stated previously) that is stimulus, that is what you are trying to do reward them for their behaviour by recalling with a clicker giving a treat or a pat THAT IS STIMULUS. All it states is that by using e-collars it has a negative impact on the dog and who is not going to focus on pain given??

Again I ask you, if it is not cruel to use them on animals, why can't we use them on children?? Unethical that is why.
Animals can't stand up for themselves humans decide what to use as a training method and I doubt for one second any dog would want to be having a painful shock sent through them to curb behaviours.

I know not the best site for showing but the experiment in that shows how electric shocks can condition a dogs behaviour and the dog can give up. It is a well know study and can be found to be the same details from other sites than this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned...gman_and_Maier

The fallout from people using them for training dogs, is too great it is not reprogram-able, it can scar a dog for life, it can stop a confident dog and turn it into a quivering wreck, it can create aggression, fear, stress the list continues. It is these that make e-collars such a dangerous tool in training. It should not be available at all. As they say to err is to be human, to err with e-collars you can do far more harm than good and since we are all human, will mess up a dog far easier with e-collars than with a lead and a collar and positive based training.

Why is it okay to use them?

Why high prey driven dogs require them, instead of teaching the owners of their specific breed of dog and if animals are around a collar and lead (or long time) is preferable to shocking the dog?

Why you refuse to believe it does not enhance the handler/dog relationship as dogs are not thinking the way you say, they percieve things differently to us?

Why it can not be the fault of the handler the dog is not learning rather than the dog not not doing as instructed? And an e-collar being the solution?

I would rather you answer these questions than avoid them, by side tracking to a line in a study and not answer to why you have studied at university on animal behaviour and welfare and still think it is a knee jerk reaction by banning them??

Adam, I know these were directed at other poster but could not sit quietly as you still defend e-collars and see no harm in them or any studies that have found the e-collars are not very humane, seriously, you talk of sensation what do you think that sensation is??????? It is an electric current, it is not a pleasant sensation.

Call it what you want unpleasant, negative enforcement, getting the attention of the dog, motivational, mildly adverse

I think if I shocked you to curb a behaviour you would quickly try to figure it out and stop the action, pity a dog doesn't have the same ability to reason as a human does. I would suggest you look at the learnt helplessness experiment they did.

You say it puts the dog in ultimate control...............BUT YOU HAVE THE BUTTON............... YOU HAVE ULTIMATE CONTROL NOT THE DOG

If the dog looks and the button is pressed and no verbal or lead pulled, the dog is not going to know what to stop, you later say you do use the lead or a verbal command, in some studies they have found dogs can actually see it as the shock comes with the lead pull or command and not the behaviour you are trying to correct. Why is it you are not able to admit to the faults in e-collars??

You even say it quickly stops the dog from reacting in your experience, so admitting it is a quick fix option. Not a good reason for using e-collars.

You say that the very mild use of an ecollar works because it is consistent & doesn't come from anywhere but the dog's actions. Well all operant conditioning methods, -ve & +ve reinforcement & -ve & + punishment, work because they are consistent ~ that's the whole point of them! Single event learning happens because of extremely harsh punishment or extremely rewarding reinforcement, but these single events can have profound & unintended effects.

As for the dog's behaviour coming as a result of its own actions ~ again, that is effectively the definition of operant conditioning of whatever type. That is why it is also called trial & error learning, or instrumental conditioning ~ the punishment or reward is contingent upon the dog's own actions. The consequences are that the dog gets rewarded or punished. This is not specific to the way in which you say you use ecollars ~ it applies to operant conditioning as a whole.

As for saying that a shock from an ecollar will not be associated with the trainer or owner ~ how do you know the dog won't make this association? The punishment ONLY EVER comes when the dog is on a lead with the owner/trainer. It also only ever comes when in a specific location, it only ever comes when the dog is in the presence of sheep, it only ever comes when the dog moves its head, it only ever comes when the dog flicks it ears, it only ever comes when the dog shuffles a foot, it only ever comes when the sun's out etc etc etc. How on earth is the dog to know what triggers the shock & how on earth can you tell whether the dog is making the associations you want & not any other associations? Only by repeated applications, with different people present, in different locations etc. It is not a quick process & it cannot reliably predict the dog's behaviour in other corcumstances. What if the dog only associates the shock with the fact that the collar is on? Are you saying that a dog trained this way has to wear an ecollar for the rest of it's life?

And you also describe the dog's reaction to a mild ecollar shock as being a flick of an ear. But this mere flick of an ear doesn't tell you whether the dog's heart rate has increased, it doesn't tell you whether stress hormones are now flooding the dog's body, that respiration has increased, that the dog could now be effectively in flight or fight mode. Many outward signs of behaviour can be suppressed, or are very subtle, or can vary hugely from dog to dog. It is not sufficient to use ONLY the outward behavioural signs, especially when there is such a wealth of scientific research showing the dreadful effects that chronic stress causes to physical & mental health & that punishment & negative reinforcement cause such stress.

You also say that the use of positive reinforcement (treats) won't work as well because the dog is more motivated by avoiding the shock (which the dog can control), than by the use of treats, the delivery of which the dog can't control! I'm sorry but this is rubbish & totally contradicts the whole theory behind operant conditioning. Operant conditioning works exactly BECAUSE the subject CAN control the delivery of reward or punishment BY ITS OWN ACTIONS/BEHAVIOURS. Of course the delivery of treats is controlled by the trainer/owner (the same way that the shock is controlled by the owner/trainer) but the delivery is contingent on the dog's own actions.

I understand wysiwyg's sentiments in that it is almost better to use one highly aversive single event learning punishment in these situations, rather than the drip drip effect of continual negative reinforcement. How do you think the dog will be feeling if all these training sessions are so miserable? Don't you think that classical conditioning will play a part here & the dog will develop a huge CER to the training sessions? You could liken it to a child who is not very good at maths, say, & gets constantly criticised by the teacher, made to look a fool in front of his peers ~ the likely outcomes are that the child starts to avoid maths lessons, plays truant, becomes unruly through frustration, or maybe justs gives up trying completely.

I don't want any dog I have dealings with to perceive training as anything other than fun. I want them to enjoy "school", to be confident enough to try different behaviours to get something they want, to have a positive approach to problem-solving because they've been successful in the past. I don't want a dog to start to dread training, to become withdrawn & depressed as soon as a session starts. To me, that is one of the worst scenarios for a dog & it is why I will only ever try to use positive reinforcement for dog training.

wysiwyg's

Not only is the big shock just once way worse than the negative reinforcement approach (far more stress) but it's likely to create the additional negative association that the other posters (wilbar) are concerned about.

Also there is no point ''showing the dog how high it can go'' because that would make the dog afraid of the sensation and interfer with learning.

Wilbar/Emma

once again it all comes down to consitencey. The dog experiences discomfort every time it looks at sheep, this starts the instant it looks and stops the instant it stops looking. The dog will not associate it with anything else because the sheep looking is the behaviour it's always paired with. YES a bird may fly past once, but not every time.

In the initial training the dog is leaded so he know straight away how to turn it off. It maybe asier to describe training than argue semantics.

Sheep chasing
The sequence is
1. Dog looks at sheep
2. Immediatly press and hold button
3. Walk backwards away from sheep or pull backwards on the line.
4. This physically makes the dog step away and break the look.
5. Immediatly release the button.

All this takes 2/3 secs to happen. The look is just that slight predatory glance the dog gives. I'm at the end of whatever lead the dog is on so as it glances I press and step back the physical action of the lead causes the head to turn (remember we're at a distance so the dogs just looking not really focused) I release the button.

Re study, I'm not guessing I know the settings were too high by readng the dogs reactions.

I can only go on what I'm seeing but I have yet to see any evidence that a dog's heart rate goes up or his body floods with stress hormones in response to the sensatio. If those things happemed the dog would begin panting shortly after and would have the typical adrenaline after effects. I've never seen this so can say it's my belief it doesn't happen.

Wilbar. Even when e collar training I only use the colla for about 20% of the training, the rest is reward based, even for sheep work like above which is all e collar based (at the time) the dg shows no negative reactions to future training sessions and in fact all dogs I've done that with so far have been happy to see me back as the last time I took them on a walk.

Adam

well done wales! i hope they start banning them over in the us as well along with the dreadful choke collars and choke collars with the spikes

Adam,
You still fail to ask a majority of questions and feel you would be better in politics than in animal behaviour and welfare.
I could answer the above but only be repeating myself as none of the above answers my questions or concerns and you have been given studies that prove beyond your experiences with e-collars, and even after claiming to have studied you still only have your experience with them to fall back on to explain your theory and no actual studies or reasoning for using e-collars, other than your own personal thoughts on the matter. If you want more studies on them, to show you they are not a method to use Polsky did a study and Schalke’s study, both highly regarded studies.
Re the study the collars may have been low or high, the response of the dogs is individual reactions, they differ in ranges. The point being it may be on the lowest setting and still been to high as pain perception is individual and the interpretation of the pain individual in response also, as there is various responses given from yelping to ear and posture responses.
Re your use of the e-collar to glancing at sheep, if all that takes place in 2/3 seconds, the dog could mix the look and the pull of the lead as to why they are getting painful stimuli and result it the dog relating the tug of the lead with pain not the glance. There is too much room for error and to believe you have had nothing but positive outcomes (short term) is only to conclude your experience with them is limited and what is more dangerous is your belief that it is a good method to attempt to extinguish predatory behaviour and no adjustment to your clients perception of their breed of dog. Predatory behaviour is in all dogs to different extents, but if they have chosen a dog with high prey drive and now find that behaviour as unacceptable they need to learn to live with it and look at methods of curbing rather than attempting to distinguish a behaviour inbuilt for hundreds or thousands of years as they are the ones who did the wrong thing not the dog.
Instead of repeating myself will show you what I actually wrote and questioned in which I see avoidance behaviour on your behalf in answering them, and am finding this a curious pattern in your discussion of e-collars as every time you avoid answering them, I am coming to the conclusion you will not answer them due to their being no other answer than the e-collar having negative issues associated with them which you refuse to acknowledge.
You infer you can only go on what you have seen, that is a ridiculous statement, there are studies you can go on, now thankfully in Wales go by law, you also claim to have studied and to say you can only go on what you have seen, would not have passed uni with that attitude, you would know you need to back your beliefs with evidence and studies. I am now doubting you have a degree or studied at all
You can stick your head in the sand it does not change the facts though.

I know the one big shock is much worse in one sense (and I'm certainly not supporting it- it's hugely painful!). And yes, we all know there is more "risk" in some ways.

However, the use of negative reinforcement is just abhorrent - the dog having to learn how to escape the stim - I find that, personally, absolutely horrible. As I say, this gives dogs with "the ecollar walk" and "scrambling" - hardly a kind method of training, especially with basic training! The fact it is suggested for basic training especially (and the collars generally for for puppies and cats and housetraining and horses who weave or crib bite etc etc etc ... these collars have to go. Sorry! )

And the dog, I believe, will realise perfectly well that the "stimulus" is unpleasant enough to want to avoid it - I mean, that is the whole point at the end of the day (and see my analogy of my car shocking me to understand how very aversive even low levels can be - remember, dogs may habituate but may also become sensisited).

Wys
x