I just found this thread and see that it's gone on for quite some time. In keeping with the desires of the forum moderators, all of my comments apply to the use of the Ecollar ONLY after all other methods have been tried and have failed.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
I think ecollars are cruel, harsh, unnnecessary and dangerous.
An Ecollar an inanimate object that just sits there until a person picks it up and uses it. A more accurate statement would be that some PEOPLE "are cruel, harsh . . . and dangerous." As for "unnecessary" if other methods have been tried and failed, then it's a good tool to try before killing the dog.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
They should not be used for sheep chasing dogs as the dog shouldn't be off the lead near livestock in the first place...it's the law.
Good law! But as we know, sometimes leashes break, they are pulled out of the owner's hands or the collar slips over the dog's head. Sometimes dogs get out of their yards. If they're in the presence of stock when this happens the owner should be able to recall the dog.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
They should not be used for dog or people aggression as it can and does make the problem worse.
This isn't true when modern versions of the tool are used as I advocate. I've NEVER made the problem worse and have never had a failure.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
They should not be used on fearful dogs as it makes them worse.
Again, an absolute statement and they're almost universally wrong. I can direct anyone who is interested to two "success stories" where your favored methods were used on fearful dogs and failed. Then an Ecollar was used with complete success. It both cases, it literally saved the life of both dogs.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
We live in a quick fix
Usually a "quick fix" means something that's short lived such as a quick fix with duct tape and bailing wire to get the car home. Learning that occurs with the Ecollar is longer lasting than any other. There are cases of lifetime learning occurring from one stim.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
These barbaric devices
You use this term "barbaric" fairly often but have never backed it up with any facts. Do you have any? Such an attack is nothing but emotional. I prefer to stay in logic and reason.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
cause untold damage to the dog, physically and mentally.
Please cite such damage that occurs with modern Ecollars used properly.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
They hurt the dog.
They cause a minor amount of discomfort. About the same discomfort as a single flea bite.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
you have left your dog with more problems than it started with and those problems will manifest themselves at some stage.
This is just conjecture. In the success stories that I mentioned above both dogs, and their training occurred years ago, have continued to live happy, healthy lives. But if you have any case studies that show this, I'd love to see them.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
You have hurt your dog.
She has caused her dog some minor discomfort.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
with time and patience on your part and trying other methods, you would have a happy, well mannered companion...with no pain involved.
The OP spent quite a bit of time and money on her dog. How long should she have to wait for the training to work?
Originally Posted by Jackbox
good positive reward based training will win every time, but it also takes
dedication and commitmet to acheive this........
Same question to you. How long should the OP be required to wait? How much money should she have to spend before admitting that they're not having the desired effect?
Originally Posted by Jackbox
i suggested putting him in another room , out of the way of strange people,
till he has better behaved, I cant see any wrong in that... better he is in another rooom , than biting someone.
This is management not training. The problem with management is that it ALWAYS breaks down. We're human, we make mistakes. It's a virtual guarantee that some time in that dog's life the door to the other room won't be closed all the way and he'll burst into the room where the guest is and a bite will occur. Because he's been frustrated for so long, it may be a serious bite. Far better to train the dog to tolerate strangers in the house.
Originally Posted by Jackbox
but sticking and e.collar on him and zapping him within an inch of his life, is going to make him not bite people!!
Please JB, no one has described how the Ecollar was used and you've jumped to a conclusion that simply is not true. That is an ancient way of using the tool and not what I advocate. There are other ways to use the tool where the discomfort doesn't rise above the level of a single flea bite.
Originally Posted by Jackbox
what has he leaned,by doing that?????
Nothing. That's why that method is NOT what's done.
Originally Posted by eRaze
you will find the majority of British dog lovers see e-collars as cruel, and, you might even be aware, that many professional organisations such as the Kennel Club and the APDT are actually campaigning to get them banned.
Yes that's true and that's one reason I'm here. Modern versions of the tool, used as I advocate, are not cruel. They're not "morally repugnant." The problem is one of education. Just as Jackbox thought that the tool would be used to "zap (the dog) within an inch of his life." That's how most people in the UK think the device is used. That's not the case today when it's used properly. The lowest level of stim that the dog can feel is what's used. People who feel this (where they first feel it) describe it as a "buzz" or a "tingle." Children who feel it giggle.
Originally Posted by eRaze
As I mentioned in my original post, I saw just last week on television someone with a very similar problem with similarly sized dogs. The problems were rectified using humane techniques.
As long as those methods work that's great. But they don't always. When they fail, the Ecollar, properly used can succeed.
Originally Posted by eRaze
The behaviourist used a combination of compressed air, water pistols and a bike horn, along with educating the family (in particular the wife) on how to treat the dog so it knows it's place in the household.
These techniques worked. A shock collar was not necessary and this is one of the main reasons why so many people are against the use of them.
I'm not so sure that I'd call those tools "humane." Compressed air can be dangerous to mucous membranes and it can actually tear healthy skin. But then I don't know how they were used so I can't comment. I wish that others would take the same tack with the Ecollar. That is, instead of assuming that they know how they work, ask.
Originally Posted by eRaze
As a site we are still undecided as to whether we will join the fight to have them banned, but I must say whenever we read about their use/advocation in non-critical circumstances such as this we get closer to joining that cause.
In the first sentence the OP wrote was that the Ecollar saved her dog's life. She was near taking the dog back the rescue even knowing that he' probably be put down. That's "critical" in my book.
Originally Posted by Wysiwyg
Unless I actually spoke to and saw this dog owner for myself, I'd take this with a pinch of salt.
The OP has posted information that would allow you to easily contact her. And someone has posted a link to her position at the college where she works.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
Ecollars hurt dogs.
Used properly they cause a slight amount of discomfort.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
Positive training methods, given time, work.
The truth is that sometimes with some dogs they don't. I'm happy to direct you to two cases where they didn't.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
I see no reason for the use of an ecollar..ever in this country. They are cruel, barbaric and outdated.
Other places you say that if other methods have been tried and failed, then an Ecollar is acceptable. Ecollars are none of the things you have stated. PEOPLE may be those things but Ecollars are inanimate objects.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
if something is cruel, surely it shouldn't be open for debate?????
It's just an opinion that they're cruel. I realize that they're not. One difference between us is that I've been using them for nearly 20 years and I don't think that you've ever used one or even seen one used as I advocate.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
In my eyes, ecollars are either cruel or they're not. there is no middle ground here. Az.....
In this Ecollars are no different from any other tool. It can be used cruelly or it can be used properly. When it is, it's not cruel. We're not talking about a rack or an iron maiden. We're talking about a tool that is adjustable. It can be turned down so low that no dog (or human) can perceive the stim. Then it can slowly be turned up until it's just barely perceived.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
Another argument for using them was offered on here not long ago, for police or army dogs who may be subjected to 'attmepted' muder, by baited food being thrown into their outside areas. Simple. Never let them out unattended and always check the area thoroughly before they are let out. No need to zap.
I'm sorry but even a few minutes of thought will show that this simply isn't possible. If there is a real threat of a dog being poisoned, merely being "attended" isn't going to stop it. "Check(ing) the area thoroughly is impossible as poison can be hidden in a ball of meat only 1/4" around. But I don't think that this is a very good reason for using an Ecollar. The actual cases where poisoning is a real threat are few and far between.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
The other argument for using them has been cited on here, on this thread. A dog has behaviourla problems, owner gives up trying different methods and sticks an ecollar on a dog, who is probably, by the sound of it showing fearful behaviour.
Your comment that has the owner "stick(ing) an Ecollar on (her) dog" wasn't something that was taken lightly. She consulted several trainers who billed themselves as using your preferred methods. She spent quite a bit of money on them. The fact that some of what they did was not things that you'd suggest or even classify as "positive," matters not. The average pet owner isn't going to know what's "positive" and what isn't. It's nothing but a matter of opinion and everyone has one of those.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
Not sure nayone who cares about dogs could condone that, certainly no-one who cared about dogs would ever suggest putting it to sleep.
It wasn't the owner suggesting that it be put to sleep. It was an acknowledge that if she couldn't fix the problem that the dog would have to be taken back to the rescue where that would be a possible outcome.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
These things do not save lives they make them miserable.
I'm sorry and it may get me thrown off here but this is not the case. All of my dogs have been trained with the Ecollar and none of them are miserable. If you have something to support this argument, please present it. Otherwise it's just your opinion and I doubt that you've seen any dogs that have been trained with my methods. To make such a blanket statement is to virtually guarantee that you're wrong.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
I have heard so many debates on this now but I've yet to hear of any time where these things have saved a dogs life, where other, more humane methods wouldn't have worked...
The original post that started this contains that statement in the very first paragraph. The OP tried "more humane methods" they didn't work.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
My son, as a 1 year old, didn't undertsand language too well, when I said 'don't touch that oven or you will be burnt' he didn't get it...I removed him from the danger...smae principle with dog training, an ecollar method would have me smack him or press his hands onto the oven. Barbaric and cruel.
THAT IS NOT WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH AN ECOLLAR! Why you keep making statements like this is a complete mystery. First the Ecollar shouldn't be used on a child. To make that connection is illogical. Children aren't dogs and we don't treat them as such so we also don't train them as such. If a dog is approaching something that's dangerous (such as stock) the CORRECT Ecollar method would have you gently making him slightly uncomfortable every time he approached the stock. You'd direct him away from the stock and then relieve this slight discomfort.
You can remove your son from the danger of the oven until he's 28 if you like, but at some point, he's going to burn himself. Then he'll understand much better. At some point your son would understand that the stove is hot and will hurt him. You can tell your dog this every day and he'll never understand.
Originally Posted by Flipper
If its a method that works when the owner is not around....whoever is doing it will make a fortune in California.
No one is going to get rich as there simply isn't enough demand for this. But he makes a comfortable living doing this and "regular" dog training as well.
Originally Posted by Flipper
Seriously, I know quite a few people...different trainers, behaviourists etc that have tried all kinds of methods but nothing is guaranteed while the dog is unattended.
Of course nothing is guaranteed. But I have yet to hear of a dog that's been properly snake proofed that has been snake bit. And I actively look for such incidents.
Originally Posted by Ailsa1
Answer...don't leave them unattended in risk areas....
This solution is not possible. The dogs that are at the highest risk are SAR dog and PSD's (police service dogs). These dogs work out of the immediate view of their handlers and have to make these decisions for themselves.
Originally Posted by Wysiwyg
And yet you still don't understand that a dog doesn't get an instant reward after using negative reinforcement, you weren't able to discuss that in the other thread on electric collars, So you avoided it
I'm not sure what happened on the "other thread" but here's how this works. When the button of an Ecollar is released the behavior that accompanies it is reinforced. Technically that's -R (negative reinforcement. It's not a "reward" but it is rewarding.
Originally Posted by Wysiwyg
You seem to confuse positive training and what it is, as you seem to think that
this owner CT... was using it on her Westie - er NO!!
No positive training was used. So why you are linking it all to positive v electric collar beats me.
While I agree with you that some of the things that the OP mentions are not what would be commonly called "positive training" she was told by the trainers that their methods were positive. How is she to know that they weren't. How would any pet owner be able to tell?
I apologize for the length of this, I just found the thread and tried to respond where appropriate in one post.