The dog which suffered the heart attack in the incident I described was after a bird, not a bumper. We were hunting, not training.

C'mon now Wryekin, do you honestly think there is any human-applied force that could induce a dying (actually dead, for all intents and purposes) dog to do what this one did??? Really??? Did you not grasp the seriousness of her condition?? Her entire mouth was black, not blue or gray but black, and she was not breathing when I reached her. This was a dog which, as a youngster with very little training (read no force or commands involved), was separated from her quarry by a barbed wire fence, and did not even consider going around it, that would have taken her off target; no, her solution was to repeatedly bash the wire straight on and as hard as she could until she broke the lower strand, and laid her shoulder open in the process; which, by the way, she never even noticed until it was being stitched up at the vet.

My dog was not desperate in any sense of the word, and certainly did not rise from the dead out of a "desperate need" to work for me; nor was there a "desperate need" to avoid a shock, she had never had the collar on. (The only shock that would have been useful in this situation might have one from a defib machine, but I didn't happen to have one on me). I never gave her a command to retrieve, and to even suggest that I did is just silly, and a bit insulting; hell woman, I tried to stop her, and could not hold onto her because I was a bit feeble from my swim out to get her when she went down - in ice water - in January - in upstate NY.

Retrieve drive has it's basis in food-gathering, the dog is working for itself at the most elemental level. Ember was responding to her genetic drive, which, in combination with a high pain threshhold and an adrenalin surge, enabled her to block the pain and shock long enough to heed a drive that was just as strong in her as the drive to eat or breathe. It is difficult for people with no experience training and working high-drive dogs to comprehend how the drive affects the animal, and they can't even begin to imagine how drive helps a dog do things that seem impossible, and how it can help a dog learn. Everyone who is at all interested in the impact of genetics on behavior and training should avail themselves of the opportunity to at least observe such a dog in action.

I will respond to the rest of your post when I have more time. I apologize if this post seems to be overly emphatic, but this is not a pleasant incident to relive, even tho in retrospect it was pretty awe-inspiring.

Firstlight... you admit the e.collar causes pain, you admit you have burnt dogs with it, you boast you breed for a high prey drive, yet you need to use an e.collar to contain that drive................. enough said !!

Jackbox, you and Lucky star apparently misunderstand the meaning of "burn" in this context. I guess I thought that those of you with strong anti-collar opinions knew enough about their use to know the terminology. "Burn" in this context refers to an extended shock, which should very rarely, if ever, be necessary after conditioning, and never at a high level; "nick" refers to a momentary shock, barely a second long.

I have never seen a dog develop an actual burn, as in caused by heat or fire, from a collar. Some dogs can develop staph infections, primarily caused by cheap collars with contacts that are made of something other than stainless steel, but even this is rare IME. I see more staph infections caused by leaving any collar on a dog when it is wet, particularly common in dogs with weak/compromised immune systems.

My personal preference is to work with dogs that need no encouragement to go forward, and the last thing want to do is "contain" or stifle drive; I do, however, want to channel it, direct it, and use it as a motivator.

There is a difference in language between here and the USA.

I've had many discussions with trainers from over the pond regarding e-collars, but have to say that it's the first time I've heard the 'burn' terminology. I only gathered what you meant from the context and use of 'nick' which I have heard referred to before.

Given that this is a thread related to e-collars started by you yourself who admit to using a three stage training program the last of which involves an e-collar, why is it such a surprise I assumed your dog had, had an e-collar on. If you never had to use an e-collar on that dog then you clearly trained it well without, showing that you are capable of training without it. Why then do you now feel the need to use it? Or do you use it only on those you feel do not have the correct level of drive.

It would not surprise me if a dog at deaths door did it's best to avoid a shock it is expecting should it not complete a given task. They are capable of many things and her drive may have been focused solely on avoiding the shock and as she was such high drive she found it in her to avoid it.

I did not say you asked the clearly very sick dog to return to the water, that in itself would be silly, but instead you originally gave a command for the dog to retrieve prior to her having the heart attack. As far as she was concerned her job was to return the quarry and she had yet to fulfil that instruction.

There is a difference in language between here and the USA.

I've had many discussions with trainers from over the pond regarding e-collars, but have to say that it's the first time I've heard the 'burn' terminology. I only gathered what you meant from the context and use of 'nick' which I have heard referred to before.

I'm perplexed. If you are capable of training to such a high standard without physical aversives, what on Earth made you decide to use them?

I can understand the collar making it easier for you, but it's quite a big assumption to believe that it makes things easier for the dog