I agree to some degree. But I dont understand quite why people say that because one can abuse a thing it is there fore cruel across the board.

I saw someone burn to death in a car once, becasue of a drunk driver. Im sure there are ore drink driving related horrors beside just the one I saw.... However, I wouldn't go as far as to say both cars and alchol,should be banned across the board because of the/those experince.

I don't understand that leap of thinking.

Here's one site :

http://www.dog-partnership.co.uk/livestock-classes.htm

AS will use her "bad face" and I believe a spray collar if the dog warrants it.

DR uses a spray collar only if truly necessary, and it's conditioned in a special way first. He applies it himself (so as not to risk the owner being associated with it) and he has, after a full assessment, only needed to use it on I think it was 6 per cent of dogs he worked with. He implements many other things first such as obedience, altering the trigger, ensuring the dog is truly not stressed, and so on. He goes deeply into the dog's needs and welfare. You can buy his booklet for about £7 I think it is.
Some people claim it does not work, but perhaps they are not implementing it correctly (e.g. you do have to removed scents of prey to alter the trigger and some find this difficult).
He also does predatory seminars from time to time.

Must go - cold hands!! Brrrrrrrr!

Wys
x

Ok brill thanks Wys.

Hmmmm. Looks the exact same method as some ecollar trainers use to introduce the same process. Looks like the only difference from the dogs point of view. is the mental effect of a spray versus the mental effect of the ecollar. The only difference from the human (or livestocks) point of view, that I can see, is that spray collars are mush less likely to work if the introduction training fails and the dog actually goes into chase mode - sprays often bypass a dog in full flight.

Hmmm. Interesting. Thank you. I will look further at related articles by these trainers when I get time.

Thank you again for taking time to provide the info

Denise Mcleod xxx

pain is pain
however 'mild' a setting its training by pain.

This is an interesting thread actually.

In principle, I have always felt that en ecollar should be used as an absolute last resort, when the dog is putting their own lives in danger etc (as has been said above). I'm sure there was a CM episode (forgive me) when he used it on a dog on a open ranch who was chasing snakes/cars/livestock or something like that. CM used the collar to get him to stop doing this.

Now, whilst my first reaction was - "put some fencing up to stop the dog getting to the road (or whatever it was)", I could see why, in that specific circumstance, an ecollar was used. The dog was putting itself in danger several times a day. (I would still argue that the owner could have done several things about this which have nothing to do with dog training).

My only experience of electric shocks is watching the dogs react to electric horse fencing. The first few times they got 'zapped', they ran away and were quite mistrustful of it. 4 years later, and they don't care that they might get zapped by it (the horses do care, as they don't try and go through the fence). They might jump a little, but carry on to wherever they were going in the first place.

On a personal level, I don't think I could ever knowingly inflict pain on purpose to a dog, just to get it to do something I wanted.

I understood

Oh thank you!

No you didn't read it wrong.

It's not about should we teach basics using an e-collar. Neither am I asking advice to train my own dog. As you correctly point out, I'm asking whether there is ever any justification in using one. I gave my view and tried to explain how, from my own experiences I came to that conclusion.

no there is not imo.

Hi, just popping back (have hot water bottle on hands!).

His method is not to use an aversive at all at first, everything else must be worked on and sorted out. (It would be better to go to a seminar or read his book than rely on me )
He only uses an aversive for the 6 per cent of dogs who do not respond to anything else.


Remember the other 94 per cent who were cured and happy without aversive at all. I would call this a very ethical approach. Aversives only used as a last resort, not a first one - so NOTHING like shock collar trainers at all.

He has had lots of dogs whose owners tried and failed with shock collars, one reason he will not use them as he's seen they often fail and can cause behaviour problems.

Interestingly, one dog he had upon examination was chasing due to a problem within the brain. So it shows how very important a vet check up is, even for something like chasing.

Wys
x

agreed.
It is also a major difference - with the aversive method the dog is punished. You can kid yourself that it`s `only` a mild punishment, BUT it still makes the dog feel anxious or depressed.
Whereas a better way is to teach and reward an alternative / different behaviour. That way you get a confident dog who is happy to work.