|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,096
|
08-12-2010, 10:16 PM
Originally Posted by Wysiwyg 
I have a friend in the US and she uses dog parks sometimes. Many of the dogs have shock collars on, and it's her experiences with these dogs that have helped me see more than anything just how harmfulthey are in the hands of the pet owning public and the people who sell them.
So this is not first hand experience/observation of use?
I've also attended his predatory chase seminar so I do know what I am talking about. He did not, as far as I recall, refer to the idea of making a dog vomit intentionally, and if he did then it would be incidental and not something that was planned as part of the method!
If that were so the the possible vomiting outcome is a risk of that method, so, unsurprisingly there are differing risks with differing methods.
This is the quote from the other forum so people can judge for themselves what weight to put on it.
If anyone wants the actual link PM me:
“He's actually being very sneaky and using taste aversion to condition a really strong aversion to the smell of lemons.....very powerful one trial learnign that stays with animals for life usually (anyone who has had alcohol poisoning will tell you that they can't stand the smell or taste of whichever drink it was that made them ill; it's also the same reason that chemo patients go off what ever food/drink they had before their chemo). fascinating topic is taste aversion...some really interesting studies on it (i.e. stopping coyotes and wolves from predating on sheep, the reason why rats are so difficult to poison etc.).
That taste aversion thereapy (which is usally the bit people think is mean) is the reason why the spray collar becomes so effective and more effective than just purely using it as a punisher.”
So an emetic has not be explicitly mentioned, but it is strongly implied, intentionally or otherwise. The references are all to being ill and nauseous: alcohol poisoning leads to vomiting, you can’t poison rats easily because they will take only a small sample of a novel food and only return for more if it doesn’t make them sick, as rat poisons have to not be too fast acting or the rats will avoid the rest of the bait.
Likewise dead sheep were baited with emetics and left out for coyotes etc so the smell and taste of sheep would be associated, preferably by one trial learning, with nausea and so the live sheep would not be viewed as prospective prey in the future and thus the wildlife would not be killed by the farmers as a threat to their stock.
If you introduce a new taste, such as lemon, with a very strong aversive, such as an emetic, you can get avoidance in one trail learning.
This would be highly unlikely with just an unpleasant taste, particularly when dealing with a competing, strongly motivated, established behaviour. I cannot see it being likely, nor does research on taste aversion support that a one trail taste aversion would be reliably established without the taste also being linked with an emetic.
If DR is using an alternative method to create taste aversion, that works on a one trial basis, to produce this degree of aversion, without making the dog feel ill, I would be interested to know what it is and how it works?
Can you explain it please?.
Wys
x
|
|
Location: Fife, UK
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,695
|
08-12-2010, 10:22 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
08-12-2010, 10:41 PM
My friend had plenty of first hand experience with a shock collar trainer. She also has plenty of first hand experience with problem dogs, who have become like that since use of shock collar. The saddest is the dogs who refuse to go anywhere (some of these have invisible fences at home, too) and they and their owners sadly wander the park, not even able to play. Of course not all are like that, but those are the saddest ones.
Yes, it is taste aversion, but not the intentional use of actual emetics which is what you referred to previously! We cannot know if any dogs have been sick, but rather than discuss it on here, you could ask him. I do not recall it ever being mentioned. To be honest even if they were sick, it would be much kinder than use of a shock collar by owners who had bad timing or whatever...My issue was with the way you originally described his methods. Hopefully this has now been resolved
Wys
x
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 709
|
09-12-2010, 05:41 PM
Originally Posted by Wysiwyg
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
That was generous of you. Wow! 6 percenent seems pretty high to me. Or is that 6% of "chasing" dogs only?
With massive respect, do you feel that there is a tendency toward generalisation in this statement - ??? "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."
Or do you know for sure that all Shock collar trainers as you call them, behave differently? I Think that any GOOD trainer will always make sure that whatever is ironed out can be with the kindest and getlest of methods, but if necessary will change as necessary.
In the last 22 years or so Ive been on many many training courses from Karen Prior through to Mary Ray, through to RAF and military trainers. THE BEST course I ever went on in terms of motivational training by far, a top obedience handler and HTM competitor, used Swimming, huge game sessions and high excitement as rewards in all their training. That same person did some extraordinary things even with my "stuff you, Ill only do it if I can be ars+d" dog. Amazing stuff. I know for a fact that that same person once used successfully an ecollar to rid their own dog of a behaviour that threatened its life. Does that, in itself, make them unethical?
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 709
|
09-12-2010, 05:43 PM
Originally Posted by rune
That was my point---if all these things and more can and are taught without using one, if talented trainers can train killer whales, dolphins and many other species then why would you have to use one?
So no there is no justification IMO.
rune
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 709
|
09-12-2010, 05:47 PM
Originally Posted by rune
I don't think it is good for the people who use them either. It coarsens them.
rune
.Hey ho.
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 709
|
09-12-2010, 05:48 PM
Originally Posted by Dobermann
Please don't take advice from anyone on here advocating E-collars who has previously shown over and over on other threads that they dont even understand classical or operant conditioning and its uses in positive reinforcement, or how to motivate owners or dogs, how to get them 'onto' a toy etc but has subbornly stamped their feet in one camp and chooses to believe that one method works and one dosn't and will only choose to believe certain writings by a few people....
|
|
|
|
Location: cornwall uk
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,132
|
09-12-2010, 05:52 PM
Originally Posted by Lotsadogs
Now that I agree with to some degree. But then I can understand how having a view so against the flow of "forum thinking" can create defensivenes. I cant remember ever being on such an unweclcoming forum, for no apparent reason.
.Hey ho.
rune
|
|
|
|
Location: cornwall uk
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,132
|
09-12-2010, 05:55 PM
Originally Posted by Lotsadogs
Thanks for the info Wys. I wil l;have a look at more stuff when I fidn a minute. Thank you for taking the time to reply with what info you have though.
That was generous of you. Wow! 6 percenent seems pretty high to me. Or is that 6% of "chasing" dogs only?
With massive respect, do you feel that there is a tendency toward generalisation in this statement - ??? "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."
Or do you know for sure that all Shock collar trainers as you call them, behave differently? I Think that any GOOD trainer will always make sure that whatever is ironed out can be with the kindest and getlest of methods, but if necessary will change as necessary.
In the last 22 years or so Ive been on many many training courses from Karen Prior through to Mary Ray, through to RAF and military trainers. THE BEST course I ever went on in terms of motivational training by far, a top obedience handler and HTM competitor, used Swimming, huge game sessions and high excitement as rewards in all their training. That same person did some extraordinary things even with my "stuff you, Ill only do it if I can be ars+d" dog. Amazing stuff. I know for a fact that that same person once used successfully an ecollar to rid their own dog of a behaviour that threatened its life. Does that, in itself, make them unethical?
rune
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 709
|
09-12-2010, 06:04 PM
Originally Posted by rune
There's me thinking you were on dog chat
rune
Not so here it seems. I think you have to be APDT to be welcomed by most on here. ?Still, a good forum, with lots of users and some interesting views. Excellent.
|
|
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|