The more levels they have the lower the first level will be for the dog.

I believe any attempt at pr will involve al element of np. Unless the animal is recieve a constant flow of treats. But as BB says this is less important than the training.

I think very laterally Rune. In fact e collar use as I do is the most lateral way to deal with many issues.

Re correct use. I believe my approach is correct, but I would wouldn't I !

The thing I find is people are unwilling or unable to put their animal through a long drawn out (and usually stressful) rehab programe without seeing any results, and frankly I would be too. The e collar allows much better training and a much better life for dogs.

I have worked with several dogs that were recomended pts by other trainers and now live full lives. This is what matters, not peoples perception of the tool. I just worry that peoples perception will lead to a ban which will jeapordise animal welfare.

Adam

Are you in Bideford, Adam?

No I'm not, why?

Scientifically that's not correct though Adam.
What you believe is up to you - but what is real is shown by observable scientific evidence....and I know some shock collar merchants have lied, blatantly, about this aspect to diss reward trainers. Why? fear, I suppose, on their part. Don't become a blind person to true OC, whatever else you do.

I will simply agree to disagree - I think it's clear that although -p is used, it's not continuous or associated with +R, in the same way as +p is associated with -R based training. So I'm sticking with the science and observable behaviour.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - firstly, just supposing shock collars do "save" some dogs. (I don't agree they are needed to do this, but anyway, for the sake of argument we'll say they do). That doesn't negate all the dogs who are trained using shock collars that suffer or have horrible lives, or even lose their lives. It doesn't negate the pain and frustration suffered by the horses either, who likely have ulcers, but who are instead punished for their stable vices of crib biting....

I've never yet seen one video where a dog who has been trained using a shock collar looks genuinely a happy confident, dog. I've seen plenty that show desperate dogs that appear eager; I've seen evidence of shock collar pain cut out of videos that earlier showed the pain (and this above all is a huge evidence that shock collar supporters know the pain is there, but they edit it all out so that videos look OK).

I think they thought that those watching did not have very sharp eyes, which is almost funny if it weren't so sad - and then you get gundogs who look frankly depressed as they are punished even when they race to beat the stim in their training, and so on. Some shock collar users want the dog to know the pain comes form them, some don't.And then you get the APBC case histories in which one dog died as a direct result of shock collar use. But all the time the dogs are sufferingbecause of the use of shock collars, whether the supporters can admit that, or not.

To be honest Adam, if they were that good, I'd use them myself. I'd want one, no indeed, I'd be clamouring to have at least one in my toolkit. If they are that successful and that "kind", I'd have no qualms in using one, and in using it often on pet dogs.

There is a reason that I don't have one and don't use them

Wys
x

Adam ~ I think you need to consider the animal's needs more in your dog training work. It's not all about having "happy" clients who think you're wonderful because you appear to have "fixed" a problem that other dog trainers haven't. If you truly want to help the animals that you work with, then you need to be able to provide clients with ALL the facts, not just lend them a collar that will give their dog an electric shock. If you do this, then frightening part is that your clients will think it's ok to use physical punishment to train their dogs, or to fix behavioural problems because that nice lad Adam says it's ok. And he's a "professional" so he must know what he's talking about!

Now, I suppose I'd better admit to the cruel method I used to deter my Kali's interest in sheep (he was a Border Collie from a working farm).

Cruelly, I attached his lead, then cruelly took him over the road to a fence which had about 20 sheep lined up at it. Then, whenever he made even a slight movement towards them, I drew him back, and told him firmly "Not your business!" He grew up to be a sheepdog that didn't want to know about sheep! He was always walked near stock ON a lead - not only did the local farmers accept that he was under control, they could SEE that he was.

No electronics involved.

Snorri

Wb
I always consider the animals needs, in fact I put the animals needs (e;g continued life/good quality of life) above that of anything else such as the owners discomfort about a certain approach ect. Being very caring is great as long as it has actual positive consequences for the dog. Its pointless if it doesn't.

Sp.
You method is excatly the same as mine except the aversive used is coming from you. Consider collies are sensitive to human interact I'd bet the dog experiencced a greater level of mental discomfort as part of the training than an e collar would have created. You also have the risk that if the dog were to get out/get lost and came upopn sheep he wouldn't have you around to remind him not to do it. With the e collar the sheep remind the dog not to do it.

Ww
Latest thinking seems to be that reward based training will involve aversives as the desire for the treat (frustration, hunger, ect) is percieved as an aversive. Regardless of how well you train the dog has to want the treat else it won't work.
Re the np, basically your starting from a state of np, no treats, and using the treats as pr. So the training is involviong np.

Adam

LOL You are a fast learner AP ---shame you are learning from the wrong people!

rune

Adam, what's the exact source please of this alleged "latest thinking?"

Wys
x

The latest thinking is that exams are over and heigh ho is it going to be gap year or college with the oiks?
But on topic - the most recent developments in animal behaviour have confirmed that positive methods work best.
And they not only work best, but that they also produce well-adjusted trainers.
Don`t you feel that using vicious methods merely serves to reinforce sadistic tendencies in the perpetrator if they are already that way inclined. Or maybe they get desensitised, as abused children are to violence?