I have to disagree with this e collars are cruel and if it stops him chasing sheep it wont nessesarily stop him getting shot,is the farmer who spots a dog in the field going to wait and see if it chases sheep?maybe maybe not the only sure way to avoid the dog getting shot is to keep him on a leash or longline or walk where there is no sheep,
and if there are sheep outside his back yard supervision at all times to avoid escape

Genuinely interested in this one Patch, I dont care for these collars, but do see a place for them in certain circumstances.

I don't think he's quite as competitive as you. He works his dogs in the army and saving lives I think is more important to him than winning a competition.

on your earlier point you mentioned the dog associated zapping with chasing sheep not the collar as such - i think that was how it was utilised on the DW example I gave earlier in the thread - the zapp came as the dog focused on the tyres and im speaking from memory, but I did not get the impression that the collar was needed gonig forward as the dog associated the tyre obsession with the consequence

When a dog dies there are always very sympathetic posts containing the exhortation, “run free little dog”. So, obviously, we believe that running free is what a dog would do if he could. We don’t say, “run on your long line little dog” do we?

Ecollar trainers are often described as ‘lazy’ because opponents claim that they do not want to put the work and time in to training by other methods. It is implied, and I think in this thread even acknowledged, that other methods may take longer. (The polarisation of lazy owners after a quick fix versus dedicated owners who patiently train for years.)

Do opponents of ecollars not consider that from the dog’s point of view a premium may be put on the speed of the training – get it done quickly so that they can indeed ‘run free’ at the owner’s discretion (not talking about livestock training here, but general recall around various distractions).

I have seen posts on various forums to the effect that owners have struggled for years to achieve acceptable recall. 4yrs has been mentioned on one forum. For some dogs this may be half their lives. Some have claimed that they would rather their dog were kept on the lead for their whole lives than use an ecollar because they do not expect to ever be able to achieve a reliable recall with their current methods.

Are anti ecollar people not in danger of letting their feelings of distaste for the device override any consideration at to whether the dog would benefit from a training method which they themselves acknowledge as speedier (hence 'lazy') which would allow him to ‘run free’ while he is still capable of enjoying it – something which we as owners hold dear for our dogs?

I agree, to own a dog, especially a breed that would benefit from copious amounts of exercise and freedom and never let it off the lead would seem as cruel to me using an ecollar in a way deemed ethical by the owner of that dog.

The purpose of the e-collar in the session I had, was NOT to teach the dog not to chase sheep per se. It was used as a training aid to teach the dog to RESPOND to commands EVEN WHILE in the presence of an enticing distraction (in our case - sheep).

In other words the long term goal (after several ongoing training sessions), is for the dog to respond to commands reliably in the presence of sheep. In this way, the e-collar is not meant as a permanent fixture, but is used as a temporary aid to teach the dog to be obedient without being distracted by its compulsive obsession.

So if my dog escaped, even though he wasn't wearing the collar, the training achieved will have set him up to respond to commands in the presence of sheep.

(Edited to add: )

I can understand those who say it is the 'lazy quick-fix method' as it DOES speed the training up somewhat. After all, as well as the positive methods (praise & reward for responding), it employs negative measures (e-collar use for NOT responding) at the same time, so it is BOUND to achieve results more quickly than positive-ONLY methods. However, I don't think this is lazy - if the dog's behaviour puts him at risk of losing his life, it's URGENT!

yeah gotcha, the one i was talking about on DW was for the dog to gain a negative assocation with attacking tyres - before anyone replies to that - thats what they did on the programme...jut passing it on

I would also say 'break a leg' to an actor before they go on stage so I will not be going against my own beliefs on the back of a saying.
In an ideal world all dogs should be able to run free but this isn't always the case. If my dog had a very strong prey drive and had a history of worrying sheep I would find alternative places and methods to exercise him and not resort to punishing him for being a hound and for doing something natural to him. I have a breed of dog who you would be ill-advised to use an E-collar on as they respond to benevolant(sp) training methods only, so I would never use one.
We are never going to all agree and this is MO as I see it but if I live in an area highly populated with sheep, wanted 100% recall and thought it was cruel to have a dog on a lead the majority of the time I wouldn't have chosen one with the possibility of having a high prey drive

heres a question on that - would you get a breed that needs a lot of exercise - if you wasnt able to let it run off lead?