E-Touch / E-Collar training

[Springfield Pointers]

Thanks Newf. Not sure I agree with the "punishment " label, of your toe-stubbing example, but in general, I think we can safely say we mostly agree.

[Naj]

So, just reading through the recent few comments from our Cousins across the water who are experienced with the e collar, as opposed to ‘our’ inexperience, it really is not such a simple process to get it right, and it’s the dog that suffers when you get it wrong. Timing, as always with punishment, is critical if the dog is not to receive the wrong message at the wrong time and even if those strictures are met it has to be at the right level, none of which is an exact science outside the laboratory. Even some pro trainers are not to be trusted with the e collar, although they will have their followers who think they do a great job. The inexperienced and irresponsible, and even abusive, use of e collars can be found across the board. And you can often tell by the demeanour of a dog when a handler hasn’t got it right, although they will doubtless think they have done a great job.

It strikes me that this is a pretty common viewpoint wherever punishment/correction/pressure is used in dog training. Everybody is firm but fair and everybody knows somebody else who isn’t. Everyone knows that it can be abused and misused but not by them. You can see this in the UK when discussions on corrections crop up so it’s not just confined to e collar users. And everyone agrees that it’s not the punishment that is at fault but the person dishing it out, and they’re never that person. Human nature, I guess.

Naj

[crackerd]

"Good job," Naj - conjuring up a Dad's Army Home and Particularly Away e-Collar Corps... Chaplain first position filled - by thine ownself - to hear confessions!

MG

[Springfield Pointers]

So, just reading through the recent few comments from our Cousins across the water who are experienced with the e collar, as opposed to ‘our’ inexperience, it really is not such a simple process to get it right, and it’s the dog that suffers when you get it wrong. Timing, as always with punishment, is critical if the dog is not to receive the wrong message at the wrong time and even if those strictures are met it has to be at the right level, none of which is an exact science outside the laboratory. Even some pro trainers are not to be trusted with the e collar, although they will have their followers who think they do a great job. The inexperienced and irresponsible, and even abusive, use of e collars can be found across the board. And you can often tell by the demeanour of a dog when a handler hasn’t got it right, although they will doubtless think they have done a great job.

It strikes me that this is a pretty common viewpoint wherever punishment/correction/pressure is used in dog training. Everybody is firm but fair and everybody knows somebody else who isn’t. Everyone knows that it can be abused and misused but not by them. You can see this in the UK when discussions on corrections crop up so it’s not just confined to e collar users. And everyone agrees that it’s not the punishment that is at fault but the person dishing it out, and they’re never that person. Human nature, I guess.

Naj

Quite right, Naj. This is true with non e-collar trainers as well. Probably more so.

[newf]

So, just reading through the recent few comments from our Cousins across the water who are experienced with the e collar, as opposed to ‘our’ inexperience, it really is not such a simple process to get it right, and it’s the dog that suffers when you get it wrong. Timing, as always with punishment, is critical if the dog is not to receive the wrong message at the wrong time and even if those strictures are met it has to be at the right level, none of which is an exact science outside the laboratory. Even some pro trainers are not to be trusted with the e collar, although they will have their followers who think they do a great job. The inexperienced and irresponsible, and even abusive, use of e collars can be found across the board. And you can often tell by the demeanour of a dog when a handler hasn’t got it right, although they will doubtless think they have done a great job.

It strikes me that this is a pretty common viewpoint wherever punishment/correction/pressure is used in dog training. Everybody is firm but fair and everybody knows somebody else who isn’t. Everyone knows that it can be abused and misused but not by them. You can see this in the UK when discussions on corrections crop up so it’s not just confined to e collar users. And everyone agrees that it’s not the punishment that is at fault but the person dishing it out, and they’re never that person. Human nature, I guess.

Naj

Quite right, Naj. This is true with non e-collar trainers as well. Probably more so.

With all that said, you still "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". No matter how you cut it, aversives and rewards are still the bedrock from which we all evolve. Real science from the real world demonstrates how behavior is worked effectively and efficiently. Therefore, imo, we must take those bedrock principles and strive to be responsible dog trainers and gundog owners.

Expanding on that, it is wrong to equate a dog that is a little worried after receiving an aversive for an unwanted behavior as being abusive. Discovering a negative consequence for an action is supposed to work that way, nature shows us. (E.g. a cattle dog gets kicked in the head, he slows down, readjusts and discovers a safer way to connect.) After that, either the positive reinforcement before or after clears the decision making process and makes the desirable behavior way more durable and precise than positive reinforcement on its own could ever accomplish.

However, if a person is inclined to the ideological argument and see commands as unnecessary and superfluous to working or training a dog, then good on them. There is nothing wrong with having a dog make the decisions about wandering back, hovering around or chasing after the shot. I would admire that coolness and relaxed attitude, especially if it works for that person. On the other hand, personally, I enjoy my dog coming back when called and sitting after the shot for his own safety. Better a little discomfort in learning than a shot in the head or getting into something that is not good or safe.

Lastly, punishment use intelligently in training is not abuse. It is flat out, part and parcel of the learning quadrants that science has been so nice to have drawn up for us. Unfortunately, ideology has interfered and censored the bits they don't like for themselves and everyone else. Abuse is torturing a dog, confining a dog for long durations with no interaction, starving a dog, and I'll even go so far to say, allowing a dog to pull and choke while on leash, imo. Furthermore, not taking the time to train a dog and teach it how to adjust to our world is neglectful and can be downright dangerous. Realistically, this entails instilling desirable behaviors and of course, inhibiting or even stopping undesirable behaviors.

[munstyman]

So, just reading through the recent few comments from our Cousins across the water who are experienced with the e collar, as opposed to ‘our’ inexperience, it really is not such a simple process to get it right, and it’s the dog that suffers when you get it wrong. Timing, as always with punishment, is critical if the dog is not to receive the wrong message at the wrong time and even if those strictures are met it has to be at the right level, none of which is an exact science outside the laboratory. Even some pro trainers are not to be trusted with the e collar, although they will have their followers who think they do a great job. The inexperienced and irresponsible, and even abusive, use of e collars can be found across the board. And you can often tell by the demeanour of a dog when a handler hasn’t got it right, although they will doubtless think they have done a great job.

It strikes me that this is a pretty common viewpoint wherever punishment/correction/pressure is used in dog training. Everybody is firm but fair and everybody knows somebody else who isn’t. Everyone knows that it can be abused and misused but not by them. You can see this in the UK when discussions on corrections crop up so it’s not just confined to e collar users. And everyone agrees that it’s not the punishment that is at fault but the person dishing it out, and they’re never that person. Human nature, I guess.

Naj

Quite right, Naj. This is true with non e-collar trainers as well. Probably more so.

With all that said, you still "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". No matter how you cut it, aversives and rewards are still the bedrock from which we all evolve. Real science from the real world demonstrates how behavior is worked effectively and efficiently. Therefore, imo, we must take those bedrock principles and strive to be responsible dog trainers and gundog owners.

Expanding on that, it is wrong to equate a dog that is a little worried after receiving an aversive for an unwanted behavior as being abusive. Discovering a negative consequence for an action is supposed to work that way, nature shows us. (E.g. a cattle dog gets kicked in the head, he slows down, readjusts and discovers a safer way to connect.) After that, either the positive reinforcement before or after clears the decision making process and makes the desirable behavior way more durable and precise than positive reinforcement on its own could ever accomplish.

However, if a person is inclined to the ideological argument and see commands as unnecessary and superfluous to working or training a dog, then good on them. There is nothing wrong with having a dog make the decisions about wandering back, hovering around or chasing after the shot. I would admire that coolness and relaxed attitude, especially if it works for that person. On the other hand, personally, I enjoy my dog coming back when called and sitting after the shot for his own safety. Better a little discomfort in learning than a shot in the head or getting into something that is not good or safe.

Lastly, punishment use intelligently in training is not abuse. It is flat out, part and parcel of the learning quadrants that science has been so nice to have drawn up for us. Unfortunately, ideology has interfered and censored the bits they don't like for themselves and everyone else. Abuse is torturing a dog, confining a dog for long durations with no interaction, starving a dog, and I'll even go so far to say, allowing a dog to pull and choke while on leash, imo. Furthermore, not taking the time to train a dog and teach it how to adjust to our world is neglectful and can be downright dangerous. Realistically, this entails instilling desirable behaviors and of course, inhibiting or even stopping undesirable behaviors.

Between the three of you, you come to the conclusion its still down to the ability of the person training the dog, not the tool ( in this case the e-collar ) which decides the outcome of the training of the dog.
I understand the use ( and misuse ) of the e-collar to correct/ punish a dog at a distance at a time more conducive to the dog associating it with the wrong behaviour. I also understand the tap on the shoulder principle as a reminder for the dog to follow its training when tempted by external stimulation . But, I'm still way off understanding the positive stimulation principle put forward by our cousins, and nothing I've seen on the `Tube' or read has provided sufficient evidence to support the principle. I'm not arguing that the `results' don't speak for themselves at the level of competition our cousins set for their dogs. Although from what I've seen I do not believe that level can only be achieved with the aid of technology . Or that their dogs are any more performance `driven' than ours and could not reach that level without the collar.
What I get stuck on is how the `nick', both physically and psychologically works on the dog to `reward' the dog for that behaviour? Is it acting in a physical `clicker' manner as a pre-reward indicator? ( Certainly some of the e-collar training vids, seem to be moving in that direction )
Or is the low nick actually pleasurable to the dog...endorphin related? ( Does that mean our cousins dogs are not `driven' but `high ' ? )
Till I understand I'll keep an open mind, but one useful thing about this thread popping up at regular intervals is it reminds me to check the battery status on mine

[crackerd]

...one useful thing about this thread popping up at regular intervals is it reminds me to check the battery status on mine

Munsty, that's the bon mot nick of the decade (and 26 pages on e-collar training). Of course, that's cousinly usage of "nick," not indigenous slang for gaol, "pedigreed doggy copulation," or Father Christmas with "Jolly St." as kennel affix.

Best I can tell you is, Oh, hell yeah! on about 50 fronts of using it on supercharged animals - and how the e-collar is applied as "positive punishment," for work ethic transitional deployment (force fetch, force to pile, water force, etc.), and finally slung around a dog's neck for just-in-case's sake.

Always have to trot out something anecdotal against the use of e-collar for dessert, say "AC-DC trifle." Was running my pup yesterday on "cold blinds" (not memories) as she turned 8 months yesterday, and the distractions - terrain, scent, rows of cut corn that she "knows" to leap over instead of following - got too much for her as she continued to veer left with the wind. At every "wrong turn" on a cast, I blew the sit-whistle, and she complied - up to a 8-10 times over a 150-yard blind. Not once did I resort to the "sit whistle-nick-sit whistle" sequence. She sat beautifully every time, squared up to face me awaiting the cast, but her anxieties about getting there in a hurry had her immediately turning her head to look into the distance for the blind destination. So this little exercise (operative word) became a "follow-behind blind" - meaning every time I stopped her, I ran to the spot where she sat and made her look at me, whilst sitting squarely, before casting her again. UGLY blind, lovely piece of attrition for a young dog - young ruffian dog with major horsepower - without any use of the e-collar.

However, as it's been in the teens-Fahrenheit the last few nights here, the water's too cold to progress with her through water-forcing (with the e-collar) and the crucial (for our competitions) "swim-by" drill. Thus she has at least a few weeks of e-collar "lessons" to come next spring - and e-collar use in the "forcing" that's almost diametric to the positive punishment of "sit-nick-sit." Maybe I'll get into that in, say, Anno Domini 2029 - you'll probably have a new solar-powered/lithium hybrid battery for your collar by then!

MG

[CockerCanuck]

North American "Pro" trainers have taken a significant beating in this topic, mostly based on casual viewing of on-line videos. As I train with several and consider them good friends I feel compelled to rise in their defence. They are in a "service business" and to be successful and make any money they need to be customer driven and meet customer needs and expectations. It has been my observation that they train their own dogs quite differently than most (not all) client dogs.

With their own pups they start them quite young with a very positive and upbeat approach. Their lessons for the first 4-5 months are mostly about play and building confidence. The e-collar is introduced quite early but in a very subtle way. In a year these are very happy confident dogs who are also extremely obedient and able to win ribbons.

Contrast this with the type of raw material they get with many client dogs. Very often the story runs like this. Hunter Harry buys a Labrador pup to be his house pet, children's playmate, wife's walking companion and his hunting partner the four times a year he goes out with some buddies. They call him Blackie. He buys a field trial bred pup because he is told he needs that if he wants it to hunt. The pup is far to "Hot" for him to handle in his less than expert and infrequent training sessions and it terrorizes the rest of the household. By 8 months old it is a self serving monster and his wife gives him the choice "either get this thing trained or get rid of it!". So he loads Blackie up and takes it to his local "Pro". The pro assesses the dog and estimates it will take four to five months, at $1000 a month, plus board, to get the dog ready for the field. Hunter Harry complains bitterly there is no way he can afford $4000 and opening of duck season is only two months away. "What could be done in two months?". The trainer reluctantly accepts the dog for two months, he has a business to run and bills to pay. Hunter Harry leaves patting himself on the back for his great "negotiating skills" and all the money he saved. In fact what he has done is abandon Blackie to a very tough 60 days of harsh electronic "boot camp" type of training because that is the only way to get results with this mess of a dog in such a short period of time.

[trekmoor]

Poor Blackie and yet it is not so different from what sometimes happens here. The British "Blackie"... I'll call her "Blondie" gets a similar upbringing with a similar family . Blondie becomes a barsteward to control by 8 months old and is taken to a pro trainer. In order to get Blondie to do the things she should have been encouraged to do since she was a small puppy , the trainer probably has to do quite a bit of "correction training."

The trainer will know that even if he is capable of using non aversive methods it is extremely unlikely that her owner would take the time or the trouble to thoroughly learn non aversive training methods ….many people, myself included, just do not understand the terminology used in "posi-training" …..so they do the opposite to various degrees of correction.

Anyway Blondie will be trained in the good, old fashioned ways but will probably need a bit more of the aversive stuff than a more carefully reared pup would.

So …. if by the end of 2-3 months with the pro trainer, Blondie has learned to sit, to walk to heel off lead, to be at least partially steady and to retrieve more or less to hand, her owner will probably be quite pleased and, of course, the pro trainer will have explained to him how these results were achieved which will enrol another kick-arse type of trainer into the ranks of the faithful.

Despite all that has been said and written on the subject of posi v non - posi training I still feel we should not adhere strictly to either way of thinking but should seek the middle ground. It is more easily understood by most people ……...and possibly by most dogs too ?

Wullie

[ips]

Interesting read from both CC and Trek.
All sounds harsh and expensive, i often wonder why folk dont train there own dogs as i thought that was the whole point !!!