E-collar dog training: Would your dog choose it if you gave him the option?
Have you ever wondered if your dog would choose e-collar dog training? I spend a fair amount of time sleuthing the internet for information and opinions regarding e-collars or “shock collars” as some continue to call them.
One of the sentiments I’ve noticed lately being touted by those who wish to have the tool banned from existence is the idea that the dogs (our dogs) didn’t get to “choose” this form of training or this training tool. This statement is usually uttered in reference or testimonial that demonstrates a human subjecting themselves to e-collar stimulation for either comedic purposes or for the sake of visually elaborating on a concept. The typical commentary is: “well, the human had a choice about feeling that tool, those poor dogs don’t.”
That line of thinking got me pondering on the idea of choices for our dogs. I am curious how you feel about e-collar dog training and hope you chime into the conversation.
I’m all for giving my dogs some options, as in: do you want this toy or this one? Do you want to sniff out this trail or the one over there? But my personal outlook is that my dogs are my responsibility and as such I do make a lot of decisions for them. Here is a brief list of some of the decisions I don’t give my dogs a choice about.
I decide:
What they eat.
What vaccinations they get and how often.
What dogs I trust and allow them to interact with.
If they are allowed to swim or not.
When they need to get a bath, nails trimmed or ears cleaned.
If they get to remain intact or if they will be surgically altered (spay & neuter).
Why do I decide these things for my beloved companions and not give them “their choice”? Well, I feel fairly confident I will make better decisions for them than they would make for themselves. Case in point, my dogs would probably never chose to get vaccinated or take a bath or file their nails, they would likely make some bad choices and trust dogs that they shouldn’t. They would absolutely choose to eat trash and clean up every human left over they could. And for certain, Diva, would jump in the water and swim ANYWHERE despite a dangerous current.
So does the fact that I don’t allow my dogs too many choices make me some sort of evil dictator? If it does, I guess I am guilty of raising my kids that way also. I believe in applying structure, limitations and rules that I determine to be in the best interest of all.
When my charges (dogs or kids) clearly understand the rules I’ve created they actually get more freedom as a result. And they grow to a level of independence that I feel is our responsibility to teach them to have. One of my children is out of the house, putting himself through higher education and making his own way in the world. The second child will soon be following suit. And meanwhile my dogs no longer need to be kenneled or baby gated when I am away from the house and they are calm and well mannered if they are left in anothers care for a period of time. Through the choices I’ve made for them in e-collar “training” they have learned self control and the liberties that go along with that.
I honestly believe that if my dogs could speak for themselves they would choose the e-collar dog training and the subsequent freedom it brings with it.
They get to run off leash in unfenced areas, they get to be part of the party when there is company, they get to go along on most trips and they can be in public venues without being a nuisance.
Yes, I am the one responsible for making the e-collar dog training choice for my dogs. And as a result of it I do not have to make choices to withhold their freedom because “there are too many distractions around” nor do I have to limit their exploration to the end of a leash or clipped to a front pressure harness or head halter.
So what are your thoughts? Is it appropriate that we make the choices for our dogs training tools or exactly how does this argument stack up in your opinion?
The trick to dog training is setting yourself up for success. So yes, we always try and minimize use of aversives if possible. The results of the study are interesting as -P is always considered more kind then +P, though you are right it does not show how the quitting signal was used. Gail and Sarah you make good points, and I love how calmly you make them. Robin and Summer, you both go without saying lol. Anne I do not believe the point of this was which is better. If a dog is helped through positive based training great I am estatic that the dog suceeded. +P and -R go hand in hand, generally where there is one there is the other. Even a single leash pop uses both as the negative reinforcement is it will not be administered again. Behaviour mod can occur from +P despite what you may have heard. I stopped my dogs jumping habits by correcting him, giving him a new behaviour to perform, then praising that behaviour. It becomes pretty clear to the dog now when he greets a new person. Jump and be corrected, or sit and be pet/praised. Pretty easy decision. Operant conditioning is a learning process through BOTH rewards and punishment. I have said this a lot recently, but as a child I stuck a fork in a wall socket. I got one hell of a zap. Have I ever done it again? NO! lol. Did it scar me for life? No, I learned a valuable lesson. Same as if a dog were to fall asleep on a fire ant hill. It will not scar him for life, but he wont make the mistake twice. People often forget dogs often have aversives in the wild, and naturally learn from them.You would be suprised how happy my dog is during training, I am constantly told by others he is the happiest dog they have ever seen. That is because I train with a positive attitude and condition my dog to like working with his correction collars. As for fallout, I agree with Robin 100%. Stupidity begets stupidity. Just because someone creates fallout through use of a training tool, does not mean that is the result all the time. All it means is that they have no clue what they are doing. Educate don’t hate I always say. None the less, I enjoyed hearing your side of the debate. All the best.
I am pretty sure that most remote collar trainers don’t think that +R training is unsuccessful. We (just like you) believe that there are good and bad trainers out there no matter what method you use. IMO, there are some NOT so good remote collar trainers out there that give all of us a bad reputation. Then again I am sure there are some NOT so good +R trainers out there too. It seems to me that more +R trainers have a problem with “us” (the remote collar trainers or balanced trainers) than we have with “you” (+R trainers). I think that +R does work just as remote collars work & pinch collars work & choke collars work, etc, if used properly!
The key to anything is education and we are here to educate people on the proper use of remote collar. I have a hard time understanding why some +R “people” (I say people because it’s not just trainers) think that there is no learning process when training with a remote collar. The thought is “if you have a collar on your dog then you won’t need to practice as much” or “ I just push a button” or “people are looking for a quick fix”. Hate to break it to you but owners still have to practice, there is still a learning process, you can’t just “strap a collar on and start pressing the button”. IMO, training with a remote collar is faster & more black and white for the dog.
The whole “learned helplessness” thing….. I can tell you that I have never had a dog “that is not as willing to take chances for fear that he won’t be right”. Just sayin!
Maybe we can just agree to disagree??
Time to run and train more dogs.
As someone who was a Sales Consultant for the largest shock collar company, I believe I speak from experience. I was given a great deal of training on how to sell “static collars”, how to present information about the workings of a “static correction collar”. Extensive training on how to spin the product in order to alleviate any aversiveness about the product to the consumer. All this training paid off, as I fully believed in the product myself.
Until I witnessed personally the fallout on many dogs. I witnessed dogs that were paralyzed with fear to move off their doorstep after being trained with the collars by “professional trainers”. I witnessed dogs pee themselves out of fear. I was given no education on assessing a dog for serious fearful conditions and sold static collars for use on such dogs. I personally have four dogs that were trained via a “professional trainer” that are terrified of the fire alarm alerting the battery needs to be changed. I no longer can watch “The Biggest Loser” with my dog anywhere in the house, as he associates the beep of the scale on the show with getting shocked. I never “liked” shocking my dogs in order to get a particular behavior, but I was led to believe it was the necessary evil (my own words). I would never even consider this type of punishment or reinforcement tool to shape a child’s behavior. The collars are sold to anyone with the money to make the purchase, to use in anyway they so choose. Are tazors sold at Home Depot? Consumers are utilizing with no knowledge of proper use and sadly are putting them on already fearful dogs. Which any Behaviorist with the education in its use would never do.
There was no education on Operant and Classical Conditioning, Science -Based Animal Learning. I since have sought the education. After obtaining the knowledge of how animals learn, I choose to never use harsh aversives again. Yes, with absolute accurate timing and utilization these methods do work. But, my question is once you have the appropriate education to obtain the same reliable behaviors without the potential fallout – Why Would You?
Hi Jody, Thank you for chiming in. I am fairly certain I can speak for my colleagues as well as myself in that not one of us would disagree with you that these tools can cause problems when not utilized correctly, with knowledge and empathy. I too have seen dogs on fence systems that are afraid to leave the porch. I have seen dogs lay down and not move as soon as a collar was placed on their neck. I am not denying that, saying I approve of it or that I am immune to the heartbreak of it. That has never been my stance. Neither is it my stance that they should be banned as a result of those who have used this tool poorly. If we go down that route there is no end to what we need to ban. I have seen dogs cower and pee themselves for more than just electronics. There are #$%holes in the world who are cruel. There are those also who simply have little clue how to use this device as something other than the “bigger hammer” or a last resort option. Those misconceptions are just some of the reasons I continue this course and subject myself to experiences such as what has gone on with this blog the last couple days…perhaps I can change the tide in how this tool is used.
I can also assure you it frustrates me to no end that the manufacturers have not done an even half way decent job of educating people on how to use this equipment. I would like to see them all step up. Having been in conversations with contacts from just about every major manufacturer I believe they are just realizing their responsibility to do so and we will see changes. If it was all up to me and I was the goddess of training it would happen FAST…but alas I haven’t gained that magic power yet. 🙂 But believing that change is possible is why I work with all of them rather than lambasting. I have never been the type of person to sit aside and just lament how terrible everyone else is doing it. I am much better at rolling up my sleeves and seeing what can be done to improve the situation. If you look at animal abuse cases, find how many involve remote collars? Does that make improper use right..no. But abuse and cruelty will not end if these tools are taken off the market, nor will their removal suddenly jump start an individuals desire to learn more about conditioning and animal learning. If we want improper use to end we need to do a WAY better job of educating about proper use. That is my stance and I have yet to waiver on it.
I think that, all other factors being equal, dogs have zero problem with training that employs electronic collars. I actually think that Robin is asking questions that are far to easy to get right.
To me, the only blanket statements that apply are “Were you good to your dog?” or “Were you bad to your dog?” Those have next to nothing to do with method and have everything to do with the person wielding the method.
Are electronic collars bad because they can be misused? No.
Is it bad to use an electronic collar to harm a dog? Yes.
Is using food to train dogs bad because it can be misused? No.
Is misusing food to train dogs a bad thing? Yes.
Abuse leads to abused dogs. Methods are not the cause of abuse. People are the cause of abuse. It never ceases to amaze me that educated, rational adults so easily fall down the slippery slope into drawing other conclusions.
If a dog is trained with an electronic collar to be a fearful mass of jelly, it’s got nothing to do with the collar and everything to do with the sociopath holding the controller.
Exactly. Perfect.
So, then, can you please tell me what quadrant of operant conditioning you are using to effect behavior change? What is it about shock collars, even used, as you say “properly” that makes them effective? I don’t see how you could possibly argue your way out of the fact that it’s either +P or -R without bending the science to the point of breaking. The dog is either working toward a reinforcement or to avoid an aversive. Learned helplessness is NOT the equivalent of unhappiness all the time, but it is certainly a more global suppression of behavior than I want from my dogs. I enjoy shaping complex behavior, and do not want a dog that is not as willing to take chances for fear that he won’t be right. That makes for an obedient *looking* partner, which is why your videos of perfect heeling convince many people to adopt shock training. But, it doesn’t suit my wish for my dogs, which is that they be willing participants that feel safe asking, “Is this what you wanted?” knowing that the worst that will happen is that the reinforcement won’t be produced unless it is what I wanted. Then, all they have to do is try again, not receive a “tap” or a “reminder” that is as unpleasant as hitting that metal doorknob after you just scuffed across the living room rug.
I use all the quadrants.
Let me rephrase the question so that you cannot dodge it with such an oversimplification. Can you specifically tell us which quadrant(s) the shock collar falls into the very first time you introduce it to a dog?
Also, can you tell us your understanding of the difference between training some behaviors using a clicker, and “clicker training”? That point is often so misunderstood by people who think that they can successfully mix methods, when, in reality, the fact that they do so prevents them from completely realizing the benefit of clicker training for their dogs.
You can rephrase it as much as you want Anne. We have done this on several forums over the course of months. You and I will go around and around adnauseam. My answers will never be what you want to hear. I see things differently than you. I can agree to disagree. My apologies go out to those who have told me they are continually impressed by my level of patience in dealing with the type of badgering Anne and similar types like to participate in. I am sorry if I disappoint this time, but every dog has their point of breaking. Piss off Anne. Perhaps you can’t mix methods successfully, you may have many limitations. I don’t know, never actually met you. I however, can. I do it really, really well.
The issue is not whether someone can train using any or all methods. So, your snide little reference about me not being able to do so is ridiculous. The issue really is that if you use punishment *with* clicker training (or marker training for violent types who would like to “beat the snot” out of trainers who use clickers) is that it defeats the whole purpose of doing so. A fact which is perpetually lost on those who wish to defend pain-inducing techniques, however benign *you* think they are, as a method. If you are going to use a marker, why choose the pain-inducing one? People who say that the dog can’t hear the clicker over distance, or that you have to carry treats or clickers forever, don’t have a clue what’s really entailed in this method. Their ignorance shows every time they post. Sad really.
“People who say that the dog can’t hear the clicker over distance, or that you have to carry treats or clickers forever, don’t have a clue what’s really entailed in this method. Their ignorance shows every time they post. Sad really.”
I find it funny that you post this Anne since your type say the same thing about remote collar training (“the dog won’t behave with out a collar” or “why would I want to carry a remote around all the time” etc.) So maybe that means people who say that “don’t have a clue what’s really entailed in this method” ? I guess the ignorance shows every time they post.
Either way, you bash people even trying to learn about clicker training. I would know, since you & other bashed me (and other balanced trainers) on a clicker group on FB for not totally agreeing with you & god forbid, using more than one method to train a dog. I was amazed that I received messages from others on that group saying how negative the so called “positive” trainers were being.
Why don’t you focus more of your time on training dogs with your method then constantly bashing others for the way they choose to train?
Yup I was treated the same way on the clicker page. I was called out as a shock collar trainer and therefore, an
“animal abuser” by the clicker trainers even though I use to be a clicker trainer and sometimes still use a clicker.
I purposely asked for us to discuss clicker training since that is what the site was about but instead the members keep bashing me and trying to get me to discuss remote collar training. After my numerous attempts to get the clicker folks to talk about clicker training, I explained that the way I used the remote was different than what many were probably thinking just so there wouldn’t be confusion as to how I used it (at low levels and not the old style way of training). I was then rudely kicked off the site. So so much for clicker trainers being positive, open to others discussing and sharing about clicker training, and just being professional toward others.
Ian Dunbar was right when he said that he finds that it is usually the +R trainers that are the ones who are punitive toward other trainers and their clients. I have certainly found this to be true.
Anne, if your question was directed at me (and I’m not certain it was but will assume so since it was on a thread of this conversation where I participated) I’ll give you an answer.
I use all quadrants of training as a trainer. All quadrants can create a desired change in behavior. I do not use all quadrants equally. I choose an approach that is in the best interests of the dog. It depends on the dog, on the behavior desired, on the behaviors we might have to get out of the way before we can put in a new behavior, on the tools at hand, on the time available and on the myriad other variables that make singling out one tool to call it bad or good an exercise in futility.
As for what makes a shock collar effective? Nothing. A shock collar cannot train a dog. Neither can a clicker or an entire side of beef. They all just lie there, doing nothing at all, until an action moves through them to affect the dog’s behavior. Training may make use of these tools and others but training is not the tool.
What makes training effective? An effective trainer.
What makes a shock collar effective? An effective trainer.
What makes training humane? A humane trainer.
What makes training inhumane? An inhumane trainer.
What makes a shock collar inhumane? An inhumane trainer.
What makes a shock collar ineffective? An ineffective trainer.
There’s a pattern there.
If someone abused a dog through training, the collar, the clicker, the flavor of cheese, the length of the leash didn’t do it. If someone failed to train a dog, they can’t blame the tools because the tools aren’t the trainer. The trainer does the training, not the tool.
This is best summed up in the human workd by this question: Do guns kill people or do the people holding the guns kill people? A gun is just an inanimate object until a human makes a decision how to use it. Same with training and training tools.
Candy, Marley, Omar. All were written off by MANY “Positive Only” trainers. I pulled Omar on his LAST morning of life. All 3 were positively e collars trained, rehomed and loving life.
Pudge-Ozzy-Orca. All improved or saved by positive training. So what?
You are using logic that doesn’t prove anything. Incompetence is incompetence no matter which method a trainer uses. There are just as many examples of dogs that were saved by positive training and behavior mod after poor experiences with so called balanced trainers. Gimme a break.
I’ve saved quite a few dogs in the time I’ve been training too, but I don’t use an e-collar. Good for you for saving them by the way.
Sure, I will gladly post it. I am unsure if it is the full version, however you will not have a hard time finding the full study if this is not it, having the name of the study and those who did it. I did not mean that positive reinforcement alone is stressful, but training with negative punishment and positive reinforcement. Many are unaware of what aversives truly are. Yelling no is an aversive. Witholding treats is an aversive. Clipping a dog on to a leash is an aversive (i’m not crazy it truly is). Negative punishment is used a lot by positive based trainers who claim to be “pure positive”. Meanwhile those with any understanding of dog training know there is no such thing, and that it is a marketing gimmick used to emotionally black mail potential clients. The jist of the study is they took saliva samples during the training, then measured cortisol levels (a stress hormone). Shockingly (no pun intended), the e collar produced the least amount of stress. The only biast I was able to find was that they used one single breed. If you can find anymore I would love to hear it (so long as the conversation stays on an intellectual level). A lot of the current “science” that proves positive training to be more effective, or that aversives are harmful are junk science. I refer to this study way to often, but the study on aversives from the university of pensylvania was a joke. A five year old could refute it. I know there are some great positive based trainers, but believe me there are some great “balanced” ones. Here it is:
http://www.ecma.eu.com/Comparison%20of%20stress%20and%20learning%20effects%20of%20three%20different%20training%20methods%20in%20dogs.pdf
Thanks for posting! 🙂 Yes I agree that anyone who says they train without aversives doesn’t really understand operant conditioning. You are right when you say all of those things are aversive, they are. It’s not that a reinforcement training, like I could call myself, doesn’t use aversives, it’s only that there is an attempt to minimize them. Does that make sense? Funny I have made the exact same argument you just made to someone else. I think there is a misunderstanding about “positive” training. It’s not that everything is done without aversives, but aversive is avoided or minimized as a choice by the trainer. This is done by reinforcing behaviours you like, training incompatible behaviours for those you don’t or managing (preventing) what you can’t train or haven’t yet from happening. In the real life your dog will do things you don’t like, you address this, calmly and firmly, and then instead of continually correcting a behaviour over and over and over, you would think of an alternate behaviour you could teach the dog to do instead and train it with positive reinforcement.
We have a great deal in common Sarah.
I have a question about this study….they are comparing using an e-collar, a pinch, and a conditioned quitting signal. They do not say how the quitting signal was conditioned, however. We’re not really looking at an e-collar vs. reinforcement training her but just the stress levels each cause. Thanks for posting.
You haven’t read the study yet.
Conditioning of the quitting signal is detailed starting on page 60.
My three Belgian Tervurens are happily no on e-collars. They are trained to have freedom, collar free – check in automatically no matter where we are, recall reliably, wait for me at trail Ys to see which way we are going, move through and past dogs off lead and enjoy not ever having to have experienced shocking them to make them do anything. Three intact male Belgian Tervurens know what is right to do, without having to fear punishment. It is truly joyful. Just hope everyone knows there are alternatives without having to instigate an argument. We all “decide for our dogs” and one more decision I make in addition to the list above, is that my dogs will never wear a device that would bring them pain. I think that is one decision for true freedom.
Interesting comments.
I am glad you are happy with your 3 Tervs and their level of training Diane. I am honestly happy when ever someone trains their dog. However, your success with your training your dogs does not prove dogs wearing an e-collar are fearing punishment. That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. My dogs run with joy and abandon when given permission and return with the same joy. While I understand the battle that continues to rage amongst those who have either never seen e-training done well or who have previously participated in e-training done poorly the blanket assumption that all e-training is based on fear/pain and intimidation is quickly being put to rest as more and more people are choosing this option. IF that statement were not fact and e-training were actually declining there would be no need for groups to form who’s sole mission is to ban the tool. The comments are interesting on this post because I have posed a provocative question..as always hindsight is 20/20 and perhaps I would have been better served to ask the question would your dog chose this if given a choice between freedom off leash and remaining on leash for their life? Would they chose it in a live vs die situation? I believe the vast majority of dogs trained with the ideology of “all positive” do not achieve the freedom I speak of and many are condemned to a life sentence of significant restrictions….no off leash, no being near other dogs, no being too near children, no exposure to said trigger, etc…limitation, limitation, limitation are often the prescription. While I hear many trainers discuss how their dogs are off leash reliable, I haven’t heard what percentage of clients dogs are and how long did it take to achieve it. The question of time is relevant. Now the answer to why does “all positive” fail so many dogs may actually be “it wasn’t being done correctly, or coached by a knowledgeable professional” Ok, I’ll bite, but when a client comes to me after 2 or 3 failures with the “all positive” approach and I put an e-collar on the dog and find a solution for the owner…is it not plausible that my success with that client and dog may be based on doing it correctly coached by a knowledgeable professional.
What is most interesting about the entire debate is that some trainers continue to want a strong line in the sand. Either right or wrong, either this camp or not. No middle, no tolerance. I have read the phrase “this is war” written by some. That is not getting us to a place best suited to helping the average dog owner live their life successfully with their dog. Nor is it helping anyone “cross over” if conversion is ones goal. It only creates more drama and more people becoming firmly planted on their side of the line. History has demonstrated this time and time again and yet we continue down that path…the weakness of human nature I suppose. Thank you for your comments, all the best.
I think your argument on this blog is a bit biased. If my dog had to choose between freedom and no freedom, they would probably choose freedom. However if they had to choose between freedom with an e-collar and freedom trained with reinforcement methods (and not not ALL positive just humane punishment) I think, myself, they would choose no e-collar. You are making the assumption that the e-collar is necessary for freedom, which it is not. It’s like saying would you rather be dead or in jail? Whereas when given all options (dead, jail, free to live as you choose) you’d probably not choose jail when you may have with the first options. So when you say freedom with e-collar or no freedom at all, it doesn’t really compare to freedom without an e-collar, freedom dependant on an e-collar, or no freedom at all. And are you ever able to not use the e-collar any more? With the training I do, we can fade the tool, as returning to the handler and release back to freedom becomes very highly reinforcing in itself. So what would my dogs choose? Well I think they would choose to be taught with as positive a method as possible, which is why I have chosen to train the way I do. I’ve been very successful even with “difficult” dogs and so have my clients. Think of all the people you know who use e-collars incorrectly in your opinion. There are just as many who train with “positive” methods and do it poorly, too. We all pick our own ethics….I can’t tell you or anyone else what to do, but I am enjoying this discussion. Cheers.
I have four e-collar trained dogs and train lots of happy obedient dogs for pet owners. One big misconception I hear from people when they think “shock collar” is their lumping Invisible fence collars, bark collars, and e-collars into one category. E-collars are adjustable to very low levels so that they do not cause pain. This gives the owner the option of using the collar as a marker and not as a punishment, like Invisible fence or bark collars.
might want to add “quality e-collars”. Unfortunately they are not all the same. It is like any other bit of technology, some are higher quality than others.
True. That also answers the question about why spend so much money on a high end collar. They are NOT all equal.
I just have to ask, if you are using them on a low level as a marker why spend the big bucks on a high end e-collar? Why not just another neutral stimulus?
Because a dog can’t hear a clicker at 500 yards. Because a dog can’t hear a clicker when he’s 100 feet away from his handler apprehending the bad guy. Because a dog can’t hear the clicker when he’s in the surf after sea ducks. Because a dog can’t hear the clicker when he’s in the wind on the trail of the hare or the hog or the ‘coon. Because there are a variety of real-life scenarios where the noise is not only ineffective but impractical.
I never said it had to be a clicker. I said any neutral stimulus. A clicker is a fairly quiet noise and it is suitable for close to mid range training at best. What about a whistle? And thank you for the answer I do appreciate it. I’m not trying to be snarky, just putting up honest questions looking for an honest answer.
It’s ridiculous to make that comparison. A dog can hear a whistle at 500 yards or more. Shepherds in Wales don’t seem to have any trouble maneuvering their herding dogs over wide expanses of terrain without e-collars. How do you all think trainers get successful responses from their dogs in countries where shock collars are illegal?
Exactly *how* is it ridiculous Ann? A dog can blow off a whistle too at those distances. I guarantee there was some form of aversives applied to get stock dogs to consistently work. And again, the question wasn’t about the banning of collars, as much as you would like to steer it that way, it was about the collar being used instead of a different, neutral stimulus. Having seen stock dogs trained, I can assure you, it’s not all Unicorn horns and fairy dust.
Conditioned reinforcers are symbolically tertiary, secondary or primary reinforcers. The dog has to take ownership for this information at distances where he is quite cognizant of the fact that he is no longer under his handlers’ control.
How do you think that’s done?
Any dog who exhibits redirected aggression from an e collar stim is simply being over corrected. You can have the same results happen with any training tool. I have seen aggression as a result of negative punishment (withholding reward in simple terms). The owner did not follow through with the reward, as the dog had not performed right and had her dog lunge at her for it. I think your missing the big picture here. What you would call “trained” another may not. Go to a reputable obedience competition, and speak with the top competitors. I have no doubt they will tell you they trained with all forms of operant conditioning, not just one. So in turn, positive trainers are the ones who 1) produce weaker results, and 2) don’t have all the proper tools. Please do not take this as me bashing +R trainers, I do not believe in petty name calling. Though as I was saying, feel free to test what I said. Proper use of positive punishment does no harm to a dog (I mean PROPER use), mentally or physically. There has been a study done that shows negative punishment and positive reinforcement to cause more stress then an e collar. This is because it is more stressful for a dog to constantly be guessing then oppose to having black and white instructions on what to do. Ask yourself when are you stressed, when you know what to do or when not to do. Perhaps it was a little unfair for you to say people who use these tools are lazy (I for one spend 14 hours a week minimum training). As there are more skilled, and more educated trainers then yourself that use aversives out there. Ones who take on cases that you would not even consider, or think there was no hope for the dog. My comments are not made to antagonize anyone in anyways, so please do not take what I say to heart; it is afterall just my opinion. None the less happy training.
Do you by chance have a link to that study? I’ve only ever seen studies which show quite the opposite, so I’d be interested in reading it. Thanks 🙂
Although PDFs are available, this is just the first link that brought it up.
Please read the whole thing–it will probably take more than one sitting if you have a life that involves a job or a family–or training a dog. You just might be surprised.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71491343/Comparison-of-Stress-and-Learning-Effects-of-Three-DifferentTraining-Methods-Electronic-Training-Collar-Pinch-Collar-and-Quitting-Signal
Thank you, Mike posted a power point summary but I will read this in more detail. Yes I do not have the time to sit here and read through it right now 🙂 I appreciate you posting it though, and I will read it. Off to work and to train dogs! haha! Cheers 🙂
My dogs have outdoor freedom because they have solid recalls which were trained using nothing but +R and -P, meaning that no painful stimuli, such as electric shock, was ever applied to any of them. This includes my most recently adopted dog, a large scent hound, that was adopted as an adult. The way that I taught my three dogs to recall was to make their very first association with the recall sound (two are on voice cue, one on whistle cue) exceptionally reinforcing. I then used a very high constant rate of reinforcement associated with the sound. Next, I used a variable schedule of reinforcement, backed up by not giving the dog freedom before he/she was sufficiently proofed in the behavior in non-distracting locations, then progressively more distracting locations. I didn’t give them any opportunity to be reinforced by blowing me off and getting to do something more entertaining – rather, I made “come” the best game in the world, and I worked to make myself the most interesting thing in their world. Get to me and you get liver, get to me and we play tug, get to me and I give you tripe before I release you back to play with your friends, get to me and I LET you chase that squirrel or I fling that frisbee or I throw the ball, or we go for a ride, or we go for a swim (Google Premack). My dogs WANT to be with me because I never inflict pain or harsh words on them, I simply educate them and convince them that I am the bearer of every resource they want – if you do this correctly it works. If you need to use a shock collar to keep your dog with you, or have it recall successfully, you haven’t learned enough about how operant conditioning works – all the quadrants WORK. The question is not *whether* they do or not. Properly applied, they work. This debate is really about personal ethics, not method. Anyone can mess up either method, or implement it “correctly.” The real issue, and the one which keeps getting skirted, is what kind of relationship do you want with a dog? One in which he is acting in certain ways to obtain resources that he likes and wants, or one in which he’s acting in certain ways to avoid unpleasant stimuli??? Simple as that really. No amount of euphemizing makes an electric shock into something else. It’s still an electric shock, and by its nature is initially an unpleasant stimulus, thus not something I would choose to use. All dogs learn in the same way. There is no breed immune to operant conditioning, and there are no dogs that learn differently because they have more or less drive than other dogs. Those arguments are a cover-up for mechanical errors in training, or a trainer’s failure to figure out how to motivate a given dog. I used to have a riding instructor years ago who gave me the best advice I ever got when it came to how I should deal with a horse that was underperforming. She said, “It’s always the rider, never the horse.” It’s always the trainer, never the dog.
Hi Anne, I don’t think the issue of relationship gets skirted at all. I want and produce a dog who wants to work with me, not one who works with me only because of some feared consequence of not doing so. That is an assumption you are making and applying to anyone who chooses this tool. Congratulations on your choices, I am honestly glad they have worked well for you, but please don’t accuse me of cover up, euphemizing or saying things that I did not simply because you do not agree with my perspective. For the vast majority I agree it always the trainer and never the dog (on occasion there is an underlying issue that creates limitation)…which is why I have great luck and good positive attitude with my e-collar trained dogs and you would not..it is a matter of how we would apply the tool based on our level of knowledge about it.
Robin,
It was nice of you to at least print our comments this time, rather than blocking us. Just one additional point, however. If you call shock anything but shock, you ARE euphemizing. The same way you do when you call us “cookie trainers” which in no way describes what we really do. Operant conditioning is dependent upon what the DOG finds reinforcing. The dog that prefers a frisbee to food, well, the best reinforcer for that dog might be a frisbee and not food. But, when you use positive punishment (+P), by definition you have added an aversive to reduce the possibility that a behavior will recur. I simply don’t think it’s necessary to do that, and would much prefer to use the -P and +R quadrants. You are right about one thing – I would never get very good results using an e-collar, but only because I would never use one. I do understand the quadrants of operant conditioning quite well, and get very good results from the quadrants I mentioned, to the extent that I have completely crossed over from any form of punishment-based training to force free training. Some day I hope that more trainers will attempt it. I do feel that as long as you mix the methods (so called “balanced” training), you never fully realize the power of positive training. It was only when I took a dog, tabula rasa, and raised it completely positively, that I really “got it.”
As usual I have a hard time following you Anne…not sure when I blocked you. As I stated, this blog is moderated. I’m the moderator. The rules are simple here, no threats, no name calling. And while we are on the subject of name calling, please site one incident in the life-time of my career when I called anyone a “cookie trainer”. I have never called you nor a group “cookie trainers”…for I myself would fit that description as I see it…course I see myself as a positive reinforcement trainer also, and a clicker trainer…but again, because your descriptions don’t fit mine I can’t be in your club the way it is defined. My desire to maintain my options deem me inappropriate for membership. I am a lowly dog trainer with a large tool box. Perhaps some anger toward “others” who used the term “cookie trainer” with a negative connotation has you confusing me with that someone else. Again I will bid you good day and hope that our ability to agree to disagree is enough for now.