Earlier this morning, my Bear and I were out in the backyard, doing some
agility practice.

I had my clicker and my treat bag, as I always do, (Hint: you can buy
carpenter's nail pouches at your local home store that are a lot better
than the ones you find at the pet stores. They're more solidly
constructed and they have quality spring-steel clips instead of flimsy
plastic so they are far less likely to slip off your belt.)

I also had the remote for Bear's remote training collar, which he was
wearing. I have him wear the collar a couple of hours every day, and he
always wears the collar when we're working off-leash in an unfenced area.

I'd started using the collar back in July, because I'd been unable to
develop in Bear a reliable recall in the face of distractions. I'd been
trying for over a year, using positive methods, and it simply hadn't
worked.

This morning, when I took off the leash, Bear started wandering over to
the neighbors to check out the smells where the rabbits had been browsing
overnight. But he came to heel eagerly when called, and worked
enthusiastically.

At the end of the session, I walked over to where I'd dropped the leash,
and squatted down to pick it up. I'd not commanded Bear to follow me, but
he did so, and when I squatted he sat, just out of arms reach, staring
over at the damned rabbits.

I called "come", and he did nothing.

We've trained "heel", "side", and "front" to mean take up precise
positions. We've not trained "come" to mean take up a precise position.
Bear only needed to move a foot for me to put the collar on, and I expect
he thought he'd already "come".

So I backed up a couple of feet, repeated the command, and he came
eagerly.

Never gave a correction at all.

Which means it's now three months of using the remote training collar for
recalls since I've needed to actually give him a correction with it.

And because I can trust him off-leash, I can do things, like do agility
training in the backyard, that I could not have done.

I'd never recommend one without two qualifications - 1st, it's only one
tool of many, and it's role in dog training is rather narrow. It's not of
much use in teaching a behavior, it's role is in reinforcing behavior
that's already been learned. And second, it's a powerful tool that can
cause real damage if misused. Find an experienced trainer to get you
started. It's critical that a dog's first introduction to the collar is
done properly.

I won't say that every dog needs to work with a remote training collar.
But if you're dealing with a dog that seems to be deciding not to obey
commands when you know he knows what he's supposed to do, it may be an
appropriate approach.

--
What, me .Sig?

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:55:51 -0600 Jeff Dege whittled these words:
I'd never recommend one without two qualifications - 1st, it's only one
tool of many, and it's role in dog training is rather narrow. It's not of
much use in teaching a behavior, it's role is in reinforcing behavior
that's already been learned.

Actually if you know what you are doing it can be an excellent tool for
teaching behavior. The sensation from a quality ecollar is not
necessarily unpleasant, having felt it, I can say so.

And second, it's a powerful tool that can
cause real damage if misused. Find an experienced trainer to get you
started. It's critical that a dog's first introduction to the collar is
done properly.

Yes. Real harm can be done.

I won't say that every dog needs to work with a remote training collar.

I will say that very few people training their PET dog should go within
100 yards of a "remote training collar."

But if you're dealing with a dog that seems to be deciding not to obey
commands when you know he knows what he's supposed to do, it may be an
appropriate approach.

A big problem with most people is that they DON'T properly train the
commands in the first place, and they are WRONG when they believe the dog
"knows" what to do. 99% of the time when a person claims the dog "knows"
what is expected the command was never taught properly in the first place.
One of the things people get when they get help in learning to use the
collar is a wake up call on how screwed up their attempts at training have
been.

--
Diane Blackman
There is no moral victory in proclaiming to abhor violence
while preaching with violent words.
http://dog-play.com/ http://dogplayshops.com/

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 00:09:34 +0000, TOTE wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:55:51 -0600 Jeff Dege whittled these words:
I'd never recommend one without two qualifications - 1st, it's only one
tool of many, and it's role in dog training is rather narrow. It's not of
much use in teaching a behavior, it's role is in reinforcing behavior
that's already been learned.

Actually if you know what you are doing it can be an excellent tool for
teaching behavior. The sensation from a quality ecollar is not
necessarily unpleasant, having felt it, I can say so.

It's a corrections, plain and simple. But it's controllable to a degree
that other aversives are not. The levels used in training seem to be
milder than collar corrections.

And second, it's a powerful tool that can
cause real damage if misused. Find an experienced trainer to get you
started. It's critical that a dog's first introduction to the collar is
done properly.

Yes. Real harm can be done.

I won't say that every dog needs to work with a remote training collar.

I will say that very few people training their PET dog should go within
100 yards of a "remote training collar."

A lot of people are doing more with their pets, than they used to, and the
percentage of pet owners who live in places where they can let their dogs
run free are declining.

But if you're dealing with a dog that seems to be deciding not to obey
commands when you know he knows what he's supposed to do, it may be an
appropriate approach.

A big problem with most people is that they DON'T properly train the
commands in the first place, and they are WRONG when they believe the dog
"knows" what to do. 99% of the time when a person claims the dog "knows"
what is expected the command was never taught properly in the first place.
One of the things people get when they get help in learning to use the
collar is a wake up call on how screwed up their attempts at training have
been.

Actually, that was the thought that prompted my post.

I'd called Bear to come, and he didn't move. His recall has become very
reliable, in most situations, but I'd never called him to come when I was
squatting just four feet away. The verbal cue was the same, the body
language was all wrong.

I could have corrected him for his "failure". I instead stood up, stepped
back, and called him to come in the manner I more usually did so, and he
responded promptly. It's hard, sometimes, to keep in mind just how
situational dogs' learning is.

Bear did not need a correction, then. He needed a clear command.

--
The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:41:27 -0600 Jeff Dege whittled these words:

It's a corrections, plain and simple. But it's controllable to a degree
that other aversives are not. The levels used in training seem to be
milder than collar corrections.

If you believe an ecollar can only be used to correct unwanted behavior
(or failure to perform) I suggest you explore further. There is more to
it than that.

--
Diane Blackman
There is no moral victory in proclaiming to abhor violence
while preaching with violent words.
http://dog-play.com/ http://dogplayshops.com/

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 07:32:40 +0000, TOTE wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:41:27 -0600 Jeff Dege whittled these words:

It's a corrections, plain and simple. But it's controllable to a degree
that other aversives are not. The levels used in training seem to be
milder than collar corrections.

If you believe an ecollar can only be used to correct unwanted behavior
(or failure to perform) I suggest you explore further. There is more to
it than that.

I believe that a shock from an e-collar is an aversive. That trainers who
pretend that they can condition their dog to react to a shock as if it
were a reward are lying to their clients or to themselves.

As for how aversives can be used in training, I prefer to keep them to a
minimum - for failure to perform tasks that have been taught using praise,
treats, and play.

--
The citizen sees nothing wrong, in the sense of robbing a neighbor
is wrong to him, in turning the tables upon...[government] whenever
the opportunity offers. When he steals anything from it he is only
recovering his own, with fair interest and a decent profit. Two gangs
stand thus confronted: on the one hand the gang of drones and exploiters
constituting the government, and on the other hand the body of prehensile
and enterprising citizens...The difference between the two gangs - of
professionals and amateurs - is that the former has the law on its side,
and so enjoys an unfair advantage.
- H. L. Mencken

Jeff Dege wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 07:32:40 +0000, TOTE wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:41:27 -0600 Jeff Dege whittled these words:

It's a corrections, plain and simple. But it's controllable to a degree
that other aversives are not. The levels used in training seem to be
milder than collar corrections.

If you believe an ecollar can only be used to correct unwanted behavior
(or failure to perform) I suggest you explore further. There is more to
it than that.

I believe that a shock from an e-collar is an aversive. That trainers who
pretend that they can condition their dog to react to a shock as if it
were a reward are lying to their clients or to themselves.

You can believe what you wish, of course. It's a (mostly) free
country. You're wrong on this one, though.

--
Mark Shaw (And Baron) moc TOD liamg TA wahsnm
================================================== =======================
"Dogs need to sniff the ground; it's how they keep abreast of current
events. The ground is a giant dog newspaper, containing all kinds of
late-breaking dog news items, which, if they are especially urgent, are
often continued in the next yard." - Dave Barry

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 16:41:27 -0500, Jack "The Unpalatable Barbarian"
Morrison wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 10:33:34 -0600, Jeff Dege
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 07:32:40 +0000, TOTE wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:41:27 -0600 Jeff Dege whittled these words:

It's a corrections, plain and simple. But it's controllable to a degree
that other aversives are not. The levels used in training seem to be
milder than collar corrections.

If you believe an ecollar can only be used to correct unwanted behavior
(or failure to perform) I suggest you explore further. There is more to
it than that.

I believe that a shock from an e-collar is an aversive. That trainers who
pretend that they can condition their dog to react to a shock as if it
were a reward are lying to their clients or to themselves.

And I suggest that you attend one of Fred Hassen's "No Limitations"
seminars (held in many areas of the country).

http://www.nolimitations.biz/

http://www.fredhassen.com/

Actually watch him take dogs with no prior training of any kind and
have them heeling, sitting, etc. within minutes.

There have always been abusive trainers who could do that. Given
sufficient punishment, nearly any dog will obey in the short term.

Not that I'm claiming that Fred Hassen is such a trainer, but I'd judge on
how his dogs behaved six weeks and six months after beginning his
training, not after just minutes.

--
Law and its instrument, government, are necessary to the peace and safety
of all of us, but all of us, unless we live the lives of mud turtles,
frequently find them arrayed against us. Worse, we are very apt to
discover, facing their sudden inhibition of our desires, that their
reputed impersonality and impartiality are myths - that the government
whose mandates we almost instinctively evade is not the transcendental and
passionless thing it pretends to be, but simply a gang of very ordinary
men, and that the judge who orders us to obey them is another of the
same kind...
- H. L. Mencken

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 10:33:34 -0600, Jeff Dege wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 07:32:40 +0000, TOTE wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:41:27 -0600 Jeff Dege whittled these words:

It's a corrections, plain and simple. But it's controllable to a degree
that other aversives are not. The levels used in training seem to be
milder than collar corrections.

If you believe an ecollar can only be used to correct unwanted behavior
(or failure to perform) I suggest you explore further. There is more to
it than that.

I believe that a shock from an e-collar is an aversive.

First it's a surprise, depending on the intensity.

That trainers who
pretend that they can condition their dog to react to a shock as if it
were a reward are lying to their clients or to themselves.

I think, you're wrong here.
You can condition a dog to many things, including "shocks", if the reward
is good enough.

As for how aversives can be used in training, I prefer to keep them to a
minimum - for failure to perform tasks that have been taught using praise,
treats, and play.

Well, I have an e-collar in my cabinet (was a gift, never used). I informed
myself about the usage and I decided: far too much things you can do wrong.
That was about two years ago.
When I was looking for information, I found something from a dog trainer
who was not against e-collars, but he learned the hard way, what you can do
wrong. He did not recommend to use those, except maybe with a detailed
behaviour analysis (human and dog), with a very experienced trainer and a
situation where it really (!) would make sense.

He described (his own first test of an e-collar) how he tried to stop his
hunting dog from unwished hunting. He had in mind to support a "stop" when
the dog was running off, but the only thing he achieved was the dog running
even faster. His later analysis was, the dog was thinking beeing punished
for not running fast enough.
A simple communication problem. You cannot solve communication problems
with an e-collar.

Dogs learn in situations. If things are learned in your backyard, it will
not automatically work in an environment with distractions. You need to
teach your dog in a world with distractions as well.

Bye
Marion

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 00:50:08 +0100, Bonsai wrote:

He described (his own first test of an e-collar) how he tried to stop
his hunting dog from unwished hunting. He had in mind to support a
"stop" when the dog was running off, but the only thing he achieved was
the dog running even faster. His later analysis was, the dog was
thinking beeing punished for not running fast enough.

George Hickox describes it thus:

http://www.properpet.com/doing_it_right.htm

I believe in electronic training for dogs. The key is to use the
electronic collar correctly. As in most things, there is a right way and a
wrong way to use this valuable training tool.

Far too often, a dog owner buys an electronic collar because Fido runs too
big, hunts out of control, and responds to the "Here" command only if he
feels like it. So John Trainer straps a collar on his rebel and turns him
loose. When he later gives the command "Here", the delinquent gives John a
more-than-subtle "To heck with you!" response. John then fries (insert
"zaps", "cooks" or any other word here that typifies improper electronic
collar use) Fido.

Such a process will indeed teach the dog something: How to beat the pain!
The dog will normally respond in one of three ways. One, he bolts from the
spot and runs as quickly and as far away as he can. If the collar has an
automatic safety shut-off, 10 seconds for example, the dog learns that if
he bolts like a runaway freight train for 10.1 seconds, the stimulation
shuts off. A second response may be to freeze on the spot until the
stimulation turns off. In both cases, the dog learns that if he grits his
teeth for 10 seconds, the stimulation goes away.

The third probable response is Pup comes running back to his owner.
Terrific, huh? Not necessarily. When the pup gets back to his owner, the
stimulation turns off. Dogs are extremely place-oriented. The dog may
associate the spot by his handler's feet with safety and hunting out in
front with danger.


--
"It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees."
-- Mordechai Anielewicz, 1920-1943, Warsaw, Poland

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:33:13 -0500, Jack "The Unpalatable Barbarian"
Morrison wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:18:42 -0600, Jeff Dege
wrote:

[]
Far too often, a dog owner buys an electronic collar because Fido runs too
big, hunts out of control, and responds to the "Here" command only if he
feels like it. So John Trainer straps a collar on his rebel and turns him
loose. When he later gives the command "Here", the delinquent gives John a
more-than-subtle "To heck with you!" response. John then fries (insert
"zaps", "cooks" or any other word here that typifies improper electronic
collar use) Fido.
[]

You sure seem to focus a lot on the *wrong* ways that one can use an
e-collar, Jeff.

Talk to some of the animal behavioralists, sometime. There are a lot of
wrong ways to use an e-collar, and they end up dealing with the
consequences.

While at the same time refusing to accept the existence of *right*
ways.

I am fully aware of the existence of right ways. I've seen too many
happy, healthy, and amazingly-well trained bird dogs to believe that they
cannot be used successfully.

And when my own dog failed to progress in training, I introduced an
e-collar with him, and it has worked well.

But it's a powerful tool, and it needs to be used with caution and
consistency.

--
Herein lies the value of free speech. It makes concealment difficult,
and, in the long run, impossible. One heretic, if he is right, is as
good as a host. He is bound to win in the long run. It is thus no
wonder that foes of the enlightenment always begin their proceedings by
trying to deny free speech to their opponents. It is dangerous to them
and they know it. So they have at it by accusing these opponents of all
sorts of grave crimes and misdemeanors, most of them clearly absurd -
in other words, by calling them names and trying to scare them.
- H. L. Mencken