I saw an e-collar today

General discussion on all labradoodle-related matters - anything not otherwise covered by specific forums on the site.
User avatar
Bid
Posts: 18722
Joined: 03 Nov 2006, 20:30
Location: South Dorset
Contact:

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by Bid » 14 Jul 2013, 16:03

DiSet wrote:That solution obviously works for you :)
Not really - it's a compromise. The ideal would be to be able to stop her when she goes, and I haven't give up hope on that one, but in the meantime it is my responsibility to keep her safe, and since we see deer or hare most days, and as she can run across roads if she gives chase, and could easily get into fields containing livestock there is no safe and harmless alternative to keeping her on a lead. :(

I have tried a shock collar on myself - it hurts!
www.dogtrekker.co.uk
Image
Beauty without vanity, strength without insolence, courage without ferocity, and all the virtues of man without his vices - Byron

Chelle46
Posts: 43
Joined: 24 Jan 2013, 20:45

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by Chelle46 » 14 Jul 2013, 19:29

How can anyone contemplate using something like this! At least the Welsh goverment had the sense to ban them, something that should happen in the rest of the Uk. Using pain or distress is a revolting way to "train" any animal. I use train loosly as I don't call it training just dominance and a very lazy owner who is not prepared to work through their dogs issues. You can use force or pain on any animal, including humans, to get them to do what you want but it doesn't make it moral or right. Sorry rant over but the whole idea just revolts me.

beeeerock

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by beeeerock » 14 Jul 2013, 21:55

I read somewhere that we tend to think of our dogs as "Fido, the Labradoodle, a canine, which is an animal". In fact, in the mind of the dog, he's an animal first, of the canine species, who has been bred to be a Labradoodle his human pack calls 'Fido'. This order is important, because our dogs are, and always will be, animals first. When we fail to recognize that internal hierarchy and try to make our dogs human, we run into trouble. If we observe how wolves behave in a pack, behavioural corrections are done physically, either by presence or actual force. Body language is understood before verbal cues. The "NO!... or I'll... I'll... I'll yell 'no' again!" threat is completely lost on an animal (and if we're honest, quite a few kids... :-) )

I have, as everyone else has too I'd assume, seen dogs assert their place in the pack. There's growling and snapping and sometimes a bit of blood. Are they the worse for it? Not usually. It's who they are. Getting rolled and having the stronger dog's jaws on the throat teaches them who's boss. Rarely does it escalate beyond that.

Used responsibly as part of a training program for a dog with alpha issues, I think an electric collar can be the difference between a dog that can live with the human pack and one that will always be at odds with it. The zap shouldn't be given as an outlet for human frustration but as the highest way to gain the dog's attention. From what I've seen, dogs 'get it' very quickly and generally don't need it again. I can accept that some real behaviour problems might need more time with it though, and in some cases, it could be the difference between a dog running into traffic or getting shot by a rancher. They you have to ask 'which is more cruel?'... again with the recognition that we're projecting human values onto an animal, albeit one we love like a human.

I've never used one and don't expect I will, but I can see the value when USED PROPERLY.

User avatar
bedlingtondoodle
Posts: 219
Joined: 05 Oct 2009, 20:47
Location: north east england

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by bedlingtondoodle » 14 Jul 2013, 22:35

wolves???
packs???
alpha???

try replacing this with
pet dog
family
respect (mutual)

:D
Lewie
Image
Benson
Image

User avatar
Bid
Posts: 18722
Joined: 03 Nov 2006, 20:30
Location: South Dorset
Contact:

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by Bid » 14 Jul 2013, 23:58

beeeerock wrote: I've never used one and don't expect I will, but I can see the value when USED PROPERLY.
However you use it, it is punishing and hurting your dog. All current research shows that positive reinforcement is far more effective.
www.dogtrekker.co.uk
Image
Beauty without vanity, strength without insolence, courage without ferocity, and all the virtues of man without his vices - Byron

suzi23173
Posts: 1016
Joined: 22 Dec 2012, 15:40

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by suzi23173 » 15 Jul 2013, 00:11

Totally agree with you Bedlingtondoodle- if we believe that pack stuff we would greet our dog by sniffing its bottom rather than a pat on the head. Beeerock, you say we should not treat a dog as a human as we are seperate species but why then advocate humans acting like a dog when you punish it?
There is no proper way to use it or justification- it's cruel. Like beating it or using a prong collar.
Image
Love,
Suzi and Tess.
xxx

techiebabe
Posts: 449
Joined: 23 Feb 2013, 02:11

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by techiebabe » 15 Jul 2013, 01:09

Bid, I completely sympathise. I had an ex racing greyhound who was supposedly cat tested and less keen to chase. He did kill things in our tiny garden (cats, rodents, pigeons, etc) and we could never walk him off lead as he was scared of large dogs, keen to chase others, and so focussed that he had no recall outside the house. Inside the house he was a gentle giant! But you do what you have to so I sympathise if you cant let your dog off but respect you for it. It is hard and all the owner can do is theirbest, and be responsible.

beeeerock

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by beeeerock » 15 Jul 2013, 01:56

suzi23173 wrote:Totally agree with you Bedlingtondoodle- if we believe that pack stuff we would greet our dog by sniffing its bottom rather than a pat on the head. Beeerock, you say we should not treat a dog as a human as we are seperate species but why then advocate humans acting like a dog when you punish it?
There is no proper way to use it or justification- it's cruel. Like beating it or using a prong collar.
In a sense you've supported my position... dogs absolutely do sniff each other end to end. Their sense of smell is much more sensitive than ours and they learn a huge amount about a new dog by doing it. Or even a familiar dog that hasn't been around in a while. They sniff us too, much to our discomfort and embarrassment! We don't do it because it serves us no purpose... and we'd feel pretty darned silly doing it!

We can treat a dog with the same respect as a human member of the family - I'm not suggesting otherwise. But we need to understand that this is mostly for our benefit. They look at the family situation as a human pack in which they live. Dogs that lean to the alpha side of their instinct are always looking to take control of the pack, even if we don't see it as such - he's just an energetic dog... When a human in that pack proves him/herself dominant, the dog will acquiesce. The pecking order is there and in the absence of a clear leader, a dog who is not naturally alpha may become a problem because he thinks he needs to fill the leadership void. Somebody has to be in charge or the pack is unlikely to survive in the wild.

I'm not suggesting I wrestle my dog to the ground and put my mouth on his throat. But I am very aware of his leadership tests (which puppies will naturally try) and am quick to block them. I don't try to talk to him or reason with him - other than tone of voice, words are lost on him. I calmly and confidently put myself in the middle and assert my ownership over the object or block the behaviour with my presence. Body language is louder than anything I can yell at him. Observe dogs at the dog park... do they give verbal cues or physical ones to each other? They show dominance (or lack of it) by tail height, head position, ear angle. They take possession of an object by standing over it in an aggressive stance. When there's any sort of scrap, it happens very quickly and generally without any *audible* warning.

So with respect to an earlier comment about mutual respect... respect is fine, but you need to remember that respect is earned rather than demanded. And a dog is more comfortable if he knows where he stands in the human pack... mixed messages only confuse this. So to the "Wolves??? Packs??? Alpha??? comment I say 'absolutely'. I suggest a quick Google search for a synopsis of the Russian researcher Belyaev who worked for many years with silver foxes. The early Communist government wanted to believe that learned behaviour could be genetically passed down to descendants. Absolute bunk of course and Belyaev showed instead that breeding for lack of hostility toward humans resulted in marked physical changes too... the friendly foxes began to take on the features of dogs. It's generally accepted that dogs were the offspring of wolves who were comfortable enough with humans to approach the campfire and accept a nibble of food. Before long (incredibly quickly by typical Darwin theory), they were part of the human pack. The basic 'wolfness' is only a few generations distant and would likely re-appear in days if we put a dozen of them in a Lord of the Flies situation.

As far as 'advocating humans acting like a dog'... I don't think I'm doing that. What I AM saying is that a dog can understand better if you attempt to play to his strengths rather than cause him to learn our ways first and the lesson second. He can't reason, so appealing to his desire to be a good dog and not eat the sofa is probably not as useful as matter of factly pulling him off it by the scruff of the neck (as his mother would have) and growling a very commanding and dominant 'NO'. And then physically blocking further attempts with your presence.

Bodhi is the first dog I've tried to teach hand signals. And either he's light years ahead of my previous dogs intellectually or he is simply wired to respond better this way. As much as I'd like it to be the former, I believe it's actually the latter!

If my dog and living situation was such that I was worried for his safety and the safety of others - potential to be shot for running cattle, potential to knock over a child and hurt him in play or potential to be run down by a car because he wouldn't listen to me - I'd have to consider an electric collar. The lesser of the evils for both the dog and society. What I'm NOT saying is the collar should be standard equipment for any training program! Judicious use only with otherwise untrainable dogs when all else fails!

If I had a delinquent teenage child I couldn't keep on the straight an narrow, I'd much prefer the police take him down with a taser than a shotgun.

suzi23173
Posts: 1016
Joined: 22 Dec 2012, 15:40

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by suzi23173 » 15 Jul 2013, 09:50

I can't see how I supported your position when I totally disagree with you.
It is very common to think that people who don't use or agree with physical punishment, be it on a dog or a person, are always soft on them.
My dog at nine months, does not jump on the sofa, the work top, go upstairs, dig up my lawn, chew or steal my things, all because I was very firm- but not gruff with her and certainly not because I hurt or frightened her.

No one here has said that you shouldn't be firm with your dog if needs be or needs to be told that a dog is not human and needs to be treated like a dog.

Your point was that dogs chastise with a nip and that hurts so it's ok to use a shock collar, so that is resorting to behaving as a dog would behave.
I am not a dog, I am a human. My dog knows it and so do I. We neither of us need to pretend we are the other's species to get along- just as humans and dogs have done for thousands of years.
It is precisely this kind of rhetoric that has discredited pack theory as a method of training your dog. Yes, be in charge but you are not his pack leader. You are human, he's/she's a dog. You are in charge and control through mutual respect and free will, which of course can be earned without fear.
People and animals don't respect people who hurt them- they despise them and only do their bidding because they have no choice.

Unless your dog wore the collar 24/7 the chances of it being on in that crisis moment are remote anyway. My neighbour has sheep - I keep her away.

Might I add that most teenagers who are off the rails and end up being tasered, have probably been subject to physical punishment and violence in their lives.
I shall not be electrocuting my dog any time soon and I can never see a situation that could arise when I would have no choice. I shall leave it there.
Image
Love,
Suzi and Tess.
xxx

User avatar
Bid
Posts: 18722
Joined: 03 Nov 2006, 20:30
Location: South Dorset
Contact:

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by Bid » 15 Jul 2013, 10:29

beeeerock wrote: So with respect to an earlier comment about mutual respect... respect is fine, but you need to remember that respect is earned rather than demanded. And a dog is more comfortable if he knows where he stands in the human pack... mixed messages only confuse this. So to the "Wolves??? Packs??? Alpha??? comment I say 'absolutely'. I suggest a quick Google search for a synopsis of the Russian researcher Belyaev who worked for many years with silver foxes. The early Communist government wanted to believe that learned behaviour could be genetically passed down to descendants. Absolute bunk of course and Belyaev showed instead that breeding for lack of hostility toward humans resulted in marked physical changes too... the friendly foxes began to take on the features of dogs. It's generally accepted that dogs were the offspring of wolves who were comfortable enough with humans to approach the campfire and accept a nibble of food. Before long (incredibly quickly by typical Darwin theory), they were part of the human pack. The basic 'wolfness' is only a few generations distant and would likely re-appear in days if we put a dozen of them in a Lord of the Flies situation.

As far as 'advocating humans acting like a dog'... I don't think I'm doing that. What I AM saying is that a dog can understand better if you attempt to play to his strengths rather than cause him to learn our ways first and the lesson second. He can't reason, so appealing to his desire to be a good dog and not eat the sofa is probably not as useful as matter of factly pulling him off it by the scruff of the neck (as his mother would have) and growling a very commanding and dominant 'NO'. And then physically blocking further attempts with your presence.

Bodhi is the first dog I've tried to teach hand signals. And either he's light years ahead of my previous dogs intellectually or he is simply wired to respond better this way. As much as I'd like it to be the former, I believe it's actually the latter!

If my dog and living situation was such that I was worried for his safety and the safety of others - potential to be shot for running cattle, potential to knock over a child and hurt him in play or potential to be run down by a car because he wouldn't listen to me - I'd have to consider an electric collar. The lesser of the evils for both the dog and society. What I'm NOT saying is the collar should be standard equipment for any training program! Judicious use only with otherwise untrainable dogs when all else fails!

If I had a delinquent teenage child I couldn't keep on the straight an narrow, I'd much prefer the police take him down with a taser than a shotgun.
Pack/dominance theory has been discounted these days - by the guy who came up with it in the first place - he admitted that the "pack" he was observing was not a natural family pack as would be found in the wild but an artificial one made up from unrelated wolves bred in captivity. Unfortunately a few dog trainers in the 70s spread the word far and wide and it has taken until now for training theory to look at how dogs really have evolved.


I am in the position you talk about - having a dog who can't be controlled under certain situations, and it isn't a black and white choice between risking her getting shot/run over and using an electric collar. You can do what I do - ensure she gets good exercise in safe and secure environments, and restrict her access to the things that trigger her behaviour. I can't see why, when this is an option, anyone would prefer to harm their dog, risk losing them if they bolt through shock and fear, and even worse, exacerbate the situation when they reach the wrong conclusion about what is causing the pain - there are other options!

As for the anthropomorphising of dogs, a training book I am reading at the moment has a really good point .... " If we bring dogs into our human society, it is then our responsibility to teach them how to be comfortable and happy in it, and how to behave as welcome members so they can participate in it".
www.dogtrekker.co.uk
Image
Beauty without vanity, strength without insolence, courage without ferocity, and all the virtues of man without his vices - Byron

User avatar
Bid
Posts: 18722
Joined: 03 Nov 2006, 20:30
Location: South Dorset
Contact:

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by Bid » 15 Jul 2013, 12:10

www.dogtrekker.co.uk
Image
Beauty without vanity, strength without insolence, courage without ferocity, and all the virtues of man without his vices - Byron

suzi23173
Posts: 1016
Joined: 22 Dec 2012, 15:40

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by suzi23173 » 15 Jul 2013, 12:21

Thanks for that Bid- illustrates the point very well.
(good to see you back- hope you're well)
Image
Love,
Suzi and Tess.
xxx

beeeerock

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by beeeerock » 24 Jul 2013, 07:09

Well, I suppose everyone is allowed their opinion. I'd say there is quite a large amount of misinformation in there. Wonderful that they want to train with other methods, but not everyone wants to be Vegan either...

Interesting timing in that I just spent a day of doggy boot camp on the weekend. E collars were discussed and demonstrated (on us). Good ones. The cheap garbage from Wal-Mart or wherever is simply that - garbage. No control or little control over the power. I think we were using TriTronics models. We tried them on ourselves on the lower settings and found the sensation was more of a tickle than anything else. And that's directly on skin, without fur in the way. Of course, you can crank them up and get a bigger jolt, but depending on the sensitivity and coat of the dog, that bigger jolt might not be as 'cruel' as one would expect. And of course, you MUST use them as part of a definite training method or you might make it into punishment.

This is a way to remotely apply pressure to the dog to gain his attention. Some owners elected to try them on their dogs (with behaviour issues - very stubborn) and I found it very interesting to see again how effective they are. There was no yelping, jumping or whimpering. The first time they typically looked around, wondering who was poking them. After that, they started to pay attention. Not a big deal and I saw no evidence of stress in any of the dogs.

I'm not expecting to convert anyone, but until you've actually tried one of these things on yourself, it's not fair to write them off as cruel and unusual punishment.

beeeerock

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by beeeerock » 24 Jul 2013, 07:32

A bunch of points to respond to...

I didn't say I pinched to simulate a nip. I said removing the puppy by the scruff of the neck was what the mothers do. It works when the dog is smaller, less and less as it grows up. It's not about pain, it's about being in control and preventing the dog from pursuing the unwanted activity. You're applying pressure to modify behaviour. "Pressure" could be a stern voice, a 'tsssk', a 'hey, listen to me' poke, a control collar or an eCollar.

I also didn't say I was a supporter of physical punishment. I think I said I would NOT be in the market for a shock collar anytime soon. However, I am willing to accept that every situation is different and there may be cases where *the collar* is justified. In my experience, they can be used very effectively when used properly.

Two events that had a big effect on me in my younger years...

1) a rancher was having newborn calves run by a dog from down the hill. Several warnings were given to the owner. The owner did what he could to control the dog, but it wasn't a dog you could easily cause to conform to human rules. After a few weeks of this, the rancher removed his 22 from behind the seat of his old 4x4 and reluctantly put it down. Or almost. The back end was paralysed and it suffered considerably before he was able to get to it and finish it off. Those noises disturbed me for years... as did the final spasms after the second shot.

2) a dog slipped his harness and ran into the road and under a car. The shrieks were heart-wrenching and the dog didn't last to the vet. Those sounds haunted me for some time too.

You can blame the owners in these situations and you'd be right. But the dogs died painful deaths and scenes like this are far from uncommon. It's fine to take a moral position, however life is not cut and dried and not everything fits perfectly in its little slot. Both dogs were 'difficult'. Both owners tried. Both owners failed. A collar might have helped. A collar might not have solved anything. But if a training program with an eCollar would have prevented those ugly scenes I know which way I'd go.. And for what it's worth, I've felt the shock as I mentioned in a previous post. It's more of a surprise than a pain and at a low setting, is simply a tickle. And the idea is worse than the reality of it to us... who would rather scrape their knee than get a paper cut or feel the stab of sensitive teeth at the dentist? Our reactions aren't in proportion to the severity of the injury and electricity has most people spooked! Projecting our impressions to dogs is a stretch... given the huge amount of dog brain matter dedicated to scent, compared to humans, who is to say a whiff of perfume doesn't set off an LSD-like reaction in them? They are hugely sensitive to scent, as we all know.

Pack theory (in general) is simply that - a theory. Anyone can dispute it or promote it. I don't buy into all of it, but there are certainly aspects that I believe to be correct. Dogs are still largely controlled by instinct... training is simply an override we've attempted to insert to maintain control. Anyone who doesn't believe in the basics of pack hierarchy has never been to a dog park... Correct that the theory was discounted because the 'pack' was not representative of the multi-generational family unit that a wolf pack typically is. But also true that nobody (to the best of my knowledge) has ever tried to build a pack over generations, left mostly to their own devices. Dogs won't necessarily hunt together, but they will hunt and they will run together. And they certainly establish a pecking order. A huge part of the genetic mutations that created dogs also changed its abilities. A wolf is better at problem solving but a dog is much better at reading humans. Can't really say one is smarter than the other... they're just developed different strengths that would seem to be connected to the mutations we selectively promoted.

I'm not saying they see us as part of a dog or wolf pack... but that they understand the structure of a pack and want to find their place within the human pack. Our pack activities don't typically involve taking down game, but they do involve a social structure of sorts. We need to understand how the hard-wired instincts of the dog can co-exist in our society. Trying to mold them into furry four-legged humans won't see much success and anyone attempting to treat them as their children are misguided in my opinion.

Using the term 'evolve' is a bit dangerous when referring to dogs. Evolution is natural selection, typically from a lower to a higher form. Dogs are what they are due to humans taking advantage of genetic mutations. In the context that has been used, a purebred dog would be more 'highly evolved'... Just the opposite - it is more likely to suffer from abnormalities and health issues - exactly the opposite of 'natural selection' (see my previous post Belyaev reference).

"Anthropomorphising of dogs"... yes, but we aren't really teaching them... we're training them, or molding them. There might be some low level learning involved, but 'teaching' implies a greater intellect (or does to me). Understanding their thought processes (don't we wish!) would let us tailor our efforts. A great book on this is http://insideofadog.com/ which isn't really about training at all. Rather, an attempt to understand *how* the dog (might) think, which in turn allows you to consider how best to work with your dog.

Not at all sure how a kid who has suffered abuse is relevant to the choice between being tasered vs. shot, so I won't comment on that one.

Finished now...! :-)

linny
Posts: 5008
Joined: 30 Oct 2007, 11:25
Location: Newton Abbot Devon
Contact:

Re: I saw an e-collar today

Post by linny » 24 Jul 2013, 10:23

In fifty years of having dogs as part of my familly I have never had to resort to fear or pain to train my dogs. Firmess ...yes but dominance NO.
I have tried the so called ecollar and it did hurt me , there is no way I would ever resort to using one.
You say that used sensibly there is nothing wrong with this type of correction, the problem is that in the real world there are people out there that will NOT use it sensibly but WILL use it to punish or inflict pain. The ecollar should be banned.
Running a sanctuary I see the end products of cruel dominating treatment. :evil: .... firmess and kindness works wonders for most animals and they do recover but sadly many do not recover from the cruelty inflicted at the hands of their owners. :(

Post Reply