# E collar



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

First prosecution:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14181927


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Sickening..you think they would have better things to do.


----------



## Ted Summers (May 14, 2012)

dafuq?? :roll:


----------



## David Baker (Aug 31, 2013)

And i thought America was experiencing mass pussification.


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

This is what happens when uninformed and inexperianced people get a say about something they have never seen or used before. They are ignorant at best, stupid at worst and they will get their way eventually.

I shudder to see the future of the working dog if these kinds of people ever get a stronger foothold in how a working dog should be trained or raised. In their eagerness and overzealousness to throw cookies and treats at everything they are completely bypassing the dog and what it really is. They live in a world where dogs are human and they treat it as such.... 

Their motto should be "My dog, the human." 

How I loathe these people and their selfproclaimed knowledge over something they do not know...


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

agree that the lawmakers are at fault, but also think the problem starts with the stupid dog owners themselves. serious, educated working dog owners have never been the problem and never will be.

- imo, it's a combination of various types of dog owners who cause this problem that the knee jerk lawmakers "think" they need to "fix" 

1. the hundreds of thousands of dog owners who buy a large dog with NO idea of how to raise it. dog either gets dumped, or dog causes problems and clueless owner tries to fix something with ZERO knowledge of dogs. these are the dogs that get the reaction from the lawmakers when they make the news (maybe like the guy described in the link above?)
2. the fringe area of almost as clueless owners who think they know a little about "protection breeds" and try and turn their house dog into a PPD, or they get the latest flavor of the year ...pit, mal, DS, whatever; and screw it up just a bad. this may be a smaller part of the problem, but i still think it is worth mentioning since we are supposed to be a group of "working dog" people
3. scumbag criminals or wannabees .... even smaller segment, but can have an even higher visibility, media wise, which also translates into more knee jerk legislation that will only restrict the good people

sure, i agree the laws suck, but they get made because of piss poor irresponsible dog ownership, and anyone will always be allowed to own a dog and raise it any way they want, no matter how stupid or irresponsible they are ](*,)](*,)

which is why i am very careful about letting my customers use Ecollars even tho i think they are great tools, since i hope this thread is about Ecollars 

to put it another way .... if you recommend one or will sell one to anyone who has the money to buy it, you might be part of the long term problem ??


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

rick smith said:


> agree that the lawmakers are at fault, but also think the problem starts with the stupid dog owners themselves. serious, educated working dog owners have never been the problem and never will be.
> 
> - imo, it's a combination of various types of dog owners who cause this problem that the knee jerk lawmakers "think" they need to "fix"
> 
> ...


Some laws are made for reasons you state, others like an ecollar ban are made because of the influence of crazy animal rights zealots, plain and simple.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Joby
re: "Some laws are made for reasons you state, others like an ecollar ban are made because of the influence of crazy animal rights zealots, plain and simple."
- i agree with that statement 100%. most every law is driven by special interests and lobbying, but i was talking about the root of the problem that gives special interest groups their cannon fodder. their pics and vids are probably not all made up and photo-shopped ](*,)

- obviously, one solution is to counter lobby. from people like the LE agencies who can influence the media thru their PA offices. and there are THOUSANDS of well respected training outfits all over the world that use Ecollars effectively, as do many of the "famous" trainers. where is their voice and why aren't they using social media to counter the animal rights freaks ? i see apathy and bitching on forums like this that no one in the rest of the world cares about, and that will not make a difference ](*,)

- how hard would it be for the "famous folks" to have their secretary write emails to legislators for them ? why can't cops doing a demo say a few nice words about how Ecollars can often help with their training ?

- but if the PETA freaks do a better lobbying job than the rest of the working dog world, then it's a no brainer that THEY will be the ones to influence legislators.

- At least there are TV stars like Cesar who are now demonstrating how Ecollar usage can be humane, and whether you agree with his techniques or not, he has at least come out of the closet and i tip my hat to him for that. i'm sure he reaches a wider audience than the WDF //lol// all the people here who say he's an idiot, and i have read many of those posts, are essentially shooting the messenger when it comes to Ecollars

- posting bitches here is preaching to the choir. TOTALLY useless imo :-(
- i also doubt that ANY PETA related group member who shouts out the evils of Ecollar use have ever even used one. They should be called out on that in the media also. instead, people like us allow them to get away with showing pics of some stupid dog owner who slapped a bark collar on a dog and left it there til the poor dog's neck was raw

so that's why i listed my one little private way of being very careful to promote Ecollars with people i come in contact with. but if i was a rich and famous dog trainer i would be speaking up loudly every chance i got and use social media for more than finding new customers. and maybe if i was younger i wouldn't be so lazy 

but if you look at numbers alone, i'm willing to bet for every PETA freak there are 100's or maybe thousands of people who use Ecollars wisely, and some of those people DO have media influence. i always rant about how social media is often not used wisely, and this is just another example for me.

but i still feel the root causes are all the stupid people who don't know how to use "E" with a dog, and unorganized apathy by those who DO know their value as a dog training tool

another close issue is breed banning. don't know what direction that is going in the world, but my same rants apply, and as we all know, Cesar has also done a lot of good for all of us in that area too 

off the soapbox; just jumped on it cause it was brought up again and i have strong feelings about it


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

I don't know if it is due to so much as zealots, in fact I doubt it, but due more perhaps to a lack of education and it's _professional_ use and uses. I do not think personally it is a good tool for the clueless beginner to be operating likely on their pet dog, or working dog for that matter. From what I can gather from reading some of the reports in the past, that is the main crux of the matter.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Theres a police K9 trainer there that has lobbied hard against E Collars, which has not helped. His name is something Ryan I believe. He bases his arguments off a junk scientific studies that is essentially a bunch of anecdotal stories of how not to train with an E Collar. But the AR idiots over there love him.

One of the stories was along the lines of. BC has an issue chasing sheep. An E Collar is placed on the dog and he is stimmed for looking at sheep. Dog stops chasing sheep but has extreme amounts of stress and anxiety..lol.


----------



## Guy Williams (Jun 26, 2012)

Haz Othman said:


> Theres a police K9 trainer there that has lobbied hard against E Collars, which has not helped. His name is something Ryan I believe. He bases his arguments off a junk scientific studies that is essentially a bunch of anecdotal stories of how not to train with an E Collar. But the AR idiots over there love him.
> 
> One of the stories was along the lines of. BC has an issue chasing sheep. An E Collar is placed on the dog and he is stimmed for looking at sheep. Dog stops chasing sheep but has extreme amounts of stress and anxiety..lol.


That would be David Ryan who is the recently retired chairman of the APBC (Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors). He retired from the Police many years ago. 

There are many, many studies, many of which are of sound scientific basis which demonstrate the stressful effects of punishment whether it comes from e-collars or other methods. 

Dismissing them or any other study as 'junk' will not strengthen the argument for the use of the e-collar. I think a better argument would be to acknowledge the risks of punishment based training and concentrate on necessity, correct use of the equipment, managing stress etc.

Alice, not everyone who trains dogs and tries to avoid using punitive methods is struggling with anthropomorphism. There are some very good trainers out there who appear to understand dogs very well, who for whatever reason are trying to use non punitive methods. 

"The broader the statement the narrower the mind" is a saying that pops into my head when I hear sweeping statements based on opinion rather than evidence. Perhaps it was this sort of arguement for the use of e-collars that turned the legislators against them?


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Guy Williams said:


> That would be David Ryan who is the recently retired chairman of the APBC (Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors). He retired from the Police many years ago.
> 
> There are many, many studies, many of which are of sound scientific basis which demonstrate the stressful effects of punishment whether it comes from e-collars or other methods.
> 
> ...


Really those studies only prove that if you punish the crap out of a dog you will cause stress. The same could be said for any device or tool including a flat collar. I have yet to read a study other then the one on leerburg that actually studies the proper use of the E Collar as compared to other methods. The study posted on leerburg follows the rules of science. I found the results unsurprising and quite conclusive.
If you can post a study that follows the rules of science and proves that proper use of e collar as compared to other methods is abusive and less effective Ill be happy to read it. 
Some bozo "trainer" slapping a collar on a dog for the first time and zapping it proves nothing other then the idiocy of the individual.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Im not saying your wrong guy but I think there are many poorly trained dogs out there. I think the risks of punishment based training are often overblown by the AR idiots.
Especially if your just training a pet it works just fine. It takes a lot to completely destroy most dogs. I see any kind of ban as an extension of the AR agenda. How long until leash corrections become a criminal offence?


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

if you refer to "studies", and give an opinion, post the studies with your opinion. otherwise this is not much different than a pet forum ](*,)

- took me all of 10 seconds to find this dutch study
- didn't read it, but since the title used "shock collar", i'll bet it's negative
- but anyone who brought up "studies", feel free to post your review and add your own refs

http://eldri.ust.is/media/ljosmyndir/dyralif/Trainingdogswithshockcollar.pdf

i was kinda hoping this discussion would focus on Ecollar legislation since the link posted was about a prosecution ... why it starts and what can be done to defeat it, etc., 

... since i thought the accepted view on this forum is that Ecollars can be an effective tool. guess i was wrong ....again //lol//


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Sorry on my phone. I thought everyone on here knew the e collar study on leerburg. Just google e collar study leerburg. Very well done compares the effectiveness and stress levels caused by the collar as compared to the prong and posative re enforcement. They used LE mals and GSDs and tested the training and its effects under distraction and without distraction. Measured cortisol amounts etc etc. Study follows the rules of science as opposed to all the other ones I have read to date.

The neg ones i was referring to where posted on the uk gsd forum so i dont have the links as Im personna non gratta there..lol. Cookie and clicker or your out kind of place.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

This is an interesting read:
http://www.thrivingcanine.com/beyond_carrots_sticks


----------



## Guy Williams (Jun 26, 2012)

Salgirli 2008 is the study quoted on Leerburg. It compares the effects of e-collar, prong collar and negative punishmnet in the form of a quitting signal which is a verbal conditioned negative punisher. My understanding is that it has many flaws not least of which the way in which the quitting signal was taught, the fact that most of the dogs were e-collar savvy and were therefore likely habituated to their use and the fact that the co- study that measured cortisol levels in saliva never became public (correct me if you know better). Also the videos that were used to analyse the dogs body language (and interpret stress levels) have never been made public and many are curious about the way vocalisations and yelps are interpreted as 'startle response'. It is also unclear who funded the study.

It is often held up as a study that shows the use of the e-collar is less stressful and more effective than positive reinforcement as is the case in this discussion and that isn't what it shows at all.

The unpredictable and often unwanted side effects of punishers in training animals is well known and is rarely debated in scientific circles although the debate rages hot amongst dog trainers who appear to pick and choose what to believe. Skinner (1938) himself mentions the undesireable effets of punishers and the stress and avoidance behaviours that may result.

There are also studies that show an inclination towards these undesireable effects as a result of the use of e-collars.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/56040966/Schilder.vanderBorg.ShockStudy.pdf
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56040966/Schalke.E-CollarStudy.
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56040966/gMethods-ElectronicTraining-
http://http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/56040966/Dess.LinwickShockStudy.pdf
And for a general roundup try this
http://www.critters360.com/index.php/evaluating-recent-studies-on-how-shock-collars-affect-dogs-1599/

It may well be that these studies are old, biased or were not using the collars correctly but they are there, they are peer reviewed and they are not going away.

My point when I originally made it was that arguing that use of punishers doesn't cause stress is arguing against the tide of popular and long standing scientific evidence. Dismissing studies because they don't match your opinions is unscientific in its self. To fight against those that would ban e-collars you need to understand the science and make a rational argument for their use. Although many will make emotive arguments for their total banning, they are backed up by study after study seeming to prove their argument. 

Every tool can be used well or used badly. You don't even need tools to stress or damage a dog. Heavy hands, poor timing and no clue what you are doing is all some people need. Idiots doing stupid things is what should be banned but it is quite tricky to legislate against. A breed of dog, a collar or a sport are much easier to define and therefore ban.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

rick smith said:


> to put it another way .... if you recommend one or will sell one to anyone who has the money to buy it, you might be part of the long term problem ??


This is the problem--mass marketing of e-collars to the know nothing pet people as a quick fix instead of selecting the right dog and learning how to train it. I've seen them misused and abused in several settings. 

T


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Excellent tool in the right hands but also the most abused by many if not most.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Guy Williams said:


> That would be David Ryan who is the recently retired chairman of the APBC (Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors). He retired from the Police many years ago.
> 
> There are many, many studies, many of which are of sound scientific basis which demonstrate the stressful effects of punishment whether it comes from e-collars or other methods.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Guy and "T"

re: "Dismissing them or any other study as 'junk' will not strengthen the argument for the use of the e-collar. I think a better argument would be to acknowledge the risks of punishment based training and concentrate on necessity, correct use of the equipment, managing stress etc."

wouldn't you both agree that anyone with a functional brain could conduct a scientific controlled study using a bamboo stick to promote the argument of the risks in punishment based training ? 
- but i would bet me next paycheck it would be dismissed as a junk study the day it was published
- otoh, i have all the confidence in the world that i could set up and conduct my own experiment that would demonstrate how a bamboo stick could be used as a good dog training tool

therefore, using an Ecollar, to explain how punishment based training can be risky, and then use that study as a reason to ban the Ecollar, it would be easy for me to see why many people could justify that the study was junk.

my brain is getting old and it's hard to put it in writing, but what i'm trying to say is if you want to set up a study to prove your opinion, it's probably going to be easy to do. but that's ALL your going to prove 
- which to me means you CANNOT use it to prove all Ecollars are bad tools and should be illegal to use, etc

does this make sense to anyone ?? //lol//


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

rick smith said:


> Guy and "T"
> 
> re: "Dismissing them or any other study as 'junk' will not strengthen the argument for the use of the e-collar. I think a better argument would be to acknowledge the risks of punishment based training and concentrate on necessity, correct use of the equipment, managing stress etc."
> 
> ...


I don't necessarily agree with the laws. Nor do I think all punishment is cruel or uncalled for. I have a verbal no that can be punishment to my dogs depending upon how I say it. A dog fight or mauling stock might even result in physical punishment. Regardless, I've seen too much misuse of e-collars including facilities selling them to any know nothing pet person because they get a percentage. They can also wrongfully be the professional quick fix for their clients. The studies I've read on e-collars and how they effect the dogs, I don't consider junk. I've also witnessed enough of them to have my own opinion as to how they affect dogs. For those that like to use them, the worst thing you could have done was mass market them for mass use by anyone who can afford one. I have seen dogs cower to the floor as they listen to another dog screaming being fried on an e-collar. There's a popular dog training school that holds training classes for the public. They used to put pinch collars on everything including 8 week old puppies. Now they sell everyone an e-collar. Last time I was there, a woman had a 12 week old bulldog puppy on a bench teaching it the place command. The puppy was wiggling his butt making eye contact with me. The woman wanted me to entice the puppy to leave the bench so she could shock it. She didn't understand my refusal. 

As for your question, just because you can make up a dumb study about bamboo doesn't mean that the e-collar studies do not have legitimacy. I have three rescue BCs in my class now that are ex- fried on an e-collar to the point of reactive aggression and all sorts of issues. Bottom line is most people I've seen with them don't know what the hell they are doing with them. 

T


----------



## Guy Williams (Jun 26, 2012)

rick smith said:


> Guy and "T"
> 
> re: "Dismissing them or any other study as 'junk' will not strengthen the argument for the use of the e-collar. I think a better argument would be to acknowledge the risks of punishment based training and concentrate on necessity, correct use of the equipment, managing stress etc."
> 
> ...


Anyone with a functional brain could come up with the idea for the study but the skill comes in knowing how to set the study up, eliminating bias etc in order to produce a study that proves or disproves a theory. Most (not all) scientists are in the business of trying to understand the 'truth' about the world and how things work. Most studies that become discredited are pulled aprt because of the process which could have distorted the results.

You could design a study using a bamboo stick, a flat collar or even throwing cookies at dogs to show the effects of punishment on dogs. It isn't the tool it is the process which is linked to the unwanted fallout. The e-collar is an easy target because it is so easily and probably frequently misused. Banning that is easy. That doesn't mean that it isn't used effectively and that for some dogs it is probably far less stressful than an alternative that the owner may use if there were no e-collars.

In the UK there aren't that many e-collars in public use but I bet that doesn't mean punishment based training isn't being misused all over the place. The problem is always with lack of education and understanding and the publics constant desire for a quick fix when we would probably all agree that dog training is hard work and there are rarely quick fixes to any training scenario.

I think the case to be made for e-collars would be based on accepting the risks that their misuse will cause (as well as the risks of misusing any other tool/equipment) and promote education and perhaps some form of control on their ownership and use. I would also like to see restrictions on the ownership of dogs too but I know that won't happen.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

obviously i'm not making sense to anyone 

re: "because you can make up a dumb study about bamboo doesn't mean that the e-collar studies do not have legitimacy"

1. just what i thought would happen.....you already called my bamboo study "dumb" //lol//
2. if you make a study that shows punishment is bad, then the conclusion should be that PUNISHMENT is bad, not imply that the tool used in the study is bad

the conclusions in the studies i have read are weighted either pro or con ECOLLAR, not pro or con "punishment"
- which of course is why the studies are used to back up either the pro or con opinion 
- i have not read ANY study about Ecollar use in depth as a dog tool, and most start off with the premise that the Ecollar is an aversive

i'm also guessing if a study was to be conducted to try and determine if punishment was bad, we might just learn that it can't even be defined OR measured, since it is totally subjective......imo //lol//
example : i suggest that KNPV trainers have a different definition of punishment than what KPCT's have //lol//

Guy, are you for or against the Ecollar legislation ?? 
you seem to focusing on the obvious (that a stick, flat collar, choker, lead or anything can be bad), but i don't understand what that has to do with the law that is now on the books

anyone have a link to the law so i can actually read what it says ?? (too lazy to look it up)


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Alice Bezemer said:


> This is what happens when uninformed and inexperianced people get a say about something they have never seen or used before. They are ignorant at best, stupid at worst and they will get their way eventually..


This is very true. I see it on message boards all the time, people who have never laid their hands on an ecollar, much less seen one used, have no problem jumping on the band wagon to express their opinions about how cruel "shock collars" are. 

Same thing with table training. I can't count how many times people jump on the "table training is cruel" knee jerk reaction bandwagon even though they've never seen it done, let alone seen it done right.

It reminds me of so many of the Peta followers. They don't even realize that Peta actually believes having any animal as a companion is cruel because we are "enslaving" the animal. 

Unfortunately there will always be people like this, they take a position on any given issue based on a sound bite, too lazy to actually research an issue before forming an opinion. There will also always be lawmakers who are happy to pass stupid laws because they are more interested in swaying the popular vote than they are in doing what's right.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Alice Bezemer said:


> I shudder to see the future of the working dog if these kinds of people ever get a stronger foothold in how a working dog should be trained or raised. In their eagerness and overzealousness to throw cookies and treats at everything they are completely bypassing the dog and what it really is. They live in a world where dogs are human and they treat it as such....
> .


This too! They are bypassing what the dog is supposed to be. If you breed soft dogs you will end up with soft dogs, if you never "stress" a dog you have no idea what you have. People don't think beyond the nose on their faces. God forbid dogs be "stressed", of course then what are you going to do when the dog is "stressed" in the field and falls apart because either he isn't bred well enough to handle stress or even if he's not soft, he has never learned to work through stress so he turns tail and runs.


----------



## Guy Williams (Jun 26, 2012)

rick smith said:


> obviously i'm not making sense to anyone
> 
> re: "because you can make up a dumb study about bamboo doesn't mean that the e-collar studies do not have legitimacy"
> 
> ...


The obvious point that any piece of equipment can be used badly is part of the argument I think. Punishment (the scientific definition) tends to have unpredictable side effects which most people wouldn't call desireable. Too much punishment and stress (which is necessary and normal for all creatures in everyday life) can lead to distress (when the stress load becomes detrimental the the biological organisms everyday functioning) which can lead to disease and psychological issues.

Some studies just concentrate on the generic effects of punishment whereas others specifically concentrate on the effects of e-collars. I don't agree that all punishment is equal. Punishments coming from the handler have obvious links to the handler and this may damage the relationship or be ineffective if the dog learns merely to avoid doing certain things whilst the handler is present.

The e-collar is good in that if being used as apunisher it's effects can't be linked to the handler but as the dog has no way to rationalise the sensation, there is a risk that this in its self may cause a problem. It is being studied at a level which is way beyond my intellect and I merely try to keep to speed on the general consensus.

The law in Wales is clear, it is illegal to use them. In the rest of the Uk they are not yet illegal but cannot be used by Police. I get by without them but i'm sure in some circumstances they may make my life easier. I just know that some of the people I work with would misuse them because they are lazy and looking for a quick fix. That attitude is what I believe leads a lot of people down the wrong path. I think restricting their use to people with knowledge would go some way to keeping everyone happy but i'm sure it is in the 'too difficult to do basket' and so will end up with a total ban or no restriction at all.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Guy Williams said:


> The e-collar is good in that if being used as apunisher it's effects can't be linked to the handler but as the dog has no way to rationalise the sensation, there is a risk that this in its self may cause a problem.


Neither of these statements should be made as blanket statements or statement of fact, while both or either can be possible, I agree.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

As far as proving an E Collar to be abusive and counterproductive training tool the studies are junk. They do not prove anything other then what we already know. Punishment causes stress, this can be counter productive or productive depending on the system or trainer. 

Rick said it best, you can do a similar study using just about anything including a "dumb stick".

So yes in the context of a serious discussion on the merits or failings of the E Collar they are useless.

IMO the Leerburg study is comprehensive it uses multiple dogs, varying drive levels, various handlers, various locations. The training was done properly and the results spoke for themselves. 

I dont think the results were surprising to anyone that knows how to use a collar properly.

I dont particularly care about the sensitivities of the anti e collar animal activists or pet dog trainers. Their ignorance is self imposed and will never change nor that of the idiotic politicians that support them in order to appear. 
Its just sad that people are being prosecuted for this when you would think the judiciary would have better things to do.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

" Punishment causes stress, this can be counter productive or productive depending on the system or trainer."


Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Video:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhShB6MhdqJE&h=1AQGX8gFX


----------

