Remote or electric training collars - Page 3

Other then it is impossible and falsehood that when propagated compels people who otherwise wouldn't get into the sport to believe it is possible.  This ends up leading to half trained dogs that are unreliable and potentially dangerous.  This is why it is now permitted to do tracking or obedience only titles but the only way to do bite work is to do all 3 phases - because the obedience re-enforced in the first 2 is a required foundation to have the much more difficult to obtain obedience and reliability required in the 3rd.

I defy you to name single person who's reached "top levels" in the sport without using some form of compulsion.  I don't think you really even know what compulsion is and assume it is only physical pain inflicted with "mean" training devices like e collars.  Regardless, who has reached these levels?

So were are the facts you mention?  4 unnamed ladies at a club trial who you claim *claimed* to have used "purely positive" training and trialed under an unnamed judge?  That is a far cry from reaching "the top" (or any level) in Schutzhund without the need for compulsion.  Let's be clear here Schutzhund is the process of obtaining titles during trials.  Not going out training and socializing with your friends and their dogs on the weekend.  I wonder how many of these "weekend" warriors (who've never titled a dog or at best only ever obtained dubious titles on their home field during a club trial) call themselves Schutzhund participants while in reality they are just people who like to go out do loose collections of the exercises, under no condition remotely related to a real trial and then push themselves, their agendas and training philosophies as "experts."  "Oh yes dear, Schutzhund CAN be done without compulsion - my friends and I do it every weekend!"

The funny thing is that even "positive" training methods such as the use of a clicker and food (which I use frequently) have a compulsive component - the withholding of reward for no performance - it is called "negative punishment" in the terms of operant conditioning.

A leash is compulsion - if "purely positive" trained dogs were so reliable why would it be needed?

You sell dreams to people who otherwise wouldn't have the stomach to train dogs.  Thankfully the "purely positive" myth doesn't overtly hurt dogs,  although it does lead to dogs that are unreliable and often out of control.  Otherwise it is every bit as bad a training technique as overly compulsive training, only it allows myth builders and dreamers like yourself to believe you've got a dog with some level of training and a false sense of reliability, which in an aggression based animal sport is irresponsible to the other participants, the helpers, the sport community and the community at  large.

-Calvin

Calvin:  I like your style! 

Calvin: My hats off to you!

.

It is possible to train a dog with very limited compultion. Yagus van de Duvettore (malinios) was, I believe 3 time FCI world champion. I was on a board with Mr. Duvettore himself who said Yagus was trained with pure motivation and his sire Stoned was trained "the old way" now I am not saying these dogs are completely without correction but not much.

There is new e-collar technuiqes that actually use the e-collar as motivation VS correction or escape training. Just because you see an e-collar being used, does not mean it is being used as a compultion tool.

Ivan trains almost completely motivation. The Swiss are way ahead of the game in motivational training. They have pretty high drive, but not handler hard, dogs and train through drive. They are always in the top three of World OB championships and their world Mondio Team is right up there year after year.

Again, I am not saying this is done completely without correction. It can be done with the right dog. You need high drive, a dog who is handler oriented, and not too dominant. If you have  dog that is ball crazy, willing to please it's handler, and a handler with the  patients, it works and gives a very good finished product. But it all depends on the dog, training and handler.

My little dog is 8 months and has a pretty decent OB foundation. I have corrected her a total of 5 times. I did not do the puppy ob training and conditioning on the male. He is pretty dominant and kind of a knuckle head. He will be recieving his fair share of corrections.

I've been to a 3 day Ivan seminar and know several people who've trained with him one on one.  Ivan does correct dogs frequently - as often as needed.  I've seen him use electric, a backline and prongs.  Keep in mind this is with an adult dogs who've already been taught the exercises – this was with dogs from his own breeding program owned by handlers in the seminar.  I attended with a 4 month old pup and we did not use corrections (appropriately so…), we worked on the "game."  However it was understood that the game was a method to *teach* the dog, not proof it.  While I cherish my Ivan videos and took a light speed jump forward in my training when I bought them, they would more appropriately be called “*teaching* obedience without conflict.”  This means using (mostly – if possible) positive means to *teach the dog* the expected behaviors/skills and manipulating it’s behaviors with reward - it doesn't come close to touching on the proofing the dog for trial (after the dog understands the expected tasks abut chooses to not comply) or for the level of competition he trains at.  Teaching a behavior means influencing the dog to comprehend what you want and how it must behave to comply with your wishes.  Proofing the dog is teaching also, it teaches the dog not *what* it must do, it teach that it *when* it must do it or be punished.  Purely positive training (In my mind based on the proponents who describe it to me) never reaches part 2.  This is fine when the dog feels like working for a reward but does not instill EVER that the *must* work.  To suggest that a dog, another living organism, with it’s own needs, desires, drives, agendas and ups & downs of life would ALWAYS perform reliably because it “loves” you and is so “bonded” (especially because of your positive training methods, snicker…) flies in the face of almost all living examples of one being interacting with another, all modern psychology (canine or otherwise) and is a fallacy in my opinion.

Some other thoughts, Ivan's videos are oriented to obedience only.  Most of the time in obedience you are generating (to some degree or another) drive in the dog and manipulating it like throttle.  As drive goes up the level of correction required to make a point does as well.  The highest drive dog in the highest obedience drive still doesn’t touch the drive level tapped in protection.  I don't see any "protection  without conflict videos" floating around...

Also, his videos are replete with correction and punishment - that is the whole point in marking the mistake and withholding the reward.  It is still compulsion.  I think the real issue here is related to terms.  There is: positive punishment, negative punishment and physical punishment (which is a form of positive punishment) – but all are compulsion.  The minimum amount of compulsion should always be used, but what a lot of “purely positive” types fail to realize is that this depends on the dog not their owners personal beliefs, morals or *human* understanding of the matter.  They choose to ignore the fact that often correction DOES need to be in a physical form because they *personally* don’t like the method and frankly they don’t even care what the dog feels or would best respond to.  This often leads to less effective correction being used over a long duration (leading to a cumulative total of MORE correction ) then had they used the most effect means up front.   Back to my moral statement, they are taking a “high road” in their own mind, but not even considering the dog.

I applaud handler sensitive dogs and handlers sensitive enough to always use the RIGHT amount of correction – whatever that may be,  word, collar, tone or stim – in issue is the “purely positive” people aren’t promoting their means because it is better or more effective means, they are promoting it because of their own internal feelings.  There is no conscious decision on which is the most appropriate method based on fact or reality, they base their opinion is on FEELING.

-Calvin

Let me claify the above, some of Ivan's dogs were in attendance, not all of them.  Also, I had a GSD pup, not one of his.

-Calvin

Cledford,

I see you are pretty passionate on your stance. I think if you read more into my post, you will see we basically agree.

You touch on an important point. What people actually consider and define compultion, correction, etc. I am familiar with and understand the definitions as applied to operant conditioning. Many are not so for the sake of simplicity; I define compultion as any type of physical force, or pain. I put electronic stimulation/leash correction in this class depending upon it's application. Correction can be anything from body language, posture, verbal commands, and include leash or e-collar correction.

I also agree with your idea of the people who advocate "purley positive" when in fact they don't have the stones to correct a dog. These people will never have a real high drive or dominant dog. More power to them.

I am familiar with and understand the definitions as applied to operant conditioning.

Actually, effective use of the e-collar may be another form of operant conditioning. The dog soon learns that he can "operate" on his environment, is in control of the electric stimulus, and that his behavior may turn it on or off.

If used correctly, e-collar corrections are impersonal and do not create handler conflict. There are no gray areas for the dog. He is able to understand correct behavior in black and white terms. The use of the e-collar is far more humane than constantly nagging the dog with ineffective corrections with the prong collar or fur-saver.