Canis lupus hominis

Posted in Absolute Piffle | 68 Comments

68 Responses

1. on November 18, 2009 at 9:16 pm Viatecio

   Ugh. Here comes another wave of abandoned cats because their owners didn’t have a safe, last-resort option to keeping their furniture in one piece.

   
   
   • on November 19, 2009 at 12:21 am Rinalia

     Do you have any evidence that there are WAVES of abandoned declawed cats BECAUSE of a declaw law?

     
     
     • on November 19, 2009 at 12:43 am retrieverman

       I have no “dog” in this fight.

       I own no cats.

       I posted this to see what people think.

       
       
       • on November 19, 2009 at 4:21 am Rinalia

         :) I am certainly not a cat person.

         My first hand experience with declaws wasn’t pretty. Less pretty were the cats who ended up at the shelter b/c they bit or wouldn’t use the litter box. I don’t know if where I volunteered is representative of most municipal shelters, but about a 1/3 of the “non-feral” cats were declawed.

         If there is evidence to the contrary, I’m certainly interested in seeing it. But from what is known about declaw legislation, there does not appear to be a statistical cause and effect relationship between a declaw ban and a dramatic influx in killed cats.

         
         
   • on November 19, 2009 at 12:59 am J.D.

     I work at an animal shelter, and it is common for an owner to abandon their DECLAWED cat for behavioral problems, like biting and litterbox aversion. Declawed cats are more sensitive on their feet because it is the amputation of the bone, and arthritis is common in declawed cats.

     I have 5 cats, and I bought appropriate scratching surfaces and showed them where they were. Never once have I had a problem with them scratching the furniture. And 3 of the 5 were adopted as adults.

     
     
     • on November 19, 2009 at 1:03 am retrieverman

       Arthritis is also common in dogs that have had their front dewclaws removed.

       
       
       • on November 19, 2009 at 1:24 am flattie-n-Labbie

         This is a much-debated topic. I am still forming an opinion.

         What are your sources for this statement? Just wondering if there’s something I haven’t seen.

         
         
         • on November 19, 2009 at 1:31 am retrieverman

           In dogs: http://jandemellobordercollie.com/DewClaws.htm

           It used to be that you cannot buy a dog in West Virginia that has dewclaws.

           As for cats, you’re talking to the wrong person.

           That said, I don’t support banning dewclaw removal or tail docking (it’s just that I think they should be done by a vet).

           
           
         • on November 19, 2009 at 1:37 am flattie-n-Labbie

           Yup, read it. Thanks.

           I happen to think it makes sense to leave them, and for some reason my Lab has them, which pleases me; the flattie doesn’t have them, but I don’t worry about it.

           I’m convinced my Lab uses them; my last Lab did as well.

           There’s a video somewhere of dogs on an agility course, and you can see the difference in how they use their legs with dewclaws as opposed to without. It’s very interesting.

           I don’t have a hard and fast opinion, though.

           
           
           • on November 19, 2009 at 1:39 am retrieverman

             Just make sure the flat-coat gets plenty of glucosamine and omega-3 fatty acids in the diet.

             I had a dog with arthritis that was on a diet very high in fish oil.

             
             
             • on November 19, 2009 at 2:17 am flattie-n-Labbie

               I’m not predicting any problems, but they both get some supplements usually anyway.

               
               
           • on November 19, 2009 at 1:41 am retrieverman

             I’m in favor of removing those on the hind legs. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/HindLegDualDewClaw.jpg

             They are very loosely attached and can get torn.

             
             
     • on November 19, 2009 at 1:04 am retrieverman

       Plus, there are these things: http://www.softclaws.com/

       
       
2. on November 18, 2009 at 11:18 pm Pai

   If you own a cat that was declawed before you got it, how do you avoid getting into trouble for something that’s not your fault, with this law?

   
   
   • on November 18, 2009 at 11:27 pm Pai

     I mean, unless you have paperwork or something, it’s just your word saying you got the cat already like that… seems like an unpleasant loophole.

     If you live near the city limits, can you just declaw your cat by a nearby vet in another city and get out of punishment that way (by having proof it wasn’t done in LA?).

     I really don’t see how this law is enforceable. It smells like some AR attempt to set up a ‘precedent’ for something more extreme later (an anti-cropping, dewclaw removal and docking law, perhaps?)

     
     
3. on November 19, 2009 at 3:01 am Peggy Richter

   I live in CA near LA, and for me, the concern isn’t so much about declawing cats, it’s that the cities are trying to avoid abiding by the State law (which takes effect 1Jan 2010) that bans cities from passing laws affecting veterinary practice. It makes it hard if you have declawed an animal for legitimate purposes – you may be subject to accusations. It is also virtually unenforcable (based on the 5th Amendment, there’s no way the folk in LA can “prove” that Joe Blow didn’t have his cat declawed in Downey or some other “outside Los Angeles but within 10 miles” city where it was perfectly legal.

   Some dogs do use dewclaws. Wolves do in climbing and racing dogs do (greyhounds have been photographed using front dews). On the other hand, dewclaws that aren’t properly trimmed can easily grow INTO the dog’s leg. Not every dog owner is skilled at trimming toenails (or dewclaws) and some dogs put up quite a fuss on having their toenails trimmed. With all due respect to Chris Zink (the vet whose article is on Jan DeMello’s site), the AVMA doesn’t have any policy on removal of dewclaws in dogs and I’ve never seen any serious statistical study of health issues regarding dogs that did (or didn’t) have dewclaws removed. In my own breed, some do and some don’t remove the front leg dewclaws.

   AVMA does have a cat de clawing policy: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/declawing.asp

   and a crop/dock policy:

   http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/tail_docking.asp

   My personal view is that bans should be based on solid scientific evidence rather than on “I don’t like it and I think it hurts, so I’ll keep you from doing it” policies.

   In herding dogs, a number of breeds are docked and a number aren’t. The livestock don’t seem to care. I have a breed (Belgian sheepdogs) that isn’t docked, and I like it that way. BUT I’ve also seen people spending hours getting foxtails and other stuff out of a dog’s tail. I’ve always rather thought that probably many of the spaniels are docked for the same reason.

   VR, Peggy Richter

   
   
   • on November 19, 2009 at 3:09 am retrieverman

     Golden retrievers have tiny dewclaws that they do wear down by running. They often make contact with the ground, and it’s very hard to tear them. I’ve never had one tear a dewclaw, even though they have all had them and have been run on some really densely covered hillsides.

     We don’t have foxtail issues here.

     Really, the main reason why most spaniels and HPR’s are docked is they have rather thin tails that can easily be damaged.

     
     
   • on November 19, 2009 at 11:05 am Viatecio

     Peggy, that first paragraph in the AMVA declawing document sums up my feelings about the issue perfectly.

     With that said, we also have to remember that vets are medical providers first, nutritionists (often with company-sponsored educations) and trainers second. The vet doesn’t live with the cat, and must make quick decisions when the owner answers to the positive that they have tried other methods to make the cat stop clawing up the house–which is, by cat standards, a very natural behavior. (So is jumping up, digging, etc in dogs…behaviors that we seek to change for our convenience.) If a client has indeed tried everything and become frustrated that it hasn’t worked, then the vet is digging a hole by suggesting he wait because there is ONE MORE thing to try or anything up that tree. There is a point where the client has had it, and that’s usually the point where they seek the surgery. Are there people who just do it right off the bat? Sure. Maybe it’s those people who need the education and intervention about alternatives first. But don’t go alienating those who have followed the prescribed grocery-store list of other recommendations first.

     By the way, maybe I am not around the right cats. I have NEVER encountered a declawed cat who had biting problems. The one I met who was declawed on all four (which I have a serious problem with, but she came to her current owner that way) was the biggest ball of sugar I’ve ever met.

     I feel that this is being banned for the same underlying reason such things as pinch collars or e-collars are being banned in some countries: it doesn’t look good, therefore for the good of everyone else (never mind those who use it responsibly, properly and fairly) we’ll make sure no one can use it. Same with guns: I’ve been a shooter my whole life, but the nutjobs who insist on using them to try and make their lives better by using them to hurt innocent people are frankly ruining my right to even own one, much less use it in the manner in which I was taught. It’s all a bunch of bad apples ruining things for the rest, and since sensationalism and negative press make the best news, that’s what the lawmakers are going to go after.

     
     
     • on November 19, 2009 at 3:19 pm retrieverman

       I remember watching Emergency Vets a few years ago, and Dr. Fitzgerald gave his rationale for declawing a cat. He said he wouldn’t like to have his nails and part of his fingers removed, but if he had to have the choice between that and being abandoned or killed, he’d gladly take it.

       Only people who know what they are doing should use e-collars, although I think they have a good purpose in this world. Namely, you can use them to teach your dog in no uncertain terms to leave certain animals alone. It’s a good way to stop cattle and deer chasing and to make a dog “snake proof.”

       I don’t know if you’ve read Merle’s Door, but after Merle is punished for chasing cattle (using a choke chain) and begging food (using an e-collar), he is given far more freedom. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Merles-Door/Ted-Kerasote/e/9780151012701

       That said, I think in this country, we use e-collars too much to train retrievers and this has caused an inadvertent selective pressure when we choose breeding stock for performance line retrievers.

       4. A major factor in the increasing numbers of difficult-to-train dogs is the rise of popularity of the electric collar. The electric collar is becoming far too predominant as a training tool. It can create as many problems as it solves.

       “The electric (electronic) collar is a great training tool in the hands of a good trainer. However, there are astronomically more electric collars than there are good trainers. The basic fallacy of the electric collar is this: In order to train a dog with the electric collar, you must be able to train him without it. The collar does not magically impart to the guy holding the transmitter the knowledge and skills of dog training. Unfortunately, most folks buy an electric collar to solve a problem that they have been unable to solve with conventional training methods. They generally end up abusing the dog and not solving the problem, or trading one problem for a bigger one. Nearly all problems can be solved by the proper training in basic obedience, and you don’t need an electric collar to do that. ”

       http://www.fetchpup.com/training/fundamentals.php

       Marley, the dog in that book, was the result of having an inept owner who didn’t understand what a performance line Labrador actually was. However, Marley was also the result of breeding for super tough and super “up” Labradors that can withstand very strong e-collar corrections.

       Not all Field line Labradors in this country are like that. Indeed, most of the really wild ones will never make a trial dog, but the really wild ones are a byproduct of breeding for this type of dog. The really wild ones will not make a good working dog, and they certainly don’t make good pets.

       It’s very interesting, though, because the golden has gone the exact opposite direction.

       
       
4. on November 20, 2009 at 7:48 pm Lane Batot

   I do not like seeing cats declawed, and I would never put my furniture’s worth over my cat’s. You get a cat, that is just something you need to deal with and accept, or you don’t get a cat. On the other hand, I still wouldn’t freakin’ OUTLAW the possibility! As for shock collars, I personally HATE them–I think they should ONLY be used in extreme cases of bad behaviour that is going to get a dog KILLED if something isn’t done, and regular training isn’t working. Like chasing cars or worrying livestock–I think using a shock collar for something like that is appropriate. To teach basic obedience?(and I’ve seen people shocking their dogs for not “Sitting” when they told them too!)–absolutely unethical and lazy and ridiculous! I do know some people that absolutely LOVE to use shock collars that are not lazy, they just love fiddling with GADGETS, and they have no real interest in dogs until they can manipulate them like robots. I despise this category the most–they need to go get a REAL mechanical robot, and leave the living, breathing critters alone! I’ve always wanted to get ahold of one of these guys, weld a heavy duty shock collar to THEIR neck, and have some fun! See just how “obedient” another human can be!

   
   
   • on November 20, 2009 at 10:22 pm retrieverman

     E-collars can be used properly.

     They are basically axiomatic in retriever and gun dog training circles.

     To really have the level of control needed for tests and trials, you need something that gives you that power in training.

     That said, there are people who are trying to do it without the collar. It’s just very hard to compete or test at advanced levels.

     I don’t know if you’re aware of the way most retrievers are trained to retrieve to hand.

     But here it is:

     and

     and

     That said, I’ve never used it.

     But it is assumed in retriever work in this country that these are the methods used to break them.

     
     
   • on November 20, 2009 at 10:25 pm retrieverman

     All of that said, you can make a decent working retriever without ever using the collar or the toe or ear pinch.

     It’s just he’s not going to clobber the other dogs in the trials.

     
     
     • on November 21, 2009 at 3:10 am Viatecio

       It was not my intention to get off topic onto something so controversial as training collars. I was merely using them as an analogy as to why some perfectly fine things in the hands of someone who is knowledgeable is so off-putting to the right people that it’s banned for everyone. Similar to how law-abiding gun owners are screwed when some overly emotional mother campaigns to eradicate the existence of anything able to fire a projectile, all because of some nutjob who decided to make his life better by taking away that of someone else.

       Declawing is the same way. It’s those who ‘shoot first’ rather than try to figure things out before adopting a particular plan who are ruining it for the rest of the cat owners who still have happy, healthy pets who do everything as they are meant to do as cats…except use their claws. These animals are not depressed, sulking critters because they have no front claws (taking away all 4 is something with which I have an issue!), similar to how dogs with docked tails or cropped ears–or heaven forbid, an amputated leg–are not whining and crawling about in misery over something that was taken from them. Keeping in mind that this does not give us carte blanche to nip and tuck them all to our will, whatever that may be, it allows us to use these modifications as necessary, as needed, and sparingly if possible. After all, I might consider supporting a declaw/crop/dock ban when tattooing/piercing and other extreme and otherwise horrific human body modifications are no longer allowed.

       However, the training collar analogy ends with that because declawing is indeed a last resort. Anyone who states that training collars are a “last resort” are putting themselves into an uncomfortable position by having to answer to why, if these collars are so “inhumane and cruel,” are you actually recommending their use rather than just condemn the dog to a quiet, humane death for being “untrainable”? If anything is indeed cruel and inhumane, no one would recommend it. We do not drown dogs in a water-filled hole in the backyard; it is unthinkable as a correction. Do we know any who still recommend tying/taping an offending non-dog chewy in the mouth? I hope not. But do we still find trainers willing to give fair, appropriate corrections if needed, without any undue strain on the dog/handler relationship? Of course, because it is only inhumane if it is overdone and the improper technique put to use, which, with good trainers, is not the case.

       
       
       • on November 21, 2009 at 3:13 am retrieverman

         I understand what you’re saying, but the e-collar is in my top ten things to talk about!

         
         
         • on November 21, 2009 at 4:23 am Viatecio

           Mine too. It’s not the number one thing, but it’s definitely at least within the top five! I guess maybe it was a bad can of worms to open regarding this particular topic :P

           
           
           • on November 21, 2009 at 12:53 pm retrieverman

             Check out the link in Patt S’s comment that I just saved from comment purgatory.

             It’s very interesting.

             
             
5. on November 20, 2009 at 8:06 pm flattie-n-Labbie

   I am the first person to say that there are many ways to train a dog, and there are many ways to abuse a dog if you are a poor trainer–the latter is inexcusable, whether it’s through malice or ignorance or neglect. An e-collar can certainly be used with malice, ignorance, or neglect.

   That said, Lane Batot, your post demonstrates a PROFOUND ignorance of the use of the electric collar as a training tool, particularly when it comes to retriever training, where drive and attitude must be preserved.

   In fact, THE MOST punishing use of the e-collar is to teach a dog to not chase game.

   Using the e-collar as an obedience tool can be far less punishing than a simple choke chain, flat-buckle collar, or even a halti.

   You may rant at me all you want–but you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

   For what it’s worth, I use my e-collar on my hands all the time to make sure it’s functioning properly. (My obedience is somewhat questionable, though, as poor Retrieverman can attest.)

   
   
6. on November 20, 2009 at 10:26 pm Patti S.

   F&L said “Using the e-collar as an obedience tool can be far less punishing than a simple choke chain, flat-buckle collar, or even a halti.”

   Here’s interesting piece on punishment and reinforcement from Karen Pryor’s clicker training site –

   http://www.clickertraining.com/node/2405

   
   
   • on November 21, 2009 at 1:26 pm flattie-n-Labbie

     After I typed it, I had a feeling the word “punishing” might draw some comment. Honestly, I meant the word in a couple of its meanings, and could probably have been more clear with a different word or two.

     Nice link, Patti.

     
     
   • on November 21, 2009 at 3:59 pm Viatecio

     I like what I read there, Patti…thanks for sharing it! My government teacher back in high school constantly used what some might consider punishment: he liked to yell, but the way he did it, it wasn’t directed at anyone. It was meant to motivate us, and I don’t believe I’ve had such a fascinating class as that one. Everyone, from the “back of the bus” to the “Jockstrap party” (his labels, not mine…and strangely not one person was offended who spoke up!) participated and all points of view were heard. I doubt that would have occurred had it just been a usual lecture class.

     One nitpick though: her analogy about Schutzhund was a bit off though…the stick hits themselves are not reinforcers. The dog has been trained from puppyhood that the bite is the best thing in the world, and in the protection phase, that is the ultimate reward. So the dog works through the stick hits, the yelling and aggressive gesturing from the helper, he pulls into the harness or agitation collar, all for that one chance to latch on. And it’s not like the trainers start them out at that level…they work them up to it, such as passing the stick over the head rather than hitting them with it. That’s just the protection phase too, the one that everyone likes. Tracking, which is about as exciting as watching paint try, is taught with placing food in the track where the scent is (associating the reward with the thing to search for), and obedience can be taught from puppyhood with food and later, a ball.

     
     
7. on November 21, 2009 at 3:23 am ardenwoodpatti

   I posted this comment earlier, but it seems to have been lost. Perceptions of e-collars are often that it is used as a punishment to compel a dog to comply with the handler’s wishes. But here’s a link that makes one re-examine their definitions of punishment and reinforcement. BTW – this appears on Karen Pryor’s clicker training website.

   http://www.clickertraining.com/node/2405

   
   
8. on November 21, 2009 at 2:01 pm Lane Batot

   I will admit I do not know all the uses an “E-collar” are used for–I’m not even sure what an “E-collar” is, so in THAT respect, yes, I AM quite ignorant. Is an E-collar a type of shock collar? Can it be turned up to a level that can cause pain? If so, then it can be abused, and I’m sure there are people who abuse it. What I was talking about are shock collars(I don’t know the brand name or what they called them other than shock collars!) that I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE USE WITH MY OWN EYES, that cause the wretched dog to scream and writhe with agony because the dog did not comply with some selfish wish of the owner(chasing inappropriate game, not coming when called, and yes, not SITTING when asked to!) This is NOT not knowing what I’m talking about, this is crap I have seen with my own eyes! To me, SHOCKING a dog(physical punishment) is something that should only be done to prevent a dog from doing something that will get the dog killed eventually if it doesn’t stop(like chasing cars), and if I was the dog I WOULD rather get a shock and correction for something like that than be euthanized! But I think using a collar like that for “correction” instead of simple praise and patience is exhibiting a love of gadgetry over a love for one’s dog. To be coerced into doing something because if you don’t you will be given pain or discomfort or something that makes you nervous is NOT a very positive way to train anything! I much rather my dogs comply because #1 I have taken the time and patience to show them what I’m asking and let them know they will be REWARDED for it, not punished if they don’t comply, #2 Do my best to make such activity fun, and something the dog enjoys doing anyway, and even allow the dog to invent its own ways and variations if possible. I much prefer dogs doing things because they really want to for the interactions sake with me, not because they fear pain or correction if they don’t comply. I think people who are in competitive contests with their dogs, who put winning a dang contest and impressing other humans over their friendship with their dog, as being somewhat skewed in their thinking–just my opinion. The whole POINT of this amazing relationship with another species is NOT, I don’t believe, forcing it to comply with your every whim, but to work and share things together as partners, and to try to learn as much from the dog as he/she does from you. Dogs are one of our only connections with the real, natural world anymore, and putting some artificial gadget on them and making them perform like a robot, in my primitive mind-set, is an abomination! So that’s why I would never do it, unless it was a matter of life-or-death, nothing else was working(including a good whoopin!), and a shock collar was a last resort. This is not IGNORANCE, but a choice, after seeing such collars in action myself, on hunting dogs, pets, and on a wretched Bloodhound use in an episode of a T. V. series I worked on some years ago(in which case the collar went haywire TWICE that I saw–perhaps it did more, I don’t know–and gave the dog continous, painful shocks which had it rolling and screaming on the ground until the collar could be ripped off by stunt guys!)–yeah, I reckon I’ve got plenty of reason to feel the way I do about such collars……

   
   
   • on November 21, 2009 at 2:42 pm retrieverman

     I think people have to be careful with them, and novices and sadists shouldn’t use them.

     If used correctly, they can be a good tool.

     I’m not expert on them. I’ve never even owned one.

     But if you’ve seen good retriever trainers use them, you can tell the dogs aren’t in excruciating pain.

     
     
   • on November 21, 2009 at 3:45 pm Viatecio

     Soooo…a dog following a cookie lure within a person’s hand in hopes that it will be allowed to eat it is NOT robotic? The golden in my dog’s class who performs her exercises with gusto and happiness wears a choke collar and follows a lure…but she does everything she’s asked to do. I’m confused!

     To the untrained eye, ANY obedience exercise is robotic. To have a dog execute an action after being told to is robotic; after all, isn’t that what computers do? I click the mouse…I expect something to happen. I tell my dog to “Come”…I expect her to come and sit in front of me. Because I live at home, my mother asks for help making meals…she expects me to pitch in and earn my living space, and I do.

     I think what you are referring to is the lack of spirit with which a poorly trained dog will execute a command. Sadly, it seems FnL is right in that you have only been around “poor human behavior and bad dog training.” I suggest you critically examine the company you choose to keep. No human trainer is the judge of another who bases his opinions on SOLELY the tools used; the dog should be the catalyst in that judgement: is it happy, responsive, reliable and willing to work in a good relationship with it’s human? If so, then you have NO place condemning the human for what tools were used in the process of getting the dog to that point. I don’t judge people on whether they drive a rusty bucket on bald tires or a luxury sedan, public transportation or a flashy hot rod with chrome on the side…it is usually their choice on how they want to get somewhere. The only stipulation is that they get there safely, other idiot drivers notwithstanding. It is the same with dog training: whether I use an e-collar, a pinch collar or a ‘Gentle’ leader is of no consequence. However, if my dog is resistant, overly submissive/cowed, or simply ignorant to my requests, to keep bulling forward and using the same tool and technique because “it is more humane” or “it’s what my friend Bubba recommended” or whatever is not going to get the job done. Closed-mindedness does not train dogs. Flexibility, knowledge, a realistic mindset, and a reasonable goal does.

     
     
9. on November 21, 2009 at 2:12 pm flattie-n-Labbie

   The fact that you have only seen abusive idiots using “shock” (electric, electronic) collars makes you more ignorant, not less.

   Your willingness to condone “a good whoopin'” (an abusive and fruitless expression of impatience on a trainer’s part) further underlines your lack of understanding of dog training and its tools.

   I don’t think everyone can or should or needs to use an e-collar. But those who think they know all about them, really ought to take the effort to know at least SOMETHING about them.

   What you seem to know about is poor human behavior and bad dog training, with the e-collar as an incidental.

   
   
10. on November 21, 2009 at 4:29 pm Lane Batot

    Flattie-n-Labbie–it seems you are as ignorant about abuse of “Electronic”(SHOCK) collars as I am the positive aspects–so how is one any better than another? I never have said I’m in favor of OUTLAWING them–I don’t much like “outlawing” things without taking everyone into account–but the abuse I’ve seen must be purty representitive, or else(as many aspects of dogdom as I’ve been around, which is considerable) I should have seen more of the positive uses you have experienced, which I am also in no way saying do not exist. What I am relating is MY experience being around people using these collars, which is what has given me my own strong opinion about their use, and sorry, but it is every bit as legitimate as yours! And I knew throwing in something about “whoopin'” would get things stirred up, but I couldn’t resist! :D However, I’ll not backpeddle on that issue either! Fruitless? Sometimes a good whoopin’ is the ONLY thing that will get through in some volatile circumstances, and if you really care about your dogs(or kids, for that matter)more than you do about what other people think, or what is “politically correct”, you will be willing to apply it in the rare instances where it is necessary. Dogs(and wolves) certainly apply it to each other! About the only time I ever do(and it is rare, thank goodness, as I surely do not enjoy doing it), is during a serious fight in a pack of dogs. You HAVE to act fast and descisively, and very, very firmly or you will have dead dogs! There is no time to apply “E-collars” or get out your clicker, or begin a positive reinforcement program! You have mere SECONDS! I personally have no qualms about wading in a canine melee/pile-on and tossing dogs right and left and cuffing the snot out of them if necessary to save a life. When I am done, the most the dogs might be is bruised and their feelings hurt(I NEVER punish a dog for defending itself, either–but the instigator better watch out!), but if left to their own devices, they’ll be ripped up badly and/or dead! My “fruitless” efforts over the years have saved many a dog’s life(my own dogs as well as neighbors’ dogs who decided to mix it up with my pack!). Because the dogs have learned I’ll do whatever it takes to stop a fight, I can usually stop it before it starts simply by yelling at them–this ONLY works because they KNOW what will happen if they persist, so it is hardly “Fruitless”! I DO think physical discipline is the ONLY thing that works in such circumstances, and your reaction to my mentioning it just showed you are not considering all circumstances with the “whoopin” phenomenon(perhaps because of a lack of experience in working large packs of dogs?)–at least I concurred shock collars have their uses, even if I don’t like them myself! I would never beat a dog to get it to comply with some simple request or command, but people that DO(which I have sadly also observed way too many times) certainly CAN get their dogs to obey them quite well, through fear and coercion, which I despise every bit as much as getting dogs to obey by shocking them–to me it is the same kind of abuse(when it is abused)–it is using pain, and the fear of pain to get what you want out of the dog. To bust up a fight or stop the most stubbornly persistant dogs from chasing cars or harassing livestock, I think shock collars or a good whoopin’ are sometimes necessary. To train for basic obedience? To compete in trials? To film a T.V. episode? To punish a dog for not performing in a sporting activity the way master wants? Sorry, I won’t ever much like that usage of shock collars….

    
    
    • on November 21, 2009 at 4:37 pm retrieverman

      Yes, people can abuse them.

      But it’s next to impossible to get a retriever to the top level of competition or hunt test levels in the North American system without using an e-collar.

      Retrievers aren’t run in packs, and they have to take very, very specific direction in order to do their work.

      I know lots of coonhunters who use these collars to break their dogs of running deer. They also use it to break coonhounds of running raccoons in holes, which is something that a hound will do. It’s far easier to run a raccoon into a hole than to tree it.

      There used to be a video on youtube.of a big English redtick digging a raccoon out of a hole.

      
      
    • on November 21, 2009 at 4:43 pm retrieverman

      Lane, check this out:

      http://www.iws.org/island_fox_studies_San_Clemente_Island.htm

      Island foxes are endangered, and so are loggerhead shrikes.

      But the foxes, which are very close relatives of the tree climbing gray foxes, eat the shrike nests.

      The e-collars actually are being used for an important conservation purpose here.

      
      
11. on November 21, 2009 at 4:55 pm Lane Batot

    …And Viaticeo–maybe I AM just ignorant; please plainly tell me, is an “E-collar” a shock collar? Do they use shocks to get responses? How in the world could this “tool” be better than training a dog with a kind voice(which it has learned by patient practice to understand) and food reward that the dog itself wants? Would you like your boss to use an “electronic” collar on you to get you to work better, or does a kindly worded request or command(with the ultimate reward of a paycheck) make for a better relationship? Which shows more RESPECT? To me, it is a no-brainer. Sure, those collars work, sure, dogs get used to them, but I can’t imagine any dog PREFERRING that kind of training. Dogs responding to food rewards to me is quite natural behaviour that most dogs eagerly participate in. They are allowed some CHOICE in the matter. That is an enormous difference! I much prefer a dog to CHOOSE to cooperate(even if it involves blatant bribes!) rather than be coerced(or “reminded”) by a gadget around their neck!

    
    
    • on November 21, 2009 at 5:10 pm retrieverman

      An e-collar can be a shock collar or a pager collar.

      http://www.ehow.com/how_13675_pager-collar.html

      
      
    • on November 21, 2009 at 5:37 pm Viatecio

      My boss (and bosses of the past) have indeed used kind words and given me some slack when I am learning a new job. However, I have been reprimanded for things I have done wrong. Should I have taken them personally and held a grudge against my boss for doing that, or should I have used it as a lesson on what I did wrong and how I could have done the right thing?

      When I started driving, I was quickly told what I was doing right, as well as what I was doing wrong. No, I shouldn’t have turned down that one-way street going the wrong way, but here’s how to fix it without getting hurt, and here’s a no-brainer way to make sure it won’t happen again. Good job, I used my turn signal to let the other idiots know that I was moving over because my lane was ending BUT OMG don’t rear-end that car in front of you while you’re at it! And heaven forbid I have a lead foot on the gas or run a red light, otherwise I’ll get the ultimate correction by way of flashing lights and a ticket. Should that happen, do I take it personally and hold a grudge against all lawmen, or do I use it as a learning experience as what NOT to do when driving?

      I think a dog prefers to know when it is right as well as when it is wrong. Do dogs not teach this amongst themselves? “This toy belongs to ME, and you are wrong to try and take MY toy away from ME…but if you leave MY toy alone and play with that one over there, we can both get along.” “I am more dominant than you, so I can pick on you…but I know better than to try and hump that guy over there because he’ll put me in my place.” Is it just possible that dogs might be using such ‘violence’ against each other to teach lessons that only need one or two applications for the other to learn? It is our responsibility to teach dogs how to live in our society. We cannot and do not speak “Dog”, so to bridge our commands to the desired actions, we use tools: food, voice, collar and/or leash. No matter the tool we choose to use, as long as it is applied correctly and fairly (something of which you seem to have no concept), if the dog responds positively to it, then it has an opportunity to learn both what is allowed as well as what isn’t.

      By the way, it’s interesting that you take issue to e-collars, yet have no qualms against “cuffing” dogs, yet you espouse the virtues of gentleness. That is called “hitting” in most camps, and it’s something that no true trainer, whether positive-only or balanced, recommends. You would be wise to replace using your hands as punishment to using something more neutral, such as a collar or even your voice. More than one trainer has told me that such use of something that should give positive associations (petting, treats, etc) is the mark of someone whose emotions are out of control. I find your hypocrisy in the use and application of appropriate discipline fascinating and,in the end, only wish you the best with your dogs.

      I will not post again on this topic. Arguing out of emotion and flawed logic is obviously your forte, and unfortunately, such realism as what is handed to you via this blog’s author and other commenters, can do little to penetrate that barrier.

      
      
12. on November 21, 2009 at 5:15 pm Lane Batot

    Retrieverman–very interesting article on the use of shock collars as a negative force to keep the foxes from eating the birds–I would consider this an acceptable use certainly. To get a trial winning retriever? How did people used to get trial winning retrievers before the invention of shock collars? I equate using such a device to win a trial in the same category as human atheletes using physically enhancing drugs–it totally negates the very concept of “sporting”! To me, it would be more important to not put winning a trial over being what I consider disrespectful to my dog. As for coon hunters using them–yes, I’ve seen that usage probably more than any other(including some of my own relatives-sigh), and I don’t think too much of it. The only thing I can say in its favor, is it saves the lives of some hounds who’s impatient owners would shoot them if the hounds do not comply quickly enough for their liking–but I think people like that–hunting just for sport instead of their survival, ESPECIALLY have no excuse for that sort of impatience, and in my opinion, shouldn’t have a dog at all. People used to have great coonhounds long, long before these shock collars came along, and mainly it was by showing more patience and spending more time training and working their dogs–unlike the lightswitch philosophy of modern times where people want something, and they want it RIGHT NOW! What may be being lost, too, is peoples’ ability to know how to train WITHOUT all these gadgets–I think that’s purty sad–they might as well invent mechanical robot dogs!

    
    
13. on November 21, 2009 at 5:24 pm flattie-n-Labbie

    I will try to give an educational response rather than an emotional one.

    A dog in a field or a boat with other dogs (some unfriendly, all excited) with intended prey (birds) and incidental prey (deer, coyotes) and guns handled by all types of characters, oftentimes near a roadway, and other possible hazards (traps, ditches, barbed wire hidden in fencerows, dangerous current) is in imminent danger if it does not obey a basic obedience command. I don’t care how obedience is taught, so long as it is humane and effective. If the dog honoring my dog’s bird is rock steady through clicker training, leashwork, an e-collar–I don’t give a hoot, so long as the dog doesn’t break.

    As pertains to working retrievers, your argument that an electric collar used to break a dog of a habit that is essentially disobedience (chasing unwanted prey, chasing cars) is okay, but not as a tool for “robotic” reinforcement of obedience commands, is dangerous and not logical, IMO. The dog is always in danger if it isn’t obedient. Obedience is obedience–the dog sits, or not; comes, or not; goes left, or right, or not–I don’t understand your term “robotic” in this case. Further, breaking a dog of chasing something with an e-collar requires a HIGH setting (ZAP/YIKES!!!!) and done incorrectly results in bolting; using the e-collar as a remote training aid/hands-free leash correction is done at the lowest effective setting (bzzt).

    Breaking up a dog fight is not, in my mind, a “whoopin.” That’s separating dogs and administering a correction that meets the level of the behavior. Anything beyond the initial correction IS a whoopin’, and THAT is the handler’s anger–and shame on him.

    To refresh your memory on why I called your point of view ignorant, here are your words:

    “To teach basic obedience?(and I’ve seen people shocking their dogs for not “Sitting” when they told them too!)–absolutely unethical and lazy and ridiculous! I do know some people that absolutely LOVE to use shock collars that are not lazy, they just love fiddling with GADGETS, and they have no real interest in dogs until they can manipulate them like robots. I despise this category the most–they need to go get a REAL mechanical robot, and leave the living, breathing critters alone! I’ve always wanted to get ahold of one of these guys, weld a heavy duty shock collar to THEIR neck, and have some fun! See just how “obedient” another human can be!”

    That I am unethical, lazy, and ridiculous; that I have no real interest in my dogs; that I manipulate them rather than work with them as a team; that I should leave them alone; and that someone would like to weld a shock collar to my neck to abuse me, are ideas that I find personally offensive and intimidating coming from someone who does not seem to understand the tool or retriever training.

    Unless you have a question about how e-collars ARE used properly, I’ve said all I can say. I’m sorry you seem to have the misfortune to have seen people use them incorrectly and with poor judgment.

    
    
14. on November 21, 2009 at 6:16 pm Lane Batot

    Flattie-N-Labbie–throughout this discussion, I have only spoken about the abusive people using shock collars that I PERSONALLY have seen. I have never said YOU were one of these abusive people! You yourself agree that what I have seen has been mostly abusive, and you do not condone using these shock collars in this way–so how am I more wrong or ignorant here? Wouldn’t YOU like to see someone who abuses these collars have one stuck on their neck, and show them what it feels like? Perhaps you are not as brutal as I am in this respect, but I have no intention of trying to wrassle YOU to the ground and putting a ZAP collar on you! :D I apparently DO need to be exposed to more humane uses of these collars(my computer would not bring up the videos retrieverman posted, alas), which will certainly broaden my view on the subject, but I doubt it will ever convince me that such coercion(I don’t care what “setting” the collar is on, that is still negative coercion) is better than simple, respectful training. When are these collars necessary? I might be convinced they are in more situations than I now know about, but only if nothing else can could work. It seems to me that the main purpose of these collars(other than complete control) is to make things easier and faster for the humans, and sorry, I feel this is disrespectful to the dogs and their abilities. As for my use of “robotic”, I did not mean the dogs moving around mechanically, but in the sense that by pushing buttons, a person gets a dog to perform like a remote controlled robot–it becomes all about this gadget operating rather than between two species communicating in a more natural fashion–by voice, by touch, by expression. Perhaps I am just too Old School. How much more rewarding(I think) when your dog responds because it WANTS too, and actually understands what you expect of it because it understands YOU, and is not responding to some vibration(or shock) on some artificial piece of equipment. That kind of stuff is for machines(in my opinion), not dogs. Now, if you can train dogs to respond to a walkie-talkie attached to their collar with voice commands(instead of shocks, or the threat of shocks) I would consider THAT an improvement in the dog-training gadget world :)….

    
    
15. on November 21, 2009 at 7:02 pm Viatecio

    All right, this is the last response, I promise. You just seriously walked into this one.

    First you said “I have never said YOU were one of these abusive people!” and then shortly after, followed with “Perhaps you are not as brutal as I am in this respect, but I have no intention of trying to wrassle YOU to the ground and putting a ZAP collar on you!”

    Um, you just conceded FnL’s point and then got right back on your soapbox to herald your own agenda and condemn anyone/everyone who dares use one of these evil things…including FnL. (Not only that, but you also assume that we WWF our dogs to put it on!) Smooooth move, unfortunately doesn’t win you any respect in my book.

    So then you ask “how am I more wrong or ignorant here?”

    You are using the painting with the little-kid “If I don’t get my way, no one else can have theirs” brush that makes as big a mess as possible with as little effort. You are not only damning people who deserve it by using e-collars inappropriately, but you are also critical of those who use them with no detriment–actually, to the benefit!–to the relationship between them and their dogs.

    As for your idea of attaching a walkie-talkie to the dog’s collar, I laughed. Dogs do not speak English. Dogs do not speak German, or Russian or Czech or whatever language in which we phrase our commands. And over the air, you’re going to have all sorts of interferences, beeps, garbles and squeaks. Would I want to subject my dog to the aural torture that can oftentimes occur with even the best walkie-talkie system? No thanks! Give me a reliable e-collar that gives the same stim at the same level whenever I need it!

    You are pushing me to go ad hominem, and I’m trying to resist it; but your inability to at least extrapolate (since you have seen nothing but BAD training) on how e-collars can be beneficial is your crutch in this debate. I don’t doubt that all of us here use praise and rewards in our training, so there is no need to wax eloquent on those virtues. However, those of us who do use corrections in any form are not going to be otherwise persuaded with emotive talk. Talk is cheap…show the results of how ‘whoopin’ and ‘cuffing’ make your dogs any better than the thousands (millions?) of others who are subjected to that oh-so-nasty ‘threat’ of a mild, fair and appropriate correction. And don’t show me that “klikkertraening” video of Tucker…as a case study, it is one of the worst-done videos that shows nothing of the problem or solution.

    OK, no more out of me. I’m done here.

    
    
    • on November 21, 2009 at 7:06 pm Viatecio

      I’m a bit behind on the times…we don’t World Wildlife Fund our dogs to put on e-collars. That should be WWE: good ol’ staged beatdowns of overly-testosteroned manly-men while screaming throngs urge them on. My bad.

      
      
16. on November 21, 2009 at 7:23 pm Lane Batot

    Argueing out of emotion and flawed logic?! Viatecio, I thought that was what YOU were doing! With your boss reprimanding you, and in your driving training, were you shocked into the correct responses, or yelled at hatefully? Would you prefer that kind of reprimand, or a firm but kindly and respectable one? Is that “emotional” to expect and desire that kind of response from your boss/parents/master? I reckon we’re all emotional beings then! That’s my whole point, of course(By the way, that teacher you had DID sound interesting, but as humans, everyone was able to understand what he was doing and not take it personally–I doubt many animals would respond well to that kind of communication)…..Yes, as I said as well(we are pecking these responses out faster than we’re getting around to reading them, I’m afraid) dogs and wolves CAN be quite brutal in disciplining each other–but they never enjoy it! Isn’t it better to find another, less harsh way to discipline?(and I admit I have not seen any of the positive examples you proponents of these collars are talking about–but you should at least be able to reasonably understand WHY I have this negative opinion from what I have witnessed, and quit telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about! I know these collars can be very abusive!) I do not condone using as harsh a discipline on dogs as they can with each other, and whaddya know, they really seem to appreciate that, but just call me Mr. Anthropomorphizer. As for your response to my cuffing/hitting comment–did you not read (carefully) the circumstances I have had to use that in? What would YOU do, let the dogs kill each other? I have to assume you have never worked packs of potentially antagonistic dogs with each other, or had more than one or two in a household at one time, or had your dogs, or your neighbor’ dogs REALLY lock on to each other, because If you had, you’d realize how silly it is for you to talk about breaking up such a serious fight with your voice or a collar! Good luck finding all the right sequences on a dozen dogs to “correct” them before someone gets disembowled! Positive associations and treats the mark of someone whose emotions are out of control? Boy, those are trainers that I want to keep my dogs away from! When people are respectful, affectionate, or nice to you Viatecio(or give you a present! or FEED YOU!!!), do you view them as people whose emotions are out of control? Funny how these tactics(being kind and rewarding if at all possible, and using physical force only in potentially dangerous emergencies) has worked so well for me and many, many types of dogs(including psychologically screwed up rescues that everyone else had given up on–probably because their shock collars weren’t getting the right responses) for so many decades, and I have had so many healthy happy obedient(their choice) fulfilled canines. Must be an amazing series of coincidences(since it can’t be proven in a laboratory). How could I ever have done this without those E-collars and other gadgets? Have I somehow neglected my dogs by not coercing them to get them to do something for my ego and desire for control, instead of for their own pleasure and fulfillment? Naaaaaah. All I can say to that is I’m sure whose dog I would rather be……

    
    
17. on November 21, 2009 at 7:40 pm Lane Batot

    I was joking about the walkie-talkie–simply making a point that a voice command(you don’t think dogs can learn voice commands in any language there is? Man, you’ve REALLY gotten dependent on them gadgets, haven’t you?) delivered in a friendly but remote manner would be better than a shock, or a threat of a shock–but yes, all the feedback and squelching WOULD be aural torture! And I have conceded again and again Vieticio, that I HAVEN’T seen much in the way of positive use of these collars–boy do I ever KNOW that now!(perhaps I will someday–please don’t try to send me videos–this computer will not allow me to play them–not even U-tube, and this is the only computer I have access to, and yes, I KNOW I’m terribly backward technologically, which is perhaps why I am so disdainful and dislike gadgets so much!) WWE? I wonder if you could get better responses out of those guys with E-collars. On second thought, I wouldn’t want to be the one to try, unless it had a “totally incapacitating” setting on it; but then it would probably malfunction, as all them gadgets do eventually…What WAS the original post about? Declawing something? WHO WAS IT that brought up them derned shock collars in the first place?!:)

    
    
18. on November 21, 2009 at 11:43 pm flattie-n-Labbie

    “As for my use of “robotic”, I did not mean the dogs moving around mechanically, but in the sense that by pushing buttons, a person gets a dog to perform like a remote controlled robot–it becomes all about this gadget operating rather than between two species communicating in a more natural fashion–by voice, by touch, by expression.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Heh heh heh. ha.

    That’s a good one.

    Remote-controlled dogs.

    That’s too much.

    While your RC Fido ModelA1 fantasy has a rhetorical appeal to it, it’s so far from the truth about standard retriever training (collar or not) that I can’t even imagine what you think we do out there!!!

    Retriever training is ALL about communicating between species by voice, touch, and expression. That’s what it is. That’s why I love it.

    Now I’m done.

    
    
    • on November 21, 2009 at 11:50 pm retrieverman

      With all this talk about robotic retrievers, I couldn’t resist!

      
      
19. on November 22, 2009 at 3:45 pm Lane Batot

    Sorry, retrieverman, my computer won’t show any of your videos. Your’e done, Flattie-n-Labbie, and Viaticeo? What a shame; I guess I’ll have to remain ignorant about your uses of an E-collar, which you have yet to explain in any detail in this entire discussion–all you’ve done is insult, ridicule and patronize my ignorance–no real attempts to educate–Flat-n-Lab; you STARTED to, but didn’t get in much detail before you went off on another insulting binge about my ignorance. Great P R for your activity; I guess all us anti-shock collar folks know better now. So I did try and look up information myself–I found some, and will continue to try and learn more(there seems to be as much negative as positive out there, and I’ve not yet found info specifically about retriever training, but I will keep looking). I will half-heartedly apologize to you two guys for my earliest vehement comments–half-heartedly because for me, the jury is still out till I learn more about retriever training with these devices specifically–I have a feeling that–cruelty aside, I still won’t much like it, but I will at least understand there are other applications for said collars than producing PAIN. But when you refer to my ignorance(repeatedly), I think both of you are being incredibly close-minded, because your retriever training cliche is purty obscure and unknown to the general public. The majority of peoples’ perceptions about these collars are the same ones I have, because that is mostly how they are seen being used. If you are going to be so defensive, then I think to help people understand better, you need to develop a nice, pat, concise and clear explanation of exactly HOW you use them and why, whenever you encounter folks like me who HAVE SEEN these collars in use in many situations, ALL aversive and negative and abusive. Perhaps collaborate with retrieverman to do that on this very blog. At this point, still, however, my only impression is of patronizing, insulting, and uninformative negativity–no one learns much from that. I have only discussed my own real experiences around people using these collars(which involves quite a cross-section of society–training pets, hunting dogs–mostly hounds–and even that T.V. star dog)–which I will get into some more detail in a bit, for YOUR education, because you guys just don’t seem to realize yourself the extent that these collars are abused, and can’t seem to understand why people like me can be so vehement in our opinions about them. I DO NOT apologize for my vehemence regarding the situations and the people involved in instances I personally have witnessed….To be continued….

    
    
20. on November 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm Lane Batot

    ….one of the specific questions I have regarding the retriever training you are talking about, is how does the dog learn to respond to the mild vibration? Doesn’t it have to experience a certain level of shock first to understand the mild vibration as a “correction”? Do you not indicate to the dog via control with this collar when to stop, go, and which directions to turn? I say this, not out of ignorance, but because this is how I’ve seen others use these collars, and I assumed(perhaps incorrectly) that that is what you guys were talking about. That is purty “remote controlled” in my viewpoint. The worst incident where I saw this done was with the Bloodhound used(inaccurately) in a T. V. episode. There were two Bloodhounds playing the same dog–both borrowed by the “professional” trainer from a correction facility(they were trained man-trackers). They apparently had never been trained with these shock collars before, and had to “learn” all this stuff the one week we filmed this episode. The dogs wore the collars constantly, and to hide them from the camera(the T. V. series was about early 1900’s life in the Southern Appalachians), they wore pink bandanas over the collars!(Still not very accurate!). This trainer would also use “vibrations” to try and direct these dogs, which didn’t ever seem to get what vibrations were about, so the shock level had to go up and up and up until it was obvious to everyone on the set that the wretched dogs were in considerable pain. If the dogs moved the wrong way–ZAP! If they didn’t “sit” on command–ZAP! If they tried to lay down when they weren’t supposed to–ZAP! If that isn’t “remote-controlled”, I don’t know what is. As I mentioned before, the collars went haywire twice when I was around during filming(I wasn’t always near the cameras)–giving the dogs continuous, obviously agonizing shocks. The first time, we were filming on a high mountain near the edge of a sharp cliff, hundreds of feet high. The writhing, screaming Bloodhound ALMOST went over the cliff in its agony(it would certainly have been killed if it had)–JUST saved by some stunt guys who grabbed the dog and dragged him back from the brink, and ripped the collar off by hand.(Anything to do with animals on camera is considered a “stunt”, so the stunt guys were always around when these scenes were shot–luckily!) The second time the collar went haywire, the thrashing screaming Bloodhound almost bit the child star who was leading him on a rope for the scene they were shooting–once again rescued by the stunt guys. The “trainer” seemed completely unperturbed by all this–this was simply how these collars worked, and nothing out of the ordinary was happening in his view. By the end of filming this episode, everybody on the set HATED this guy–he was never used again. And I’m sure by his use of the shock collars, he made quite a large contingent negative towards them with that one experience! I was actually called on to use some of my own dogs, because I was the only “trainer” that could have dogs off-leash on the set (and without shock collars) performing really basic stuff on camera–all with simple obedience rewarded by praise and treats–my dogs had a BLAST! And performed 100% better than the “professional’s”! Now maybe you are getting an inkling of why I feel the way I do?

    
    
21. on November 22, 2009 at 4:26 pm Lane Batot

    ….and incidentally, THIS trainer(of the Bloodhounds) is the main one I had in mind(of incidents I have witnessed) when I blurted my statement about wanting to weld a shock collar on THEIR neck, and my thoughts in that direction have not softened in the slightest……

    
    
22. on November 22, 2009 at 6:25 pm ardenwoodpatti

    First of all, I think there are better forums for the discussion of the merits and problems of e-collars and other training methods. In fact, if one spends some time looking though Scottie’s previous posts, you will come upon this one –

    http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/what-i-will-not-discuss-on-this-blog/

    “What I will not discuss on this blog

    Some issues about dogs are just too contentious for me to discuss on this blog. There are two that I’m not going to touch with a ten foot pole.

    1. Training methods.

    I have my own opinions on which methods work best to train dogs. You probably have your own. Whatever I write about my views on dog training is not going to change your mind, because we both have a system that works for us. Why should we have this discussion anyway?

    2. What you should feed a dog.

    Same reasons. And in feeding dogs these days, we have so many different warring camps that I’m pretty sure a discussion of dog nutrition is going to launch some people. I have little interest in listening to these various polemics about dog food. If it works for you, continue using it. That’s my advice on dog food.

    Those two issues right there start more fights among dog people than anything else. And I think we should be devoting more of our energies to making dog conformation and breeding practices better.”

    That being said, there are lots of good articles on the use of e-collars in various venues. You might want to look at these recent links from Field and Stream –

    http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2009/11/how-teach-gun-dog-here-command-e-collar

    and the previous one

    http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2009/10/e-collar-debate-love-em-or-hate-em

    The experience Lane describes described was with ONE “trainer”. and that experience happened somewhere between 1994 & 1995. First of all, I would question the qualifications of that “trainer” if he believed he could introduce an e-collar and achieve anything in one week. In my opinion, it is much too easy for someone to represent themselves as a dog trainer. E-collars aren’t used to teach a behavior. The dog has to understand the task before the collar can ever be used to reinforce or correct the dog’s performance of that task. E-collars are introduced gradually. Not slapped on a dog that has never worn one with the expectation that the dog will respond to a correction.

    Secondly, e-collar technology has come a very long way in the last fifteen years. I could spend some time talking about the differences, but the tool is much more flexible & offers much finer levels of stimulation (including tone or vibration features) now than they did when I purchased my first collar in 1996. And that 1996 model was much more flexible than the one used by the field trainer I worked with at the time, and his collar was just a few years older.

    Generalizing one bad experience with a “trainer” who used a training tool improperly (or even a few bad experiences), and then labeling all who use that tool as being “unethical and lazy and ridiculous” is no different than observing one zookeeper hitting an elephant with a stick, then observing that zoos are places of cruelty and should be closed.

    
    
    • on November 22, 2009 at 6:33 pm retrieverman

      I’ve since amended that policy to allow discussions on all of these topics, but I don’t have all the answers on those issues.

      Those two issues result in too many arguments, and not enough discussion for understanding.

      E-collars can be used incorrectly.

      They also can be a great tool for training dogs.

      Dog training is an individualized skill. What works for one person might not work for another.

      As for feeding dogs, scientific studies can say one thing, but individual dogs and bloodlines can be major exceptions to the rule.

      Yes, some people do horrible things with e-collars.

      And some people use them to make good working dogs.

      
      
      • on November 22, 2009 at 6:55 pm ardenwoodpatti

        Scottie said “Dog training is an individualized skill. What works for one person might not work for another.”

        I would add that what works for one dog might not work for another. Like people, dogs are individuals and two dogs (even two dogs of of the same breed) may respond differently to a training technique. A good trainer will understand that and find the right tools and techniques for each one of his subjects.

        
        
23. on November 22, 2009 at 7:37 pm Lane Batot

    Thank you, ardenwoodpatti, for giving me those links, and some good, well explained comments regarding E collars.(not involving watching videos my computer will not show!). I have continued looking up other stuff on retriever training websites(lots of those!), and I definetely have a more enlightened opinion now–but I still don’t much like the concept! However, if USED PROPERLY, I WILL CONCEDE that shock collars are not as bad as I previously thought. Seems like there is plenty of potential for abuse in the retriever world, too, even if they are used radically differently from what I’ve witnessed(mostly with hound trainers). But ardenwoodpatti, my experiences with them WERE NOT limited to just the one trainer–I simply chose that one to elaborate on because he illustrated best in detail why I had the impressions I did. This fellow was/is a professional dog trainer(his occupation outside of his fiasco on the T. V. set, which is why he had the credentials to get the position), and with someone considered a professional, it is very easy to get the impression(and he went to great efforts to give this impression) that what he did is what was acceptable and par-for-the-course. Also in my “Googling”, I am discovering that this subject is VERY controversial within the retriever training world as well, amongst strictly retriever trainers. Discovering this(though it came as no great suprise), including comments on message boards regarding abusive use within the retriever world of these collars, I am actually ANGRIER at the responses I got on this blog, because the proponents of these collars should be LONG accustomed to this kind of discussion, and SHOULD be well versed in decent etiquette with documantation ready to apply, to reeducate ones like myself who have only seen the negative abusive use, instead of just insulting and driving me even deeper in my limited opinion(and I think ANYONE who gives a dern about dogs, with only negative experiences to go on, will have that opinion!) Just saying “Oh, there are humane uses of the collar” and then giving NO documentation or further information doesn’t cut it! THAT’S what that “professional” trainer kept saying, too–“oh, it doesn’t cause much pain; the dog barely feels it” when the dog is screaming and writhing on the ground! Yes, ardenwoodpatti, as a zookeeper, you can BET I get negative comments about zoos almost every day from AR visitors(or not AR’s, just regular people who get erroneous impressions). Do I call them ignorant hypocrites? I’d most assuredly lose my job if I did! Nor do I have the slightest desire to. I try my best to explain to them(patiently and kindly–no matter how vehement their comments) the positive aspects of zoos, and often suprise the heck out of them by AGREEING with some of their negative views, telling them I’d like to see improvements in zoos myself!(Boy! Is there room for improvement!). And encouraging them to leave complaints or comments at our admissions office(we have a box just for that!) Thanks again for some specific, factual information and links, maybe understanding where I was coming from, and giving me some “tools”(non-shocking) to grow. And do remember(whomever it may concern) that the best way to get through to people is not by insults and patronizing. And I still don’t like shock collars, but at least I have a broader, more enlightened view, and my dislike is based on more than just the cruelty question now.

    
    
    • on November 22, 2009 at 9:16 pm Viatecio

      Lane, this is just for your information and further reading:

      http://www.loucastle.com/white_paper.pdf This paper was not done by Castle himself…he is simply providing it on his site as some supporting evidence for the appropriate and fair use of e-collars. You can see for yourself that it is put out by a company that makes e-collars, both remote and behavior-activated (such as bark control collars or invisible-fence type systems), and I will let you make your own conclusions as to this: it most certainly does indicate some degree of bias, but from the studies described to the Further Reading Material index, there must be simply more to these things than the intent to harm.

      http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/860.html This is the basic transcript of a case between the Australian RSPCA and Innotek, which came about due to allegation that e-collars caused burns on dogs. It’s a bit of a long, stuffy read, but Innotek does send a lot of those myths packing. What Australia did with e-collars and prong collars was assume that the RSPCA spoke for everyone, despite the petitions and letters of protest to the ban. It is a mistake repeated in the UK and in some European contries, where some assume that they speak for the whole. They forget that, despite bans, these devices are still available for sale within the country for those who seek them out, and that there are ways to import them without the collars being confiscated. I’m surprised that no one learned from Prohibition that a total ban on anything is not going to work, whether it’s alcohol or cigarettes, or dog training tools.

      There is a dog training company called Sit Means Sit. They primarily use the e-collar. I won’t link to anything particular about them, but (going back to the whole “talk is cheap, SHOW me” thing) if you LOOK at their videos–IF they work for you, since you seem to have trouble viewing such things–at the results they get with all types of dogs (pet obedience, bitework, agility, retrieving, Rally, etc), you will notice that they are happy, obedient and not afraid of getting shocked. They are motivated and work with drive rather than through the “or else” threat. From what I see, these dogs and their clients’ dogs do not appear to be expressing anything that would lead me to believe that they have been severely shocked into doing anything. Or maybe I just need new glasses?

      I have access to journal databases where I can find citations for studies that do support the use of e-collars as a humane device for long-term learning should you be interested in perusing them. Of course there are also those that attempt to show their downsides, and the most famous of these I will not consider as remotely (no pun intended) scientific due to the lack of serious research, the horrendous treatment of the animals, and the overbearing bias for the reason which the study was done.

      While I do not work with retrievers in the field, you have been given multiple examples of how this tool can be beneficial. You are right, in that retrievers were trained for the field before e-collars were invented…but then again, dogs were trained as pets and for the battlefield before the clicker or the “Gentle” leader were even twinkles in some patent officers’ eye. Some of those methods worked through partnership, others through nothing short of domineering. That is simply how things were done back then, and you are not the only one who is glad those days are past. However, a knee-jerk reaction to the polar extreme of techniques is not the SOLUTION to the past…it is merely an answer.

      You see the exact same side as we do when it comes to e-collars with your AR activists who criticize zoos. We do the same in conceding many points about them, from inappropriate use to the sheer overavailability and the inexperience of those who might use them as a quick fix; and don’t forget people like your “professional” who do nothing but ruin dogs with them. Our attempts to educate are the same as yours: as you feel frustration when someone shuts you out based on a cookie-cutter AR argument, so do we when our supporting arguments fall on deaf ears.

      By the way, of course my logic is flawed. As yours is to me, then mine will be to you, and this is no reason for anyone, really, to raise hackles. Were my words at all offensive, I do apologize. However, such views still stand as they are, and emotive language, anthropomorphism and hyperbole are not among the ways one goes about trying to get another to think. /over & out

      
      
    • on November 22, 2009 at 10:48 pm retrieverman

      It is controversial in the retriever training world.

      But you have to understand that many of the people who are using the e-collar are doing it so their dogs can compete in trials and tests. You need to check out the behaviors required in an AKC hunting retriever test or trial. They are very hard to teach without some kind of stimulus that can be used to correct behaviors at a distance.

      You can make a good working retriever with just cookies and rewards, but he won’t be able to get advanced titles.

      Well, let me rephrase that, it’s possible to get the titles. It’s just very, very hard.

      
      
24. on November 22, 2009 at 11:22 pm flattie-n-Labbie

    Lane, you began this conversation the way you began it, and the explanation that you didn’t mean me personally–because you didn’t know someone who didn’t abuse the collar could exist–doesn’t cut it. I found it offensive and ignorant, and I let you know why. I still find it disturbing that you would consider abuse of a dog training tool on a human being a way to respond to ANY situation. I doubt we’ll ever agree on whoopin’ a dog, if I understand your definition of it.

    I tried to give a measured response. I tried to give you some basic logic. But our approach to dogs is apparently so different that I was unsuccessful. I doubt we even have the same dog-training vocabulary, based on your posts. You came back with further assumptions and rants, and IMO with little apparent willingness to understand.

    I am sorry if I have had other things to do rather than educate you on retriever training–namely, I’ve got two retrievers, and have spent many hours over the past two days caring for, exercising, and training my retrievers–doing individual drill work with the dogs, as well as working with a group. I also spent a few hours shooting, as I think if I’m going to continue in the sport I need to be better at it, and it is sort of a moral imperative to me that I hunt if I’m going to kill birds to train retrievers to find game! So I’ve been (gasp) away from the internet.

    I spent a year on obedience–on my own, in private lessons, at obedience and retriever clubs–before I decided to buy a collar; on a salary that is openly laughable, including to me, I spent AT LEAST a thousand dollars in private obedience lessons and private field lessons learning how to use the collar; I’ve spend many hundreds of dollars on books; much more on seminars; I’ve traded many thousands of hours throwing birds in the field and loading giant sling shots and swabbing kennel decks for the opportunity to train in groups with professionals and skilled amateurs; one recent summer I spent every penny I had and more and my entire vacation to WORK at a seminar where I knew there would be excellent opportunity to learn and a little training with some (Canadian) national-level field trialers on the side.

    I learn something new every time I train. I work damn hard. I’ve only been doing this about 6 years. I AM A ROOKIE.

    I am not qualified, nor is it my job, nor my obligation, to explain to YOU PERSONALLY how to train a retriever with an electric collar.

    Nor do I much feel like it.

    If you are really, truly interested, find a retriever training group or local pro and spend a day watching; if you would like to attend a basic seminar as an auditor, I might be able to give you a name or two of good and (maybe) affordable presenters. Research a little first, so you know you’ve found a respectable and successful group or individual to observe. Read a few books before you go. There is a book by Tri-tronics that is pretty good; there is a book called “10 Minute Retriever” that’s pretty good; there is material by a man named Mike Lardy that is phenomenal, but it is pricey–that said, check out his web site, totalretrievers.com (net?) for some good free information. There are books by James Spencer that are good. Mitch White of Gamekeepers Retrievers has very readable material, you can look for him on the web, but I don’t know off-hand if he sells materials outside of seminar attendance. But in the end, there is no substitute for seeing it.

    When you introduce yourself, I suggest you not call anyone ludicrous and lazy and threaten them with violence, followed by lengthy justification based on your own bad experiences with people who clearly can’t train a dog, capped off with “But I doubt I’ll like it anyway”–you may get a little more patience and cooperation in return.

    
    
    • on November 22, 2009 at 11:33 pm retrieverman

      Wasn’t this post originally about declawing cats?

      LOL.

      We sure have digressed, haven’t we!

      
      
      • on November 22, 2009 at 11:40 pm flattie-n-Labbie

        I think declawing a kitten for convenience’ sake is rather selfish, as it’s a cat’s very nature to have claws, but I can’t get real exercised about it; I think declawing an adult cat is kind of disgusting, but may very well be more humane than putting the cat down should the owner be unable or unwilling to find another solution.

        I don’t think it should be outlawed. It is a slippery slope, as well as impossible to enforce.

        There. Right back on track.

        
        
        • on November 22, 2009 at 11:49 pm retrieverman

          It’s not your fault. It was sort of collective.

          I joined in, too!

          
          
    • on November 23, 2009 at 2:10 am Patti S.

      Greta, I share your frustration. Lane stated in his first post on the subject that in his experiences, users of e-collars are “absolutely unethical and lazy and ridiculous,” or are gadget fiddlers, with no real interest in dogs. Since I’ve been using e-collars (along with many other training methods) for years, that must apply to me. I never knew that I was unethical, lazy, ridiculous or a gadget fiddler. Although I do admit I have a LOT of training gadgets. Clickers, bait pouches, treat dispensers, long lines, short lines, gentle leaders, pinch collars, slip leads, slip chain collars, targets, harnesses, retrieval toys, tug toys, etc., etc., etc., An electronic collar is just one tool in my very large tool box. But I guess that tool defines me.

      It’s been my experience that a person who constantly calls an e-collar a “shock collar” has a very firm view of that device, and it isn’t a positive or neutral one. Someone who does a web search on “shock collar” has defined the sort of responses he will find. If he did a search on “remote trainer” or “electronic collar” or “e-collar”, he would find a very different set of results.

      Do some “trainers” misuse the tool? Absolutely. I’ve seen people misuse all sorts of collars and other dog training equipment. I’ve seen trainers be abusive to their dogs by just using their voice and body positions. Or by using no tool at all except the back of their hand.

      And I also agree that just because one posts on this forum (and especially this post) that does not result in an obligation to train someone to or defend the use of a particular tool or technique. There are many other forums where that sort of thing is discussed.

      BTW – to get back on topic, I’ve owned declawed cats in the past. Most of my cats have kept their claws, and never destroyed more than a few articles of my clothing or a throw pillow or two. Maybe a set of curtains or a chenille bedspread. But when a move across country (many years ago) meant that we had to spend two months living in a hotel, we had to make the choice of placing our two adult cats or removing claws. Since they were indoor cats, we made the choice that allowed us to keep them as part of our family.

      I felt quite guilty during their recovery period (which was actually quite short), and they soon learned to climb the five-foot cat pole as though they had always been without front claws (we did not remove their rear claws.)

      That was the right choice for us and for our cats in that particular set of circumstances. It would be a shame to outlaw all declaws because MOST declaws are unnecessary.

      
      
      • on November 23, 2009 at 2:37 am flattie-n-Labbie

        Fair enough example of when declawing may be the most fair choice to the animal and the best choice for a family, Patti.

        (But it still kind of makes me shudder!)

        
        
        • on November 23, 2009 at 2:55 am Patti S.

          And I don’t know if I would make the same choice today that I made then. But they spent many happy healthy years with us after our move, and we didn’t have to make the choice to leave our family members behind when we relocated. That would have been a bigger tragedy in my estimation.

          
          
25. on November 23, 2009 at 4:52 pm Lane Batot

    I sure would like to just drop it too, but when people keep making deragatory comments based on erroneous assumptions of their own, I am compelled to defend myself, of course. Thanks, Viatecio, for those links(Electronic “shock” collars obviously have come a long way in the last few years–which I was not aware of) and I apologize fer rufflin’ yer feathers! I DO want to nit- pick a bit though–I do NOT feel my first comment(though it was more volatile and blunt than it should have been, I now see) was in any way a “knee-jerk” reaction. “Knee-jerk” in my definition, means a strong, negative sweeping generalization based on no or little experience. My observations of the uses of shock collars began in the early ’70’s being used on bird dogs(pointers) and trailhounds, and continued through the DECADES with peoples’ household pets and the WORST experience with the self-proclaimed “professional”(who it was easy to assume represented the most educated and competent and ethical of the bunch–NOT!) on the T.V. set. That is a very broad range of experiences over many years–hardly “knee-jerk”! But I have learned it was still wrong to assume ALL usage was like what I had seen, and I am glad to not be so “ignorant” on the subject now. Perhaps you guys(and I feel like the bottom dog on a pile-on here!) are just not as aware of how abusive these collars are with the general public outside your retriever cliche–perhaps you learned something from me in this regard, and will be more understanding and less defensive when others(and I’m sure you will encounter them! Most people I know feel the same way about them as I have!) start “ranting”–even if partially incorrectly–about these collars…..to be continued

    
    
26. on November 23, 2009 at 7:09 pm Lane Batot

    …..You may not condone “whoopin” dogs, Flat-n-Lab, but you sure don’t mind floggin’ a dead horse! And Patti S. as well–are you two just NOT willing to see this discussion has gone way beyond my first comment? Within 24 hrs. of making it, I was TRYING to gain a new perspective(no help from either of you)–and for a human, I consider that purty good(if I say so myself)–but you guys just keep draggin’ up my first comment. So regarding my first comment–it was hasty and uninformed and I apologize if you were offended, BUT, it VERY SPECIFICALLY referred to MY experiences(which you HAVE NOT had) and I never once pretended otherwise, so WHY ANYONE would somehow assume I was referring to people I could not have even known existed, is beyond me. You need to learn to listen to someone else’s opinion regarding their experiences without taking it so personally. I still feel the same way towards those abusive people I was referring to, and that has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU! Also, you do not feel it is your responsibility to inform anyone about proper usage of the E collar, and you don’t have time, and would prefer not to–yet you seem to have plenty of time to be insulting, derogatory, and patronizing! If you don’t want to inform in a positive way, and don’t have time, why the heck did you even join in? Perhaps you just enjoy slamming others at some imaginary, perceived insult to yourself? Patti S., when I googled information, you should be pleased to hear I googled “E collar” and also “E collar; retriever training” specifically to try and learn something(which I did)–maybe now I’ll also try “shock collar”(since that is, after all, what they are), as that has gotten me curious! Yeah, lots of perspectives out there! Incidentally, when I googled “E collar”, a lot of information came up about the vetinary Elizebethan collars(which apparently have the same abbreviation), and I couldn’t help laughing out loud at the image of a field of trial retrievers all out working with Elizebethan collars on! :D And Flat-N-Lab–you keep coming back to my “whoopin” dogs–you really didn’t seem to understand WHY I brought that up for. Mainly because I knew what your reaction would be, and what do you know, you reacted in ignorance and were totally against any form of hitting a dog, without considering in this big wide world that there MIGHT be some instance where it is applicable(in my example, a deadly serious, pile-on dogfight)–just as I had incorrectly done in regards to E collars(for which AGAIN, I stand corrected). I DO NOT go around “whoopin'” my own dogs(except in this one circumstance), and I think you continuing to try and allude to that is a real cheap shot. If you still don’t agree with this method of breaking up a serious, killing, dog fight, I highly suggest you never put yourself in any situation where it might occur, because none of your methods would work, and you would certainly get some dogs killed. Once again, to all the other readers, I DO NOT “whoop” my dogs for minor infractions, as I have seen people who use shock collars shock their dogs for the most trivial things. I might try to attend an actual retriever trial like you mentioned(and of course I would not use the comments I used in my first response on this discussion–gosh–what another cheap shot!) if I get the chance, and there is one nearby, to further my education. I will endeavor to correct others I know on this subject who have felt the same way I did about it previously(in the sense that there is a less negative side, even if neither of us much likes it! I actually have already with some of my zoo co-workers) to do it justice and to be fair. Once again, if I unintentionally offended anyone(excepting the personal incidents I referred to in my experience, whom I would not mind offending at all, OR putting a shock collar on THEIR necks!!!)) I apologize. But also, I will not hesitate to defend myself or position either, to those who won’t take the time to explain, but will take the time to insult.

    
    

Comments are closed.