German Shepherds Forum banner

Are E Collars Painful or Just Annoying to Dogs? A New Study Reveals Some Answers

16K views 99 replies 27 participants last post by  AthenaPrkr 
#1 ·
Are Electronic Shock Collars Painful or Just Annoying to Dogs? A New Study Reveals Some Answers | Blog | Dr. Sophia Yin, DVM, MS

Trainers often debate about the use of electronic shock collars. Some trainers find these collars unethical and unsafe. The pro-collar camp takes a different stance. Some say it just distracts the dog, calling it “tap technology” and others say it may be painful at the instant but then the dog learns to behave and there are no lasting negative effects.

In 2003, researchers from the Netherlands, Matthijs Schilder and Joanne van der Borg, assessed the short and long term behavioral effects of dog training with the help of shock collars. They wanted to know three things:
open the article to read the rest!

Interesting article but I have issues with it. Cause they used the collars exactly the way I was told NOT to. As a correction at a high enough level so the dogs will yip.

To used for TRAINING (not just as correction) you use the lowest rating on the collar that your dog feels (not that makes them yip).

Be interesting if the study was used with the proper way to use the collar well.
 
#2 ·
I didn't read the article, just read what you posted. But I do know that they can do damage, because I was watching It's Me or the Dog, and there was a bulldog whose owner had an ecollar that put scars on her neck.

But I've used it on myself on the lowest setting to see what it felt like and it didn't hurt. But I'd quit doing whatever I was doing if it was zapping me. LOL
 
#7 · (Edited)
I didn't read the article, just read what you posted. But I do know that they can do damage, because I was watching It's Me or the Dog, and there was a bulldog whose owner had an ecollar that put scars on her neck.
Wanted to comment on this. The sores you see on dog's necks from ecollars are not caused by the shock, even though it appears that way at first glance. These sores are actually rub marks caused by the ecollar being left on too long. Ecollars fit quite snug against the neck and there is constant pressure on the skin from the prongs. When the collars are left on too long (even if they aren't used, even if they have no batteries in them) the pressure from the prongs, coupled with dirt and moisture will caused sometimes very nasty sores on the dog's necks. You are most likely to see this with IF collars because so many people leave them on 24/7 but it can happen with any ecollar or a even a prong collar. The bark collars I have state in the instructions to not leave them on more than I think 10 hours at a time.

As for "proper use", many feel that using the ecollar as a punishment on higher levels is proper use and until recent times that was the main use of them. I would suspect that is also still the most common use of them.
 
#3 ·
Be interesting if the study was used with the proper way to use the collar well.
So true. My girl's collar is set between 3 and 8 out of 127 levels depending on the day and distractions. I can just barely feel it at 10 - more of a tingle/tickle feeling and not painful at all. She has never shown any fear or avoidance related to it, and actually comes running when I pull it out.

Used actually SHOCK/punish a dog and as a painful aversive I can absolutely see where it would have the effect in the study.

I really wish someone impartial would do a study using the collars properly so that we could actually get a real answer.
 
#11 ·
I really wish someone impartial would do a study using the collars properly so that we could actually get a real answer.
Ditto. But its never going to happen, because who would pay for it? Those that are anti collar are only interested in biased studies. Those that are pro collar are too busy training their dogs ;)
 
#5 ·
These scientists certainly had an agenda when they made this study. Of course dogs are going to show fear behaviour when you are shocking them so much they give 'barking screams'. They could have at least had the shock collar intensity the same as a pinch or choke correction. I'm sure if they had a trainer that was really ripping at the dog with a prong collar, it would show the same signs of pain and fear as the dogs wearing shock collars.

I use a shock collar, and he's never shown any signs of fear or signs of not being able to recover from a correction because I don't abuse the tool by using ridiculously high settings. The thing that bothers him the most and takes him time to recover from is actually the vibration feature, which is clearly not painful.
 
#6 ·
These scientists certainly had an agenda when they made this study.
This is what I see after reading it too. The people doing the study knew what they wanted it to "prove" so they set about ensuring that it did. Bad science.

Unfortunately, like many other agenda driven studies have in the past, it will no doubt soon be heralded as truth by those with an anti-ecollar agenda and plastered all over the internet, and people will assume it is proof and treat it as such, without ever actually looking at it in detail to see how poorly done it was and that the conclusions were clearly a matter of (probably intentional) self fulfilling prophecy.
 
#8 ·
I know it's a preference for the dog owner but I have never used one so I can't say for sure. I agree that the people doing the study probably had an agenda so it is going to slant the results.
I've done a little bit of looking around and cannot seem to find much for scientific studies done on e collars.
I've had one on and it depends on the setting you use, but I can tell you it does hurt at a higher setting.
I kind of illustrates to me something my grandfather used to say. "You can make numbers come out almost any way you want them to. Figures lie and liars figure."
 
#9 ·
It's interesting that Dr. Yin calls this a "new study." It was done in 2003, making it EIGHT years old! But I guess that "new" is a relative term. Since she's brought it up ...

The "Schilder Study" as it's known is an excellent example of how misguided and how misleading the anti Ecollar forces can be. As several have pointed out the study used ONLY high level stim for their study and most people using modern methods are using low level stim. They will say that it has the same effect on the dogs but all they do is display their ignorance with such a comment. It's a bit like comparing a child bumping into you accidentally with a collision between two tractor-trailers.

The group they studied, are famous for using the highest levels of stim IN THE WORLD in their training.

Here's something that I find quite interesting about this study. They go into great detail about the equipment that they used. We know the various breeds of dogs used. We know their sexes and ages.

We know how many wore Ecollars and how many did not. We know the brand of camera used to film the study; its model number and the size of film it used. We even know that it had a 40X optical zoom!

We know the sampling method they used, the number of training sessions they observed and the number of sequences they filmed. We know the OB commands that were used during the "walking" phase of the study and what "protection" movements were involved.

We know how the data was analyzed; we know what sampling method was used; we know how each ear and tail position was scored and we know how the data from the two samples was compared.

All of these things are clearly stated in the study as is common with such things. But somehow ... they forgot to mention the brand/model of Ecollar that they used! AMAZING that they forgot to mention this! Well, not really. I found out by going through some contacts I have in Europe that they used a Shecker Teletakt an obsolete collar that is no longer made. This model has contact points located on both sides of the dog's neck (as opposed to most modern Ecollars that have their contact points about 1 1/4" apart), so there's MUCH MORE tissue involved than with modern Ecollars. AND it has much higher stim levels than do today's collars!

The results of the study rather than being scientifically determined were completely subjective, with the scientists using rather worthless measures of when the dogs were stressed. They looked at such things as "ear carriage, lip licking, tail carriage and others. But they failed to mention (or take into account) the fact that MANY other factors can cause these to occur.

Stephen Lindsay, author of the three volume set of books "Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training." said this about the Schilder study,

This was an intentionally deceptive study, designed to reach predetermined conclusions. And that couldn't have supported the findings that it reached even if it had been competently done. [Emphasis Added]


I've written up a detailed critique of the study if anyone is interested. You can see it HERE

These folks will never rest. They keep rediscovering old studies pretending that they're brand new and re-releasing them as if they had just been completed. Unethical at best. Dishonest at worst.
 
#12 ·
It's interesting that Dr. Yin calls this a "new study." It was done in 2003, making it EIGHT years old! But I guess that "new" is a relative term. Since she's brought it up ...
Actually it's quite possible that if it was done in 2003, the published results are fairly new. It takes quite a long time for studies to be completed and published. One of my ferrets was part of a study for a new treatment of a common disease and the actual study was only maybe a year but I was told it would be years before the results would be published anywhere. Once the results are published, no doubt people will refer to it as a new study on treating this disease.
 
#15 ·
Lou that was an awesome critical evaluation of the study! I subscribe to Dr. Yin's blog, and had read her interpretation of the study and took it at face value. I am not in favor of the use of e-collars, but I don't like biased science either.
 
#17 ·
Lou that was an awesome critical evaluation of the study! I subscribe to Dr. Yin's blog, and had read her interpretation of the study and took it at face value. I am not in favor of the use of e-collars, but I don't like biased science either.
Thanks for the kind words Good_Karma. Actually there's quite a bit of science on Ecollars that's out there. Some of it is kinda odd though. In one study, Schalke, they found
... animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action ... and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators. [Emphasis Added]


Yet in the conclusion they wrote
The results of this study suggest that poor timing in the application of high level electric pulses, such as those used in this study, means there is a high risk that dogs will show severe and persistent stress symptoms.
Yet their study clearly shows that when training is done properly, such a risk does not exist!

Ruth Crisler has done an excellent writeup on the studies that are available out there on Ecollars. CLICK HERE. It's the March 30, 2010 blog entry If the link doesn't take you right to the article.
 
#19 ·
It's not just a problem with "Ecollars in general." It's a problem with ANY tool. The only thing that changes is the nature of the dog's "suffering" especially at the hands of a "hot headed trainer that has no patience." If that's the case it really makes no difference what tool is in use.

At least with an Ecollar, that kind of person can't do any physical damage.
 
#22 ·
I do think that e-collars are much easier to misuse and it can't be ignored that many trainers do use them regularly as a very hard correction. I have seen more dogs mentally damaged by e-collar training than by any other one tool. I know a dog who who was sent to a franchise e-collar trainer and once home flipped out so badly he had to be euthanized in his crate the morning after attacking his owner. That trainer claims to use "low-stim". I had a puppy in my class that who would panic, run away and urinate on himself whenever his owners called him, due to an incident with an e-collar. I know a dog who after being trained for an IR developed phobias to beeping noises and crossing noticeable barriers (even say, where the kitchen tile meets the carpet or the frame of a removable baby gate). I have seen and known many other dogs who developed anxiety related issues after their owners starting using e-collars.

I use bark collars on my own dogs. I am not opposed to e-collars across the board and am not supportive of banning them. But the truth is, they are a very powerful tool which is very capable of physiologically damaging dogs, even when used "properly", even without a hot headed trainer. IMO people need to hear that before going out to Petsmart and buying themselves one.
 
#20 ·
Hey Lou - where did this quote from Steve Lindsay come from? I searched one of the largest abstract and citation databases thinking he had done some research or something and he isn't listed at all. That paper is 7 years old but his book is even older. I was looking for something newer.
thanks SJ.
 
#24 ·
Hey Lou - where did this quote from Steve Lindsay come from? I searched one of the largest abstract and citation databases thinking he had done some research or something and he isn't listed at all. That paper is 7 years old but his book is even older. I was looking for something newer.

And then less than an hour later he asked,
where does this quote come from?

SJ didja get impatient that I didn't answer within an hour? Lol

There's good news and bad news. I hate this because I'm a stickler for accurate citing but I lost the specific reference data when I moved from an older computer. I'm 99% sure that it was in one of the three volumes of his books but can't remember which one. I loaned out my copies several years ago and never got them back. I can't remember who I loaned them to so they're probably gone. Perhaps he'll read this and get them back to me!

In any case, doing a search for Steven Lindsay + Schilder brought me to a Google Books site that opens with references to the Schilder study. CLICK HERE Lindsay makes reference to the study and to several others written around the same time and a little before.
 
#26 ·
SJ didja get impatient that I didn't answer within an hour? Lol

Sorry - no I didn't see my post and thought I hadnt sent it correctly so repeated.

The thing about the steve lindsay stuff is that they are just his opinions so you are trading his opinions for those of the researchers and in your critical evaluation you are trading your opinions for those of the researchers. what we need to have is some good unbiased information to evaluate. other wise its all just opinions . we all have opinions.

 
#41 ·
The thing about the steve lindsay stuff is that they are just his opinions so you are trading his opinions for those of the researchers and in your critical evaluation you are trading your opinions for those of the researchers. what we need to have is some good unbiased information to evaluate. other wise its all just opinions . we all have opinions.

I agree that we're dealing with opinions here. But a supposedly scientific study should NOT be opinion. It should be set up so that bias cannot enter the picture at all. The data should be collected on a manner that makes it impossible for the biases of the scientists to influence the outcome. This study was set up purposefully so that it WAS possible for the opinions of the data collectors to allow them to interpret the data any way that they chose. At the time of this study it was well known that cortisol was related to the amount of stress that an animal feels but instead of collecting cortisol, numbering the vials and having a lab that did not know the numbering system do the analysis, they chose to select such things as ear carriage, and lip licking as the stress indicators. While they did this they did not allow that OTHER THINGS besides stress can cause these signs.

These are the things that Lindsay (and I) looked at while forming our opinions, as should be the case.
 
#27 ·
I have a question about e-collars, a tad off topic, but points to the issue of uninformed people using them incorrectly.

So the stable where my horses are, the owner has a 1 yr old highly obnoxious Golden Ret. that jumped on me and would not stop, and it even ripped my jacket. Anyway, there was absolutely no correction from the owner in verbal or physical form. All he did was whip out the remote to the e-collar the dog had on, and press it repeatedly. Nothing happened, and he said, "Ah it must be off, 'cause I'm pressin' it like crazy!" I was really disturbed by this. It seemed like pure laziness - just slap the thing on and buzz him constantly when he's bad, (and it obviously didn't work, since he was jumping on me) without doing any other training (he admitted to another boarder that the dog isn't trained, and I tried to get him to sit, but he didn't know the command) and that way he doesn't have to bother with any obedience training.

So I don't know anything about e-collars, but would you guys consider that improper use? To just throw it on without any training and press it over and over whenever the dog does something he deems as bad? Should I say anything, I mean I'd hate to see this poor dog get screwed up over this.
 
#42 ·
I have a question about e-collars, a tad off topic, but points to the issue of uninformed people using them incorrectly.

Lots of people use lots of tools "incorrectly." Some even use them abusively.

So the stable where my horses are, the owner has a 1 yr old highly obnoxious Golden Ret. that jumped on me and would not stop, and it even ripped my jacket. Anyway, there was absolutely no correction from the owner in verbal or physical form. All he did was whip out the remote to the e-collar the dog had on, and press it repeatedly. Nothing happened, and he said, "Ah it must be off, 'cause I'm pressin' it like crazy!" I was really disturbed by this. It seemed like pure laziness - just slap the thing on and buzz him constantly when he's bad, (and it obviously didn't work, since he was jumping on me) without doing any other training (he admitted to another boarder that the dog isn't trained, and I tried to get him to sit, but he didn't know the command) and that way he doesn't have to bother with any obedience training. So I don't know anything about e-collars, but would you guys consider that improper use? To just throw it on without any training and press it over and over whenever the dog does something he deems as bad? Should I say anything, I mean I'd hate to see this poor dog get screwed up over this.

It’s a combination of laziness and ignorance; never a good combination.
 
#29 ·
Jeff - my trainer has me working to teach Jax that the vibrate is a marker meaning that good things are coming her way! It just replaces Yes! Or the clicker.

So, the stim will be a correction and the vibrate will be a 'command'. However, I agree with you. The stim is a correction no matter how you look at it.

So, MLR, what do you mean by "E-collars used properly to train (not correct)"?
 
#30 ·
Ahhh ok Jax. That's good then, she gets something "positive" out of it. Thats probably what MRL meant.

I used vibrate and stim at the same time when I was training, although the vibrate was used in a "correction" it conditioned the dogs that in time and through training, I would only need to vibrate the collar. So vibrate was a warning and the stim would follow if not compliant if that makes sense.

I'll also add that the only thing I am using the stim for is long recalls, the dogs have been trained first on a long line for some time and know what a recall is before the collar is introduced. The other nice thing about having a dog trained to recall first is that you rarely need to use the collar.
 
#32 ·
Ahhh ok Jax. That's good then, she gets something "positive" out of it. Thats probably what MRL meant.
I don't believe thats what she meant. A correction is a form of positive punishment, something you apply to decrease the likelihood of that behavior repeating. Waiting for the dog to do something bad and then shocking them, is using an ecollor as positive punishment (a correction) and is improper use.

Proper use of the collar is negative reinforcement. The negative means take away (as opposed to positive meaning to apply something) and reinforcement means something that is increasing the likelihood of a behavior (as opposed to punishment which decreases it.) So you apply stim (at the just barely felt level), and then give a command. When the dog performs the command, the stim is released. Removed the stim, to increase the likelihood of the dog performing the command.

Training, not correction.
 
#34 · (Edited)
I know what you were referring to, and I was disagreeing that it could be what MRL was referring to.

A correction is generally considered a form of positive punishment, or a stimulus applied to decrease the likelihood of a behavior. In using an e collar, an easy example of this is waiting for the dog to do something wrong and then shocking them as a way of telling them no that behavior was wrong. In correct use of an ecollar, the important part is actually the removal of the stim which tells the dog something. You remove the stim when the dog obeys the command, thus increasing the likelihood of the dog obeying the command. So with these definitions, proper use of an e collar includes no corrections from the e collar. Training, not corrections. I believe this is what MRL meant.

In your scenerio, I would apply the stim at the command and when the dog has recalled release the stim. The dog knowing what the recall means is very important to the training, rather than blindly shocking the dog for every incorrect behavior. You are using the ecollar to proof the recall, increase the recalls and speed of recall as opposed to punish every which odd possibility there is other than the recall. It reminds me of a recent statement someone here on the forum made, about how if you tell the dog BOTH yes and no they will learn much faster than just using no. Using an e collar just to say no, or give corrections, is improper use. And unfair to the dog.
 
#35 ·
I know what you were referring to, and I was disagreeing that it could be what MRL was referring to.

A correction is generally considered a form of positive punishment, or a stimulus applied to decrease the likelihood of a behavior. In using an e collar, an easy example of this is waiting for the dog to do something wrong and then shocking them as a way of telling them no that behavior was wrong. In correct use of an ecollar, the important part is actually the removal of the stim which tells the dog something. You remove the stim when the dog obeys the command, thus increasing the likelihood of the dog obeying the command. So with these definitions, proper use of an e collar includes no corrections from the e collar. Training, not corrections. I believe this is what MRL meant.

In your scenerio, I would apply the stim at the command and when the dog has recalled release the stim. The dog knowing what the recall means is very important to the training, rather than blindly shocking the dog for every incorrect behavior. You are using the ecollar to proof the recall, increase the recalls and speed of recall as opposed to punish every which odd possibility there is other than the recall. It reminds me of a recent statement someone here on the forum made, about how if you tell the dog BOTH yes and no they will learn much faster than just using no. Using an e collar just to say no, or give corrections, is improper use. And unfair to the dog.

Lin, in a way I think I am saying the same thing you are to a point...I'm not good at getting my point accross..

IMO, I wouldn't give the dog a stim to recall if he already knows how to recall, I would give him the chance to come first. If he didn't come then I would stim and hold and when he starts comming in, release. I now you say this is wrong but I have never had a problem with it at all. Now mind you I'm on vibrate only due to the fact the dog was trained with low stim and vibrate at the same time, then you can graduate to vibrate only.

I do have a video on here with some recalls, they are fast and precise. I can post them again?
 
#36 ·
I wouldn't consider that wrong. As long as you're using the appropriate level of stim it sounds right to me! Its still being used as negative reinforcement, the removal of the stim increases the likelihood or speed of the recall. Now if you stood in a field and called him and then started randomly stimming him for running away, or to the side, or continuing to sniff, etc, thats wrong. But you're applying the stim and releasing it when the command is obeyed. Thats negative reinforcement used correctly :)

It can get very confusing with the semantics of language. I was a psychology major, and in operant conditioning you have to pull out the key parts, like in a math word problem. Key parts being are you adding or removing the stimulus, and are you trying to increase or decrease the behavior. Which, is also not so simple! Reading the examples, it could seem to go different ways. Trying to decrease the running off, or trying to increase the running to you... I'll shut up now before I go blabbering on forever :)
 
#37 ·
I wouldn't consider that wrong. As long as you're using the appropriate level of stim it sounds right to me! Its still being used as negative reinforcement, the removal of the stim increases the likelihood or speed of the recall. Now if you stood in a field and called him and then started randomly stimming him for running away, or to the side, or continuing to sniff, etc, thats wrong. But you're applying the stim and releasing it when the command is obeyed. Thats negative reinforcement used correctly :)

It can get very confusing with the semantics of language. I was a psychology major, and in operant conditioning you have to pull out the key parts, like in a math word problem. Key parts being are you adding or removing the stimulus, and are you trying to increase or decrease the behavior. Which, is also not so simple! Reading the examples, it could seem to go different ways. Trying to decrease the running off, or trying to increase the running to you... I'll shut up now before I go blabbering on forever :)
You are a psychology major and I am a Correctional Officer so we know where the brains are lol not here. You just have to spell it out for this Polock Lin lol. Here is "Ali", 8 months old, sorry about the "pee break"

 
#38 ·
After seeing it done by some training folks that I highly respect, we've recently started using the E-collar as a positive reinforcer. :) Application of the stim will increase the liklihood of a behavior (in this case attention).

We started out hitting the collar at a low level and treating, loading the ecollar in much the same way you would a clicker. Stim on the Ecollar = reward. We started luring behaviors we wanted using the Ecollar as a marker. We're using this on an easily attracted puppy, that tends to lose concentration on stationary tasks, but at the same time is handler soft and sensitive to verbal or collar correction. We started pushing the dog to offer attention behaviors and would mark them with the E-collar. E-collar stim comes to mean Pay Attention, rewards are coming. As we continue this the goal is to create an increase in drive behavior and attention with the application of Stim. As we develop further in training I expect to have to dial up the Stim level (currently operating on 5 out of 127) but I equate that shouting a command. Start out teaching in a soft voice, and if the attractant for the dog becomes too great, we increase our volume to be heard....The E-collar will just do it physically instead of aurally.

Thus far, I have a puppy that LOVES to put on his E-collar. No flinching, no neurotic behavior. I'm really excited to see what I can continue doing with this tool as I explore.
 
#40 ·
After seeing it done by some training folks that I highly respect, we've recently started using the E-collar as a positive reinforcer. :) Application of the stim will increase the liklihood of a behavior (in this case attention).
You mean as a marker? I'm not sure why you'd need an ecollar for this? You can use a clicker, voice marker or for very long distance, a vibration collar. Or is the stim a cue to pay attention? I'm not sure I see the practicality of it as a cue.
 
#39 ·
That sounds great JK. I would really like to get a collar to use the same way, for attention and also for Lou's crittering approach. I'm thinking I probably will sometime soon, I'm working with a trainer who does ecollar work so when I have the money I'd like to get a good collar and do some private ecollar lessons.

Emma can be very soft to corrections. And she is very adhd! She has to sit and give me eye contact before getting anything. At the back door is the hardest because she wants to sniff the kitchen garbage, or go stare at the cats... She sits nicely but her head goes all over the place for ages before she's able to focus on me lol. Sometimes in class with certain exercises she cannot focus, even holding food right in front of her.. And she is super food motivated. The attention goes back and forth, in and out!
 
#48 ·
For the record, if any trainer gave out my personal information to ANYONE I would be FURIOUS. I don't care WHO they are. Heads would roll.

JKlastsky, great post as usual. You have a great way of explaining things and I love reading your posts. You usually sum up what I am thinking in a much clearer way!
 
#52 ·
For the record, if any trainer gave out my personal information to ANYONE I would be FURIOUS. I don't care WHO they are. Heads would roll.

Of course I'd have AgileGSD asking permission before giving out such information. If they gave it, would you have a problem with them being contacted?
 
#51 ·
I agree with AgileGSD that e-collars have greater potential for psychological harm than other tools.

For one reason, an e-collar does not depend on the owner's physical capabilities beyond pressing a button. A 2 year old can give the same strength of correction as a physically fit adult man with an e-collar. My idea of a strong correction with a prong collar is not going to be the same as the physically fit adult man because he's stronger than I am, and that makes him more capable to hurt a dog if he wanted to. With an e-collar, everyone capable of pressing a button is capable of misusing the tool to the same degree as everyone else.

The e-collar doesn't discriminate. Everyone is capable of giving the same strength of a correction. The wider range of people who are physically capable of misusing a tool, the more possible it is that the tool can be used for abuse.

But the fact that the e-collar doesn't discriminate means that it can be used properly by a wider range of people as well. The weak, the young, and anyone else who isn't physically capable of using other tools can use this one if they are knowledgeable about training and they are capable of pressing a button in a timely manner.

I doubt that the trainers in AgileGSD's stories were using the collar properly, but I don't think it's impossible for a dog to respond poorly to even proper e-collar methods.
 
#54 ·
I agree with AgileGSD that e-collars have greater potential for psychological harm than other tools. [Emphasis Added]

I'm pretty sure that this is NOT AgileGSD's statement. She HAS said that she thinks that Ecollars "have a greater potential for misuse than other tools."

The simple truth is that ANY tool can be misused. They ALL have the potential.

For one reason, an e-collar does not depend on the owner's physical capabilities beyond pressing a button. A 2 year old can give the same strength of correction as a physically fit adult man with an e-collar.

When was the last time that you saw "a 2 year old" training with an Ecollar? lol

My idea of a strong correction with a prong collar is not going to be the same as the physically fit adult man because he's stronger than I am, and that makes him more capable to hurt a dog if he wanted to.

Pain with a pinch collar is NOT cause by pulling strongly on the leash. It comes from hand speed. Hand speed is not a function of strength. I've seen some VERY strong people who are completely incapable of giving a decent correction with a pinch collar. It DOES NOT take strength to train with a pinch collar.

With an e-collar, everyone capable of pressing a button is capable of misusing the tool to the same degree as everyone else.

Anyone is capable of dragging their dog around with a pinch collar, even your "2 year old." Doing so is guaranteed to mean that the dog gets nagging corrections which constitutes misuse. That "2 year old" can also give the dog a hellacious jerk pull with a head halter if the dog takes off on a runner. Again ... misuse. Anyone can easily overfeed their dog if using treats, and many do. Just take a look at the average dog in the park. AGAIN, misuse. And none of those tools costs hundreds of dollars, making THEM far more subject to misuse than an Ecollar.

The e-collar doesn't discriminate. Everyone is capable of giving the same strength of a correction.

Interesting that you ignore the truth about this situation. There are other ways to misuse various tool than I've mentioned, but somehow you too, have a "blind spot" to it. Not unusual.

The wider range of people who are physically capable of misusing a tool, the more possible it is that the tool can be used for abuse.

NONSENSE! There are far more head halter out there than Ecollars and to many dogs, merely putting it on them is misuse.

But the fact that the e-collar doesn't discriminate means that it can be used properly by a wider range of people as well. The weak, the young, and anyone else who isn't physically capable of using other tools can use this one if they are knowledgeable about training and they are capable of pressing a button in a timely manner.

Virtually every tool extant is a "double edged sword."

I don't think it's impossible for a dog to respond poorly to even proper e-collar methods.


There's a double negative here and so I think you mean that even if the Ecollar is used properly it's possible for a dog to respond poorly.

I've put Ecollars on well over 3,000 dogs. Not one of them responded "poorly." Hundreds perhaps thousands of people have used my methods, many who have never trained a dog or used an Ecollar before. My website has dozens of letter from them. NOT ONE PERSON has ever reported "poor results." The exact opposite is the case. And human nature being what it is, if someone got "poor results" they'd have spoken of it somewhere. Please free to search the Net and see if you can find such comments from someone.
 
#55 ·
Just wanted to put in my 2 cents here. We do use an e-collar on our GSD and have had great results with all types of training: obedience, agility and SAR. Use it with just enough power to get their attention . Its like having a 500 foot leash. My boy knows when it goes on the fun and games is about to begin and has no issues wearing it
 
#58 ·
Why does every e-collar thread turn into a who can write better in the snow match. Not every sentence has to be argued about and people can have different opinions without being wrong. It's really hard to learn anything from these threads once it deteriorates to this point.
 
#59 ·
Yes, it is no longer very interesting to me that e- collars can be misused. I never figured it was otherwise. Yes, very typical of the exchanges.
I have seen it work just fine on a wide variety ofdogs and just finished working my soft rescue girl with it because it has the least fallout of any of the corrective devices I have here, even her flat collar.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top