Earlier I wrote,
It's a shame that some think that "compulsion" is the only way that the tool can be used.
Doesn't your E collar method rely on compulsion?
Hmmm. A question from someone who refuses to answer my questions? I'll do the right thing, even if you won't. I'm not afraid of questions as some seem to be, I welcome them.
Part of your confusion is that you're using a common, everyday definition for something that has become part of dog training jargon and has moved away from the common definition, but let's proceed.
I'll begin by asking you a question. If you hold up a treat to get a dog to sit, is that "rely[ing] on compulsion?
If you think that it is, after all, the dog is "compelled"
by his desire to get the treat to obey the command and perform the movement, then the answer is "Yes," my method "relies on compulsion."
But most will agree that, absent starvation, no dog is under "compulsion"
at that moment. Similarly, the level of stim that I use for teaching, training, and proofing is so low that if he wanted to, he could just sit there and not obey the command. He could just wander off if he wanted and the leash was dropped. He'd be slightly uncomfortable, just as would be the dog who refused to sit to get his treat, but he could do it. He's not under "compulsion"
because the stim level is so low.
This is NOT the case when someone uses the Ecollar, as you do, to stop undesired behaviors. If the dog persists in that behavior, you just turn up the level of stim until the PAIN "compels"
the dog to comply. See the difference? Some will not see it, especially if their ethos prevents them from admitting that they didn't understand a simple concept, or that they were wrong in an assumption.
If it wasn't an adverse feeling the dog would continue the behavior, right?
You may have forgotten that I'm not using the Ecollar to stop undesired behaviors. I'm using it to teach, train, and proof new behaviors.