I didnt say that I dont expect results...but that I wont ignore how they are getting them. I KNOW you dont need an ecollar to get wonderful results on any dog. I know you dont have to use leash pops to teach a stellar heel. The list goes on.
There are many ways to get results, again, I want to know WHY they are working.
But if something works with great results, can we really say it should have been done another way? Why, if it worked really well? I am all for looking for a
better way to get better results, but at the end of the day there are so many different ways to train a dog (even just using PR methods) that I figure, who am I to say that someone whose methods has great results should have done it x y or z way?
I will probably be flamed for this but in the interest of discussion and sharing different POVs... I didn't need to use an e-collar on my dog but IMO it was the best option to get what I wanted. I hadn't used physical corrections at all in my training, (and I still haven't used them to train obedience or agility etc) my dog was incredibly reliable off leash when I was working her and was probably what I would call 90% reliable off leash when we were just going for a walk, that was trained purely without any physical corrections. However - she is a scent hound with an incredibly high scent drive, in fact I am yet to meet a beagle with as high a scent drive as she has. I had put up to this stage years of work into her to get her to the point in her training she was at, and she works to a relatively high standard. But I wanted that extra 10% of reliability in her recall when she was off leash.
It was only in situations where she got caught on a scent quite a distance from me and literally could not hear me calling her because she was so focused on scenting. She'd come 90% of the time but that 10% of the time where she plain didn't hear me calling her bugged me. I'd done long line training with her and when she could hear me her recall was super fast, but I didn't know how to get that last bit of reliability.
I considered all my options - what was the best way to get her attention when she was that far away from me and focused on a scent? It was a further distance than I could use my long line for. I also wanted to use the gentlest and least aversive method possible as I don't like to use physical corrections in training, as they diminish drive. So I decided to use low stim e-collar training, as the stim isn't painful, it's like a vibration (actually less than a vibration IMO - my dog finds the vibration option on the collar more aversive than the lowest perceivable level of stim), it is irritating at best. I had to first condition her to learn what the sensation of the stim meant as it was so low, had I just put the collar on her and stimmed her, she would ignore it as soon as she started scenting, because it really isn't very aversive. So I taught her what the stim meant outside of any distractions, and then gradually proofed it. This way I could get her attention when she got locked on a scent a distance from me. The e-collar gave me a way to get that last 10% of reliability in our recall while still allowing me to maintain the attitude I get from drive work.
Not for everyone but I honestly believe it was the best option for us in our situation, I don't know of anything else that would have worked as effectively to give me the results I have gotten.