E collar i want to buy? is this ok
- Thread starter hedwig
- Start date
I think for me personally, aversives would be a horrible thing for my dog. She gets her feelings hurt very easily. There is no question to me that a shock for any reason would turn her into a very afraid dog. I think if I shock collared Tosca she would be truly ruined. I am not willing to try just to prove it, but I have a distinct feeling it would not be the right thing to do to her under ANY circumstances.
Ok, ok...the majority of the experiements, the experimenters, the long time professional trainers of police dogs in the experiments and other dogs, the behaviorists, the scientists are all wrong. Low level, mild discomfort is all it took to deter your dog. Great. I don't buy it and neither do they.
Wild canines, ancestors of our dogs and other animals take big risks to hunt food. They get hurt sometimes by antlers and strong kicks. Sometimes they get killed. They risk it because they need to eat. It's a VERY strong motivator to eat and survive. It's an instinct that hasn't disappeared from domestic dogs. They may not need to function that way to live in most cases, but those drives are still present, as we can see. They'll take that risk and significant pain and injury in order to take down game to eat and survive. Dogs can put up with a lot. They learn caution and how to maneuver around things, how to weigh the risks. I just don't want to be the one that they're cautious about or afraid of or aggressive toward.
Your description (in another thread) of your dogs playing very rough and getting ouchies by teeth or claws in a worse way than the shock collar happens and they get pinched in a door that slams on them by accident and they get porcupine quills in them...all those natural aversives. My dogs play rough too. Lyric has made bite wounds on Toker enough to bleed a little bit. He really gets rough. I've had to intervene lately because it's no good that she gets these ouchies. But for her preference, she goes right back for more play, it doesn't deter her for a second. She's a wild woman.
The rough play is a higher motivator than the wounds are a punisher. That rough playing never extinguishes. The door has slammed on a foot or body by accident and they are not afraid to go through the door again. Going out the door to play is a higher motivator than the pain or fear of the door slamming on their bodies. My Lab got into a porcupine three times in one summer. She never quit going after them. She was determined to get that thing no matter what. The pain of the quills and pain and fear she went through while getting them pulled out all over her body, inside her mouth, her ears, eye lids (not fun at all, as you know) was apparently not as powerful a deterrent as the motivation to get the porcupine was. In other words, the intensity of the motivator was higher than the intensity of those aversives. None of those painful things extinguished those behaviors in your dogs or in mine.
So, your low level shock or "tap" as you like to call it, to your dog is so mildly painful that it is enough to make her turn around from running off in a determined prey drive... to return to you? How is it that a low level, no pain or fear eliciting "stimulation" is enough to deter such powerful, intense, focused prey drive which you describe your dog as having? How on earth would a mild discomfort that does not elicit any significant pain or fear extinguish that behavior? If it is associated with you, and it wasn't too painful or frightening, I could almost understand it since dogs have a social thing going with us, but that would be due to her wanting to focus on you, wanting to please, in which case positive methods would work exeedingly well if they had been systematically done with "prey" exercises, which start small and work up. But you say the dog does not associate the shock with you. (also disagreed with by the studies and everything I've read from loads of applied behaviorists and science, brain chemistry has been tested, body language, small nuances perhaps that you don't notice but the scientists do)
Just one more thing: (Oh, and this isn't just for you Melanie....this post. It's for anyone considering using an e-collar) When the shock collar is put on an adult human, the human is expecting it, knows somewhat what to expect because we understand about electricity. That is not part of a dog's natural world and I would expect them to be much more confused, bewildered or frightened and stressed. They don't know what is happening to them. It is such a weird and foreign sensation, I would imagine. It's extremely unnatural to them....electric shock. Maybe it doesn't have to be highly or excrutiatingly painful physically. Maybe there is more emotional consequences. But some big, adverse event has to be happening physiologically and emotionally to get such a tough, highly driven dog to turn around and come to you when it is so extraordinarily motivated by something in the environment. And that is confirmed in the big picture, in the vast majority of cases. Most experts in animal behavior are horrified by the use of these electric devices. Animal welfare groups, big, well known kennel clubs etc (already mentioned in link who all) are against these devices and feel that it is "barbaric" to use such a thing on an animal. They're calling for bans all over the place. Vertinary scientists also have grouped together to oppose their use.
No one can really say they are all for positive reinforcement and then from the other side of their mouth say they are for shocking their dog.
Motivation and reward training methods, positive methods, clicker trainers....whatever one wants to call it is diametrically opposed to using that type of aversive. It goes against the principles of learning by way of positive reinforcement. It doesn't make sense to do one with one skill and another with another skill. The theory of learning behavior doesn't just work on certain tricks, like sit, down, stay but stops working on things like heel, come, or roll over. There are other ways, in other words. There's nothing wrong with having trouble with something, but there is something wrong with insisting on using a device like that which you feel is not good for other training skills but ok for the recall. I feel that it's taking a big risk. Glad it all turned out OK for you. But it most certainly screws up a lot of dogs, as is evident not only in a huge number individual cases I've read about, but also in controlled studies done by people in the know. And they're NOT ALL doing it "wrong."
There are exceptions to everything. Your dog may not have been damaged to the extent that some are. She may not show the outward signs that you can see which indicate a shut down dog. She may have come through it all right. But that doesn't mean that it's OK to use an electric shock collar on an animal. It really is a harsh thing.
That is all I can think of to say.
Wild canines, ancestors of our dogs and other animals take big risks to hunt food. They get hurt sometimes by antlers and strong kicks. Sometimes they get killed. They risk it because they need to eat. It's a VERY strong motivator to eat and survive. It's an instinct that hasn't disappeared from domestic dogs. They may not need to function that way to live in most cases, but those drives are still present, as we can see. They'll take that risk and significant pain and injury in order to take down game to eat and survive. Dogs can put up with a lot. They learn caution and how to maneuver around things, how to weigh the risks. I just don't want to be the one that they're cautious about or afraid of or aggressive toward.
Your description (in another thread) of your dogs playing very rough and getting ouchies by teeth or claws in a worse way than the shock collar happens and they get pinched in a door that slams on them by accident and they get porcupine quills in them...all those natural aversives. My dogs play rough too. Lyric has made bite wounds on Toker enough to bleed a little bit. He really gets rough. I've had to intervene lately because it's no good that she gets these ouchies. But for her preference, she goes right back for more play, it doesn't deter her for a second. She's a wild woman.
The rough play is a higher motivator than the wounds are a punisher. That rough playing never extinguishes. The door has slammed on a foot or body by accident and they are not afraid to go through the door again. Going out the door to play is a higher motivator than the pain or fear of the door slamming on their bodies. My Lab got into a porcupine three times in one summer. She never quit going after them. She was determined to get that thing no matter what. The pain of the quills and pain and fear she went through while getting them pulled out all over her body, inside her mouth, her ears, eye lids (not fun at all, as you know) was apparently not as powerful a deterrent as the motivation to get the porcupine was. In other words, the intensity of the motivator was higher than the intensity of those aversives. None of those painful things extinguished those behaviors in your dogs or in mine.
So, your low level shock or "tap" as you like to call it, to your dog is so mildly painful that it is enough to make her turn around from running off in a determined prey drive... to return to you? How is it that a low level, no pain or fear eliciting "stimulation" is enough to deter such powerful, intense, focused prey drive which you describe your dog as having? How on earth would a mild discomfort that does not elicit any significant pain or fear extinguish that behavior? If it is associated with you, and it wasn't too painful or frightening, I could almost understand it since dogs have a social thing going with us, but that would be due to her wanting to focus on you, wanting to please, in which case positive methods would work exeedingly well if they had been systematically done with "prey" exercises, which start small and work up. But you say the dog does not associate the shock with you. (also disagreed with by the studies and everything I've read from loads of applied behaviorists and science, brain chemistry has been tested, body language, small nuances perhaps that you don't notice but the scientists do)
Just one more thing: (Oh, and this isn't just for you Melanie....this post. It's for anyone considering using an e-collar) When the shock collar is put on an adult human, the human is expecting it, knows somewhat what to expect because we understand about electricity. That is not part of a dog's natural world and I would expect them to be much more confused, bewildered or frightened and stressed. They don't know what is happening to them. It is such a weird and foreign sensation, I would imagine. It's extremely unnatural to them....electric shock. Maybe it doesn't have to be highly or excrutiatingly painful physically. Maybe there is more emotional consequences. But some big, adverse event has to be happening physiologically and emotionally to get such a tough, highly driven dog to turn around and come to you when it is so extraordinarily motivated by something in the environment. And that is confirmed in the big picture, in the vast majority of cases. Most experts in animal behavior are horrified by the use of these electric devices. Animal welfare groups, big, well known kennel clubs etc (already mentioned in link who all) are against these devices and feel that it is "barbaric" to use such a thing on an animal. They're calling for bans all over the place. Vertinary scientists also have grouped together to oppose their use.
No one can really say they are all for positive reinforcement and then from the other side of their mouth say they are for shocking their dog.
Motivation and reward training methods, positive methods, clicker trainers....whatever one wants to call it is diametrically opposed to using that type of aversive. It goes against the principles of learning by way of positive reinforcement. It doesn't make sense to do one with one skill and another with another skill. The theory of learning behavior doesn't just work on certain tricks, like sit, down, stay but stops working on things like heel, come, or roll over. There are other ways, in other words. There's nothing wrong with having trouble with something, but there is something wrong with insisting on using a device like that which you feel is not good for other training skills but ok for the recall. I feel that it's taking a big risk. Glad it all turned out OK for you. But it most certainly screws up a lot of dogs, as is evident not only in a huge number individual cases I've read about, but also in controlled studies done by people in the know. And they're NOT ALL doing it "wrong."
There are exceptions to everything. Your dog may not have been damaged to the extent that some are. She may not show the outward signs that you can see which indicate a shut down dog. She may have come through it all right. But that doesn't mean that it's OK to use an electric shock collar on an animal. It really is a harsh thing.
That is all I can think of to say.
Then.. why do my cats hang out with me?
Kidding. Amen to that, TM. My cats hate certain people... and will attack them on sight.. so yes, I know that's true.
I do have a question, though. About Leerburg. I think they're full of crap (bring your puppy home and don't give it any attention for six months? family members never allowed to touch your dog? along with other things) but after reading this thread I never gave it much thought before. But.. what makes you guys hate them so much? And I haven't read a whole lot of their stuff, so no bashing, please, if it's obvious.
Kidding. Amen to that, TM. My cats hate certain people... and will attack them on sight.. so yes, I know that's true.
I do have a question, though. About Leerburg. I think they're full of crap (bring your puppy home and don't give it any attention for six months? family members never allowed to touch your dog? along with other things) but after reading this thread I never gave it much thought before. But.. what makes you guys hate them so much? And I haven't read a whole lot of their stuff, so no bashing, please, if it's obvious.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,083
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
Well, Doberluv, due to your continued interest in the subject I WILL respond again. I am pretty aware of how many people are following this thread and who understand and agree with what I have been posting.
You say that your dog is trained to respond even in the face of very tempting distractions just by the use of positive reinforcement and mild "no reward markers". You went through a lot of steps of training to get this reaction (in a dog that is a breed that is well-known as being relatively easy to train). I'm sure you probably broke down every behavior, spent time learning what motivates your dog, finding ways to reinforce for even small steps initially, etc. etc. You built a strong desire to return to you because you spent a lot of time doing all these steps.
I did the same sort of thing with Khana. I built a lot of desire in her to be with me, to respond to my recall command with racing to me. Overall she was very good. But there were times - just a few that she actually got away with - when the lure of things in the great wild outdoors was higher than any motivator I could have supplied. Now, I've had dogs like your dog that could be trained pretty easily to respond. All of my German shepherds have been great at recalls. I can take Trick outside with a moose grazing twenty feet away or a cat running across the road or a squirrel skittering across the driveway, and when I say "stick with me" she does what I ask. I never used an e-collar on her nor on any of my shepherds. I haven't trained my other two chows with an e-collar either.
Now, in my young chow .. here's a dog with a level of desire that evidently you have never encountered. I spent months researching other methods while continuing to use positive reinforcement in daily training with her. I discussed the possibility of using an e-collar with colleagues and trainers who are extremely knowledgeable, intelligent, experienced people and who are strong believers in clicker training methods. They know me. They know my dogs. They AGREED with me that with this particular dog, I had given the positive reinforcement type of training the best try possible. And they agreed that she needed something a bit beyond what +R could offer.
As I've described before (I'm beginning to wonder if you ever truly read my posts or if you just are so adamant against what I do that you choose to argue against the method anyway), I went through steps of teaching Khana the proper response to the stimulation. She already KNEW what the recall command meant. The goal was to add enough of a negative reinforcement (paired with the positive reinforcement/rewards that she ALREADY knew would happen) to influence her to respond to the command in the way I wanted. I showed her, using a long line, how she could stop any stimulation by coming toward me. I continued to use a high level of praise, rewards, excitement, running from her, games, etc. I gave her all the reason in the world to respond to my recall and IT HAS WORKED. When I say she never yelped or cringed or cowered or screamed I MEAN IT. I'm not making this up just to try to defend a method. I am tell you straight-out how it worked and how it worked successfully.
And I added in distractions slowly. I worked her with moose in the distance. I gradually worked her closer to moose. I took her out to my friend's homestead and introduced her to horses. I spent a LOT of time with the various steps. It wasn't just a matter of slapping an e-collar on her, turning it up to high and zapping the heck out of her. I don't know how to be more clear in my explanation. No one I've discussed this with has EVER had so much difficulty in understanding this.
By the way - I have never said that my dog doesn't associate the shock with me. You're taking that from someone else's post and attributing the words to me. If I'm going to use a correction with my dog, I don't worry about her associating it with me because I KNOW the level of correction I use and I know my dog - and the levels I use do not damage the trust she has in me. When she plays with Trick and Trick nails her and makes her yelp, it doesn't damage the relationship she has with Trick either. You may choose not to believe that .. but in the end, it really doesn't matter at ALL what you choose to believe. I know that you are wrong in regards to my training of my dog.
I truly get the impression that you are basically saying "You're a liar!" to me in your posts. I think it's because you don't believe that I used a low level stimulation that only resulted in an ear twitch. I know you don't want to believe it and I know that you don't want others to believe it. For some reason you really want to make me out to be abusive and cruel, and there is NO one who knows me real/time who would back you up on that assumption. My dogs are absolutely bonded with me and that includes Khana, who is my constant companion. And use of this collar makes it possible for her to run and play out on my friend's homestead, or down at the lodge, or at the beach. I needed that little extra motivation - yes, it was negative, but it IS a motivation - to encourage her to give me the behavior needed in order for her to have freedom.
You make it sound that anyone who uses any sort of physical correction cannot be considered positive in ANY way. If a person uses positive reinforcement 95% of the time and occasionally uses a physical correction that illicits NO pain response from their dog, you're saying that they're NOT positive. In any testing, 95% would not only be a passing score, it would be an "A"! I suppose that since some of us use a small amount of physical correction, we're so bad that we might as well give up and just go full-blown Koehler on our dogs. AFter all, you are grouping everyone into that category. And that makes NO sense to me. Since you don't consider me positive at ALL now, I guess I might as well just start encouraging everyone to use corrections and stop giving advice based on positive reinforcement.
You talk about a dog's world and what is natural. I guess "natural" pain is okay to you, but only what YOU define as natural. Well, leashes and collars and crates and confinement are not part of the natural world either. And yet we submit our dogs to those daily. Just because they're tools that you willingly use doesn't make them any more right than tools other people use. Does a dog prefer to wear a collar and be limited to a leash and be stuck in a kennel? No, they don't. That's why we have to go through steps to encourage them to accept these devices. But it seems that only the devices YOU think are okay should be allowed. Hmmm. Why should you be the moral judge of everyone else?
I am still trying to understand why those who are "all positive" (and again, I acknowledge that there is verbal correction within that) can use positive punishment in some ways and it's okay. The whole concept of stopping when a dog gets ahead of you on leash and letting it hit the end of the leash is chock full of positive punishment. And so many "positive" trainers remove toys and withhold food and confine dogs in crates, etc. These are all punishments, in the popular sense of the word. But since they do it, it MUST be okay even though some dogs are quite upset by these actions.
There are some people out there who are strong advocates of not using anything on dogs at all - and who believe that we should not confine or train dogs. To them, YOU would be cruel and inhumane. You would probably think of them as extremists and that they're not quite all there.
So you just go on using your tools and devices and keep on feeling righteous about your training, and I'll go on and use my tools and devices and will keep on feeling righteous about my training. I'm glad that there ARE people here who are open-minded and can understand the difference between corrections that create pain reactions and corrections that don't, and that a small amount of correction to provide a freedom to a dog isn't cruel.
Melanie and the gang in Alaska
You say that your dog is trained to respond even in the face of very tempting distractions just by the use of positive reinforcement and mild "no reward markers". You went through a lot of steps of training to get this reaction (in a dog that is a breed that is well-known as being relatively easy to train). I'm sure you probably broke down every behavior, spent time learning what motivates your dog, finding ways to reinforce for even small steps initially, etc. etc. You built a strong desire to return to you because you spent a lot of time doing all these steps.
I did the same sort of thing with Khana. I built a lot of desire in her to be with me, to respond to my recall command with racing to me. Overall she was very good. But there were times - just a few that she actually got away with - when the lure of things in the great wild outdoors was higher than any motivator I could have supplied. Now, I've had dogs like your dog that could be trained pretty easily to respond. All of my German shepherds have been great at recalls. I can take Trick outside with a moose grazing twenty feet away or a cat running across the road or a squirrel skittering across the driveway, and when I say "stick with me" she does what I ask. I never used an e-collar on her nor on any of my shepherds. I haven't trained my other two chows with an e-collar either.
Now, in my young chow .. here's a dog with a level of desire that evidently you have never encountered. I spent months researching other methods while continuing to use positive reinforcement in daily training with her. I discussed the possibility of using an e-collar with colleagues and trainers who are extremely knowledgeable, intelligent, experienced people and who are strong believers in clicker training methods. They know me. They know my dogs. They AGREED with me that with this particular dog, I had given the positive reinforcement type of training the best try possible. And they agreed that she needed something a bit beyond what +R could offer.
As I've described before (I'm beginning to wonder if you ever truly read my posts or if you just are so adamant against what I do that you choose to argue against the method anyway), I went through steps of teaching Khana the proper response to the stimulation. She already KNEW what the recall command meant. The goal was to add enough of a negative reinforcement (paired with the positive reinforcement/rewards that she ALREADY knew would happen) to influence her to respond to the command in the way I wanted. I showed her, using a long line, how she could stop any stimulation by coming toward me. I continued to use a high level of praise, rewards, excitement, running from her, games, etc. I gave her all the reason in the world to respond to my recall and IT HAS WORKED. When I say she never yelped or cringed or cowered or screamed I MEAN IT. I'm not making this up just to try to defend a method. I am tell you straight-out how it worked and how it worked successfully.
And I added in distractions slowly. I worked her with moose in the distance. I gradually worked her closer to moose. I took her out to my friend's homestead and introduced her to horses. I spent a LOT of time with the various steps. It wasn't just a matter of slapping an e-collar on her, turning it up to high and zapping the heck out of her. I don't know how to be more clear in my explanation. No one I've discussed this with has EVER had so much difficulty in understanding this.
By the way - I have never said that my dog doesn't associate the shock with me. You're taking that from someone else's post and attributing the words to me. If I'm going to use a correction with my dog, I don't worry about her associating it with me because I KNOW the level of correction I use and I know my dog - and the levels I use do not damage the trust she has in me. When she plays with Trick and Trick nails her and makes her yelp, it doesn't damage the relationship she has with Trick either. You may choose not to believe that .. but in the end, it really doesn't matter at ALL what you choose to believe. I know that you are wrong in regards to my training of my dog.
I truly get the impression that you are basically saying "You're a liar!" to me in your posts. I think it's because you don't believe that I used a low level stimulation that only resulted in an ear twitch. I know you don't want to believe it and I know that you don't want others to believe it. For some reason you really want to make me out to be abusive and cruel, and there is NO one who knows me real/time who would back you up on that assumption. My dogs are absolutely bonded with me and that includes Khana, who is my constant companion. And use of this collar makes it possible for her to run and play out on my friend's homestead, or down at the lodge, or at the beach. I needed that little extra motivation - yes, it was negative, but it IS a motivation - to encourage her to give me the behavior needed in order for her to have freedom.
You make it sound that anyone who uses any sort of physical correction cannot be considered positive in ANY way. If a person uses positive reinforcement 95% of the time and occasionally uses a physical correction that illicits NO pain response from their dog, you're saying that they're NOT positive. In any testing, 95% would not only be a passing score, it would be an "A"! I suppose that since some of us use a small amount of physical correction, we're so bad that we might as well give up and just go full-blown Koehler on our dogs. AFter all, you are grouping everyone into that category. And that makes NO sense to me. Since you don't consider me positive at ALL now, I guess I might as well just start encouraging everyone to use corrections and stop giving advice based on positive reinforcement.
You talk about a dog's world and what is natural. I guess "natural" pain is okay to you, but only what YOU define as natural. Well, leashes and collars and crates and confinement are not part of the natural world either. And yet we submit our dogs to those daily. Just because they're tools that you willingly use doesn't make them any more right than tools other people use. Does a dog prefer to wear a collar and be limited to a leash and be stuck in a kennel? No, they don't. That's why we have to go through steps to encourage them to accept these devices. But it seems that only the devices YOU think are okay should be allowed. Hmmm. Why should you be the moral judge of everyone else?
I am still trying to understand why those who are "all positive" (and again, I acknowledge that there is verbal correction within that) can use positive punishment in some ways and it's okay. The whole concept of stopping when a dog gets ahead of you on leash and letting it hit the end of the leash is chock full of positive punishment. And so many "positive" trainers remove toys and withhold food and confine dogs in crates, etc. These are all punishments, in the popular sense of the word. But since they do it, it MUST be okay even though some dogs are quite upset by these actions.
There are some people out there who are strong advocates of not using anything on dogs at all - and who believe that we should not confine or train dogs. To them, YOU would be cruel and inhumane. You would probably think of them as extremists and that they're not quite all there.
So you just go on using your tools and devices and keep on feeling righteous about your training, and I'll go on and use my tools and devices and will keep on feeling righteous about my training. I'm glad that there ARE people here who are open-minded and can understand the difference between corrections that create pain reactions and corrections that don't, and that a small amount of correction to provide a freedom to a dog isn't cruel.
Melanie and the gang in Alaska
Hello all... I was away and just caught up on a few posts on this thread. I just wanted to add that I don't think you abuse your dogs, Melanie. I was sad to see that this thread has become so personally insulting for everyone. It is obvious that you've put in a lot of time educating yourself about training, working in the field, training and titleing your own dogs, as well as your clients. There's no way to "win" this dispute, in my opinion. I've met Doberluvs Doberman and know that she's working hard to modify certain behaviors of his. I get that and I am guessing that that's why she is well read on this subject. She's clearly opposed to using an e-collar to modify his or any dogs behavior. It's obvious that Dr2 would not allow e-collars in her training program. I, myself will restrict my comment to stating that I've dealt with the results of some dogs trained on e-collars and the effects that it has on certain dogs. (Several police dogs, initially trained by respected pros.) I'm hoping more info will be posted in a "positive" manner to educate all of us on the issues of e-collar use, then let the facts speak for themselves.
Lyric's only behavior problem is dog to dog reactiveness when up close to another dog and when on a leash. And not when he's in a class situation. And not when he's off leash out in the open. I have been working on it for what it's worth, only when I visit in Seattle because there are not too many dogs around here to practice with. However, on walks, when there's a little space, he's improved probably 75% of how he was. Otch, when we had the two dogs in your livingroom, he was doomed from the start. LOL. Way too up close and personal. LOL.
Anyhow, other than that, he is a dream dog. You didn't get to see all his obedience and how lovely he is. Unfortunately, you saw him at his worst. His house manners are wonderful and he's just a lovely boy. I couldn't ask for a better hiking partner or walking anywhere, as long as no dog comes face to face with him.
It is not due to this d/d reactiveness that I have been reading. I have a fairly busy and full background in animal behavior, dogs and horses especially...practical and schooling that goes back a lot of years. (since I'm getting very old. LOL)
Today I took him down to see some people who were in this church parking lot...they're doing health screening for my area in mobile units. He has gotten so much more outgoing lately, since he's been sick, it seems. He was usually fairly aloof....not extremely, but you should see him now. He acts like perfect strangers we meet, as long as I'm chatting with them are his long lost relatives.
No, I couldn't see doing anything to hurt my baby, even if it wasn't horrific pain. But, maybe I'm just a wimp. Maybe I should be one of those animal rights extremist nut cases. LOL.
Anyhow, other than that, he is a dream dog. You didn't get to see all his obedience and how lovely he is. Unfortunately, you saw him at his worst. His house manners are wonderful and he's just a lovely boy. I couldn't ask for a better hiking partner or walking anywhere, as long as no dog comes face to face with him.
It is not due to this d/d reactiveness that I have been reading. I have a fairly busy and full background in animal behavior, dogs and horses especially...practical and schooling that goes back a lot of years. (since I'm getting very old. LOL)
Today I took him down to see some people who were in this church parking lot...they're doing health screening for my area in mobile units. He has gotten so much more outgoing lately, since he's been sick, it seems. He was usually fairly aloof....not extremely, but you should see him now. He acts like perfect strangers we meet, as long as I'm chatting with them are his long lost relatives.
No, I couldn't see doing anything to hurt my baby, even if it wasn't horrific pain. But, maybe I'm just a wimp. Maybe I should be one of those animal rights extremist nut cases. LOL.
Last edited:
I just wanted to say; I look up to all of you! Whether you believe a mild correction is right or not. This bickering is among the members that I feel are most signifigant in helping people that are not sure which way to turn. Each of you have helped numerous amounts of new dog owners, or those old dog owners with new problems. If you are not putting the dog/owner trust in violation, then you have my attention. Come on guys/gals..... we are all in this for the same thing!
We want the best possible lives for all dogs....
There are many people that need help and guidance, the ones that might beat their dogs, thinking that it helps "teach them". I wish everyone would quit being so hard on our "peers". We all differ in the ways we teach and train, but none of this deserves the attention of an animal abuser. I think we should spend more time helping the "newbies" with questions that may seem ignorant to some of us.
I would also like to say, Just because the OP may buy a shock collar doesn't mean he should/or is educated enough to use it.
They can ruin a dog quickly with wrong use, and I think everyone would agree on that.
We want the best possible lives for all dogs....
There are many people that need help and guidance, the ones that might beat their dogs, thinking that it helps "teach them". I wish everyone would quit being so hard on our "peers". We all differ in the ways we teach and train, but none of this deserves the attention of an animal abuser. I think we should spend more time helping the "newbies" with questions that may seem ignorant to some of us.
I would also like to say, Just because the OP may buy a shock collar doesn't mean he should/or is educated enough to use it.
They can ruin a dog quickly with wrong use, and I think everyone would agree on that.