Erny

It's not a matter of bullying Helen. It's a matter of statements made ..... statements that become idiotic because the "author" doesn't acknowledge the knowledge and wisdom of those who actually do know a bit about what they speak about, and continue to "argue" without substance. In my experience, DOL is an informative and educational forum and many people have actually come away learning something. In fact, if Gemibabe has read the posts here, the majority of them are actually very informative and show reason as to why people disagree with what she has stated. But if people don't wish to learn and do wish to only speak in circles with people who will only agree with them, then yes, perhaps moving to a different forum will provide the OP with the satisfaction she's striving for. There's no bullying going on here - I for one welcome opposing thoughts provided they have some sound basis. Refuting statements made is not bullying. Oh, and I asked some questions of Gemibabe but they haven't been answered. Perhaps they've been overlooked? ETA - Gemibabe (and anyone else who would like to contribute) ..... explain to us your good reasoning for the opinion you've expressed about the e-collar here and let us have some good constructive discussion about it.

Apart from the "health" aspect, and as I understand it, the reason a Vet was appointed to determine suitability was because the Govt were at a loss to easily and without complications, identify any one other group that was 'qualified' (using formal terms) in the eyes of the Government. It is acknowledged within the documents from Government that the downside of this was that Vets across the board do not necessarily have the experience in dog behaviour and training nor a good understanding of the tool in question. But that's what they went with anyway ..... No-one's ganging up or bullying you Gemibabe. You've simply made a statement, an assertion if you will. And now you're recognising how many people disagree with you and are pointing out where and how your statement/assertion is flawed. If you make a statement on a public forum, be prepared to be able to stack it up with sound, factual reasoning. So far as I've read, you haven't managed to do this and just because there's no-one agreeing with you, you've cried "ganging up" ?? The "typical DOL mentality" is to counter statements when they identify there is no sound reasoning behind them. If that's not to your liking and you're not prepared to learn from the postings of others, then perhaps you need to think twice before you post.

RL01 .... not for me to suggest although from your previous posts in various threads, I have my ideas. The thing is, both your dog AND yourself should be assessed to determine the best collar - particularly considering the issue your dog has. You're seeing K9 Force ..... I would let him be the judge and advisor on this. Also, in reference to your recent but previous post. No - NOT a retractable lead. Not only do I find these to be bulky in the hand and therefore cumbersome when it comes to proper lead handling, the whole concept of the retractable lead goes against what we train for ..... ie the loose lead.

Ahhh .... I'm with you now. It is illegal for kennels to accept pups younger than 16 weeks of age. Being that you will be on kennel grounds ..... perhaps that still has a bearing on the legalities to which they are obliged? Or perhaps the question/proposal was not clearly understood by the NDTF staff person you spoke to? Worth clarifying. I hope you manage something.

Fair enough. There is such a huge push by the "nay-sayers" to this tool, as well as that of the Pressure Point Collar (PPC) - aka "pinch" collar, which also is a fine tool that is more complex and clever than the uninitiated are first lead to believe by those who oppose it. They would like to see their use totally banned Australia-wide. Even though no evidence of harm from their use exists. Seems they have no qualms over people using the ever ready available head-collars and check chains from which damage has been caused, though . That was why I thought you might have had an 'angle' on your questioning. In Victoria, use of the e-collar is restricted in that a person must obtain Veterinary consult to confirm the dog's health and suitability for e-collar use; and work under the instruction/supervision of a qualified trainer. But even before this regulation came in, I was not aware of the tool being used and dogs being abused with it. As I mentioned, the unconscientious don't usually go to too many lengths to only then turn around and abuse their dogs. But I definately would not want their availability through common outlet stores. There were those people in recent times who apparently used duct tape around their dogs' muzzles to stop them from barking through the day ...................... :. So you see what I mean?

Fair enough - and you're right. Pup is too young for kennels. Sorry if you've already said, but did you run this predicament past the NDTF people?

How old is your dog, Midol?

This continues to be answered Flip. No to the former. May I politely ask if there is some agenda behind the insistence of your question? It is beginning to sound to me as though it has a political base? If I'm wrong, then I apologise.

I answered that in my previous post. Still not sure how or why the "Kmart" suggestion/thought came up.

Heck! People don't even have to purchase specifically designed dog training equipment to abuse their dogs. To decry a training method or a training tool will not make any difference to abuse stats, save that they may increase because people will 'go underground' to train their dogs* when they are desperate and other methods aren't working (or surrender their dog/s more readily). Those that do decry these things to the exclusion of all but what they themselves believe in are the ones who create the devisive line that I think DenisC refers to. I think instead we should all unite as it surely is agreed that the vast majority have the same goal at heart? But it is difficult to unite when there is always those who will rise to fight and impose their own beliefs and preferences on others. ETA - *similar occurred when "working dog training" was outlawed and permitted only by those holding a security licence. I would not be able to count on both hands the numbers of calls I received as a trainer, from people who wanted to train their dogs up to protection work. This is not a field of work I specialise in anyway and I certainly do not know enough about it to be able to train it - but the stories I was then given from people who, in the absence of being able to obtain guidance, brought up and taught their dogs to be afraid of people so that they would be more aggressive (and therefore "more protective" ). Banning tools. Banning methodologies. This is NOT the way to go. It is only the dogs who generally end up paying the most expensive price for the bias and ignorance of some. The latter. But where did this question spring from Flip? Who has talked about e-collars being at "every Kmart or BigW etc"?

"Put him to death" said the Jury, who assumed the defendant was guilty. It's ok to "assume" Flip - but certainly unwise to act on assumption, including the assertion of somewhat bold and blanket based statements. ETA : Good story, Cosmolo. And certainly not the only one out there for some lucky dogs. But not to take away the work you've done - . Well done to you and Georgie .

Not to the extent of head collars, and check chains, which are hap-hazzardly available from any pet store and most supermarkets. People don't normally spend $700+ on a piece of training equipment unless they're dedicated to their dog and its training ..... so lessons are generally part of the process. These people don't want to get it wrong. Wish those who used other cheaper and readily available tools (including flat collars) would think twice as e-collar handlers generally do. Even some with little training methodology nouse can be unfair on their dogs and cause grave issues. But because this is not quite so tangible, they don't lend themselves to think about that until the problem is created. There are NOT a lot of people that I know who use the e-collar improperly. In fact, I know of no-one that does so. What stats are you basing your statement on, Flip?

It must be just me just being tired from a busy day at dog training, but I don't think I understand what you mean here Denis_C. Can you or someone please clarify so that my fizzled mind can understand. I don't understand this part of DenisC's (previously Lab & Poodle etc) post either.

Yes LM .... it crossed my mind too. Particularly the current political climate in "dog-laws" that we seem to be entering. But if this is the sort of argument that will be given against training tools that are proven in their excellence, there's only one thing they are showing up. And it's not the training tools.

Flip .... you lash out with insults to some very good and experienced trainers here who have and do use e-collars to assist with the training of some dogs and with behaviour modification of others, by calling them "lazy" and by referencing to them as "people who don't know how to train properly". And you talk about people on DOL taking you out of context? And shooting you down in flames? Perhaps you didn't mean to insult them - but you have, even if it is the result of your acute ignorance to the very tool you denigrate. Have an opinion .... that's everyone's right. But be honest enough to acknowledge when you simply don't know about something.

Ummmm .... how do you think your dog perceives "discipline" ???

Well .... the quicker the "bad behaviour" is "ironed out" the quicker the dog receives less punishments. Or ..... are you telling us you don't/didn't use punishment? Think carefully about your answer before you post back. Yes - and those who understand the e-collar training make those choices on an educated level, not with the simple and so far from the truth notion that it is "lazy" training; a "quick fix" or for those who can't train properly. Make your statements - but I wish you'd get a clue before you do. Either that, or acknowledge you don't understand (whether partly or fully) the training basis behind the good use of the e-collar and ask about it. There are numerous of us here who would be happy to entertain you with some sound, knowledgeable, factual and educational information if your mind is open to it. This is one (very useful when it comes to the dog's life) instance for the use of the e-collar. FYI (and education) HERE is a link about "finding the working level" on an e-collar And this one is an e-collar trained dog Recalling off a hare chase Doesn't seem to me that the handler is one who is lazy or who doesn't know about training. And the dog certainly seems a very fit, well and happy dog ..... with the advantage of experiencing much freedom similar to the footage shown here.

And these statements are for and from people who can't be bothered to research into the good uses the e-collar does have compared with matters such as learning and restraint stress; aggression; uncontrolled prey drive; etc. etc. No one has mentioned that being "calm and assertive" (I assume that's the word you meant to write?) isn't part of training the dog ..... yes, even ones trained with the kind use of the e-collar. Given you've declared them for use by people who "don't have time to train their dog properly", it doesn't sound like it??? A "quick fix" is a bandaid solution to training or behaviour problems. It is terminology for something that is not going to last. If you had a clue about training dogs using the e-collar, you would understand that "quick fix" it is not. Gosh ...... I don't even think those sorts of thoughts regardless of the training equipment or methodology I might be using. And if you thought your dog was defying you, I'd suggest you take a double take at your training. Mostly it's the person to blame and not about the dog "defying". What's wrong with "easy"? Often quicker learning for the dog, so "learning stress" is kept to a minimum. I guess you could have tried "stimming" instead. Might have saved you and your dog the "hard yards" ??? Wow .... another who thinks it's about "laziness"? You need to read up a lot more on this method so you can make educated statements continued next post

The thing that is wrong with this is that it should be about finding the right level for the dog. I'm all for people experiencing the effect of ANY and ALL devises before they use it on a dog. I've done so myself. For the e-collar I know that the correct level for the method I prefer is at the point where I first notice the stimulation sufficiently to find it an annoyance. What the people in both video clips have done is taken the stim level beyond that level - and even beyond the level where they might have otherwise ceased a behaviour and not repeated it, if that had been the point of the exercise. If you want to conduct a similar exercise that these people did for the purpose of the video clip, you'd only need to adapt a head-collar to fit their heads and watch whilst they increased the intensity of the leash pulls way beyond what one would normally should do in the case of 'real life' use. Not sure what you mean by this, Rusky?

I hope it continues so that you can. I'm not confident that will be the case though. Unless people voice it out now. Sorry to go Gemibabe. But what is occuring in relation attempted control over what ALL people will use (or not) on ALL dogs is IMO wrong and not congenial to dog-welfare, so I can't help myself but voice up about it.

Because we disagree with what you "feel" and we've put up good and factual reasoning as to why your "feelings" are misplaced. Your 'feelings' on the matter might not alter, but others who read here will have the opportunity to make their minds up about what their thoughts are on stim-collars based on information, rather than someone else's "feelings". Just like yourself, others are entitled to state their opinions .... except that what has been given here in response to your expression of 'feeling' is information based on educational fact. Why do you think it is a "lazy way"? Because no-one ends up in a sweat about it? Does training have to be hard work for it to be acceptable and to whom - the dog, or yourself? If it is the most efficient and effective way for the dog to learn, why don't you 'feel' this not a good thing for the dog? Just the same as anyone could hope they don't expect the dog to stop dead in its tracks at the side of the road when they click a clicker. Naturally, like anything, 'training' comes into it Gemibabe. Do you have any knowledge about using an e-collar for training? If so, would you explain it here so we can understand WHY you might harbor the 'feelings' about the e-collar as you do.

Edited .... 'cause I see by Haven's babyometer that I was wrong! Now - that doesn't happen often ...... (not) Thinking of you Haven! Aunty Erny is looking forward to news of your baby's arrival!

RL01 ..... I use a 1.5 metre length lead. Allows for flexibility and opportunity to introduce 'distance' training. Also good for loose lead walking in that it provides some freedom for the dog to sniff about without needing to be under my feet. If I want shorter, I fold a loop in it.

Hey! A bull might just like (and find use) to have them, KI . But I agree. A clicker is used to mark good behaviour (just as a verbal marker can be exercised). Reinforcing good behaviour is good, but doing that alone implies ignoring unwanted behaviour. There are many times when that is not either possible nor even beneficial for the dog.

The sound of your vehicles has become a reliable predictor that you are about to be home. I would suggest the dogs are barking from the excitement of that anticipation. Try training your dogs to understand this is not as reliable a predictor as they think, by driving your car up the street, but driving past and away. Try to not continue to your driveway until the dogs are quiet. Don't come inside until the dogs are quiet. When you do get inside, completely ignore the dogs. Go about your business until they've both settled down and are not vying for your attentions.