Just a guess.  Since the Schmoo, created by the cartoonist Al Capp, was asexual, I guess I could have said "it" but somehow that didn't feel right.  There's no info in your profile, I checked.  I don't recall you ever signing a post with a name that could be identified as male or female.

I don't want to mislead you Jason.  Plenty of people do it that way and many have success with it.  But occasionally there comes a dog that learns to fight through the pain.  And then, the trainers who work like that discover that they've created a monster.  They have no way of getting him to release a bite.  I've encountered these monsters after they've been created quite a few times.  My method has never failed to make work with them.  At the end of the first session they've all released their bites on a voice command with no stim at all. 

Some people get a dog to release their bites with toys or food.  This is fine for a sport dog but for a police or military K-9 I think it's a horrible mistake.  Those dogs engage in combat for real.  I never want them to think that there's a game or some food at the end of it.  They need to keep their mind in the combat. 

There are a very few police departments in the US who have tried a breeding program.  Almost universally they've failed as they're not cost effective.  I'm opposed to them for several reasons.  When I go looking for a candidate for LE I look at dogs that have been selected by vendors to be police dogs for the departments they work with.  I test those dogs and less than one in a hundred pass.  Keep in mind that most of the dogs that I don't select go on to have careers as police dogs with other departments.  It's probably that my standards are higher (different?) than theirs.  But I've never had a dog that I selected wash out of training or for poor performance on the street.  Other departments have had this happen, some regularly. 

But having a breeding program often leads administrators to locking the trainer into only those dogs that the program produces.  If you used my requirements, few puppies if any, would be selected.  And that test can't be applied until the dog has reached 18-24 months of age.  That means that someone has to have been paid and the dog fed and vetted for nearly two years before he can be tested.  It's just not cost effective. 



Some do.  I don't.  Used that way, it's just a novel way to cause pain to the dog in an effort to get him to let go.  A good police dog thinks that any pain he's getting during a fight is coming from the person he's fighting.  How do you make him stop?  Certainly not by letting him go.  It's by biting and fighting harder!  Using an Ecollar like this is often counter productive.  It often works the first several times it's used but sometimes you come across a dog who learns to fight harder the pain.  Now you're at the highest level of stim that the Ecollar has, now what do you do?  The answer for some trainers is to go to a cattle prod.  This is way over the top especially since I get results at the level where the dog first feels the stim. 

Are you asking about the age of the dogs?  If so, keep in mind that most police dogs in the US are imports from Europe where they've gotten some training in one of the biting sports, such as SchH, Ring Sport, KNPV, etc.  Sometimes they have quite high degrees and sometimes they've just been started in the sport. 

These dogs come into the US at about 2-3 years of age and usually work until ill health or an injury forces them out. 



Mostly those dogs are imported by vendors who then provide training classes for the new handlers and to convert the dogs to police work from the sport work that they've done before coming here.  Those classes range from 5-6 weeks.  Some departments have an in house program for training the dog and handlers and these are usually longer, sometimes as long as 12 weeks for a green dog (one that hasn't received the basic work). 


I'm confused by your terminology about " . . . does the Ecollar become a shock collar. . . "  the word "Ecollar" is just another name for the tool that many people call a shock collar.  I advocate that people who use the tool not use the name "shock collar" because it conjures up all sorts of negative personal experiences that people have with electricity.  It's a euphemism but it's a rare day that passes when all of us don't use one. 

I use the Ecollar consistently for almost all my work with the police dogs,  It's as described on my website, using low level stim and teaching the dog how to shut it off.  I've used this method to get the "out" as it's called here, with many dogs when all other methods have failed. 

Emmy keeps putting up this lie and never backs it up with evidence.  If what she was saying was true, it would be easy to find.  LOL

Earlier I wrote:



Why some anonymous person would not accept my challenge is "confidential?"  I can't imagine why; especially since no one would have any idea who gave you the info. 


Sure I did, that's why I asked. 


Nope, not at all.  I wanted to hear their excuses just as Schmoo did.  Was she trying to "cause trouble" too?  LOL. 

Yeah, me.  I spent three long days with the founder of that school of training and have attended one of his seminars.  We've had many on-line discussions.  He knows little about a dog's drives or why they do what they do.  There's evidence to support a belief that he doesn't even like dogs, that they're just a source of income for him.  He's relatively new to the dog training scene. 

To learn to train dogs he went to gun dog trainers who use Ecollars and he learned how to force behavior.  He's very good at that, but causes much stress.  He offers a school to wanna-be trainers to learn to use the Ecollar.  One doesn't have to have any experience in dog training at all!  It's only three weeks long and includes marketing.  At graduation one is "certified" as a "Remote Collar Specialist." Someone with absolutely no dog training experience will "learn to train dogs with an Ecollar" in just three weeks! 

The general difference between us is that I use Estim at the level where the dog first feels it.  He uses it at the level just below where the dog screams in pain.  After spending some time with him I offered to teach him about the drives that make dogs do things that they do.  His response was and is classic!  He said, "I only need to know about one drive.  The 'do it when I say do it' drive." 

Earlier Emmy wrote: 

Yes, please tell us Emmy, what were their replies as to why they wouldn't take the challenge? 

Earlier I wrote:

Because he can be corrected at a distance and the intensity of that correction can be raised or lowered as needed. 

Earlier I wrote:


Earlier I wrote:


Because it's been rewarded.  We have people telling us that they "taught" dogs to sit in five minutes.  That's how quickly the (wrong) behavior can be picked up when it's rewarded consistently as would be the case for someone who was consistently three seconds late. 


Because the "late behavior" will likely be different every time (it's being punished so it will tend NOT to repeat) the dog will figure out that it's NOT what he's being punished for.  He'll realize that it's something else that's being punished and will back up in his thinking.  THAT behavior will be consistent and it's that behavior that will tend not to repeat. 


As evidence I'll offer what you confirmed above, that you use a clicker because it marks the precise moment in time that you want to reward the behavior.  With punishment a voice is completely sufficient.  That's evidence that timing is more critical with so-called positive methods. 


They do.  I've seen it happen hundreds of times.  And when they finally get it right, they're rewarded and that reinforces that they've made the right decision. 

Earlier you wrote: 
And I replied:

You've missed the point.  If one were to punish a behavior during the teaching phase at that level it would interfere with the learning.  It wouldn't be effective.  Your statement ONLY applies to behaviors that are already known, and the dog makes a mistake or disregards the command.  Then you need to exceed the dog's "threshold of discomfort" or the punishment won't be perceived as a punishment.  For example, if you give a stim but it's too low to be felt, it won't be perceived as punishment. 

But as I've said, this is not how I use an Ecollar to teach new behaviors. 


Behavior doesn't become permanent at the teaching phase with one or two applications of +P either. 

Earlier I wrote:

Since it's being consistently rewarded there's a much better chance of it repeating than the behavior that's consistently being punished.  This is the definition of reinforcement and punishment. 


There's far less chance of that same behavior reoccurring because it's being punished.  That tends to make behavior NOT repeat, while reinforcement tends to make behavior repeat.  The very nature of the training will tend to make the positively reinforced behavior repeat while the punished behavior will tend not to repeat. 

And because the new behavior (that's substituted for the one that's being punished) will tend to be different the dog will figure out that it's the behavior that's occurred just before the punished behavior is the one that's not desired. 

Earlier you wrote:
You don't understand how punishment is used at this level.  It's ONLY done after a dog has learned a behavior and then, for some reason, isn't performing it.  Since you don't understand this, your next statement, based on your misunderstanding, is wrong. 

I was.  LOL. 


Yes, and since it happens at the same time that the command is given and at the same time that something else is done, such as pulling on the leash when teaching the recall) the timing is likely to be just about perfect.  As I say in my instructions on teaching this,


In the thread called "E Collars" I cited a study done at the Tuskegee University that examined the level of cortisol present in dogs after bark collars had been used on them.  Cortisol is an indicator of stress.  That's been extensively examined in scientific (and non-scientific) studies done on the Ecollar for quite some time.  It shows up early in the training but when training is continued it disappears. 

What such study has been done on dogs trained with so-called positive methods?  None.  I think it's common sense that denying a dog an offered treat is stressful and causes distrust, even if at a low level.  But it's never been studied because people aren't opposed to so-called positive methods the way that they are to Ecollars.  I think that the emotional damage is present and insidious because it's masked by the appearance of the next treat. 


I don't know it for certain.  It's just a theory.  But I do know that the effects of low and high level stim has been tested and that the effects fade quickly. 

Earlier I wrote:


Earlier I wrote:

When you're talking about shaping a behavior, you're talking about the teaching phase, the first phase, of using the clicker. 

When you're talking bout luring a behavior you're talking about the same phase. 


In the same discussion you spoke about how a correction should be sufficient that it stop the undesired behavior within two reps. 

In training where the treat is used to lure the dog in (in the recall) he's given the treat as soon as he gets within reach of it or very soon afterwards.  If the click comes three seconds later, the behavior that will be "precisely marked" will be him walking away. 

To say that one uses a clicker to mark the precise moment that behavior occurs but then to have bad timing is illogical.


You're wrong either way.  In shaping the recall you need to click at the moment the dog turns his head towards you.  If you're three second too late you might be rewarding (for example) the dog sniffing the ground.  Since that behavior has been reinforced it will tend to repeat.  And so the dog continues to sniff the ground.  At some point he'll turn his head towards the handler again but three seconds later when the click comes, he's again sniffing the ground since it's been reinforced before. 

In luring, the dog comes in gets the treat (or not) stays at the handler for a few seconds and then wanders off.  Three seconds after coming in the click comes when the dog is sniffing the ground.  The "sniffing the ground" behavior will be reinforced as above. 


Either way, if the timing is three seconds too late the wrong behavior will be reinforced and since that will tend to make it repeat, it's much more critical that one have good timing with so-called positive methods than with punishment.  This apples to teaching new behaviors, what we're discussing, and at that level your comment about punishment being severe enough so that no more than two are required is NOT used.  You're mixing apples and oranges. 

Punishment at that level is not properly used during the teaching phase. It will tend to overwhelm the dog because he doesn't know what's expected of him yet. 

I'm not sure what you're saying here.  Are you attributing the injuries to the Ecollars? 


Agreed. 


I've used just about every methods and tool that exists for training dogs.  Having done this I've settled on the Ecollar as my favorite. 



The dominant breeds in LE here are the GSD (Alsatian) and the Malinois.  You might also find a scattering of Dobies, Rotts, and a very few others.  I prefer the look, trainability and temperament of the GSD but the Mal is a close second.  For the most part the Mal is highly instinctive and that can be a blessing and a curse.  They learn very quickly but if you make a mistake in their training will (always, it seems) learn that and then have a hard time being retrained to the proper behavior.  The GSD is a little more forgiving and so I prefer them, especially for first time handlers.  The breeding of the GSD has "been a little more careful" and so many problems are avoided that are common with the Mals. 

I agree, it's pretty impossible to tell the whole story in a post on such a forum.  That's why I put the articles on my website and why I take emails and phone calls. 



It used to worry me too.  That's another reason that I put up my website.  But the fact is that they're available and I think that the best response at this point is education. 

In many parts of the world, some parts or the UK are like this, it is a matter of life or death.  Herdsmen can shoot dogs that "worry" their stock.  If the hare this dog is chasing runs near stock . . .


Once one learns the theory behind using an Ecollar at low levels there's no temptation to use a higher setting.  You know that it causes all sorts of problems.  Results come so quickly that there's not frustration to do it either. 


Thanks for the kind words Seddie but it's easy to gain proficiency.  And your comment is true about virtually any tool that exists in dog training. 



Not to worry.  I never bite anyone's head off unless they have a go at me first. 

You're recommending that Toba contact people who know nothing about the tool and ask them if they think she should use it?  Sure seems like a waste of time to me. 

Hundreds of people with little or no experience in training a dog have used the articles on my website to train their dogs with an Ecollar to their complete satisfaction. 


Nothing wrong with that but given the dearth of knowledge about the tool over there, you'll be hard pressed to find one who knows anything about it. 

Rubbish.  Ecollars don't make anything.  Not lazy trainers, not bad trainers and not trained dogs.  The first two have to exist before the Ecollar came along and the last takes work, just not as much work as with other methods. 


An Ecollar used properly doesn’t cause, hurt, either mentally or physically. 


I've never come across a dog that has been "damaged" with an Ecollar that I can't fix with an Ecollar. 


Take a look at the article on my website called "Crittering and Dog to Dog Aggression. 

http://loucastle.com/critter.htm

Timing is everything for training with a clicker.  It's not as critical for training that uses punishment.  The better one's timing is with any method, of course, the better, but it's critical with the clicker. 

It's so critical that many clicker users say that the reason that they don't use their voice (it's just another type of marker) is that it's not precise enough. The "click" of the clicker is more precise.  That's how critical the timing is with a clicker. 


I made no such assumption.  If the punishment is three seconds too late then the dog is onto something new.  But because it will be repeated (yes, three seconds too late) over and over, the dog will figure out what the trainer is trying to punish.  The "new" (wrong) behavior that's punished will likely be different every time so the dog will go to the last behavior and that's the one that will be affected. 

With the clicker the dog will learn the wrong behavior (if the click comes three seconds too late).  He won't be able to generalize back to the "proper" behavior. 


Yes, that's what some are alleging.  But it's simply not true. 


That applies ONLY to behavior that the dog already knows and is not performing.  Your general statement does NOT apply to behaviors that are being taught. 


Assuming that the timing stays three seconds late the wrong behavior will be reinforced over and over, until it becomes learned.  The term "learned" means that it becomes habit. 


As has been pointed out you're wrong.  But in any case I don't advocate using the Ecollar in this fashion for training a dog.  Instead of being used to punish behavior after it has occurred, I advocate giving a continuous stim at the same time that the command is given and then guiding the dog into the proper behavior, then shutting off the stim.  Done this way, the timing problem that is being discussed isn't an issue. 

Earlier I wrote:

Emotional damage can be masked, but that doesn't mean that it's not present. 
 
Earlier I wrote:

When teaching is going on the clicker marks the end of the first step of the behavior.  In teaching the dog to recall this may be only having the dog turn his head slightly towards the handler.  You're talking about how it's done at the END of the training.  (Yes, I know that there's no "end" to training).  Yet, when you apply the punishment side of the discussion you go back to the teaching phase. 


We're talking about the teaching of a new behavior, not working on something that's already been taught and now refining the training is in progress.  In that context, you're wrong.  When teaching the recall you don't wait until the dog is all the way into the handler. 


Yes, quite a bit.  You've adopted Emmy's habit of begging the question.  We're talking about teaching new behaviors here.  You've tried to broaden it to what I call the second step of working with a dog.  The steps are teaching – training – proofing. 

And has been noted, this is not how I use an Ecollar to teach new behaviors.  Perhaps it's the only way you know to use one and how you'd use it if you chose to do so. 

Earlier I wrote:

It's a waste of time and we only have so much time to spend with our dogs.  If you want to waste some of your limited training time waiting for a dog to calm down, that's fine with me.  I don't need to.  Dogs are best trained "in drive" and that usually means high levels of excitement. 


It's going to vary with each dog.  I realize that's vague but there's no way to give a specific answer.  Let me try this; most of the dogs I work with are very active and very high in their level of drives.  When you go to take them out of their enclosure they're bouncing, barking and running around at a very high level.  I put the leash on them and go to work.  I don't wait for that energy to "burn off."  Instead I use it as part of the training. 


This is also true of performing a movement on command.  But this skill can be developed when the dog is full of energy if the method is effective. 


"Conventional wisdom" says many things that are outdated and have been proven wrong.  If a method is not very effective then this is the way to do it.  But it's hardly necessary using other methods.  I often go to people's homes to start training but only a few minutes, if that, are spent in the house.  Quickly we're "in the real world" on the sidewalk in front of the house, at the park, in the city, at the training field, working with the dog.  Few dogs need the security of beginning training in the absence of distractions. 


It depends on how long it takes.  I know of one owner who took three years to train her dog to sit in the house using so-called positive methods.  Dogs have relatively short lives; training shouldn't take any longer than necessary. 


I’m specifically addressing Emmy's dog that required four years and ten days to learn the recall. 


I do this occasionally.  It lasts less than a minute.  That energy should be directed into the training.  Playing can be done afterwards. 

Earlier I wrote:

It wastes energy.  It means that the dog can't be worked at a high level of concentration as long because he's burned off some of that energy. 


You'll have much more success if you incorporate this into the training instead of making it something that comes before it and is separate from it.  I'd suggest that you read "Training in Drive." 


The challenge is issued when someone claims that their training is 100% reliable (or as modified especially for Emmy – 99%).  It's not a competition between me and anyone else. 


I'm not stupid enough to think that I have 100% reliability.  I only intend to show those people who make that claim (or one of 99% reliability) to be frauds and liars. 


I don't care how many people take me up on it.  The point is to show the frauds and liars up for what they are. 


I've proven that they're afraid to even accept the challenge. 


The test will be videotaped at least by me and by anyone else who is present and desires to do so.  If there's any cheating going on it will be plain for all to see.  That would completely discredit me everywhere and I'd be disgraced.  Worries of "cheating" are just a way to people to weasel out of supporting their claim of 100% (or, in this case, 99% reliability). 


You're right that I’m taking words "literally."  These are literal statements of how good someone thinks that their training is.  That's exactly how it should be taken. 


Of course it does.  If someone makes such a statement they should be able to back it up by demonstrating it.  That's why there are OB competitions for dogs.  So that people can test their training.  My challenge just tests one phase of it.  What good does it do a dog who's running towards a busy street if he fails to recall THIS TIME?  That's why we train, so that we can predict what our dogs will do in various situations that we find ourselves  in. 



Are you not understanding the meaning of the word "reliable?"  That's exactly what is meant.  It's predicting the future based on past performance and training.  One buys a quality TV, car, and cell phone based on how it will perform in the future.  It's called reliability.  It's not an absolute predictor but it's certainly an indication of how it should be. 


That's exactly what the challenge is designed to show.  That people's criteria for making such a statement, is flawed. 


I've defined the word "reliable" (in this context) as meaning that the dog obeys every command, on a single command, no matter what the distance the dog is from the handler (as long as he can hear the handler's voice or see a hand signal [if the dog has been trained with them]) and no matter what distractions are present.  If the person accepts this definition then it makes no difference what the dog is trained for. 


"Reliability" doesn't mean one thing for a pet and something else for a working dog.  Words have meanings, they shouldn't be tossed around as if they didn't. 

Earlier I wrote:

Of course not.  I've never made the claim that I have 100% reliability; and I'm not so stupid that I would. 


USE of the Ecollar guarantees 100% reliability because it's the only tools that allows the handler to give the dog a correction at a distance.  Training with it gives the same reliability as many other tools. 


For things that I consider to be "tricks."  Some examples: barking on command, shaking hands, rolling over, playing dead and giving kisses.  Generally it's for things that are "permissive."  Things that don't need a high degree of consistency. 


It's an obvious sign that her training isn't as good as she'd like us to believe. 


I agree. 


More than likely you're correct; her requirements for her pet aren't the same as for a working dog (although that's kind of a vague term) but 99% reliability is the same for a pet as 99% reliability is for a working dog.  That's not subject to interpretation. 


The challenge is nothing but a way of showing people who make absurd claims that their training gives high levels of reliability that their statements have meaning.  That what they say has consequences and that they're exaggerating at best and lying at worst.  If someone claims that their methods give 100% (or, in this case 99%) reliability, that's FANTASTIC.  I'd pay a good sum ($3,000 in this case) to learn from them and I'm sure that many others would as well.  OB competitors would beat a path to their door.  Sporting competitors of all kinds would be begging them for lessons.  They'd be giving seminars around the world!  Rescues could close because the number of dogs with problems would drop.  Dogs that now get abused because they don't obey their owners (who get frustrated and take it out on their dog) would not be abused. 

But the truth is that the claim of 100% or even 99% reliably is a myth at best, and a lie at worst.