The articles I've read on using e-collars describe using it early in teaching a behaviour - i.e. escape to shut the stim off. They seem to be geared towards a dog that does not already know the commands well.

My 14 month old pup is reliable with basic commands without major distractions. I want to use the e-collar to help me proof around gradually increasing amounts of distraction off-leash.

So far what I'm doing is - when we are working, I introduce the stim at her working level, give the command and shut it off when she complies. I don't need a leash to guide her into performing.

I've been doing this for about two weeks now and its hard for me to read if it is really making a difference and that she is really getting it that she turns off the stim - because her performance has been good before I introduced the e-collar. I *think* that she responds more reliably with the stim around distractions. We've done a few recalls in really trying circumstances with the stim and it has worked beautifully. Hard to judge how much the stim is really helping in these situations.

Am I doing this right in my situation or should I be using a different approach since my dog already knows all the commands? When does one move into avoidance training in my situation?

I end up having to try hard to look for opportunities where I know that her performance is not 100% reliable to give her some motivation to work to turn the stim off under pressure.

When does one move into avoidance training in my situation? As noted in the earlier thread, in ESCAPE learning the dog can do nothing to prevent the onset of the aversive event (in this case, the ecollar stimulation); it can only terminate it after the event occurs...assuming it knows what to do to terminate it.
In classic AVOIDANCE learning the dog is given a warning signal and if he responds correctly and in time, can prevent the aversive event (ecollar stimulation).
- when we are working, I introduce the stim at her working level, give the command and shut it off when she complies. So based on the learning principals above, this is ESCAPE learning: the dog is going to get an aversive event (stimulation) no matter what... and can only turn off the stimulation by obeying the command that follows.

For AVOIDANCE learning, you would need to reverse the order:
ie You are proofing your dog to obey a command he already knows, but now under distractions. You give the command, and the dog now has a choice. He has been given the warning signal (voice command) and can now obey correctly to prevent the aversive event (ecollar stimulation), or not and get the correction.

The connection is made that your voice needs to be obeyed or he gets corrected. Not any different process than using a prong correction, other than it's off leash.

In an earlier (now closed) thread Ann Henderson wrote: However, after reading the results of scientific studies done with aversive training methods on animals, which included dogs, and the conclusions drawn from these results, I have lost interest in any ecollar (aversive) training. (Note I said "training"...not "proofing")

LC: Scientific studies always use very high levels of stim and they get all kinds of fallout (unexpected/undesired results). This doesn't occur with low level stim unless there are lots of reps with poor timing.

Ann Henderson wrote: I am convinced I could never trust to get the timing just right, thus for me it isn't worth the results predicted by these studies.

LC: If you're using high levels of stim then these studies have some value; but if you're not they don't apply. If you can train a dog with a leash and training collar, your timing is plenty good enough to use an Ecollar. If you're using a clicker then the timing is much more critical than it is with an Ecollar.

Ann Henderson wrote: But in either case, the studies I read indicate there are emotional consequences: animals will learn to escape or avoid aversive situations but their enthusiasm for doing so is minimal.

LC: "Minimal enthusiasm" is not uncommon with untrained animals and high levels of stim. That's NOT the case with low levels of stim and showing/guiding the dog into the behavior that stops the stim.

Ann Henderson wrote: Guess whether you use averse training or not all depends on your goal. Mine is not automatic, robotic compliance.

LC: Here's another myth about Ecollar training. Here it's applied to all training that uses aversives; that it gives "automatic, robotic compliance." It doesn't unless done improperly.

Ed Frawley wrote: In my opinion avoidance training is OLD SCHOOL training. It went out the window when people became interested in drive training.

LC: I don't see why drive training is something that's separate from avoidance training. I combine the two.

Ed Frawley wrote: The key to collar use (in my opinion) is the dog must know that the shock comes from the handler. There can be no misunderstanding about that. When the foundation is properly set the dog MUST KNOW exactly where the shock comes from.

LC: I'd prefer that the dog think that the stim came from his own performance rather than that it came from the handler. That places him in charge of what happens to him. Does he get a stim or not? If he performs the command he doesn't, if he doesn't perform, he does. One of the nice things about Ecollar training is that it eliminates all conflict between the dog and the handler.

Lou,

First, thanks from picking up some of the issues raised in that other thread I started.

I have been thinking about Ed's statement that drive training has rendered obsolete avoidance/escape training and your response. I have spent a year doing all motivational work -- food and ball. Every command means something good to this dog. And, he performs to achieve drive satisfaction, and is very happy and drivey when working. I am concerned that escape/avoidance training overrides the drive work.

In escape training, as soon as the stim comes on, all the dog is thinking is comply to shut it off. Now the commands are not all positive, and he is not complying to achieve drive satisfaction, but rather to escape something unpleasant (even at low levels). The dog is not thinking "shut it off" and "get the ball" at the same time. Shutting the stim off becomes primary.

In avoidance training, the dog is thinking comply quickly or get stimmed. Again, the command is not all pleasant, and the dog is thinking about avoiding the stim, not achieving the pleasure of getting the ball, food, praise, whatever.

Now, maybe the dog does get the ball if he complies quickly, but did he comply to achieve drive satisfaction and with pleasure and no concern, or did he comply to shut off/avoid the stim. What is going through his head. When you, for example, command "here," is he going into drive and excited, or is he thinking "I gotta avoid that stim?" I don't know if it is possible to think both at the same time.

Lou, Ed, anyone else -- I look forward to your thoughts and comments.

Adam

Adam wrote: Now, maybe the dog does get the ball if he complies quickly, but did he comply to achieve drive satisfaction and with pleasure and no concern, or did he comply to shut off/avoid the stim. What is going through his head. When you, for example, command "here," is he going into drive and excited, or is he thinking "I gotta avoid that stim?" I don't know if it is possible to think both at the same time.

LC: I don't think that there's any "thought" process at work here. There's an association made that's become automatic. When training in drive with an Ecollar it's a bit more lengthy a process. First the command is taught and then, through the work, drive satisfaction is added. Done properly you'll see the results, a significant change of attitude, in 15-20 minutes.

Lou,

Would you please explain this process (the steps and how to do each step) -- from teaching the command, through the "work", and then adding drive satisfaction? Over how many days/weeks is this done?

Thanks,

Adam

Some Good Questions Adam!
I also wanted to know why would you use the
E-Collar if your dog is doing everything in Drive? Is the E-Collar used along with Drive Training to get reliability?? Thanks Lou for your help!

As an example; check my website for details of how to train the recall. To turn that into "working in drive" as soon as the dog recalled, you'd send him for a bite. )This is NOT a reward for the OB. If you think of that you'll just get confused.) Next time he recalls do some OB and then send him for a bite or throw a ball, anything to get him back into drive. Pretty soon he'll come to regard the OB as just something that happens, a "higher purpose" if you will. It's not the end-all it's just part of what's going on. But it has to be done properly, enforced with the Ecollar before the drive part of the work is permitted.

And John you're correct that the drive training is used along with the Ecollar to get reliability. It also gives the dog something to work for, other than making the stim stop.

Lou,

Is the "drive part" added during the 60 day (or so depending on the dog) period where stim is applied automatically before the command? Could you do the drive part from the first time you use automatic stim before the recall command, or does the dog need some collar literacy before doing so?

You said don't think of the ball or bite as reward for the OB, because that will just confuse me (the handler). Could you explain this. Is it better just to think of it as putting the dog back in to drive?

Would an example sequence be:

Stim on -- Recall Command -- Compliance/Stim off -- Sit Command (no stim) -- Down Command (no stim) -- Ball/Bite

Thanks so much Lou,

Adam

I have been thinking about Ed's statement that drive training has rendered obsolete avoidance/escape training and your response. I have spent a year doing all motivational work -- food and ball. Every command means something good to this dog. And, he performs to achieve drive satisfaction, and is very happy and drivey when working. I am concerned that escape/avoidance training overrides the drive work.

I spend a significant amount of my time training within the realm of escape/avoidance definitions. To conclude that in the format normally used for working dogs that escape/avoidance cannot interact in a manner that provides...to use the posters term drivey performance limits the use of escape/avoidance training with the collar to some sterile labratory response where neither the dogs are selection tested, trained, or have drive satisfaction as a overarching focus on tasks performed.
In the working dog realm drive development and escape/avoidance work are overlapped and integrated.
Many people will have seen compulsion used in conjunction with what has alternatly been called loading, or capping excersises within schh sport.
In the PSD work I've done over the last 20 plus years I've used just such an approach with escape/avoidance collar work.
It provides a motivated reliable performance.