I have almost eliminated the prong collar from my most of my training because the e-collar is a much better training tool.

1. It is less aversive on low settings. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

2. It is more aversive on high settings. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

3. You have absolute control over both of those two things.

4. It is not limited by the length of my leash.

5. It can be used in such an unabtrusive way in training that obedience work is made more simple because many handler cues are eliminated. If you can't see the benifit of that you have not trained many dogs in obedience.


And anyone that has been on this board for a while might remember that this is not the way I felt about the e-collar originally. I remember distinctly going head to head with Lou over the ins and outs of using the collar. . .and I thought I was right.


But I wasn't. . .as much as it pains me to admit now. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

The e-collar is a great tool for dog trainers, and I think the best aversive tool for dog trainers. My prong still has a place, but only in certain areas where I need to use it.

The collar falls right in with my personal training rule. . .use positive training till I can't use it any more, and then use the least aversive methods of compulsion to achieve my training goals as necessary. I have found it to be an incredibly simple transition to start using compulsion in a positive training program with the e-collar.

LC: Why is the weak handler better off if he works on the leash skill? What is the inherent "goodness" of the leash and correction collar over the Ecollar? As long as the dog works and does so happily, what difference does it make what tool the trainer or handler has used?


as you have pointed out if you need a e-collar you are a weak handler with weak leash skills . if you dog is weak in a area do you try to cover it up or do you work passed the weakness . why not treat yourself like your dog and become a better handler with a little hard work

IMO, if you choose to use the e-collar you are a smart handler and can clearly see the limitations of leash work.


Weakness has nothing to do with it.

Bill wrote: "if your leash work was done properly you would not need to worry about distance"


That could be true, there were dogs that had pretty good distance control long before the e-collar was invented. . .but with the e-collar it can be done faster, better, and more reliably.

Take a hint from the field trial folks, you should know something about that if you are a hunter.

They have some of the most difficult off-leash distance control work in any dogsport. . .and EVERY top trainer uses the e-collar to help them achieve that control.

There must be something to it? And I can honestly say that the field trial sport has gone far and above anything that trainers could accomplish in the "old days" before the remote collars.

bill thurmon wrote: as you have pointed out if you need a e-collar you are a weak handler with weak leash skills .

LC: I've never "pointed out" any such thing. Here's exactly what I wrote, "Actually the Ecollar is a great tool no matter how weak or strong a handler is."

Bill wrote: "my thought on dog training is command ,complience, reward"


That is interesting, can you tell me how that fits into the accepted models for learning theory? Operant Conditioning for instance?


And then explain to me how that relates to your argument against the e-collar?

I find this very interesting… Purely Positive trainers and anti-E-collars types ( I will lump them together for the sake of this post).. will go far and wide to offer an “alternative” to what the rest of us see as a normal, sensible training methodology..

You say, “use and e-collar paired with a buckle collar, and it is easier to communicate.. “
They say “ That is a ‘shortcut’, why not use a prong, and 2 hands, and food, and a rabbit, and a……”

Same with the purely positive folks, they will spend 3 years “trying” to proof a down/stay, when a normal trainer can proof it in 3 weeks…

I always thought the most direct, quick, and effective training method was the best……

Clarity is the key to good training, not lack of aversive, or lack of electrical stimulation…

When the training is clear to the dog, it will learn more rapidly, and more thoroughly…. Period

I will tell you that using some of Lou's techniques I was able to unroot in a few short sessions some problems with Crittering and Recall on my puppy using the e-collar and his advice.

AND, with the low stim I have not killed her drives either AND she is not scared of the animals she can no longer chase -- she just does not lock eyes, freeze and you know the rest ...... anymore, but I will keep it on her a long time, until this behavior is 2nd nature as she knows when it is off.

The funny thing is the stim on her that was effective --- I put on me and it was actually just a mild tingling senstation (and this is the same puppy who you can snap HARD on the pinch, yelps once, and is not really fazed)and who, before the e-collar chased a goat under a horse and *through* a charged cattle fence and ignored the shock she got(which we heard)

So I think the e-collar used judiciously is pretty darned humane and certainly a lot more human than correction by car or horse or jerking neck bones out of place.

But there are precautions about lenght of time on neck, rotating it, etc. to prevent sores.